Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 28th, 2016

[Angela Smailes, As an Individual]

Thank you. Good evening.

This is a historic moment in our country's electoral life. I'm hoping that you will put forward an alternative system and usher in a new era of robust democracy. In order to achieve success you will need to come to consensus, or at least partial consensus, so I'm exhorting you to take the time you need to get up to speed on the systems that are likely to be real contenders: STV and MMP.

Call in more experts to fill in the gaps that you have and spend time to deliberate between yourselves. In particular, I would strongly recommend sequestering yourselves in a nice resort with no distractions for as long as it takes to hash out the best system for our country, one that fulfills our values, those very ones that are on your initial guiding document, and—this is important—one that meets the equality provisions and the democratic rights of citizens enshrined in our charter.

The question is, will you as 12 paid professional parliamentarians be able to achieve what 60 random unpaid citizens accomplished, coming up with a system that reflected our values and was approved by a majority of us in B.C.?

All great endeavours require sacrifice, or what looks like sacrifice. In your case, I believe it will be letting go of partisanship. This is perhaps your greatest challenge. I wish you courage, creative thinking, and success.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Smith, the floor is yours for two minutes.

[Derek Smith, As an Individual]

Ladies and gentlemen, you will agree that there is no greater matter as important as the nature of our democracy, which heretofore has been defined as our ability to vote by secret ballot those to represent us. The ability to elect those to represent us without fear or interference has served us well since Confederation. Now we are being told to change.

The guiding principles of this committee are, in my opinion, indefensible. Further, they do not advance the cause of the alternate systems cited either. Among the principles is an effort to restore effectiveness and/or legitimacy to our electoral system. Is our current system ineffective and/or illegitimate? I don't think so.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please, in all other places it went very smoothly because everyone respected alternative positions. So perhaps we can mute the cheering a little bit, even when it's something you agree with, because it takes time away from the speaker.

Go ahead, sir.

[Derek Smith]

I hope that didn't affect my time.

Are the alternate systems more effective or legitimate? I think not.

As well, the change sought has at its basis greater accessibility and inclusiveness. This can be achieved without change to our electoral system. Our electoral system is robust; as evidence, voter turnout has increased over the past four federal elections.

Presently, we are being asked to comment on a system about which little facts are known and fewer details are presented. When asked at a town hall meeting, members of the majority party refused to comment, saying that it's not the time to get down into the weeds on this issue.

I disagree. Now is precisely the time to have all the facts before us so that we can make an informed decision. I call on Canadians of all political stripe—and I am Conservative—to have a say in a peaceful and polite forum on this matter and then come to a consensus and referendum. Only—and I underscore only—then can those elected to govern us move forward. I also ask that this committee call upon the words of the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, on this matter.

In closing, generations of Canadians who have come before us have established the rights we currently cherish. Any action to modify this would deny the ability to select the method of our government and would impair the right we have to vote.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Reid, go ahead, please.

[Kelly Reid, As an Individual]

I'd like to thank you all for this opportunity to tell my story tonight. I don't think it's a unique story.

From the beginning of my son's life I've taken him with me to vote. He grew up believing that voting was fun and that it was important. He would ask, “Did we win?” And my answer was always the same, “Hedy Fry won.” I want him to feel like a winner when he casts his first ballot. I want his vote to matter and he wants this too.

He spent his summer with Leadnow, talking with fellow citizens about the importance of changing our electoral system, and though my son and I both admire Hedy Fry, we know that no matter how we feel about the Liberals, she will always win our riding, and that is my point. It doesn't matter how we feel about the Liberals in Ottawa, because a vote for any other party in this riding is a wasted vote. It quite simply doesn't matter. Almost 51% of votes cast in the 2015 election did not matter because they did not go towards electing an MP.

When Canada incorporates the principle of proportional representation into the electoral system, it will allow more votes to matter, more voices to be heard, and will allow the election of a Parliament that represents all of its citizens. A Parliament elected by a system of PR would break the pattern of limiting our vision to four-year election cycles and to governments undoing what the previous governments did. A system of PR would allow the Canada of the future to have long and lasting environmental policies, long-term planning for the military and for our educational and health systems.

These are priorities for many Canadians whose voices may not be heard in our current system. Yes, a Parliament elected through a system of PR would require parties to work together. It would require the best of our politicians, and I believe our politicians can rise to that challenge.

I do not require a referendum. A majority vote in Parliament would satisfy me.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I would remind everyone that even though we're not on Parliament Hill, we have to operate according to House of Commons rules, and one of the rules of the House of Commons is that people cannot film or take photos at committee meetings once the gavel has dropped to open the meeting. You can take pictures after. You can take pictures right before the gavel comes down, but unfortunately, photographs and video-making are not allowed.

Mr. Macanulty.

[Ian Macanulty, As an Individual]

Hi everyone, and thank you so much for coming to listen to all of our opinions tonight. I speak in favour of proportional representation. I think it's the fairest way for voters to be represented in Parliament.

I would like my MP to represent me directly on policy and to vote in Parliament according to the way I would like that policy to be represented in Parliament. I think that the only fair way for me to get that is for everyone to get that, so that's a proportional system.

I think it enhances our democracy when the number of seats that a party wins in Parliament represents the proportion of the vote that they got. It takes away a little from our democracy when we have a majority that actually only represents a minority. The distortion is what people call it. That's kind of the wrong thing. Basically, it's an issue of fairness.

I just want to talk about three points that I think are important when considering which PR system to choose because I think a lot of people have brought that up this afternoon. How do you choose a PR system? Here are three things that I think are important.

First of all, proportionality should apply equally across the whole country in every region, whether you're in northern B.C., urban Vancouver, or anywhere in between. You have to make sure that the level of proportionality isn't scaled by local population.

Second, I think all MPs should be elected by the voters. There should not be party lists. Lots of systems work this way. STV works this way. Any system with an open list works this way. I think that it strengthens the tie between the MP and the local voter. That's why it's an important thing to do.

Third, I believe multi-member ridings are better where possible than single member ridings, because you can make sure that all of the different groups within a riding have a direct representative.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Allan, go ahead.

[Elaine Allan, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Welcome to Vancouver.

It is a pleasure to be here.

Imagine having a federal election and not knowing who won for one week. This is the new reality in Australia. Imagine having five federal elections in five years. This is Australia's new reality. Proportional voting can create instability, so before you go ahead and change our electoral system which has been in place for 150 years, Canadians deserve a vote in a referendum.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Ms. Spitz.

[Jane Spitz, As an Individual]

Hi, and thank you for letting me come and speak to you guys tonight.

I believe it should be the voters and not politicians who have the final say in changing the voting system. If the Prime Minister really wanted to include Canadians in the process, he should propose his alternative, state his case to voters, and let us have the final say by holding a referendum.

The Globe and Mail has stated that with less than 40% of the vote last election, our government has no mandate to transform the oldest practice of Canada's democracy. Changing the voting system without consent from the electorate would be unconstitutional.

Thank you, guys.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Hardwick, please.

[Colleen Hardwick, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

My name is Colleen Hardwick. I am the founder of PlaceSpeak, which is a Vancouver-based civic tech start-up that we've been developing for the last five years here.

About six years ago I was looking at the west side of Vancouver, specifically the Arbutus corridor, trying to figure out how to consult with the residents that lived along that corridor in such a way as to be able to prove it. We looked at traditional methods, such as public meetings and door-knocking and landline telephones, and quickly came to the conclusion that we weren't going to be able to get reliable and defensible data in this way.

The question then became how we could connect people's digital identities to place online, and prove it in such a way that was defensible and legitimate. This led to the development of this platform, which we have been developing with the support of the National Research Council of Canada through its industrial research assistance program, or IRAP.

We've learned over time that there is no silver bullet with identity, and that digital identity authentication in terms of citizen engagement, which is a natural part of the political process, the democratic process, is achievable. There is an organization that you may or may not be familiar with, called DIACC, the Digital ID and Authentication Council of Canada. Digital identity to authentication to place has the potential to be quite transformational broadly in democratic processes.

I missed some of the earlier discussions around Internet voting, but I wouldn't be so quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater, because there are developments that are under way where this country is actually taking a leadership and pioneering role in digital identity authentication, protection of individual privacy, and data encryption.

If we want to be engaging with people on an ongoing basis, it has to be through what we're referring to as a digital identity echo system that consists of different levels of government, banks, telecommunications and technology companies, which are all leading the way to take us to the next level of actionable feedback from individuals broadly, not just in elections, but throughout the democratic cycle, because citizen engagement and popular control is as important as the payoff of empowerment with voting.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Dunkley.

[WIlliam Dunkley, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members of Parliament, thank you for being here. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you.

Canada is widely respected around the world for its stability and good governance. This is because we've been one of the world's oldest functioning democracies. For 150 years we've elected people the same way. From election to election, from generation to generation, although we don't always like the choice of government, we've never questioned the validity of the actual election.

Our current Prime Minister, however, does wish to make changes and made it part of his election platform. As such, I respect that the elected government has a mandate to promote change in our system; however, I would submit that he did not specify exactly what form that change would take. Therefore, respecting the right of the government to proceed with changes, I submit that it would be important that the government present a referendum to the people on whatever change or changes the committee and the government come up with.

This is too important an issue to leave to a simple vote in the House, and I am not at all denigrating the importance of votes in the House of Commons.

I do not believe in government by referendum, but I do believe a referendum is necessary to elect future governments.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Mndebele.

[Zak Mndebele, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

I would reiterate the brilliant points made by the person right before me. Whatever the outcome is of this process of electoral reform, let's ensure that the process we choose reflects the highest in the democratic ideals that have made this country great.

Let's ensure that the future of this country remains as democratic and as free as it has been for the generations before us, so that my generation and the generation that comes afterward can look at this country and continue to respect the democracy that has been preserved from day one.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Tetrault.

[Rachel Tetrault, As an Individual]

Good evening. It's a pleasure to speak directly to the committee this evening.

My first introduction to electoral politics was when I was six months old. My mom took me in a stroller door to door right before an upcoming election. By the time I was 14, I was an expert at canvassing apartment buildings to get out the vote, and when I turned 18, I spent the entire election day at a polling station registering folks to vote.

Some 10 years later, I now work at Leadnow. Last night, Leadnow teamed up with the UBC political science student association to host a youth town hall on electoral reform, and I found myself in a room with 75 other young people who also care about democracy.

The theme of the night was how changes to our voting system could better represent young people. We used some of the questions from your guide, facilitated discussions, and collected written input from participants. Today, I am bringing you some of what we heard last night, and we will be submitting a formal brief along with the results from the youth town halls happening in Winnipeg tonight and Toronto later this week.

We asked those in the room if they felt that our current voting system represents young people effectively. About 86% of them said no. Arian Zand, one of the participants, wrote that our current system does not represent young Canadians because of the wasted vote argument. If we know our vote is going to be wasted because of the structure of the system, we are less likely to vote.

We asked the group how we could improve our current voting system. Different themes emerged particularly around the importance of proportionality, accessibility, and education. Dylan Williams wrote that proportionality is a mental must; whether STV or MMP, trying to balance a proportionality of votes with the need for geographic representation is key to the Canadian context.

Megan Pratt said that we work with people with physical and cognitive disabilities that require extra assistance with voting. More voting booths, longer hours for advanced voting, and fewer barriers to providing ID were also mentioned.

When we asked the group whether or not voting age should be lowered to 16, 56% said yes, 38% said no, and 6% weren't sure. Sophie Harrison said that with such major decisions being made about our future, young people deserve a say. One of the biggest crises in our democracy is lack of youth engagement. Starting a habit of voting when young people are still in high school, paired with more voter education, will increase turnout. We need our leaders to be brave and forward thinking.

You have an opportunity to create an incredible legacy for our democracy, and there are young people across this country that are counting on you.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Valerie Turner.

[Valerie Turner, As an Individual]

I am not a democracy geek. I am a professional theatre artist who believes deeply in social justice, and speaking from a social justice perspective, I have three points to make about electoral reform.

One, to increase engagement in voter turnout, I support lowering the voting age to 16. I know this is controversial, but hear me out. When I was 16, which was much longer ago than I would like to confess, a federal election was upcoming, and despite the fact that we could not vote, my social studies teacher had us bring in newspaper articles that discussed party platforms which we would analyze and compare with the platforms of other parties. We discussed the impact of those policies on ourselves, our families, and our communities.

We looked at our local candidates, and given what we had learned from our research, we decided on which candidate we would have voted for if we had been eligible to do so. From the moment I turned 18, no matter whether I lived in Victoria, Toronto, Vancouver, and no matter whether it was a municipal, provincial, or federal election, I have voted in every single election in which I was eligible to vote.

I believe that this kind of critical thinking and electoral literacy is a stellar way to create a young and an engaged citizenry that crosses socio-economic barriers, geographic divides, and racial and gender biases.

Two, as some of you may be aware, an Ottawa police officer posted the following online comment, as reported by the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, on the tragic death of Inuk artist Annie Pootoogook: “Because much of the aboriginal population in Canada is just satisfied being alcohol or drug abusers, living in poor conditions etc….they have to have the will to change, it’s not society’s fault.”

The problem is not so much that this police officer is a racist, the problem is that he's not alone in thinking this way. Canada has a well-documented history of disenfranchising women and racialized minorities, and institutionalized systemic racism and sexism continues to effectively disenfranchise women and racialized communities today.

First-past-the-post and winner-takes-all models reinforce systemic racism and sexism. Therefore, I am 100% in support of some form of proportional representation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Grinshpan, please go ahead. You have two minutes.