Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 29th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that a rhetorical question?

[Robyn Hoffman]

You can answer it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We don't want to get into a Q and A with the committee members, it's not our format. My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, was that you stated, Mr. Reid, that you're categorically in favour of a referendum and that no change option should be considered.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

You have to have status quo as one of the options.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, status quo is one of the options.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

To finish off, though, very briefly, there have been two ways that this has been done that strike me as being legitimate. One way was in British Columbia where the question was, “Do you support the B.C. STV model?” It's a very specific, well designed, fully fleshed-out alternative, as approved by the British Columbia citizens' assembly. That model versus the status quo got 57% in favour of change, although they had a 60% margin, which I don't agree with.

The other way of doing it is as they did in New Zealand where you would rank all the different preferences. You can structure a preferential referendum in several different ways, albeit using the chairman's discretion. If you look at how P.E.I. has done it, it's one option. New Zealand has done it a different way, and on a different issue, whether to change their flag. New Zealand tried a different kind of preferential.

I don't know which is the best. I just know they're all options that appear to be regarded as legitimate by the people who have been involved with the process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The status quo remains an option.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

The status quo is in all of those, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Pound.

[Joe Pound, As an Individual]

Thanks for being here. It was interesting this afternoon.

I'd like to give kudos to all the young people who came up and spoke, because they're eloquent.

I went to a town hall at Edmonton Centre here a little while ago, and a retired MP came up to the mike and said that first past the post is the only thing to obtain power and get things done. Within the meeting here today, a few people mentioned power quite a bit.

My impression of elected officials is they're there to serve, not to dictate. Electoral representatives and their parties...my impression is that we use what we have because it works for us and does not serve the population. How many people who support first past the post have offered amendments and been aware of the consequences of all the omnibus bills that were passed in the last 10 years?

Mr. Graham's DMP proposal should be thoroughly vetted and included in determining electoral performance and where this committee intends to go.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Lennon.

[Loreen Lennon, As an Individual]

Hello. Thank you for having me. I came a little late, so I haven't heard all the discussion, because I wasn't really aware that this was going on. It came out of nowhere. There wasn't a lot of information ahead of time.

I'm here because I've been around for a while. I've been through this process many times. I have no statistics and I'm not really well organized, I didn't get a big pitch here for you today. As a regular citizen, I'm not probably in favour of changing the system, but I'm open to listening to that dialogue. I would be very offended if that choice for me was taken away by a government just deciding that it was okay.

I also am surprised here today by what I have heard about how voting systems all of a sudden are changing the world, or that somehow a voting system would cure all of what are seen to be the ills today. I think that's a little naive. I think it's trying too hard to push something that's not on the table at the moment. This is a voting system we're looking at. We should think hard about that, and all of us should think hard about how we vote, but we should all have the opportunity to make a decision ourselves on that, rather than be told.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Finally, we have Mr. Johnston.

[Peter Johnston, As an Individual]

I didn't bring a lot of notes here and I wasn't here for the whole discussion. I'm not going to get into much of the technicalities because I think there are people who are smarter and more knowledgeable who may have already done this, but I want to make a comment about our present system and how it runs.

When I was 14, I went on a school trip to see how Parliament worked in Britain, and after about 20 minutes, I turned to the teacher and said, “You wouldn't allow us to behave like that in class, would you?” She said, “Absolutely not.” I don't know how many people here have sat through the whole of question period. I've managed about 20 minutes before I start pulling my hair out, as you can see, and I can tell you with this present system we have now, when we've basically got two parties, watching question time is like watching two hockey teams try to score points on each other.

They're not discussing policy, they're not discussing how to run the country, they're trying to score points on each other, and this situation is because of the first past the post system. We need to have a hung parliament. Hey, they'd have to discuss things. This would be a complete breakthrough, and there's no sign of it happening now with the present system. Believe me, as a Brit, an ex-Brit...I don't know if I can renounce my citizenship with the conduct of the British Parliament, but I think I should. With the present system, it's all confrontation and everything gets lost. It's very frustrating. No wonder hardly anybody turns out to vote. No wonder the young people say, “Oh my God, look at that.” I'm not a young person and I say the same thing.

We have to fix the system. It's outrageous. It doesn't work. And if you continue to use a system that doesn't work, because of tradition, then you just aren't getting it. We need to change the system. There are many different systems in use around the world, but very few countries use the first past the post system, and it is not democratic.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Deltell, but be brief.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

For the record, I would tell you that question period lasts 25 minutes a day, period.

I would simply like to remind you that 80% of the bills are adopted unanimously in the House of Commons. Have you seen how we work today? It's exactly the same thing in the committees in Ottawa. I invite you to listen more to question period. I'm sure you would appreciate your MP, as you appreciate what we have done today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, that wraps up our first public input session of the day. We'll have another one around 7:30 p.m..

We'll adjourn now until 6:15 p.m., if you don't mind.

Thank you. Thank you to the participants.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll now open the meeting. This is the last segment of our day here in Edmonton.

I would just remind everyone that even though we're not on Parliament Hill, it's as if we are on Parliament Hill. We have to function according to the rules of the committees that sit on Parliament Hill. Essentially, for our purposes here tonight, it means that after the gavel comes down to open the meeting, there cannot be photos or videos taken until the gavel comes down to close the meeting.

We have with us this evening two more panellists. We have David Blain and Professor David Nash, professor emeritus at the University of Alberta, presenting for 10 minutes each. Following their presentations, we will have a round of questioning. Each member gets to engage with the witnesses for five minutes. That includes answers to the questions and so on.

We'll get started right away with Mr. David Blain, please.

[David Blain, As an Individual]

Hello, my name is David. I'm going to to talk to you about STV, voter's choice electoral reform. I am honoured to be here to speak to you on the traditional lands of Treaty 7.

I view electoral reform through the eyes of a voter not associated with any political party. My goals are to choose an electoral system that is reasonably proportional, to ensure all voter groups are represented by an MP in every district and to empower voters. The action I think we need to take is to implement STV in five-member and seven-member districts, and to implement quotas to increase diversity.

My recommendation, as I said, is single member transferable, in five- to seven-member districts, prioritizing seven-member districts. I would increase district sizes and maintain 338 MPs. Canada would have 56 electoral districts, with an average of six MPs per district.

Electing an MP is about voters choosing a representative. The elected body of MPs should represent each particular school of thought and the diversity of people in each district. The courts have indicated that the charter gives us the right to effective representation. STV is an opportunity for both effective representation and equal legislative powers. Both the government and the opposition would have an MP in most electoral districts. Most voters would see an MP corresponding to their choice of political party within their district. Voter choice among candidates within each party empowers voters.

On district sizes, the question that comes up is whether five-member and seven-member districts are too large in area for voters. I emphasize voters. Let’s compare Canada to Australia. Both countries have large areas with low population. The size of Ontario and Quebec are about the same as western Australia, which is one electoral district. Ontario and Quebec, under this scheme, would have 31 districts. The average Senate district size in Australia is 50% larger than Alberta.

In terms of diversity, STV can encourage diversity. Australia elected 38% women to the Senate using STV, compared with 28% women in the House of Representatives using alternative vote. Two aboriginal senators were elected, which is equal to the percentage of aboriginal people in the population. I would include quotas for women and indigenous peoples to accelerate gender and diversity balance.

I have consulted some online research, and the research by Carey and Hix indicates that small multi-member districts are best, and they quote four to eight members. Five-member districts reduce disproportionality by 75%. Government performance in small member districts is better than or equal to single-member districts or large member districts.

Let’s give everyone an aligned district MP. Research has indicated that only 4% of voters prefer a local MP if they are not aligned. About 40% of voters prefer an MP if they are aligned.

Here are my conclusions. Why not have effective representation for all voters? Why not give equal legislative power to all voters? Why not have an aligned MP in every district? Why not have a government and opposition MP in most districts? Why not have a choice of candidates within each political party? Why not increase diversity? Why not empower voters? Why not STV?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Blain.

We'll go to Professor Nash, please, for 10 minutes, if you wish.

[David Nash, Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual]

I must admit that having been told that I was going to get five minutes, probably I'm going to get through my script, otherwise I wouldn't have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm sorry about that. Take whatever you need.

[David Nash]

I'm going to take a very direct approach very much the same as David Blain has. I'm going to pitch for one system and talk about some of the problems associated with it.

Proportional representation is without any question the key to finding a fair electoral system to replace our currently unfair and illogical one. I'm going to give you a few notes on open-list mixed member proportional representation. For conciseness, I'll call it MMP. I know that obviously does not include all MMP systems.

I support MMP because it's a simple balloting system. It does not increase the number of MPs. It connects MPs geographically with voters, and I'll explain how later. It ensures that every MP faces the electorate, that's why it's an open system, and it yields no extra power to political parties. Now, all of those things, of course, could be changed, but it has that possibility. I recommend a MMP system designed as it could be so that every voter would have the option of placing a single mark on the ballot exactly as we do now to produce a complete ballot.

The next best system, the one we just heard about, would have asked voters to identify their rank preferences from a list of perhaps 20 or more candidates. One of the problems with that system is that there's a lot of arm-twisting involved in getting people to use the lists, the orders of selection that particular parties want, and I think we should avoid that.

I can't predict the exact form of MMP that it would take, except that elections would be independent in each province to avoid constitutional constraints. Under MMP, larger provinces would be further divided into what I call proportionality zones, with voting populations of, say, 10 times the current average riding in the country now. Each zone would contain ridings in my model—it would be six, but it doesn't matter—maybe a third larger than the current average. Each of those ridings within each proportionality zone would elect a single MP, the same way as we do now. The remaining MP positions that were freed up by enlarging the ridings would be elected based on the popularity of parties within the zone. These I call “MPs at large”, avoiding the term “top-up MPs”, which makes them sound like something that's floating around in the air and not doing anything.

Voters could choose to support a different candidate or party in electing the MPs at large if they wished. All the candidates in the “members at large” election would include all party candidates in the zone, and perhaps some independents. If you want me to talk about that later, I will. The political attachments of the entire group of MPs and “MPs at large” would reflect the pattern of support expressed by the voters in the zone. The “MPs at large” would be jointly responsible with the ordinary MPs for what's now called riding work. That's throughout the zone. Remember there would be exactly the same number of MPs to deal with the number of electors as there are now. So the work would have to be done, and it would have to be done by all of them.

That basically is how I would see the election going, but my original brief was a response to a suggestion by Fair Vote Canada, of which I'm a very proud member, a suggestion that I don't feel comfortable with.

First, the system divides the rural and urban districts from each other. It uses two quite different electoral systems, STV in urban regions and MMP in rural regions, which is hardly a simplifying idea, especially since, as I see it, voting in an MMP election is a lot easier than voting in an STV election. To be fair, MMP is conceptually more complex than STV, but the voter can use it quite easily.

My second objection to it that is the division might be hard to dislodge. If urbanization continues in the country, division of the electoral process in two might significantly impede adjusting to the demographic change.

I suggest that both urban and rural regions use MMP, and the electoral zones should normally include both urban and rural ridings. Given the requirement for electoral zones with equal-sized voting populations, this would commonly be a practical necessity.

To go on to a few other problems, in a country this large, there must be occasional special circumstances. For example, some current ridings are large and under-populated, and increasing their size could be impractical. The system must be flexible enough to absorb this reality. I suggest that these ridings be integrated unchanged—or with little change—into MMP zones and counted as standard ridings. The improperly high MP-to-voter ratio would be at least partly balanced by the lesser impact of the smaller ridings on the “MPs at large” elections. It would be ideal, however, to only have one such under-populated riding in each zone.

As for other problems, clearly, the three territories have to be treated somewhat differently, and Prince Edward Island is also a dilemma, but it's constitutionally protected against changing its overrepresentation. However, it could use MMP with its four-member team of MPs, which is constitutionally guaranteed. I suggest two ridings and two MPs at large.

Finally, we must consider aboriginal peoples. I'm quite horrified that there seems to have been very little discussion of this question.

It is the responsibility of the federal government, and of the Parliament, I suppose, to interface with aboriginal peoples to ensure that they are represented in a manner that's acceptable to them. That, I think, is the crux of the matter. They have to be represented in the way that they feel is right, but also, of course, in a manner that's fair to the general population.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Wrap up quickly, please.

[David Nash]

My final point is very simple. I think there is a moral dimension to running a referendum, and because I think you can't determine the rights of minorities, that is, their right to vote and to be represented by a referendum, then having that is very questionable. That said, failure to reach an agreement to introduce a fair voting system would be a much greater evil than using a referendum to achieve that would.