Evidence of meeting #33 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was first.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Roderick Wood  Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Patricia Paradis  Executive Director, Centre for Constitutional Studies, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Doug Bailie  As an Individual
Sean Graham  As an Individual
Joseph Green  As an Individual
David Garrett  As an Individual
Ken Solomon  As an Individual
David Parker  As an Individual
Heather Workman  As an Individual
Roger Buxton  As an Individual
Laurene Brown  As an Individual
Donald Turton  As an Individual
Lance Sarcon  As an Individual
Ashley Macinnis  As an Individual
David Fraser  As an Individual
Peter Adamski  As an Individual
Cori Longo  As an Individual
Christine Watts  As an Individual
Andrea Vogel  As an Individual
Sally Issenman  As an Individual
Martin Stout  As an Individual
Robyn Hoffman  As an Individual
Joe Pound  As an Individual
Loreen Lennon  As an Individual
Peter Johnston  As an Individual
David Blain  As an Individual
David Nash  Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Natalie Pon  As an Individual
Kristy Jackson  As an Individual
Susanne Goshko  As an Individual
Vanessa Peacock  As an Individual
John Wodak  As an Individual
Reta Pettit  As an Individual
Jeremy Wiebe  As an Individual

5:05 p.m.

Ashley Macinnis As an Individual

Hello. My name is Ashley Macinnis, and I live in the Edmonton—Wetaskiwin riding. I am a young worker and a proud union activist. I was recently elected to represent members in the west for Unifor Local 2002. We represent 11,743 members in the airline industry.

I'm here today because I believe electoral reform is the single most important issue in Canadian democracy. If our election officials don't act now, we're going to lose the chance. At our convention last August, our members voted overwhelmingly to push for an electoral reform that is a proportional representation system. I'm here to speak for them.

We want a system where every vote counts, and currently every vote doesn't count. Thirty-nine per cent of the population does not equal a majority, and when every vote doesn't count, people don't vote. We lose participation.

The majority of people who don't participate are young workers, people of colour, women, and aboriginals. Those are the people I represent. Those are the people who are working at the airport today. We're asking you please to reach a consensus on a proportional representation system that's going to make our votes count, and please do not put this to referendum.

If women's suffrage had gone to referendum, I would not be able to vote, so please reach a consensus, ensure that our votes count, and do not put this to a referendum.

Thank you.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Mr. Fraser, go ahead.

5:10 p.m.

David Fraser As an Individual

Thank you.

I'm 24 years old. I'm here because I love Canada. I'm a proud Canadian citizen, but I'm also a deeply frustrated Canadian. The current first past the post system has many deeply rooted problems. One of them is that over the long run it's incredibly inefficient and counterproductive in the sense that one brand of policies will be implemented over the course of a government or a time, and then undone and a new set put in place by the next one. The result is that Canada as a nation lacks the ability to implement a long-term vision for our future, and I believe this is a critical error.

I urge this committee to recommend a proportional representation system to ensure that every vote gets a voice and that every vote counts. My view is that a system such as DMP or MMP would suit Canada extremely well, and we should feel free to alter the exact type and format of the system to uniquely tailor it to Canada.

A much more serious problem than the electoral system that perhaps hasn't been considered by this committee is that regardless of the electoral system we choose, the way government is formed and operates once the MPs are voted in remains the same, largely influenced by our Westminster system. We can change the way we vote MPs in, but this does not address some of the root problems with how our government functions. We must change the way government operates.

For example, out of control party discipline, routine omnibus bills, increased mandating of whipped voting and caucuses, and a wide variety of dysfunctional practices simply must change. All these and more mean that MPs unfortunately are simply partisan mouthpieces of the party to the public rather than representatives of the public to the Parliament.

Imagine a Parliament where people are sitting not in rows pitted against each other and facing each other, but rather in a circular formation where we value consensus building, where we value deliberation, where we value co-operation, and where we respect each other's views and work toward implementing a long-term vision for Canada under a proportional system.

Please vote for a proportional system and do not put it through a referendum. I believe this is the most democratic way forward.

Thank you very much.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Mr. Adamski.

5:10 p.m.

Peter Adamski As an Individual

Committee members, I'm here to talk about the first past the post system in how it suppresses the most important issue we face, and that's climate change. It's not a stretch to say that if we had proportional representation in place for election 2008, voters freed from the shackles of strategic voting and first past the post would have voted in, at a minimum, 21 MPs concerned about climate change. It's not a stretch to say that something similar would have occurred in election 2011. Imagine the outrage that would have confronted Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act.

Imagine the legislation that would have been prevented and the legislation that would have been implemented if Canadians deeply concerned about climate changes had seen their votes reflected proportionally in our 2011 Parliament.

Everyone of us in this room has a child in our life. If not a son, then a daughter, a grandchild, a niece, a nephew, or the child of a friend. The children in our lives are the ones who will face the ever increasing force of the climate danger that we so far have done absolutely nothing about.

The children in our lives will someday look back and ask themselves why governments didn't act on climate change. They will come to understand that our first past the post system denied Parliament, up to and including our present Parliament, the voice that this issue deserves.

This committee has an opportunity to change that. You can do that by recommending a proportional system of voting.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you, sir.

Go ahead, Ms. Longo.

5:15 p.m.

Cori Longo As an Individual

Thank you.

I'm Cori Longo. I'm here representing the Canadian Labour Congress. We're an organization that represents 3.3 million unionized workers across the country. We have a campaign for proportional representation, and that's what I'm here to speak on.

I just have to say that all the young speakers before me are pretty invigorating and pretty eager. I just wish that the committee would listen to them.

I love voting. I've voted ever since I had the first opportunity to vote; however, I'm not pleased with the current voting system as is.

I'm a supporter of proportional representation, and mixed member proportional representation at that, and simply because I don't believe that first past the post is fair. It's unfair and it's severely outdated. Many countries have gone beyond that and looked for better voting systems. I still can't wrap my head around how a majority government can be formed when they don't receive a majority of votes. That just doesn't make sense to me. We don't have to look very far for examples of where parties with 30% of the vote or 30-something per cent of the vote are receiving more than half of the seats.

We can look at whole regions and whole cities that are blacked out with one colour. Of course, not all of those people voted for that party. The voices of all of those people who voted for somebody else aren't represented or aren't heard. In 2015, I believe, I saw a statistic that said nine million votes were wasted and didn't count. This system doesn't work well, and it also lends itself to strategic voting. Strategic voting is the grossest thing ever. Nobody likes to do that. It takes the heart out of why you would vote. If you're not voting based on your values or convictions, you're voting based on just who could possibly win. You can't choose a candidate. If you really favour that candidate and you can't vote for them, why would you possibly vote? The system that we currently have disengages the public. Proportional representation would make sense for me. If a party receives 30% of the vote, okay, they should get 30% of the seats.

I just wanted to say that proportional representation would speak to young people. Their vote would count. It also would increase the representation for equity-seeking groups.

Thank you very much.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Watts.

5:15 p.m.

Christine Watts As an Individual

I would like to start by pointing out that almost two times as many countries as people in this room are currently using PR. Ninety-two countries in the world use some form of PR, and it has been increasing in recent years.

My husband has worked as a government employee with the federal government for the past 30 years, so I'm only too aware of the decreasing morale in government departments due to poor federal decisions, particularly over the last decade.

With PR it takes longer to make decisions, but the decisions that are made are wiser because they are discussed across the ideologies of different parties. The governments tend to overlap from election to election rather than flip-flop, so politicians take more responsibility and have the time for ensuring the new system will actually work. They are in it for the longer haul.

PR does require more work and skill because more time must be spent listening and negotiating, but in the long run more work upfront can save an awful lot of trouble later and it can be a lot more rewarding. Would you rather spend your time doing what the previous government did or building on earlier good decisions? Would you like more respect from the public instead of the current level of political cynicism?

Because our electoral system is learned in childhood, it is learned and practised by every citizen. It is essential that it be a system that models fairness and demonstrates that people with diverse views can work out decisions together. It is essential that it be a good example to our families, communities, businesses, and organizations of how to conduct ourselves among people with diverse opinions. The PR skills our politicians would develop will help them to negotiate well with other countries. May I add, the world needs the U.S. to have PR, too.

Let us lead the way. It takes courage to do something new. I hope your nobleness of mind will help you to decide to choose what is good and right for Canada in the world.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Ms. Vogel, please.

5:20 p.m.

Andrea Vogel As an Individual

Thank you for having me speak. It's nice to look everyone in the face to see the diversity—or lack thereof—in the committee.

I only have two minutes, so I'm going to make a few points very quickly. The first is to address my opinion on making a referendum. There's a resource that was presented to me, prvote.com, that you can take a look at. It shows how the difference in wording of referendum questions can make an enormous distortion of the results. That is what terrifies me about a referendum as an appropriate way to address this issue.

My second point is that you have a mandate as a committee, and there are specific principles that you're supposed to be looking for in a system to suggest to Parliament. One of the principles is effectiveness and legitimacy, and I know you've probably read it a million times, but it does say to reduce distortion, which is why I'm very confused that the alternative vote is still on the table.

Even in your example that is in the handout, it is one possible outcome of how AV can look, but in many cases—and I'm sure that in your study of that system you can look at the ways—it can distort results worse than first past the post can. Therefore, I don't believe it should be in the running, and my fear is that, because it is preferred by the Prime Minister, who has endorsed it in the past, it might still be on the table for political reasons.

Another point is that the other principle of accessibility and inclusiveness might be used as a reason to promote alternative vote, using it as an accessibility issue. We did hear from one other person that it was too complex to talk about a proportional system, but my argument is that the least complex system is dictatorship, so we have to look at complexity, we have to look at—

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

That's not on our list of options.

5:20 p.m.

As an Individual

Andrea Vogel

—thank you, I'm so glad of that.

AV is also quite distorted, and I think if we're going to talk about accessibility—we've used single transferable vote in Edmonton before in the past at provincial levels—it's not too complex. I think that principle needs to be very carefully observed and that we should actually look at accessibility and not use it as an excuse to include a distorted system in the options.

Thank you.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Now it's Ms. Issenman's turn, please.

5:20 p.m.

Sally Issenman As an Individual

Thank you very much for this opportunity to address you. It's been a very exciting afternoon, I must admit.

On Saturday, September 10, I participated in a dialogue on electoral reform that was hosted at the The Sutton Place Hotel in downtown Edmonton. It was hosted by Minister Monsef, and member of Parliament Randy Boissonnault was there and other people as well.

I'm not sure if the dialogues on electoral reform have any relationship with this committee, but I was very disturbed and concerned that evening that in the written material that was handed out, in the power point presentations that were presented, as well as in the speaking, the term “alternative vote” and AV were used interchangeably to denote both a voting system and alternative vote, meaning we're going to look at changing the system from what we have now because we need an alternative voting system.

I found it very alarming that federal people, material, and power point presentations would so mix up such important terms at such an important time in our discussion on electoral reform. I wish I had brought my printed material with me here, but I'm sure you can look for it. Take a look at what's going on in those dialogues on electoral reform, and I would like to ask this committee to please address that issue because those dialogues are also going around the country, and I found that incredibly inappropriate.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

For clarification, our committee is pursuing a separate process. We're a legislative committee and we have our mandate from the House of Commons to conduct these consultations. We've also invited all MPs to conduct town halls. The comments from the town hall you attended will be funnelled to us. In parallel to that, the minister is doing her own outreach with her own budget and her own schedule. I guess Mr. Boissonnault invited her to be a guest to explain the system. Anyway, they are separate, parallel consultations.

5:25 p.m.

As an Individual

Sally Issenman

Just to clarify, this was a dialogue that was also taking place in other Canadian cities.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

It was her tour, the minister's tour. Sorry about that.

5:25 p.m.

As an Individual

Sally Issenman

It was not a town hall meeting. So given what Mr. Buxton was saying, that in the eyes of many people, the Liberal party favours AV, and being at this event where it was so confusing....

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

No, that event will not feed into our committee process as far as I can see.

5:25 p.m.

As an Individual

Sally Issenman

Thank you.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Stout now.

September 29th, 2016 / 5:25 p.m.

Martin Stout As an Individual

Thank you for hearing me.

Good afternoon. My name is Martin Stout. I am British by birth and upbringing, which you've all guessed by now anyway, but I'm Canadian by choice. I've been a resident of Beaumont for 25 years, and I've been a Canadian citizen for 21. I've voted in elections in both countries as often as I could.

Britain and Canada both elect democratic governments by what's known as the Westminster parliamentary system. In such a system, we, the voting public, do not elect a president, a commander-in-chief, a prime minister, or even a government, as some other countries do. We elect members of Parliament, 338 of them, from ridings across the country, and it's those elected MPs who decide who shall be in the government and who shall be the prime minister.

The power and authority to do this, where does it come from? Where does the government get the power to make legislation that binds us all and to levy taxes we must all pay? That authority derives exclusively from the mandate that we grant them by voting for them. It's only by voting that we can give our consent to be governed in this way, regardless of the actual outcome of the vote. This consent, expressed through voting, is what gives Parliament its power and authority to govern us. It follows logically and inevitably that neither government nor a prime minister has the right, the power, or the authority to change the counting method, or the value of each of our votes, without our expressed consent. The best way to do that is by offering options to change the vote, including an option of no change, through a referendum or a plebiscite in all 338 ridings for every voter to participate in.

In every case I've been able to find, in a Westminster style of government—and that's Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Great Britain, provincial governments here in Canada, Ontario, B.C., Prince Edward Island, all of them—when they've sought to change the voting system, they have gone through a referendum or a plebiscite. I believe very strongly that to change the voting system without such a referendum, without seeking the consent of the voters, would be illegitimate.

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Hoffman.

5:30 p.m.

Robyn Hoffman As an Individual

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.

Mr. Graham did a better job than I ever could in expressing my opinion on a referendum, so I won't rehash his points. I was looking for a little more information. Some of the members of this committee have expressed their preference for a referendum, and I was hoping you could give me some guidance on what your referendum question might look like. Are you looking for a simple yes or no on going away from the first past the post system, or are you looking for Canadians to give you their ultimate preference in a ballot? Did I not cast my last strategic vote?