Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 29th, 2016

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I would probably hope not as well. I think that now we have a Canada where, regardless of your religious affiliation or background, you choose parties or vote for candidates with similar political views and a similar world view, not necessarily for their religious views.

[David Nash]

There are some people who regard a religious view as a political view. You can't avoid that. I don't think it would have any great impact as the case is. I just pulled out the possibility that if there is an identifiable minority that is very active in terms of its own internal activities, they could conceivably run a party. Certainly in other countries there are religious-based parties.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That brings us to the close of our Q and A session.

Thank you for your ideas and for stimulating some good back and forth discussion. In fact, what we're looking for at this committee is to engage with the witnesses and explore new areas of this issue.

We'll go the citizens list. I'll just explain again for those who might not have been here earlier that we limit the citizens' statements to two minutes, which seems to have become recognized as a reasonable period of time. It's been adhered to the great majority of the time in all the cities we've been in. It seems to be just the right amount of time to express an idea and for people to digest that idea.

Why don't you go first, Ms. Pon, for two minutes please?

[Natalie Pon, As an Individual]

Thank you, Chair.

I am here today to voice my support for a referendum. I want to present two reasons for this. First, the town halls I've attended in Edmonton so far haven't resulted in a consensus being formed amongst those attending. Second, in the 2015 election no political party actually campaigned for any particular form of proportional representation beyond just saying that we'd have no more first past the post elections.

With regard to the town halls in Edmonton, I've attended all three so far, as have many people in the audience today. What I've noticed in each of these is that while a lot of viewpoints are expressed for different forms of proportional representation, and people can tend to agree that proportional representation will have some general benefits, we can never really determine which is the best form of it. There are so many different forms, including STV and multi-member proportional representation, but there's no consensus on which one is the best.

You know, we come up with these anecdotes on the potential benefits—i.e., we might engage more young people to vote—but there's no real basis for these statements, especially given the fact that none of these people presenting them can ever agree on which form of proportional representation will results in benefits, what those benefits will be, or the best system for this. Ultimately I found at these town halls that no consensus was ever formed. It's really hard for me to justify these processes as a consultation when we don't even know what Canadians want as a result.

My second reason for supporting a referendum is the fact that no party actually campaigned for any particular form of proportional representation in the last election. We had political parties stating that 2015 would be the last election under first past the post, but no actual proposal or alternative was put forward for Canadians to support. As a result, Canadians didn't actually vote for electoral reform. They just voted for parties, and maybe they had other ballot box issues driving them to the polls to support them for these issues. We didn't have the Liberal Party saying they supported alternative vote, and we didn't have the Conservatives saying they supported first past the post, so it's a little bit rich, in my opinion, to hear the statements, especially from the minister, that Canadians voted for electoral reform. I don't see this as the case when no particular form of electoral reform was actually proposed going forward in this election.

Given that no consensus was actually formed at town halls and given the fact that no political party actually campaigned for any particular type of electoral system in the last election, it is my understanding that the only way to actually gain an understanding of what Canadians want is by a referendum.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Understood. Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Jackson.

[Kristy Jackson, As an Individual]

All right.

I'm a civil servant for the federal government. I guess I just wanted to bring the perspective that I see the current system as being very detrimental to the effectiveness and efficiency of how the bureaucracy operates altogether. I've been there for over a decade. I've seen how we go in one direction for a while, and then something changes when another majority government comes along.

This is a false majority, let's remember, as it doesn't actually represent the majority of Canadians. They have unchecked power to take us in a direction. Then when the next government comes in and has a different perspective, they will start undoing everything we've been doing. We get nowhere and we see no progress. As a public servant, I find it very depressing to see this.

As a result, I think what we need to do is decide that proportional representation means that every vote will count toward effective representation of your views and your values. Whatever minority opinions you might have, you'll find your voice represented through having all the voices at the table and through co-operating, like we need to do in 2016, to make progress on all the important issues of our time. We need to act on climate change. We need an economy that works, and it can work through a green economy.

You guys have a lot to consider, a lot of different types of PR that you need to wrap your heads around, but the basic principle of proportional representation cannot be denied. We need effective representation in Canada.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Goshko, please.

[Susanne Goshko, As an Individual]

Hello, my name is Suzanne Goshko and I'm a member of Fair Vote .

I would like to say that this year we are commemorating Alberta women getting the right to vote provincially. This also happened in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We are equal now because we can vote. Can we be equal when we vote? I support proportional representation, and as I said, I'm part of Fair Vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Susanne Goshko]

Mr. Chair, could I just mention one other thing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Of course.

[Susanne Goshko]

When I was canvassing for Fair Vote during the federal election, both the Green Party and the NDP were supportive of proportional representation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Peacock, go ahead.

[Vanessa Peacock, As an Individual]

I'd like to thank the committee for having this open mike and giving us the opportunity to voice our opinions.

I'm for proportional representation, and I wanted to share my opinion about why I do not want a referendum, as much as I love voting. There are two principles to this. First, I work in health care, so I consider the knowledge of harm as a principle. I think we've heard enough expert testimony that we can agree that there is harm in our current system. People are being essentially disenfranchised and deprived of their full representation.

When you have a referendum, the full knowledge of the harms and the benefits don't always get down to the voter. I'm from B.C. and I was there during the 2005 referendum on the single transferable vote. I know a number of people who voted against it and who had no idea what it was about. One of my mom's best friends voted against it thinking it would somehow allow Quebec votes to influence the B.C. referendum on the legal transferable vote.

Unless you're going to have some kind of a testing, where people are given enough information on the impacts of a referendum on proportional representation to make it possible for them to give informed consent, the way we expect when we consent to a medical treatment, then we can't allow people to vote against their best interests. We don't allow this in medicine and we don't allow it in things like workers' rights. For example, a person who is not aware of their rights is not allowed to sign them away to do unpaid overtime hours.

I feel this should be considered when we think about a referendum for something we know is in the people's best interests, and when there is a likelihood that they could vote against their best interests without knowing what they're doing.

I also believe there is a mandate for the Liberal government to bring this forward without a referendum, because they had it in their campaign promise. They may not have spoken specifically about the type of representation, but people voted that government in with it clearly in their platform that this was to come, so I think we have the mandate to proceed with this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Wodak, go ahead, please.

[John Wodak, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I asked to be put on the speakers list either in spite of the fact that I've been here all afternoon or because of that. You can judge afterwards.

The first point I want to make is that elections are not an end in themselves; they're a means to an end. That end is to select a government, and conventional wisdom says that we citizens get the government we deserve. However, if we're not satisfied with the government we get, we tend to blame everyone but ourselves. Hence, at this time, the demand for a change in process. We're not satisfied with the previous government.

Let me offer you a cynical hypothesis. If you were to stand outside a polling station on election day and question the voters as they left the station, they would all be able to tell you which party they voted for. Probably most of them would be able to tell you the leader of the party, but many of them might not know the name of the candidate they just voted for, and very few of them would be able to name all the candidates. That's just a theory, and I'm not about to test it at the next election.

I'm not endorsing any particular process, but there are two things that I would like to identify as being important. First, we need somehow to create a process that encourages, engages, and informs citizens. Second, we need a process that is not susceptible to fraud. There are plenty of examples in the world today, but the one that comes to mind is Germany in 1933.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Pettit.

[Reta Pettit, As an Individual]

Is it Ruby? If you're wanting to have minority groups, get a bunch of your Tim Hortons' people or the maids who are looking after the people up here, and they will give you their opinion. That's where those people are right now, they're working, and that's one reason that there aren't any of them here.

I do not support a referendum. I feel, as the previous person said, that this was brought forth as part of the mandate of what the Liberal government was going to do. It was in their platform. I feel that we can give our representatives who are in Ottawa the right to go ahead and prepare a proportional representation method. I think they'll have to spend a lot of time really figuring out the best one. I also think we can try this new system. If it doesn't work, there's nothing to say we can't go back and look at it again to see how we can improve it. But we definitely need a change. On the lack of people going out to the polls and so forth, you just hear, “Well, what's the point? Why should I vote? They don't represent what I want, anyway.”

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Wiebe, please.

[Jeremy Wiebe, As an Individual]

Hello. My name is Jeremy Wiebe. I'm a teacher here in Edmonton, and electoral reform is something I care a lot about.

I'm glad that this committee is meeting and engaging the public on electoral reform, and I want to express my support for proportional representation of most any stripe.

That being said, I think one of the criticisms of MMP that was not mentioned today is that it gives political parties too much power in selecting, forgive the term, I'm going to call them surplus candidates. I forget the term that was used earlier.

My question is, why should an individual who the public could very well have rejected be representing people? I think that's an important question.

I would prefer STV. I think that while it is complicated for those who count the votes, it is simple for voters. First past the post is simple for those who count the votes, but it is very complicated for voters. For those who care about individual issues...do I vote for the party I believe in or do I vote for the person most likely to win and closer to where I'm at?

Also, I want to express my opposition to a referendum. We need only look to the recent referendum in the U.K. to see why it's a bad idea.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

That brings us to the end of our list. We've had really good meetings out west in B.C. and Alberta. I think it's fair to say that a new dimension has arisen. I think it started in Victoria with this whole discussion of rights, a change in the voting system being about rights, and the debate that's taking place around that, including tonight, where we've heard different perspectives on the issue. Our tour out west has added some new dimensions to the discussion, and that's what it's all about going across the country, quite frankly. It's about getting new perspectives. Sometimes it might be particular, for whatever reason, to one part of the country or the other.

I thank you all for being here tonight in Leduc. We came to Leduc because we were trying to not always be in the cities. We've gone to some rural areas and small towns just so that we don't always get an urban perspective.

Oh, there's more. Mr. Johnston wanted to speak as well.

Go ahead, Mr. Johnston.

[Peter Johnston]

I apologize for being the last again, I didn't realize I had to re-register for this session.

I want to thank you all for being here.

I'm really concerned about the planet. The destruction of the environment is by far the most important problem facing humankind at the moment, and, unfortunately, not just humankind. We have to change the system so we can get on with it.

As you may understand, I'm a bit of a radical, and I represent a large group of Canadians who have a superficial understanding of what's going on, and I'm really mad because we're not getting on with it. And unless we change the system, we'll continue to blah, blah, blah about it. We don't even mention the environment enough. This is the most important thing facing the world today, and if we had a different electoral system, then small parties—and of course I'm thinking about the Green Party, but it applies to any party—would have a say, and they must have a proper say, because the main parties are just the status quo, and the status quo is consume as much as you can, make as much money as you can, and to hell with everything else. And we have to change the whole system so that the smaller parties, and the groups that are concerned about what is happening to the planet can have a voice.

I admire what our gentleman from Australia said; one of the problems with referendums is that people are scared that the vote will go the wrong way. That's democracy. The majority of Canadians want much more action on the environment and climate change and do not want to have to support the gang of NATO that is led by the bully south of here going around invading other countries because we don't like the way they do things.

Let's change the system and get true democracy happening. I'd like to get rid of parties. Why do we have parties? We're in a team game. I want the individual to have a say. If the results don't go the way you want, then too bad.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll end with Ms. Workman, please.

[Heather Workman]

Thank you to everyone for coming here today, but I do want to stress, again, that obviously climate change is something that's very real. I'm from Alberta. I've lived here for over 45 years, and what is happening to our climate is absolutely appalling. We need to protect the green spaces in this country. The only way we're going to do this is if we have proportional representation.

And I know what I'm talking about, because I had the guts, in ground zero, to put my name on the ballot under the Green Party of Canada. I did that because I love this country, and because under that particular format, and the leader we have, we have the flexibility to speak the way we wish.

As you noted here tonight, you saw an awful lot of people from Alberta speaking. What you are hearing is what Albertans want, and the majority of us want, is proportional representation. I am not in favour of a referendum. I'm noticing the Conservatives are huddling in a corner over there as well. But that's just me.

Sorry, I love Conservatives, don't get me wrong, but I notice that you guys are not mixing.