Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 29th, 2016

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Okay. That's so the duality could be accomplished.

When we went up to Whitehorse, during our consultations there we heard from a lot of experts that it would be hard to sell the idea of having more representation than what they already have currently, because, according to population, they are already overrepresented. We have other ridings with triple or quadruple the number of people and with one representative.

Of course, we all see that all areas in the north are unique and need at least their one representative, but how would we sell that to the Canadian people? We would be saying that we're going to take a sample size of between 34,000 and 36,000, which is what I remember for Whitehorse or the Yukon, and they'll have one member, whereas in a riding like mine there are 113,000 people and it's one member. How would we sell giving them another member?

[Sean Graham]

“One person, one vote” was a huge consideration when I undertook this project. When you go to a system that has districts and regions, the link is separate. Under the current system, they're one and the same, but under a mixed system like DMP or MMP, they're separate.

One person, one vote is determined by the region, not by the district. Because the Northwest Territories would be in that western Canada region, the fact that they have two MPs in their district would not play a role in the question of whether it's one person, one vote. In that case, a voter in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon, whichever territory you want to choose, would have the exact same voting power as a voter in Edmonton in terms of the makeup of the House of Commons.

In that way, one person, one vote is still satisfied, but I do agree that there would be a perception that they'd be given extra voting power, even though that wouldn't be the case. There is a second alternative to address that. You could leave—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure if I'm understanding this right. Even though the Yukon, say, would have two members, they would have only one vote between the two of them?

[Sean Graham]

No, that's not what I'm saying. They would have two MPs, but for the constituents, when they go to vote, their vote would count the same as the vote of someone in Edmonton, because they would both be encompassed in that western Canada region. It's the region that determines one person, one vote, not the district. When they cast their vote, it counts the same in that regional total as the votes of everyone else in that region.

The district vote is to determine the merit of those local candidates. Again, you have one person, one vote, because each person in that district has the same weight in determining which candidate they prefer, but the political perception—you may be right—may be that they are being given extra voting power, even though that wouldn't be true, technically speaking. One way around this is that you could leave the Yukon with one MP, while still encompassing the larger region and having the votes count to that regional total, without giving them a second MP.

I'm cautioning against that because I don't want politicians to start playing around with who gets two and who gets one. That affects the proportionality. If you decrease that too much, you end up ruining the effect of the system, but if there were exceptional circumstances where you deem that necessary, you could do that.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Okay.

How about that phrase you just used, which was politicians “playing around” with this or parties playing around with this? Who gets to choose who gets on the ballot? Also, who is the second dual member? Is it because of the nomination process? I'm assuming that the one who wins the nomination or comes in first would then end up being, what, the ballot candidate or the...?

[Sean Graham]

Both candidates would be on the ballot, so there would be no distinction in that way. Some of the parties, for example, might have two candidates on the ballot. So if you had an open nomination process and you placed first, you might be the first candidate on the ballot for the Liberal Party. The person who came in second would also be listed, but in the second slot. So you would know that if the Liberals were to win one seat in the district, you would be elected, and if they won both seats, the next candidate would be elected as well. This determines the order of election in the district.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, and my thanks to our panel. That was really fascinating, and there's lots to think about there. Thank you very much for coming out.

We're going to go now to our open-mike session.

Mr. Garrett, go ahead.

[David Garrett, As an Individual]

Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm for first past the post. I don't believe that my vote didn't count. My MP was elected but the party I wanted to be in power was not. This is the Canadian process and I accept it. I think that comparing Canada with places like New Zealand is absolutely wrong. The diversity in Canada is way different from what it is in any other country in the world. Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the prairie provinces, B.C., the Northwest Territories—all these are completely different. I'm not sure what “proportional” is. Is it proportional by party? Is it by religious belief, by culture, by gender, by sexual preference? When you go to something with that kind of diversity, where does it end? I think we need to keep the elections simple: one person, one vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have about 30 seconds left.

[David Garrett]

I believe Canada should be a voice for openness and Canadian values. My ancestors came here in 1818, which was 49 years before Canada was a country. They helped build this country, the tapestry, and I would hate to see 150 years of Canadian tradition ripped apart a thread at a time. I think that Canadians deserve the right to vote. If it doesn't go my way, I accept that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Solomon.

[Ken Solomon, As an Individual]

Thank you for allowing me to speak today.

I speak as a concerned Canadian who has travelled and toured all 10 provinces, the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon. I have voted in every civic, provincial, and federal election since I was eligible to vote 53 years ago. I voted because I knew my vote counted. Every Canadian citizen at the age of majority has the right to vote. They choose whether they want to vote or not. No one is excluded.

Any change will steal the power of my vote. An uncle was called to fight in the First World War for you, me, and all Canadians, to protect our right to vote. Our cousin fought in the front line of the Second World War, for you, me, and all Canadians, for our freedom to vote as we do today. With God's blessings and protection, he returned safely and was able to actively vote in many municipal, provincial, and federal elections.

A neighbour living next to me today survived D-Day. He fought for the freedom to vote as it is today. An uncle paid the ultimate sacrifice in the Battle of Ortona. He rests in the war cemetery where 1,375 Canadians like my uncle paid the ultimate sacrifice. They were killed fighting for the vote we have today. We must support, respect, and keep the way we vote today because of the ultimate sacrifice of my cousin, uncle, neighbour, and thousands of others who fought for this freedom. I have not read, heard, seen, smelled, or felt any reason to change the vote we have today.

As my cousin, uncles, and neighbours fought for the freedom of vote we have today, I am here fighting for our children, grandchildren, my fellow Canadians, to keep the vote we have today. It is not broken. There is nothing to fix. Should I have missed something, let my fellow Canadians decide with a referendum.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. David Parker.

[David Parker, As an Individual]

I would first like to say I'm very like Mr. Green, in that I am a retired engineer. I do have one grandchild, but I get a good night's sleep.

My notes are quite brief. I want to summarize them quickly, and before I give them, I will paraphrase Winston Churchill: The first past the post system is the best system, except for all the rest. I've written down proportional representation pros and cons, and first past the post pros and cons.

The pros for proportional representation are that it elects more female parliamentarians. That's been proven many times by OECD countries that have proportional representation. It elects more ethnically diverse governments. That's again justified by other jurisdictions. It maximizes the preferential choice of the voting public, and hence creates policies more in line with the wishes of the greatest number. If we had a proportional system in the United States, we wouldn't have had the Iran war with George Bush.

It reduces the possibility of a government being elected as a majority with less than 50% of the vote, unlike 2011 and 2015. It increases the possibility of a coalition, and hence promotes checks and balances on the major party, as with the vast majority of OECD countries. It reduces the possibility of hyper-partisanship—this is somewhat speculative—such as heckling in the House, nepotism, backroom dealing, and lack of transparency. I think it would improve that situation.

Finally, it would improve environmental performance, like Germany, Denmark, Holland, Norway, and most other European countries, which are far more advanced with their environmental policies.

The cons for proportional representation are that it's not perfect, but like many people have said already, all the other ones are not perfect as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, sir. That's very good.

We're way over the time limit, but those were good comments. Thank you for wrapping it up with the same quote that you started with. It shows a certain elegance of completeness.

Ms. Workman, go ahead.

[Heather Workman, As an Individual]

Thank you to all of you who are on the committee. I know you're putting a lot of energy into this, which is really important.

I also want to acknowledge something. I have had the privilege of growing up on some of the best land in this country. I grew up on Treaty 6 land, so I'm very thankful. Now I'm getting emotional. Just to get to the point, I really feel very strongly that we do need to change our electoral climate in Canada. First past the post is dated. I think it served us well, but we have changed as a country here. We've made plenty of mistakes in this area in Alberta in particular. I'm not in favour of pipelines. I'm in favour of raw bitumen being transported on our train lines, because I believe it's safer for the people. I also believe that we've made mistakes with federal influence by dismantling the Cloverdale footbridge, which I think is inappropriate. As well—and this is the issue that I really want to press on today—kids are dying in government care, and that's a really ugly thing for us to have to take a look at as a country. I believe if we had proportional representation that perhaps there would be less of this attitude of having a small group of people making decisions for others.

As a Canadian—a long-term Canadian with very long roots in Canada, by the way—I want us to have that change that actually works for all Canadians, so why don't we have a council of Canadian governments involved in the decision-making? Perhaps you can reflect on that. If you have any questions about that, please contact me. I would like to say my phone number right now, but I think I also gave my email address, so I hope you all can email me.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Buxton, go ahead, please for two minutes.

[Roger Buxton, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My background is agriculture. I'm a retired rancher-farmer. I lived in one of the largest constituencies in this province, which is populated all over, called Crowfoot for most of my working life. I am definitely not in favour of a proportional representation type of system. I believe that it is so complicated to try to explain to Canadians that the government is going to get into a lot of problems if they try to do it and put it forward without a plebiscite. However, I do believe in the preferential ballot idea, which nobody seems to want to discuss anymore except in a negative fashion. I believe that a preferential ballot would give me the type of leeway that I need as the voting public to first of all blackball the party that I didn't want in power whereas now I'm strategically voting to deal with it. I believe that you have a problem as well with the Constitution, as was suggested here by one witness earlier, and I know that she suggested it probably wouldn't be a problem, but I think it could be. It's especially going to be a problem if somebody decides to try to take this whole idea down in the courts and they can put it forward and hang it out to dry.

The Prime Minister has said that he's in favour of a preferential ballot. He campaigned on it during his leadership, and I support him on that. I think that is all we really need to be looking at. We can set that up and do it very quickly in this country with the electoral system we have right now.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, sir.

Ms. Brown, go ahead.

[Laurene Brown, As an Individual]

I sacrificed one of the last beautiful working outside days to express the opinion of one concerned citizen, myself. I do not feel my vote produces a government that represents me. I would like to see a proportional system, in which if 25% of popular votes were, for example, for Green Party candidates, then 25% of the government representatives and committee members would be Green Party MPs. Elizabeth May is my representative on this committee, and I believe however she weighs the preponderance of information gathered here and from around the world, it will be weighed intelligently, fairly, and with integrity for all citizens of Canada.

This is my wish list: automatic voter registration upon legal age; high school course on democratic responsibilities to weigh issues in both mind and heart and on mandatory voting laws to be a requirement for graduation; and mandatory courses for elected officials on creating consensus and respectful negotiating skills, keeping uppermost in mind what are best negotiated win-wins for the largest number of Canadian citizens.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Ms. Brown.

Mr. Turton.

[Donald Turton, As an Individual]

I have two quick comments. Everybody wants perfect, but good is good enough. That's all we can get.

I'd like to say something about the difference between what we value and what our interests are.

To me, value is having a fair electoral system however you decide that is going to be—MMP, STV, whichever one you choose.

Your interest, though, because you're all politicians, is in winning, and that's not what we the people want. We want a fair system.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Sarcon.

[Lance Sarcon, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the committee for all of your hard work and coming all the way to Alberta. I came all the way from Calgary to deliver my opinion on how to improve our democracy.

I'm 18 years old, soon turning 19, and like many of Canada's youth I am disgusted and disillusioned with the toxic, partisan, and unrepresentative politics that first past the post has contributed to, and I fully support proportional representation.

I myself witnessed the many ills of first past the post when I volunteered for the NDP in 2015. Many people said they would vote for us if not for strategic voting concerns. That is a travesty for democracy. Canadians should vote for something, not against it.

This isn't about sore losers, as some would insinuate. In fact, even though I like the Alberta NDP government, I'll admit it's yet another false majority. Parliament ought to represent the will and the diversity of Canada. It's time we stopped talking about our elections like we do hockey, in terms of winners and losers, and rather built a truly representative democracy.

Yes, we have used first past the post for ages, and there is no perfect system, but we can do much better than the severely flawed first past the post. Do not let the naysayers dissuade you with examples that are incomparable to Canada. I implore the committee to seize this historic opportunity and not to squander it because of deadlock over some relatively minute detail.

The various proportional systems proposed each have their own merits. Pursue a compromise in your deliberations, and do not get bound by your favourite system.

Finally, I'd like to speak firmly against the alternative vote. As many academics have said before you, it would change little of our voting system. Look at Australia, it's still almost a two-party system. It is not real change like the Liberals campaigned on.

While I do believe that everyone in this committee is making a genuine effort, I must still warn the Liberals that unilaterally imposing the alternative vote with its majority government would be completely illegitimate—no offence.

To those on the committee who oppose AV, I urge you to staunchly oppose it in your final deliberations.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, sir.

Go ahead, Ms. Macinnis.