Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 29th, 2016

[Sean Graham]

I'm quite honoured that the P.E.I. government decided to include DMP in the plebiscite in P.E.I.; however, I do disagree with using a plebiscite or a referendum to decide this issue, especially at the national level.

The first problem you get into with a referendum in Canada that you don't get into at provincial levels is what constitutes a win. If everyone votes yes except Quebec, or if everyone votes yes except Alberta, do you change the system or do you not change the system? Are we opening up the same constitutional wars we opened up in 1982?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're going to have to move on, but that's a good point.

We'll go now to Madam Jolibois.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Good evening, and thank you for the presentations. I'm intrigued.

To go back to cultural diversity, how do you see the reflection of the cultural diversity in Canada with each system? I'm interested to hear.

[Doug Bailie]

What I've tried to emphasize in my brief and in my opening comments is that there are various options in terms of moving to proportional representation that would be more inclusive of the community as a whole, be more inclusive of minority viewpoints and ensure that those viewpoints are represented in Parliament.

I've generally referred to opinion groups, but I think that could have a reflection in terms of cultural groups as well. I want to see a more inclusive political system, and I think proportional representation is key to achieving that.

[Sean Graham]

I'm going to take a bit of a different tack from most of the witnesses you've had in front of this committee so far. An electoral system should not promote nor should it harm cultural diversity. An electoral system should be neutral. If the public wants cultural diversity, it should give that to them. If the public doesn't want cultural diversity, then it should also give that to them. That's what democracy is. It's supposed to express the will of the citizens.

The point in going to proportional representation is not that it will inherently increase cultural diversity, but for the Canadians who want cultural diversity it will respect their choice. Arguably, right now, Canadians do have the choice to have cultural diversity, but when they choose that, the system doesn't give them that representation. A proportional system will.

It's not the fact that the system will do this, it's that Canadians want this and the system isn't reflecting it. Does that make sense?

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Yes, it does.

[Joseph Green]

I'll just add two points. Keep it as simple as you can and the second point would be—to answer your question—that if we have an arrangement where each constituency has the ability to select their candidate and so on and have it financed and so on, disconnected from the PMO and all of that, then it will empower it.

If we have communities or districts that strongly want a Sikh representative or something like that, they will get it. But we don't need to go and throw the baby out with the bathwater. That would be my answer, keep it simple.

One other point related to that is let's try to respect the long parliamentary traditions that we have going back to the Magna Carta. It's still part of our law and so forth. All of that really matters, for some of us at least and maybe I'm an old curmudgeon, but I like to see the guard and all of that.

Thank you.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I have one more question for Sean. I'm intrigued by the four regions that you talk about, that you merge. I'm having a hard time trying to understand what that would look like, because it's the Northwest Territories, the mid-north, and then the southern portion.

[Sean Graham]

Can you elaborate on your question? I'm not quite sure what you'd like me to make more clear.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Again, it's on the issue around Canadians wanting representation in the House of Commons and that the way Canada is set up in terms of the further north you go, we the northerners don't have access to what privileged Ottawa may have or Edmonton.

Again, how do you foresee solving the issue around that discussion?

[Sean Graham]

I think there are two things that DMP would do to help that, first, because it would include the territories, for example, in that larger western Canada region. Currently, if 30% of the public in the Northwest Territories voted Liberal, but the other 70% voted for another party, their vote would not be represented in the House of Commons.

Under this system, by including them in that region that other 70% will help determine that regional result, which will ultimately determine how the House of Commons is reflected in terms of each party's representation. It would help in that way by counting that other 70% that currently is not counted.

The other way it would help is my recommendation is to add a second seat to each territory, so each territory would have two seats instead of one.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, I really appreciated your presentation and I look forward to getting the brief.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Kelly.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thank you to all the presenters. As always, we value very much the contributions made by the panel.

Today is an anniversary, of sorts, that brings up a point along the lines of the answer you were beginning to give, and I would like to give you a chance to expand on the question that Mr. DeCourcey had.

In fact, 118 years ago today, there was a plebiscite in Canada on prohibition. The Laurier government had a national plebiscite on whether or not we would have prohibition in Canada. The plebiscite very narrowly passed. In the province of Quebec, it was overwhelmingly rejected, but nationally it came out just slightly in favour. Laurier then made a political decision not to go ahead with prohibition, because it was so heavily opposed in one particular province and narrowly passed in the rest.

Your point was about plebiscites or referendums being difficult and very divisive—if perhaps one province, whether it be Quebec or Alberta, is vastly at odds with other regions—but is that really a reason not to do them? Does that make imposing something without asking more legitimate than putting something to a referendum?

I congratulate you for your system being on a ballot for consideration in Prince Edward Island.

[Sean Graham]

Thank you.

Yes, I do think it merits not going ahead with that. I think it would be a divisive debate. I think the Brexit vote showed us how divisive these debates can be. I don't think this vote would be as divisive as that, but I do think the results—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Should they have left the European Union without a vote?

[Sean Graham]

I didn't say that. I am not saying they should have left or they shouldn't have left—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

You see, that—

[Sean Graham]

I am saying they shouldn't have had a referendum on the issue. We elect you, in a representative democracy, to make these decisions on our behalf. The problem with this topic is that it is very technical and intricate, and there are a lot of details to comprehend. It's your job to go through those details and make the best decision based on the information you've gotten from panellists and other experts. There's that issue.

There is the issue of what would constitute a win, which I think you would need to define before the referendum, rather than after the referendum.

The other issue is that we are talking about something that goes to fundamental democratic rights. In a true democracy, you do not put rights up for a vote. When women were given the vote, for example, it would have been wrong to put that up to a vote of white men, who were the ones who could vote at the time.

If we are talking about an issue where those rights are involved, and I think here they are.... It was mentioned earlier, in the previous panel, that no voting system is perfect. I agree. However, some of them breach those fundamental democratic rights, and others, arguably, do not breach them in a way that merits repealing them. I think first past the post is on the other side of that line. I think systems like MMP and DMP—proportional systems—are on the opposite side.

If you wanted to have a referendum on an option or multiple options that would adhere to those democratic rights and principles—that would respect that when a Canadian votes for party X in their district, that vote is counted and their voice is reflected in the House of Commons—if you wanted to have a choice between multiple options that satisfied that, then I could grudgingly accept having a referendum there as truly democratic. But to have a referendum between first past the post and another system, one that respects this right, would not be democratic. I think it would be fundamentally undemocratic to do that.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

I don't think I have enough time for another question, but I might just add a quick comment on Mr. Green's early statement and some of the other comments that have come up about the number of people it takes to elect a member.

This map is simply not correct, because it assumes that the only consideration that any voter ever has is the party. I use the example of Ms. May from Saanich—Gulf Islands. We met many of her constituents in her riding a couple of days ago. She appears to be very well supported in that area. Perhaps some of the people voted for her because of the way they felt she would represent them, not because they were partisan supporters of the Green Party.

In the example, if the member for St. Albert were to be a Green Party member because of the math under your system—a Green candidate who got 1,000 votes, as you said—well, if you wanted to keep it simple, I think you'd have a hard time explaining that in St. Albert, how they ended up with a member of Parliament who got 1,000 votes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don't think we're going to have too much time for a response.

Very briefly, please. It was more a comment, I think, than a question.

[Joseph Green]

I have only one comment. Ms. May got fewer votes in her riding than the total number of votes cast for the Green Party. What about those votes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's a bigger question, I think.

We'll go to Ms. Sahota, please.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you to all of the witnesses. I love hearing new and unique ideas. This committee has been at this for a while now. I guess it's not that long, but it's been intense in the time that we have been on it. It's nice to have some unique ideas proposed for Canada.

My first few questions are for you, Mr. Graham. I think you did mention it, but I missed it. You're not just adding three members to the northern area. You are, but how many members in total would you have under your system?

[Sean Graham]

I believe it was six in total. There were three for the territories and then three additional members that would be needed to give even numbers to some of the provinces that currently have odd numbers. I believe that six in total would accomplish that.