Evidence of meeting #34 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 north.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Louis Sebert  As an Individual
Dennis Bevington  As an Individual
Andrew Robinson  Alternatives North
Janaki Balakrishnan  As an Individual
Lois Little  Co-Chair, The Council of Canadians-Northwest Territories Chapter
Alexander Lambrecht  President, Northern Territories Federation of Labour
David Wasylciw  Chair, OpenNWT
Tasha Stephenson  As an Individual
Georges Erasmus  As an Individual
Marcelle Marion  As an Individual
Mark Bogan  As an Individual
Karen Hamre  As an Individual
Hermina Joldersma  As an Individual
Maria Pelova  As an Individual
Nancy Vail  As an Individual

6 p.m.

Co-Chair, The Council of Canadians-Northwest Territories Chapter

Lois Little

I've lived most of my life in the north, and I think what Dennis Bevington was saying is there are some principles that are intrinsic to government, such as working together, collaborating, helping each other, and working towards the common good. Those kinds of values are part of the nine indigenous languages that are part of the 11.

If we're not walking that talk in government, then you can use the Tlicho language or any of the languages, but if you're not demonstrating that in action, then it's meaningless and the elders will point that out.

6 p.m.

Alternatives North

Andrew Robinson

Very briefly, we're talking about languages. We're talking about voices, and if the system hears people's voices, then it's working. If we can come up with a system that hears more voices of all Canadians, then we're also going to hear more indigenous voices, and that will be an improvement.

6 p.m.

NDP

Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK

I want to clarify for the group that I'm from La Loche and I speak my Dene language, so I really appreciate exactly what you're saying.

Thank you.

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Mr. Kelly.

6 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Thank you to the panel as well as our audience members for attending.

I want to thank all three organizations, the Council of Canadians, Fair Vote Canada, and Alternatives North, for the work and the preparation that has gone into the presentations. They all were very detailed. Our committee has heard from a wide variety of experts and different lobby or advocacy groups that have positions on what system should be recommended for change. We've had a lot of people come out to attend these meetings to give private remarks as well.

One of the experts that we heard from, who was an advocate herself for proportional representation, pointed out that the consultative process that we are undertaking has failed to attract younger, less wealthy, less educated, or other marginalized groups, to attend many of the meetings. She said that the meetings have tended to attract a specialized group of people, those people who are very keen on the subject matter and probably possess a fair bit of specialized knowledge. I would also, perhaps, add to her list of people that we have not seen at meetings, people who simply have varying levels of interest in the subject matter. They might certainly vote. They might think from time to time about electoral systems, but they are perhaps not willing to give up a day at work, or hire a babysitter, or otherwise give up other things in their day-to-day life to tell our committee what they think.

We are hearing specialized testimony both from expert panellists and audience members, and ultimately we've been asked, and there's desirability that we've heard from this panel, about finding consensus. Well, real consensus would actually be everybody in Canada agreeing. That's consensus: everybody agrees. There would probably have to be a lower threshold than that. It's not reasonable to expect millions of people to all agree on something, but the legitimacy of the outcome is extremely important.

Ms. Little, you told us that we must never underestimate the intelligence of citizens. Then why not put the final recommendation of this committee to a direct vote, to all Canadians including those who were either too busy or something to come and tell us what they think at a microphone at an open public session?

6:05 p.m.

Co-Chair, The Council of Canadians-Northwest Territories Chapter

Lois Little

I'm not sure this committee is being connected to the youth and the marginalized, as you rightly point out, but you have a parallel process that's going on with the minister responsible. Minister Monsef has been through Yellowknife and had a pretty good turnout at her evening meeting and her afternoon meeting. A pretty diverse bunch of people showed up. I would really hope that you folks are going to be getting the input that she heard at these meetings she was holding, because there were a lot of young people and there were a lot of people who are kind of living on the edge, that I saw out at the meetings here in town.

I don't think we should be going down this road of a referendum, because I don't think it's going to get us anywhere. The history of referendums in this country is abysmal and if we can learn from anything that's happened around the world about referendums, I think we want to stay as far away from them as we can.

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Notwithstanding that New Zealand changed to proportional representation by referendum.

6:05 p.m.

Co-Chair, The Council of Canadians-Northwest Territories Chapter

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Well, I don't know what else to say.

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

The time is up, anyway.

Mr. Aldag.

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Thanks to our panel for being here. It's been a very good session.

A lot of the questions I had have been covered by my very thorough colleagues. What I want to do is give you the opportunity in these closing couple of minutes to share if there's anything else from a northern perspective that you think is an important message, either from you personally or the organizations you're here to represent, that you want us to consider in our deliberations as we look to find an alternative that will meet the needs of Canadians, including northerners, including residents of Yellowknife and the Northwest Territories, and a new type of voting system. I'll just leave it open-ended with that if there's a parting, final thought you'd like to share, please.

Mr. Robinson, go ahead, please.

6:05 p.m.

Alternatives North

Andrew Robinson

Thanks for the opportunity. I'll take it to respond to Mr. Kelly a little bit.

This committee's job is to talk about better ways of governing and making decisions. We're talking about majoritarian decision-making versus other possibilities, and that proportional representation is a way of hearing more voices, whereas a referendum is exactly the same system again, where we're only going to accept first past the post as a way of making a decision.

I would like to put it back to the committee, which I am very happy to see is representative of the vote nationally. You are tasked with coming up with a consensus position in the more human way in which we all like to make decisions. I strongly put that on you as committee members to try to move beyond partisanship, try to get a consensus, and to give us, as people in Canada, something that's going to work better. Then take it back to Parliament, and let's see if, for once, Parliament can actually do something to reach consensus and bring a proposal to Canadians that will make the system better.

That is why we voted you in, so get to work.

6:05 p.m.

Co-Chair, The Council of Canadians-Northwest Territories Chapter

Lois Little

Well said, Andrew. I don't think that I can add anything more to that.

I urge you to use all of the expertise that you have available to you. Consider the wealth of expertise of people like ex-parliamentarians, like Dennis Bevington, who have been looking at the Scandinavian system and worked closely with it. There are so many possibilities in the world, so let's not get trapped in a box.

Thank you very much for your work.

6:10 p.m.

As an Individual

Janaki Balakrishnan

My comments are that adaptation is expected in Canada. New immigrants, when they come, are expected to change to the Canadian system. However, in the Canadian system, there is not much flexibility to accept them. We struggle a lot.

Here in the northern territory we are holding this meeting. If it were conducted by northerners, it would have been a round table discussion, not a colonial system of having a rectangular table facing opposite each other. That in itself is saying the government has not adapted to other people's needs.

Also, on voting for different referendums, in 1992 I became a citizen. I was very eager to vote in a democratic system, which I believe works well. In 1992—the Meech Lake accord—I voted, but I do not know what impact my vote would have had. Although I am a master's degree holder from the University of Toronto, I wouldn't know all the intricacies of the politics that would make the change. That's why. Everyone is busy with many other things that are overwhelming, so understanding a referendum and voting on a referendum is not an easy matter. That is why we have elected members, and we expect members of Parliament to take the initiative, to take the responsibility, and to implement what is best for Canadians.

Thank you.

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

It's been a very interesting discussion. Thank you for all the preparation you put into your comments and remarks, and thank you for sharing your uniquely northern perspective with the committee.

We never thought we wouldn't come to the north, but if ever there were any doubts that we would gain a valuable perspective by coming here, those have certainly been laid to rest, so thank you very much.

We're going to break until 10 minutes to 7:00, which means that by 7:00, we should be ready to go with our third panel. Thank you very much.

7 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

We'll open the session for our third and last panel here in Yellowknife.

We have with us Mr. Alexander Lambrecht from the Northern Territories Federation of Labour. It's nice to see you again, Mr. Lambrecht.

We also have with us Mr. David Wasylciw from OpenNWT.

The witnesses have 10 minutes each to present.

I think you may have been here for some of the discussion we had right before the dinner break, so I believe you understand that every member will get five minutes with the witnesses.

Go ahead, please, Mr. Lambrecht. You have 10 minutes.

September 30th, 2016 / 7:05 p.m.

Alexander Lambrecht President, Northern Territories Federation of Labour

Thank you very much for being here.

I'd like to first acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of the Dene people. Mahsi cho.

First, to the committee, welcome to Yellowknife. I hope you have been able to experience first-hand what makes each territory unique: the people and the land.

The Northern Territories Federation of Labour, or NTFL, represents over 10,000 workers in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. We advocate for workers' rights, and we strengthen and protect the democratic institutions of our society, encourage all citizens to exercise their right to be heard, and promote peace and freedom in the world.

The population of the three territories represents only 0.03% of Canada's population, but the territories make up 39% of Canada's geographical area—3.9 million square kilometres—with the oldest known rocks in the world, an abundance of natural resources, some of the harshest living conditions, both natural and man-made, and the bravest, toughest, kindest, and most knowledgeable people—both in northern Canada and on northern Canada.

Often we northerners are forgotten, ignored, and told from the south what the issues are in the north, and how we should fix them.

Across Canada there are still many remote communities that do not have access to reliable broadband Internet, many with infrastructural deficits that create barriers for northern communities, especially in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.

Now is the time to put aside political rhetoric and interests and do what is best for Canadians by adopting an electoral system that represents the diversity of the people who are Canada.

In terms of the first-past-the-post problem, it's an electoral system that we inherited from the British before Confederation, at a time that was politically and socially very much different from today. The problem with first past the post is that it creates distorted electoral outcomes and false majorities. Voters often vote against something, instead of voting for something they want. It generates and increases regional tensions: us versus them and big jurisdictions versus small. It creates barriers for women and minorities in being elected. It creates an environment in which parties fight each other instead of fighting for Canadians.

As you're all aware, but for those who are listening and may not know, in terms of the timeline, in the last election, in 2015, nine billion votes were wasted. They did not go towards electing an MP. In June 2016 the electoral reform committee was formed to consult with Canadians. By December 1, the committee must report to Parliament. By April 2017, the committee has promised to present the legislative plan for electoral reform, and June 2017 is the deadline for Elections Canada to be able to prepare for a referendum, if need be.

The three principles from the NTFL on electoral reform are that no party should be able to win a majority of the seats without the majority of votes; that any reform should ensure that the number of seats a party receives is proportionate to its share of the received votes; and that reform should take into account the importance of local representation, which is especially true and important for the north.

Proportional representation is not complicated. It's just fair. Simply put, 51% of the votes entitles you to 51% of the seats. Ultimately, we feel that PR helps to address the alienation and dissatisfaction that voters feel, in that votes count, there are more choices, and there are increases in voter turnout, as seen in countries that currently use PR. As well, it may improve system satisfaction and political attitudes if the saying “make every vote count”, whose meaning is currently hollow, were actually true. It helps to close the gap between rich and poor and to elect more people from unrepresented groups due to the balance of PR in determining the number of seats from the percentage of votes.

In co-operation, conversation, and counting more votes, PR will bring a much-needed balance to the House of Commons, which would hopefully get parties to work together to build consensus instead of fighting each other.

Under PR, we're supportive of two potential models. Mixed member proportional representation, we feel, is the simplest way for Canada to move forward. However, simplicity is not the primary reason. It's a fairly balanced representation in the House, which is what we are seeking, and we want fair balance between local and party representation. It's still possible for a party to win a majority government with proportional representation; however, only if they receive the majority of the votes—fair and proportional.

The single transferable vote is not the simplest way for Canada to move forward, but it still provides a level of proportional representation similar to what MMP does. It could lead to changes in electoral districts within the north, and it could create tension between regions, as each territory has its unique identity, and northerners do not want to be represented as one homogenous territory.

In closing, the NTFL supports an electoral system that is founded on proportional representation to ensure the House of Commons reflects the diversity of the people of Canada; that removes the ability for any one party to receive a majority government without receiving the majority of votes; that party lists are open and support the model of representation through proportional voting; and that, regardless of the size of the jurisdiction, each candidate will have a fair and equal opportunity to be on the ballot in the district they are running to represent.

We won't support an electoral system that makes voting mandatory as it is not democratic. We may not agree with people who do not vote; however, a country that values rights and freedoms must uphold those values in all its laws and leave the choice to vote to remain with the individual Canadian. We won't support an electoral system that uses online voting until there is technology, a website, that is secure, unexploitable, and ensures that beyond any doubt and concerns of voters that the democratic process will be upheld in its purest form. We won't support an electoral system that does not guarantee that all Canadians who are eligible to vote, especially Canadians in remote regions and communities, have access to the infrastructure, reliable Internet, needed to cast their vote in their community, not outside their community, and ensure that all Canadians understand in plain language what they are voting on.

Thank you.

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you very much, Mr. Lambrecht.

We'll go now to Mr. Wasylciw.

7:10 p.m.

David Wasylciw Chair, OpenNWT

First I'd like to thank the whole committee for coming to the north. I know you've been on a journey throughout the north and west of Canada, but it's great to have the opportunity to speak to you in person here, beyond just sending in written submissions and things remotely.

First off, for some context, OpenNWT is a non-profit civil society organization developed to promote open and transparent government in the north. The focus has largely been on digital tools to increase access to government information. For example, we have a local territorial version of openparliament.ca. We've developed a few systems to do government financial openness and searching electoral information, a whole bunch of systems like that, which are available freely on the web.

Additionally, just from my own context, I've run previously territorially, so I have some experience on that side of the equation as well. Some of the things I'd like to speak about today are a number of the questions that the committee has put forward.

First off, improving the election process in Canada is a very important topic, and the reforms very much need to speak to all Canadians, not just those who choose to come to a standing committee meeting. That's probably a pretty select number of people. There are only so many who find the format terribly comfortable.

In previous years, there have been things like voter ID changes, and a number of things that have ended up disenfranchising Canadians. Obviously, it was not the intent, but looking at parts of Canada that are more remote, it certainly has different challenges than are faced in a lot of other places.

Too often when we talk about reforms, though, we often talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's how do we gut the system? How do we do things entirely differently rather than looking at what sort of incremental improvements, what sorts of tweaks and other improvements, we can make to a system to take us forward? There are certainly benefits to what we've been doing, and any number of things that we could do, but I think it's important to consider all of those.

One other consideration is that often we find, in speaking to people from the south, that the north is often considered to be an east-west set-up, that there are lots of links across the north. In reality, the northern territories tend to have stronger north-south links. Largely it's related to logistics, costs, that sort of thing. Quite often, even culturally, a lot of the links and similarities between the territories tend to be with the provinces they're above. There are more direct flights, for instance.

We were talking earlier, and the cost of a flight east to west in the north is quite expensive. Often it's actually cheaper to fly down to Ottawa to get to Nunavut than it is to fly all the way across. Until recently, there were no direct flights to Yukon. In the last year, there's been one created, which has been great, but those links don't always exist. When we talk about northern representation, there really is a difference in culture and in people who are required to balance that out.

Overall, there are a few points to touch on. One is the modernization of the electoral process. I know the committee has heard from previous speakers that there's a lot that needs to be done to actually modernize the way elections work: getting your voter card in the mail, having the standard paper lists when you go to vote. All of these things, frankly, are logistically challenging. They're difficult. In the north, we could have problems even getting workers to run elections.

In this past year, there were a number of elections. We had three in a two-month period. All of the elections had trouble holding on to staff. Trying to get all of these things to happen at once is a challenge, and there are a lot of ways that technology can be used to improve that. The act is obviously quite dated in its origins now.

On the note of modernizing elections, online voting has been a big topic, and I know it's something that the committee has considered. One of the things I'd like to ask about the whole issue is what problem it actually solves. It's worth considering, and it certainly has some advantages to it. Again, it helps modernize it. As you've heard already in the north, connectivity is quite an issue. Even Yellowknife only has a single connection to the south. In the north, we have entire communities that share the equivalent of a slow cable modem for 1,000 people.

There are a number of barriers that way that create problems. In fact, our smallest communities have probably our highest voting turnout rates in the north. Those in the small communities seem to have a strong civic duty on voting, which is fantastic, and often it's bigger cities and bigger centres, even in Canada, that occasionally have turnout issues.

One of the challenges in Canada isn't that it's too hard to vote. It's pretty easy to go out and vote on election day. There's a voting poll every time you turn around. There are a dozen parties telling you that tomorrow is the day to vote, today is the day to vote. You can get a ride; you can get all kinds of things. If you want to go early, you want to go late, there are a whole bunch of opportunities that exist. It's important that if we're doing it, it's not just for convenience, but about how it actually enhances the process and our elections.

Related to that is mandatory voting. It's an interesting concept. I think it's difficult for a lot of people to talk about and put their heads around, because it does seem like forcing people to go out and do something.

On principle, I'm not against the idea of mandatory voting, but there needs to be catches in the system that would allow people to not vote. Just because you go to vote doesn't mean you have to vote for someone on the ballot. We should probably have that anyway. I know that a number of provinces in Canada already do have the ability for voters to go and deny their ballots, and that's an important message to be able to send.

At the same time, we have to reinforce the importance of voting and the celebratory nature of it. I'll talk about that a bit throughout this, but too often we don't celebrate the importance of voting and how much of a big deal it is. It's not that we have to celebrate and have parties around it. Those deeply involved in the system do, but there needs to be ways to get the rest of Canada to consider it the great occasion that it is. It's something to celebrate that we get out to vote and elect the government. If there's a wholesale change, or if there are minor changes, it's a big deal and it's affected by one person going out and casting a vote. Everybody can count.

In a lot of countries the mandatory voting is also a civic holiday. It becomes a community celebration and that's something worth considering maybe not on its own, but with a number of these other pieces. Maybe there's some validity there. The more we can show Canadians that individual votes and going out to vote does impact the system, even in the current system today, the better. Just because you're in a riding where 80,000 people vote doesn't mean that an election can't be decided by a handful of votes. It's amplified a bit in the north where we have territorial elections. In our last one here we had ridings decided by three votes. It's a bit of a different scale, but it's still amazing to see, and people don't always understand that their votes matter. When you look at those kinds of numbers, how do you connect with everybody and show them? If that doesn't do it, we have to find other ways to demonstrate that.

The fundamental question...a lot of the efforts discussed today have been about the power of individual MPs and the balance on parties. I heard the first panel, and a lot of discussion came up around empowering MPs and minority governments, and PR leading to smaller groups and more MPs working together. I think that's an important thing, but why don't we look at finding ways to empower MPs right from today? I know some work was done in the last government on that. I know Michael Chong's bill did a few things.

Over the last number of years, power has been centralized in parties; power has been centralized in the PMO, and a number of other things have created an environment where perhaps MPs don't feel the full power of the position. The more we can do to empower MPs adds that strength to it. I don't think just turning to PR and turning to small parties necessarily does that, but the more we can do to strengthen that, then the more we strengthen Parliament, which is the most important thing in what we're trying to do.

When we're looking at party lists—and I know there have been some other discussions on other models—they don't necessarily lead to additional accountability. If people are voting for a party and getting a representative they don't know and didn't vote for, then I don't think that's necessarily a benefit. There are strong roots in our system and the accountability of an MP to constituents. I think that's something we'd have to find a way to uphold, however we develop it.

With regard to voting systems, there's obviously a number of systems proposed and a number of changes. I think one of the most important principles to keep in mind, which we've heard from other speakers, is that in the north, nothing could be considered that takes away the power of an MP for a particular territory or province, not that it's particularly an issue in the provinces. We only have one MP and one senator per territory. It's nice to see that representation, but it's important that no change would take that away. Rebalancing it, however that happens, needs to maintain the power of the territories to at least have a voice in Parliament for themselves.

While we had a unique constitutional situation with the territories, it's important that there's unique representation. I know some of the development of systems around PR takes that away, or blends that, and I don't think any of that would be acceptable to the north. That just isn't fair or right for Canadians.

The north is already a great landscape. A single MP from any of the territories could never possibly visit all of their communities in a single day and could barely even do it in a week without a chartered plane. I'd never want to see any of them have to do that or have any greater territory.

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Sorry, go ahead, but if you could.... It's very interesting, but it's so interesting that we want to get to some questions.

7:20 p.m.

Chair, OpenNWT

David Wasylciw

I have one last piece here, which is on literacy rates. One thing we do in the north is to actually put pictures on the ballots, because there's concern about literacy and the ability of people to read names and to know. There's actually a photo on the ballot. It's something we've done regularly up here, with great success, as a way of addressing illiteracy. It's something to consider, but there is really a concern. We brought forward some recommendations territorially around ranked voting, and the immediate concern was literacy, and how people would vote and whether they would know how to vote: Is it one to three? Is one the top one? Is three the top one? How is it all going to work? Those were the immediate, 30-second questions by our MLAs here.

In summary, the overall goals of electoral policy here have to be to get people out to vote and to make the system balanced and fair. One concern about some of these things is that we keep dragging out our election periods. I know the last one was very long. As we move to newer voting systems, we're creating more and more advance poll opportunities, but another piece of it is that we're also moving elections to be even earlier. Something needs to be done to make sure that elections happen within the election period and to keep them a little bit to that, because right now they are growing, and I'd hate to see that growth continue since it takes away from, frankly, the importance of the actual day at the end. Some of these systems may have other ways of helping people vote on election day rather than going weeks in advance.

I know none of these changes and other things you're considering are going to happen just on their own. A whole bunch of changes that are tied together need to happen.

Thank you very much.

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thanks so much.

We'll start the round with Ms. Romanado, please.

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC

Thank you so much to our two panellists for being here this evening. To the folks in the audience, thank you for coming out. It's great to be here. It's my first time in Northwest Territories.

My first question will be for Mr. Lambrecht.

Please forgive me if I'm direct. I have been known to be direct. My colleagues will tell you that.

We've heard it from other witnesses, and you brought it up again today, that in the last election nine million votes didn't count. We heard from another witness that, in fact, it's probably more than that, because at the end of the day, the median, the number of votes needed to win, is one more than the second-place winner. With all the people who voted, the surplus of votes, in your theory would also be considered wasted votes, if I understand correctly.

You also mentioned that you're not supportive of mandatory voting. If we had 68% turnout in the last election, would you then feel it's fair to say that the votes of those who didn't vote were wasted? If so, then how could you be against mandatory voting? I'm just throwing that out there as an argument.

7:25 p.m.

President, Northern Territories Federation of Labour

Alexander Lambrecht

I wouldn't necessarily say that the vote of anybody who didn't vote would be wasted, because we don't know why they didn't vote. Were there barriers? Were there challenges that prevented them from getting out to the poll? Did they exercise, maybe, a silent protest by not voting, not knowing that there are alternative methods to contest, decline, return a ballot, or spoil a ballot, if you want to protest? I wouldn't consider them wasted votes.

Maybe “wasted” is the wrong word to refer to votes that didn't go towards electing somebody. Let's just say that, instead of nine million or possibly more votes being wasted, they weren't proportional.

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC

The panellist next to you said that in some ridings the spread was three votes. We've heard a little bit about what we call strategic voting. Say I'm really hoping that my Green Party candidate's going to win in my riding, and I decide, when I get to the poll, that I love my Green Party, but I don't think—