Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 30th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Welcome to the 34th meeting of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.

I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional lands of the Dene people. It's a great pleasure to be here. It's my second trip ever to Yellowknife. I notice that it has changed significantly in the last 20 years. Am I mistaken? It has. There is new construction, and the like. Yellowknife is looking great.

Our first panel includes Mr. Louis Sebert, Minister of Justice here in the Northwest Territories. He is appearing as an individual, I believe. We also have Mr. Dennis Bevington, a former colleague. We've travelled with committees together. Actually, we sat together on the public safety committee for about four years. It's very nice to see you again, Dennis, on your home turf here.

We'll start with Mr. Sebert, for 10 minutes, followed by Mr. Bevington, for 10 minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Sebert.

[Louis Sebert, As an Individual]

Thank you to the special committee for inviting me here today. Welcome to the Northwest Territories, and welcome to this new hotel.

I am the Minister of Justice, Attorney General, Minister of Lands, Minister Responsible for the Northwest Territories Power Corporation, and most interestingly, Minister Responsible for Public Engagement and Transparency for the Government of the Northwest Territories. We have a very small cabinet, so we all have to have many roles.

I would like, first of all, to thank the committee for its work on electoral reform and express appreciation for the inclusion of the Northwest Territories in your travel as part of the consideration you are giving to federal electoral reform.

I expect that your experiences here will reinforce what you likely already appreciate. The Northwest Territories is a unique part of Canada, and any consideration of electoral reform should recognize these circumstances of our territory.

I hope to assist the committee by providing information on the particular context of our territory that might have bearing on the options for reform you will be weighing. My remarks here today are intended only to provide such background, and I should note that the Government of the Northwest Territories is not taking a position on electoral reform.

The Northwest Territories is a vast territory with 33 communities spread over 1.4 million square kilometres. Our geography and our demographics bring special consideration to bear on the issues before you. I would like to focus my remarks on a few of these considerations, with the first of those being the need for plain language.

Approximately 25% of our population does not have a high school diploma. Outside of the four largest communities, this number climbs to 32.2%. Any changes made to the existing electoral system will need to have a clear plain language communication plan to explain the new process or it risks disenfranchising voters.

Radio and print media remain staples for information to communities. Social media, particularly Facebook, is used by younger people throughout the territories.

With respect to the lower rate of home Internet access, 79% of households in the Northwest Territories have Internet access compared to 83% nationally. Outside of Yellowknife and the regional centres of Hay River, Inuvik, Fort Smith, Norman Wells, and Fort Simpson, this number drops drastically. Outside of metropolitan areas, nationally, 75% have Internet access. Of our 33 communities, 13 have less than 50% household Internet access.

In our smallest communities, the percentage of households without Internet access ranges from 17.5% to 66.7%. Many of these small communities are reliant on satellite Internet, which can be interrupted. Should this happen on election day, entire communities could be disenfranchised.

Only 72% of the NWT residents have photo ID; however, once Yellowknife is removed from the equation, where 82% of residents have photo identification, the numbers change drastically. One community has as low as 3% of its residents who have government-issued identification. In total, the majority of residents in 20 of 33 communities have no photo identification.

Previously, the chief electoral officer of the Northwest Territories presented to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in March 2014 regarding proposed amendments to the Canada Elections Act. He specifically requested that amendments removing vouching be deleted. For every 1,000 votes cast in the 2011 territorial election, 15 electors required another elector to vouch for them to establish their identity and place of residence.

I should note that while Canada restricted the use of vouching, the Northwest Territories expanded it. In the 2015 territorial election, electors were able to vouch for up to five other electors, which is up from one elector previously. Although the numbers are not yet available, I note that the number of votes cast in the 2015 election increased over the 2011 election by 873 despite no corresponding increase in population.

On mandatory voting, the Northwest Territories has had a traditionally low voter turnout in federal elections, reaching a high of 63.36% in the 2015 election, which is up from 53.95% in the 2011 election, and 47.71% in 2008. Territorially, voter turnout in 2015 was 44%, although our chief electoral officer has noted that the total number of votes cast in 2015 is higher than in 2011 despite no population growth, which indicates there may be issues with the voters list.

However, low voter turnout for territorial elections is a relatively new phenomenon, as turnout in 2007 was 67%, 68% in 2003, and 70% in 1999. Prior to the division of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, turnout was in the mid to high seventies.

On mandatory voting, I would be concerned with any proposed penalties for not voting.

While Yellowknife skews the average wage for the territory in any national reporting, according to Statistics Canada, the NWT has the highest average weekly wage earings in Canada, at $1,421.46. This is true of Yellowknife and the largest communities. I note, according to the NWT Bureau of Statistics, that in 2015 the average salary in Inuvik was $130,340. In Paulatuk, a community not far away, the average annual salary was $6,005.

Financial penalties for not voting would fall most harshly on those residents already struggling with the day-to-day reality of being unemployed or underemployed with no economic prospects, a far higher cost of living, and heavy reliance on government programs.

Finally, I'll conclude with the request that whatever the committee recommends to Parliament, you ensure accessibility to resources and systems of voting equitable for all residents.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Sebert.

We don't have translation, unfortunately.

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

Game on. We'll take it from the top.

[Dennis Bevington, As an Individual]

I was invited to come here and speak, and I was very pleased to have the opportunity to do so. I live in a little town called Fort Smith, which is due south of here. Certainly it's a pleasure to be here with you.

I'd like to, first of all, share a bit of my experience as a member of Parliament. Ultimately, when we vote for someone, what we expect to happen is that the member of Parliament will provide a service to us.

I spent 10 years in opposition in Parliament. As the member of Parliament for the Northwest Territories, I often felt that the government would bypass me in its dealings. That's a problem for many members of Parliament. We are elected by the people to represent the people. I think it's quite important that respect be given to members of Parliament, and that in the electoral reform we do everything we can to ensure that the roles of members of Parliament are enhanced rather than taken away. Quite clearly, over a period of years, the importance of members of Parliament has declined in the eyes of the governing party, regardless of which party that is.

I have had some unique experiences as a member of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, where I sat with many other parliamentarians from countries around the northern circumference. Most of those parliamentarians were part of a proportional representation system.

Interestingly enough, in Sweden parliamentarians do not sit in parties; they sit together with the other people from their regions. You would have a Conservative and a Social Democratic sitting side by side, and when they would speak, it would be from the front to the whole group.

There are different ways of conducting business as parliamentarians that we need to consider, as well. It's so important that there's a relationship that can work between all people who are elected to Parliament. That's why, in a way, I support proportional representation. We're going to create a situation where there's a necessity to work with members of Parliament.

Under proportional representation, most likely you're going to have a situation where not one party controls Parliament at all times. There will be more minority governments. There will be more need for coalitions. There will be more need for working together, understanding each other better, and respecting each other as representatives of the people.

I think that's the end result you will get from proportional representation. If you look around at the countries that do have this system, many of them in situations similar to ours, first world countries that have experience in democracy, those situations occur.

One time I met with a Danish energy minister on climate change issues. He said that there was no way that they could have created an energy policy like they have without the full support of all the parties. This was a conservative minister of energy. It was quite clear that the system they have, where there is more need to work together, produces results in a very complex world that requires not single-minded solutions.

Here in Canada we play politics like hockey: there's only one winner. That attitude has to change. Minority Parliaments are better. Minority Parliaments place more emphasis on the average MP. That's been my experience in both majority and minority Parliaments. In your time in Parliament, I think you'll find the same.

Another thing I have to say is that Canada is a colonial state. When I came from the Northwest Territories, I had thought I lived in a colonial part of Canada, until I went to Ottawa and realized that we're hidebound by what had been set out for us by the British Empire almost 150 years ago.

We need to become our own country, with systems that represent this diverse, far-flung body. We can't continue to try to run as a first-past-the-post political system. It's not working for us.

We certainly don't want to fall into the American model, which we can see continually works toward this very disadvantageous situation for the American people.

I am supportive of proportional representation. Of course, as a northerner, I want a mixed proportional representation because, coming from a region that has 40,000 people, I realize we are not going to get a lot more members of Parliament out of here, regardless. We need to keep our member of Parliament representing this huge area. So does Yukon, and so does Nunavut.

These areas are very important at the federal level, because so much of the power for the control of land and resources still resides within Ottawa. That may change, but as it stands now, many of those powers still reside there.

Indigenous interests are inseparable from the three territories, and I would say for many other regions in Canada now, and they need to have proper representation.

One thing I have to say is that there was common interest among northern MPs, whether they came from northern Manitoba, northern Ontario, northern Quebec, northern Saskatchewan, or the three territories, and any riding that actually represented indigenous people. There was a common bond there that I found over the 10 years I was there. There were common issues. There were things that came out that made us work together, regardless of our political stripe.

When we come to proportional representation, the system, even if it's mixed proportional, will have lists that political parties will assign their choices to. I think it's very important that you consider how to control those lists. Those lists have to recognize the regionality of this country, if you are going to go in that direction. This is true in other countries. I've seen it. In the way the political parties set up their lists, you have to take into account regionality, and you have to respect what the country is.

If you are considering a change to the system, and you are considering proportional representation, there are more things to be taken into account about how it's done.

I actually believe that the northern regions and indigenous people have similar interests. If you are going to go to a proportional representation system, I think that if you look at Canada as a whole and put the northern and the indigenous ridings together, you would have a population base that's large enough to assign proportionality to that group.

That's the major point I am trying to make here. Look at the north in terms of its common interests, rather than the political boundaries, because that's the only way the northerners will get larger and better representation in the House of Commons. Northerners and indigenous people need more representation there. Their issues are at the table in Parliament to a greater extent than those of other parts of this country.

What you are doing is important, and I'm very glad that you are here in the north and visiting the different communities to understand what we need from the changes you're going to make.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Bevington.

We'll go to our—

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

I'll just give you an overview of how the Q and A period functions. Each member of the committee has an opportunity to engage with the witnesses for five minutes, and that includes, of course, the questions and the answers.

We'll start with Ms. Romanado, for five minutes, please.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I 'd like to thank our panellists and the members of the audience for being here today. Thank you for coming out.

What's great about this committee is that we are able to go coast to coast to coast to meet people. Unfortunately the schedule is a little tight so we won't have a lot of time to visit and see the sights, but we did get to see it from the cab from the airport to here. I got to see a little.

I'll start with Mr. Sebert. You brought something new to this table that we hadn't heard before about reaching folks here in the Northwest Territories. You talked a little about radio and print media being staples for reaching out to folks, which we didn't hear in the rest of Canada. We always hear about social media. We hear about using the Internet. You've given us some pretty important information regarding the stability of broadband here in the Northwest Territories.

You also touched on the lack of photo ID, which I was not aware of, and the importance of vouching. When we talk about accessibility for folks who would like to be part of the democratic process, knowing the unique challenges that are faced here in the north, it's important for us to hear that, and I was not aware of it. Thank you for bringing that forward.

On vouching, you mentioned in provincial elections you allow folks to vouch for up to five people. Could you give us a sense of how the impact of the removal of the voting ID cards as a use of proof of address and changes to the Elections Act have impacted the ability of people to participate in elections? Could you elaborate a little on that?

Then I'll have a question for Mr. Bevington.

[Louis Sebert]

As I mentioned, fewer people up here have photo ID than probably anywhere else in Canada. We don't know what the vouching numbers were for the last election but speaking for my riding, I think they were pretty significant in my small town. Like Mr. Bevington, I also come from Fort Smith. As I mentioned, in the 2011 election, for every 1,000 ballots cast, 50 were by electors who were vouched for by another person. It's not a huge number but it's pretty significant, and we haven't received the statistics yet for this past election but I would expect they would be as significant.

I should add also that the vouching was twice as likely to take place outside of Yellowknife in the small communities as in Yellowknife. It was utilized far more in the small communities where there's less ID than it is in Yellowknife.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Bevington, I didn't have the pleasure of working with you as I'm a newbie on the Hill but thank you for your service to Canada.

You mentioned you were supportive of mixed proportional representation and of course in the north with the riding really being one big riding with one representative. What would your preference be in rural-urban? Would you recommend that the three territories remain with first past the post and the rest of Canada go with proportional? I'd like you to elaborate a little on your thoughts. Then could you also elaborate on your thoughts on the lists for the proportional seats? Would those be closed lists or open lists?

[Dennis Bevington]

I think that for us not to be involved in mixed member proportional would make us second-class citizens under voting. I don't think that should happen. I think there has to be a way that we can.... Obviously, have a member of Parliament elected from each of the territories because that's an essential thing in Ottawa. But there has to be a way that northerners, and I spoke to that, can look at the north as a region rather than as jurisdictions. You can include places like northern Manitoba, northern Saskatchewan, the other parts of the provinces that have similar interests.

Why is it that when we look at the making of mixed member proportional representation we can only think of it in terms of provinces and territories? Can we think of it in terms of regions of interest and have rules that would make that possible? There are so many common interests among the northern people of Canada. As I mentioned earlier, we live in similar worlds across the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much.

We'll go now to Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Dennis, I want to start by asking you a couple of things, first of all by saying how nice it is to see you again. You look—I've noticed this with a number of my former colleagues who have left political life—better rested, less kind of pasty than those of us who stayed on. At any rate, it is good to see you and to listen to what you had to say.

I have a very strong sense...I have no particular expertise about the north, but I am a historian so I'm aware of the fact that much of what is now northern Manitoba, northern Ontario, northern Quebec, was actually part of what was then a much larger Northwest Territories, and was given to the provinces often, or perhaps always, without much regard for the people who were actually living there. For example, the Inuit in northern Quebec share a language and a culture with people who are in Nunavut. I'm positive that when that land was transferred to Quebec in 1912, that was not taken into account. I'm guessing a similar history applies to these other areas, so I have a lot of sympathy for what you're saying about the commonalities of interest.

I suspect there is a constitutional barrier that makes it impossible to have votes in one province—I'm saying province, not territory here—affect representation in another. I suspect the courts would not permit that. But I do think it would be possible—I'm not recommending this; I'm more asking for your opinion on this because it actually came up when we were in Whitehorse—to consider the idea of having some kind of joint representation across the territories. Territories are not baked into the Constitution the same way that provinces are.

An idea that was discussed there, not conclusively of course, was the idea that you could have all three territories having some kind of system that allows for a degree of proportionality among their federal MPs. You obviously need to have more than one MP to have some kind of degree of proportionality, and this would be a way of achieving it.

What you lose, of course, is that while there are common interests, there are also some obvious distinctions. You have three separate governments all working with Ottawa and doing their own domestic legislation, and the linguistic and cultural makeup of the territories have some differences as well.

May I throw out that idea that was tossed around when we were in Whitehorse, and ask what you think of that idea?

[Dennis Bevington]

Well, I go back to what I said about this being a colonial state, and constitutionality versus practicality. We accepted the British system 150 years ago. Is it the system that we should have accepted? No. Maybe at that time that was a good idea because we didn't know anything else, but now we know differently. We know this country is different from Britain, and it will require different solutions to provide the answers.

I would say there's going to have to be some head knocking here on this whole issue of mixed proportional representation, and we need to throw everything on the table if we want to understand how the system can work. It has to be done in an open fashion, so I applaud this committee.

As a committee, I would encourage you to take a look at solutions that work for Canada, because we're not going to do this again for a long time. If you do make a change to the electoral system, it's not going to be an ongoing change. It's going to be a chance to do something properly here. Whatever it requires to do that, let's do it.

There was talk about having indigenous voters vote for representatives across the country at one time. I know that was an NDP position, that we provide indigenous seats in the House of Commons, because we knew how important and how necessary it was for that group in our society to have better representation. Can we provide it in a good fashion through mixed proportional representation in the rules we lay out for the political parties, once you move out of how the political parties are bound by the Constitution when they create the lists of people who are going to be appointed once they go through the process of voting in the system?

The political parties are the ones that are going to actually decide who gets to sit in Parliament for the mixed proportional representation, so I don't think that part is constitutional.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks. Your time is up.

We'll go to Mr. Boulerice.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Messrs. Dunbar, Sebert and Bevington, thank you for being here with us today.

We saw some beautiful landscapes as we landed in Yellowknife, not just from the taxi. I am very pleased to be setting foot in Yellowknife for the first time.

The committee has been sitting for some time now. We sat this summer, and we have been touring for nearly two weeks now. As Mr. Bevington said, we have an important and historic mandate to study a new voting system pursuant to the Liberal government's promise that 2015 will be the last year for the present one.

Mr. Bevington, you advocated the mixed-member proportional position. I find it very interesting that you discussed your relations with parliamentarians from the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, Denmark, Sweden and other countries that have been using that system for decades. Where I come from, a coalition is often presented as a sin that you should not commit, a kind of bogeyman, whereas it is normal for most western democracies. It is normal to discuss issues, form a consensus, and find solutions.

Arend Lijphart, the American academic, also said that switching from simple-plurality voting to the proportional system changed the political culture. You suggested that the role of members should be increased in parliaments, not decreased. The current system tends to reduce the role of individual MPs.

In Edmonton yesterday, Mr. Green told us this:

“As far as I'm concerned, we are not electing trained seals”.

However, sometimes you would think that is the case.

I would like to know what you think a proportional voting system might change in Canadian political culture at the federal level and in the role of MPs as representatives of their communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Before you answer, Mr. Bevington, I would remind the audience that there are simultaneous interpretation devices on that table. If you would like to take one, feel free.

Go ahead, Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington]

It was a wonderful experience working with other parliamentarians from other systems, because one understood that our system doesn't have to be this way. It doesn't have to be the way we have it. We have a choice, and that's the exciting thing. We have a choice that we can make.

I've sat through both minority and majority governments, and it's quite clear that minority governments gave more responsibility and more practical authority to individual MPs. I mean, we had many votes that were pretty close, and those were times when things were good. On committees, it made an incredible difference to have a balance. I felt we had more issues that were of importance on committees during the times when we had minority governments. The members of Parliament on committees had more opportunity to put forward their positions than at any other time in Parliament.

There are things that can change. I feel that proportional representation, in its nature, will increase the role of members of Parliament. I would ask you to consult with other MPs who have gone through this process. I know your chair here has experienced all manner of political set-ups. He's been in majority and minority governments, so there you go.

I appeal to the knowledge of all MPs on this particular item, but I do feel it will be good.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Bevington.

We are trying to find a genuinely Canadian solution. The geography of the federation—the circumstances of the north with its small population and very large area—creates special situations. The Danish, Dutch, and Irish system cannot be applied to Canada; it will not work.

We have often heard Mr. Kingsley say we can have a hybrid system. Mr. Bevington, you say that, no, we do not want to be in a separate class; we want to be included in the proportional system. How do we go about doing that? Can we elect two MPs per district? Can we elect one or two more as "super northern" members for the three territories, or do we assign those additional members to northern Saskatchewan, northern Quebec and northern Ontario? That may be the only place where we would add members if we changed systems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, and please be brief.

The question is for Mr. Sebert.

[Louis Sebert]

Although I'm identified as appearing as an individual today, my invitation is as a justice minister, so I'm a little constrained about sending forth my own personal views on these matters. I do want to say, however, that if there are any changes, they have to be in very plain language and absolutely clear to the voters. As I mentioned previously, our education levels are probably not as high as they are in other parts of Canada, so explaining a complex system may be difficult in the Northwest Territories. I would therefore tend to think that complexity is bad, and that we'd prefer a simple system. That doesn't mean we can't look at a new system, but I can't really give an opinion on what system my government would prefer. I don't have that mandate.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We'll go now to Monsieur Ste-Marie.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, gentlemen.

I apologize for being late and missing your presentations. I misread the agenda and was convinced the committee meeting was to start an hour later. I want to thank the clerk for her reminder. While you were making your presentations, I was busy walking the city streets and eating at Sushi North, the restaurant the interpretation team suggested to me. Thank you for that very good suggestion.

My questions are intended for Mr. Bevington more particularly, but Mr. Sebert may also answer them if he wishes.

Do you think the reform project should be prepared quickly, or should we push back the deadline to ensure it is well done? In other words, are we ready or would it be better to take more time? That is my first question.

Here is my second question. In British Columbia, a citizens assembly was established to study the issue carefully. Would it not be a good idea to explore this avenue at the federal level? I would also like to hear your views on the idea of reserving seats for the representatives of aboriginal people and Inuit First Nations?

[Dennis Bevington]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

You are in a very tight time frame, so I think if you move ahead with this, this committee will have to work very hard to come up with the answers you're looking for. As you say, there will be some bigger issues with that. We've heard talk of constitutional issues. We know that people may or may not want to conduct a referendum. I think if you don't move ahead, though, in a timely fashion, you're going to lose the initiative to do this.

So I'd say that quite clearly the majority of Canadians voted for parties that promised them electoral reform and that there is an obligation on our part to work collectively to come up with some answers here. That's something that is a challenge to all MPs. In Canada it's a challenge to work together, and I see in other countries it's not as big a challenge. So we have to change what we're doing to work together. Part of what you can do here is to set an example of working together to come up with solutions, as the majority of you promised the voters you would do.

For indigenous people, I absolutely believe that there has to be a way, and that's why I said the north and indigenous people have many similarities. In fact in the Northwest Territories, 50% of our population is indigenous. In Nunavut, it's 80% or 90% indigenous. In Yukon it's 20% or 25% indigenous. The northern regions of many provinces have a high degree of indigenous people in them. Those people have very similar interests. It's my opinion that this is an area of interest on which people could work together and that should be recognized. It's going to be difficult to give our three territories extra seats. This territory has 40,000 people, and we have a seat in Parliament. It's going to be very difficult to give us two seats in Parliament.

What about Atlantic Canada? Is there going to be regionality there? Are you going to throw the four provinces in Atlantic Canada together? Otherwise, Prince Edward Island isn't going to get much proportionality either. It has four seats for 100,000 people. So this is an issue not just for the north. It's an issue in Atlantic Canada, and I think you have to recognize that and realize that with the mixed proportionality, there need to be areas of regional interest, and the political parties have to be held responsible for making that distinction.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Did Mr. Sebert want to add anything?

[Louis Sebert]

Of course we do have one MP for a population of 43,000. The government hasn't taken any position on electoral reform of any kind, but my main concern would be to have a system that is not terribly complicated. If you were willing to give us more seats, I imagine I could speak for the government in agreeing to that, but not on too much more. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We'll go now to Ms. May.