Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 4th, 2016

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

The third point is that my candidate didn't win. I wanted my candidate A to win in riding X, but candidate A did not win. My vote got counted toward the party regionally, but at the end of the day my MP is still not the person I wanted.

[Matt Risser]

Right. I remember the question now.

You're not rewarding parties, because the elections, as they occur, occur the same way. Local candidates can be nominated in the same way. They run basically in the same way. The only thing you're transferring to the central party, as it were, is the vote to ensure proportionality. There's no party centralization in the way that typically gets talked about with other proportional models, which, to be honest, I don't have an issue with anyway.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Ms. Romanado.

Thank you to the panel. This has been another interesting discussion.

We can now go straight into the open-microphone session.

We have about 18 people who would like to make comments. The way we operate in the open-mike segment is that we ask that you limit your intervention to two minutes each in order to give everyone a chance to have their say. It has worked pretty much everywhere we've been on this tour. We find that if one is prepared, then two minutes really hits the mark.

I'll have two people at the mikes at a given time. While one person is speaking, the other person can gather their thoughts. Once the person speaking has finished, then we'll ask somebody else to come up to their mike. There are earpieces for anyone who might want to listen to the translation.

We'll start with Mr. Michael Marshall and Mr. Robert Batherson on mikes one and two, please.

Go ahead, Mr. Marshall.

[Michael Marshall, As an Individual]

I've come here today, across the big water, to argue against alternative voting.

Like most people, I think, my life is a series of compromises. I want to go to one movie. My granddaughter wants to go to another. She says, “You like that”, but really it's my third choice. I don't like Chinese food. My wife says, “Do you want to go here?” I say yes, but really it's my second choice. My boss wants me to do this. I'd much rather do that. Again, it's a third or fourth choice.

One bloody day every four years I get to walk into a ballot room and I get to cast my vote, “my” vote. It may be for somebody who loses. In fact, in my case, it usually is for someone who loses, for someone who gets a few percentage points, but it is my vote. In this case, I don't have to compromise.

I would like to argue against the alternative ballot in favour of proportional representation. I would envision not too far in the future a Parliament of 400 members, and some party gets one-half of 1% of the vote nationally. Now, strictly proportionately, they get two members, but they really haven't gathered much strength anywhere. I would argue that those voters might well be contented if they had one member like Elizabeth May sitting in Parliament representing their half of 1% across the country.

Yes, it's not proportional—they're getting half of what they should—but because they're so small, I'm saying it's fair. I think even the smallest parties, up to a very low threshold, could be represented by a voice, not a numerically correct voice but a single voice who could be perhaps the one person who says, “Let's not send our troops into Iraq.” There's always that one person who history then rewards with hindsight when the 400 other MPs are opposed. I don't think it has to be a very high threshold.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks. Good.

Mr. Batherson, please, you have two minutes.

[Robert Batherson, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. I have two points to share with you.

First off, we're in the city of Alexander Keith, and it's his 221st birthday this year. I hope committee members, at the end of a long day of hearings, will partake in a responsible way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're very grateful for his birth.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Robert Batherson]

It was actually germane to my first point, which is that one of Alexander Keith's truisms was and is to take the time to get it right. I was so pleased in reviewing your mandate to see that you are not bound by a deadline to have a new electoral system in place by October 2019. I know it was in one party's platform, but please take the time to do it right. Take the time to reach out and engage Canadians. Please go forward with a citizens' assembly that is representative, non-partisan, and independent.

All of your witnesses today have been of a certain gender and a certain ethnicity. I'd like to assure those members who are not from Nova Scotia that this is not the face of Halifax. It's not the face of Nova Scotia. I don't see any of our indigenous leaders in the province here. Please do not be boxed in to come forward with recommendations on an electoral system unless you take the time to get it right.

Second, we need a referendum. Why do we need a referendum? Because it's the Canadian way. That's how we do things in Canada. It's the Canadian way. Why do I know it's the Canadian way? Because in Ontario it was done in 2007 following a citizens' assembly. In British Columbia it was done in 2004 following a citizens' assembly, and it was done again in 2009. It was done in Prince Edward Island in 2005, and we're having a plebiscite right now on five options for electoral reform. If we can do it in British Columbia, if we can do it in Ontario, if we can do it in Prince Edward Island, we can certainly do it at the national level.

Finally, in Canada we have not been awash in direct democracy at the federal level. We've had only three national referendums in the history of this country. In 1898 there was a referendum on prohibition—and Alexander Keith's. In 1942, there was a referendum on conscription. In 1992 there was a referendum on a constitutional amendment. In only one of those were women and indigenous people allowed the right to vote. Certainly we can have a national referendum where all Canadians get to have their say.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Wear.

[Deirdre Wear, As an Individual]

Hi there. I've come a great distance at a risk to my health to be here to speak to you today because it's very important. I would like to request that you all put away your tablets and your phones and at least pretend to care what we say.

Good afternoon. My name is Deirdre Wear and I'm a resident of Cumberland County in Nova Scotia. I'm here today because I'm 57 years old and I've voted in every election since I came of age. The only time my vote has been represented in office was the one time I held my nose and voted strategically against my conscience and my values.

I have lived in Canada's largest city, a small city, and now a hamlet. I have never had an MP who represented my values. In fact, the last time I went to speak with my MP, it was about this very issue. When I told him about feeling disenfranchised by our electoral system, he smirked and told me that my problem is not first past the post, but that I do not support the Conservatives. I left his office feeling disrespected and even more disenfranchised. No Canadian should feel left out of the process if we are to claim that we are a democratic nation.

I have no fear of minority governments, as they encourage co-operation and consensus. False majorities caused by first past the post result in absolute power going to a party that does not have the support of the majority of Canadians. We end up with the latest government in power spending most of its time undoing the actions of the previous government and not making any real progress.

Three of the parties represented here today promised electoral reform in the last federal election campaign. The one that did not was benefiting at the time from a false majority under first past the post. The members of that party may have changed their tune since this is now to their detriment. Likewise, the party now benefiting from first past the post may be reconsidering.

I'm begging all of you here today to help Canada grow up and create a true democracy instead of just maintaining the illusion of one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, could I just make a small point?

I just want Ms. Wear and anyone else in the audience to know that I'm tweeting this live. I didn't put my BlackBerry down because I wanted to share what you had to say with everyone who is following these hearings and is not here. It was very powerful. Thank you.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I didn't mean to interrupt.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's all right. It's a worthwhile clarification.

We'll go to Shauna Wilcox now, please.

[Shauna Wilcox, As an Individual]

Greetings, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm a proud member of Unifor Local 4600, which represents 1,300 members in Cape Breton, and I'm here today to speak on electoral reform.

I believe it's the single most important issue to be addressed in Canadian democracy, and the time and opportunity for change is now. You have been given the task to hear from Canadians on this issue, and if you fail to take this opportunity, it will be a long time before these conditions come around again.

In Cape Breton—Canso, the area which I live in, the political outcome of the last election didn't reflect the wishes of the voters. We had close to 26% of the votes that were not represented in the legislature because they did not go to the winning candidate. Our first-past-the-post system does a bad job of translating the votes of Canadians into a distribution of seats that matches the preference of voters. Instead, it produces distorted outcomes and wasted votes and contributes to disengagement. We need more reasons for young people and all of those who have been alienated from politics to engage and participate.

My union Unifor has deliberately avoided focusing on detailed models to replace first past the post. At our national convention in August of this year, we overwhelmingly endorsed electoral reform as a proportional system that allocates seats in our Parliament in a way that gives weight to every vote. We expect this committee to reach a consensus and to recommend a system that is understandable to our members and to our community. Unifor doesn't want a referendum or another process that will make proportional voting impossible in the next election.

In closing, along with my union, I am calling for a new electoral system where we maintain a local representative, where every vote counts, and where our politicians are elected in proportion to the votes received. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Jessica Smith, go ahead.

[Jessica Smith, As an Individual]

Thank you for this opportunity to speak before the committee.

My name is Jessica Smith. I'm here today on behalf of myself and Unifor Local 4606, where I represent 1,300 members predominantly in long-term care here in the HRM and the surrounding area.

We feel very strongly about the need for electoral reform, and it is not only us but also Canadians from coast to coast. In our last election, every party but the Conservatives ran on a platform of electoral reform, because first past the post simply doesn't work. We are one of the few remaining countries with this broken system.

Last fall, in my own riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, 52% of the votes went unrepresented, with 72% actually participating. That's a large number. Not only were our votes unrepresented, but many of us also had to choose to vote strategically instead of the party that normally reflects our own beliefs.

This is an amazing time in our country. We have the opportunity to improve our democratic system. We want a government where every vote counts. We want a government to be formed in proportion to the numbers of votes cast per party. We want a government that continues to have local representation. We want a government that encourages co-operation in Parliament to help truly reflect the diversity of Canada.

I also urge you not to go to a referendum, but instead to propose a mandate. As I said before, almost all parties campaigned on electoral reform and making every vote count. Please do it the way New Zealand did. Try it out for a few elections, and then, if we feel we need a referendum, do one then.

I had the opportunity to attend a town hall on electoral reform in my district this last week. Many people didn't understand the systems, even after two hours of our discussing them. I implore you to be the leaders in this and make proportional representation, with local representation, happen.

Thank you very much for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Chair, on two or three occasions citizens spoke about the New Zealand model, and they said that a referendum was held after the voting system was changed. However, it is important to point out that two referendums were also held before the change was made. People forgot to mention that fact several times.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I guess what Mr. Rayes is saying is that we should note that New Zealand did have referenda before they changed, as well as after.

Yes, Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Far from a point of order, Chair, we had briefly discussed having more interaction during the open-mike time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don't want to go down that road.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Either we do or we don't. We've heard many people come forward and say things that we have opinions on or want to add to what the public say in their brief two minutes. I think it's best if as a committee we simply take it rather than try to intervene and tell the public what we think.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes. We're not going to make a practice of intervening.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

If there's a point of order, fine, but not if there's some sort of intervention or something that—