Evidence of meeting #36 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 riding.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
No, you still have about 45 seconds.
It's great information. This is very good testimony.
If you have anything else to add, go ahead, but if not, that's fine too.
7:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I just hope you recommend to keep the hand count.
It's the most transparent process as far as enumerating. The electronic voting technology is susceptible to hacking, from what I've read from computer scientists and political scientists and the like online.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's very interesting. Thank you so much.
Go ahead, Mr. Berard.
October 4th, 2016 / 7:55 p.m.
Robert Berard As an Individual
I had a look at the website today. It struck me, as I read the website, that rather than finding a solution for a problem we don't have, it suggested between 12 and 24 solutions for a problem I don't think we have with first past the post.
If we do, and if there is importance in having every MP elected with a majority of votes, I suggest you consider the runoff system that the French have.
The main point I want to make, however, has to do with the desire for inclusion, transparency, and meaningful engagement. I don't believe that anything in these reform proposals would effect those ends, but it would rather render the process less inclusive, less transparent, and potentially more alienating to voters. I would urge you to consider committing to a referendum on the matter. The process that has been designed here will exclude those who are unable to meet with this panel, whose right to vote on the question is their best guarantee of inclusion.
I might say, finally, that one of the reasons I would ask the government to reconsider its opposition to a clear referendum on a clear question of electoral reform is that Canadians, especially those who are members of designated groups, are being presented, in the current process, with over a dozen electoral systems in effect around the world, with substantial variations of each.
At the end of the day, the government will have to propose one, and this carbon-heavy process in which we are engaging here may or may not play much of a role in what that proposed solution will be. Whatever it turns out to be, the government should be prepared to let Canadians choose directly whether they prefer that reform or prefer to keep the system they have and know. I would suggest that a government that is frightened to find out the answer does not advance but mocks the principles that are laid out here.
Thank you.
7:55 p.m.
Daniel Makenzie As an Individual
Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I know that a referendum has been up in the air, and I know that changing the electoral system behind Canadians' back has also been up in the air. Why do we need to change first past the post? It's a system that works. It is proven to work, and it is best suited for the Westminster system. First past the post has been around for over 150 years, and it has been able to keep Canada stable through some of the greatest events in world history, including World War I, World War II, and the Great Depression. It has brought stability and kept parliamentarians to account. People wanted change in 2015, and they got it—and it was with first past the post.
Why change it? If we need a change, why not have a referendum and let Canadians choose how they elect their elected officials?
Thank you.
8 p.m.
Liberal
8 p.m.
Patrice Deschênes As an Individual
Good evening.
My name is Patrice Deschênes. I live in Halifax.
I arrived about 30 minutes ago and I heard a lot of horror stories. The fish are dying, polar bears are disappearing, nature is expiring, and all of it is due to the electoral system. A large part of the population is ignored, their voices are not heard, and all of that is because of our electoral system.
It is as if these people live in a parallel universe where they create imaginary problems. The reality I see here in Canada is a country that has been a democratic beacon in the world for 150 years. I see a country where, despite the fact that political parties don't agree, there is continuity in policies, except for the current government, whose objective is to completely erase the policies of the previous government. Nevertheless, the system works. This party was elected and has the right to act.
Creating imaginary problems and trying to solve them with medication that doesn't exist is something Molière spoke about in his play The Imaginary Invalid. That is what we are doing here in Canada. This exercise is a big charade, a long play by Molière. I find this disappointing.
I invite you to reconsider this effort, and I invite Canadians to reconsider their imaginary illness. Before we move to another system, please, hold a referendum, because Canadians know that we live in a country that is one of the world's leaders, a country that is economically stable and politically sound, a country where everyone benefits from our democratic strength.
Thank you.
8 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I'd just like to point out that Molière's The Hypochondriac is currently playing at the Stratford Festival in my riding, Perth—Wellington, for anyone who wishes to visit me.
8 p.m.
Suzanne Hauer As an Individual
Hello. Thank you so much.
My heart is pounding. I am not a public speaker, and I had no intention of speaking, but having been here since 1:15 this afternoon, I did not hear the point of view that I felt I wanted to express. I do have an electronic version that I will be sending to you tomorrow, I promise. But here's the point of view I would like to express—and please, my notes are so scribbled that I can hardly read them—about how addicted we are as Canadians to being able to have a relationship with our MP.
I can sympathize with this position, regarding the person-to-person point of view. I personally do not want a social worker, i.e., a constituency worker MP. I want an MP who will work together with other MPs to create policy to help Canada navigate into the future, policy that makes the social work role of an elected MP obsolete.
Many countries I admire have PR systems without the local MP component. In our riding, what counts as accountability is how many favours an MP has granted, how many ribbons have been cut, or how many funerals have been attended. Please do not think that I devalue an elected representative who is engaged with his or her community, but if I had to choose between having an MP who creates comprehensive policy for Canada's future and having one who gets re-elected based on how many public events he or she has been seen at between elections, I think you know what I would choose.
While I am, at this time, favouring MMP, which gives constituencies their own MP, I just wanted you to know that at least one Canadian has another viewpoint of an MP's role. I think PR can support my view of an MP.
Thank you, and I am against a referendum.
8:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you so much.
Both tonight's and this afternoon's open mike have been very thoughtful sessions with a lot of unique viewpoints and insights. People, you show us how it's done. Halifax, you really show what an open-mike session is all about and how it should work. Congratulations on your fabulous democratic spirit! Thank you for coming out.
To the members of the committee, we're meeting at 5:45 a.m. in the lobby for the plane.
Thank you so much.