Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 5th, 2016

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is the 13th day of a different city every day, but I wanted to cast my mind back. I first knew Mr. McCurdy from his heroic work with the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union in trying to protect the north Atlantic cod from destruction.

This was first put in my mind earlier today when Greg Malone was testifying. I have been doing a few scribbles and trying to figure out if there is really a link between the MPs we had in the House at the critical period that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was operating in a way that was guaranteed to lead to the extermination of our commercial cod stocks and the voices in Parliament at the time.

I've just looked at the 34th Parliament, which was in session during the critical years from 1988 to 1993, and we had a very powerful Progressive Conservative who was in charge of that file: John Crosbie. We had another Progressive Conservative and the rest were Liberals. There were no New Democratic Party voices at that time in Parliament.

I'm looking at when you lose the diversity of voices, and there weren't voices inside Parliament as I recall at the time. I was at the Sierra Club of Canada, and I was working with inshore fishermen and others trying to get DFO to reduce the quota so that the cod stocks wouldn't be eradicated.

I don't remember any Newfoundland MPs who were particularly active trying to help us. You have a better memory for this. You were right here at the time. Is it a stretch to think we would have had potentially a different result if there had been more diversity of voices in Parliament in that period, or is that a non-effective concern?

[Earle McCurdy]

I don't know if it would have had any impact on policy decisions at the time. That's hard to say. I do believe that it would have addressed, if nothing else, some of the frustration and alienation to have a voice given to the concerns people had.

I think the situation is rife for trouble now with not a single opposition member, and I think even more so. It's hard to say that would have materially affected that outcome when I look at how the decisions were made.

It never hurts to have another voice somewhere to speak up, especially when you have serious issues like the big question mark over the future of 40,000 people who lost their jobs at the snap of a finger. That's epic stuff. It's very important they feel that their concerns are being given voice on the national stage, and for that matter on the provincial stage.

When you have these distorted election results, then I think it acts against that and probably makes a bad situation worse.

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

One of the witnesses at the open mike last night in Halifax said to us that in a time when you have long-term issues and need a long-term view—like species extinction or climate change—the policy lurches of having a government in for a while and it swinging to the other side with a complete change of policy doesn't work. The kind of voting system—like first past the post—that creates this swing from hard left to hard right, for instance, doesn't work particularly well when looking at issues that require a long-term view, like whether we are fishing sustainably or planning for what is going to happen with climate change 20 years from now.

I don't know if this is something that has ever struck you. I have to say that I hadn't thought of any connection between proportional representation and fisheries policy until Greg Malone mentioned it earlier today.

[Earle McCurdy]

I'm a fan of the minority government. I look at what's been achieved in Canada with minority governments, relative to what's been achieved with majority governments, and I would say it worked it out pretty well in decisions made for the common good. I named a few major items earlier.

The current system is this kind of “winner take all” to the point where the previous government approached the election by saying, “What little measures can we put in to appeal to this little particular group, here, so that we can squeeze in a few more?” The target becomes not what's good for Canadians, but how can we push enough in to get to 37% or 38%.

I'm not suggesting that anyone would be necessarily above it, but it's just that this system can lead to people saying, “How do we massage enough votes in enough different places to get over that hump?” If you go from 37% to 40%—whatever party you are—you might go from 110 seats to 180. It's completely disproportional, so you end up with this targeting. It's small ideas when we need big ideas. I think that's what it gives rise to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll go to Mr. Aldag now.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. McCurdy, I want to just clarify that you're here as a representative of your party as opposed to as an individual. I'm going to focus more on the partisan aspect of things, if you're okay with that.

I appreciate the graphs that you presented us. I actually don't know Newfoundland politics very well. It's an area I haven't lived in. I've lived in a lot of the country but not in this particular beautiful province. I don't know things that I probably should, such as whether there has ever been an NDP government or if you've ever formed the official opposition.

When I look at the graphs here, it seems what's being presented is that under proportional representation the NDP would do better than they do under first past the post, at least in the 2011 and 2015 examples. One of the things we have heard is that you can't always necessarily project, and I don't know if you've just taken the numbers and projected them to what it could be under different systems. The point is that if we had a proportional representation system in place, people would behave differently. You may not actually get the projections that you've shown. People will sometimes use that third party as a protest vote, or strategic voting comes into play and all those types of things.

When I look at it, I wouldn't say I'm skeptical, but it seems that the NDP might like this in Newfoundland because it would give them a greater chance of being the official opposition or perhaps even forming government as we saw happen in Alberta. Is it the provincial party's position that PR is what you're advocating for? Have you ever had in your platform that if you were to form government, you would end the current system and go to a proportional representation voting system?

[Earle McCurdy]

On the latter point, as to whether it has ever been in the platform, not that I know of. I don't think there has been sufficient public debate for that to be an issue to put into a platform without really trying to stoke a debate first to get it going. I think it's a fair comment that some people might cast a vote differently. By and large, my sense is that most people would vote for the party they want, with some strategic voting maybe to make sure some particular party they really don't like doesn't get in.

In answer to your other question, we've only ever been the third party. We did come second in the popular vote, as I indicated earlier, but third in number of seats. There has been a tendency in this province to have more or less landslide legislatures back and forth. The total number of seats has ranged from 40 to 52 at different times, and there has been a single digit number of opposition members elected a lot of times.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Okay. On the dynamics of provincial politics here, are there are parties such as the Greens? Federally, I think we were told that something like 26 parties ran in the last election. Do you have that kind of dynamic as well, or is it really a three-party system?

[Earle McCurdy]

There have been others, but it's primarily three parties. The Greens had a couple of candidates at least, maybe more, in the last election.

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

We had candidates in every riding.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Every riding? I am sorry. I beg your pardon.

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

We had nobody provincially, but federally, yes.

[Earle McCurdy]

Yes, that was the federal election.

Every now and then, there have been other parties. There was a Labrador Party, people who believed that Labrador should separate from Newfoundland. Essentially, that was their position. They got one if not two people elected quite a number of years ago, but essentially it has been a three-party system, with the vast majority of seats being either red or blue.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

If you saw some sort of proportional representation system come in, then those other voices might feel more welcome, that they would actually have an opportunity. Do you get that kind of dynamic within the population in this province, that people feel that there's a greater need for their voice? Do people have that sense of disenfranchisement that we see in the federal system where people vote throughout their lifetime and never have their party elected, or is the split in Newfoundland that everybody gets their turn at some point? Is there the same level of need for change or call for change at the provincial level that we're hearing at the federal level?

[Earle McCurdy]

If there was a change in the system federally to something that people looked at and said that was a fair way of doing it, I think that would probably be fertile ground on which to launch a debate provincially as to a change in our system.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Sorry, the question wasn't entirely clear.

Is there that disenfranchised voice within the Newfoundland and Labrador population that they cast a vote and aren't heard, even though you have three parties that all seem to get seats and play a role within the provincial legislature?

[Earle McCurdy]

I have to say that after my first time in public politics—I was in union politics for a long time—the one conclusion I came away with was that people will cast a vote for a bewildering variety of reasons. I'm not quite sure what else to say about it. I think a system where seats more accurately reflected the vote would be received favourably and would enhance our democracy.

But I don't know; that may not answer your question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Aldag.

We'll go to Mr. Rayes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon.

Mr. McCurdy, thank you for joining us.

Would you say that, right now, the public is well-informed when it comes to electoral reform and the issues at stake?

[Earle McCurdy]

The broad population? Not really.

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

Not really?

[Earle McCurdy]

Not to any great extent. I don't think there has been a lot of debate here on it. There hasn't been any at the provincial level, and I'm not sure how many people follow the debate on the federal system. Politically engaged people do, but people whose participation in democracy consists of voting every four years—not so much, in my estimation.

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

I will tell you that is indeed the case. In fact, according to most of the polls and studies that have been done, less than 3% of the population cares about the issue and understands it.

If I'm not mistaken, one of my colleagues asked whether you would be in favour of widespread consultation in the form of a referendum, once a proposal had been chosen.

That would mean asking people whether they supported the proposal or not. All kinds of scenarios are being considered, but, for the time being, we don't have one to present to Canadians.

Do you think we should consult the entire Canadian population in the event that we decide to change the voting system?

[Earle McCurdy]

We have the opportunity for input, such as the opportunity to present here or by other means. I don't think this is the kind of issue that lends itself to, or would be particularly well served by, a referendum. I think the issue is one for Parliament to deal with. I don't think you'd go from 3% up to a substantial percentage of people who'd really be keen and enthused and engaged, who'd study up on all the implications of it.

I personally don't favour a referendum.

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

Professor Rémy Trudel, who appeared before the committee two days ago, in Montreal, told us that referendums were a powerful tool when it came to educating the population before making a major change.

Would you agree?