Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 6th, 2016

[Marcia Carroll]

I don't know that it would affect people with disabilities in any way that's different from how it would affect any other segment of society. Traditionally on P.E.I. we know that people with disabilities get out and vote. They show up to vote at a pretty high rate. We don't have the capacity to collect those statistics, but we know what the turnout is from the work we do to get our folks out and from what the candidates tell us. We also see that reflected in the policy of Elections P.E.I., to make sure that polls are accessible.

We already know that there is a pretty high turnout for people with disabilities. I don't think mandatory voting would change that. I certainly don't see it as having a negative effect.

But to tell you the truth, I haven't really done a deep analysis. I don't really feel qualified to answer that.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Okay.

Ms. Burge, in your opening comments you said something to the effect that you would like to see the end of first past the post—gone, period. In the proposals for mixed member proportional, you would typically still have first past the post for electoral districts. Are you in favour of that, are you opposed to that part, or are you in favour of straight lists—

[Marie Burge]

The first part of the ballot, of course, is first past the post.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

So you're still in favour of that part.

[Marie Burge]

Sure. It's not the system. It's really important to keep the difference between the system and how voting is done. How voting is done is one thing. The system is something else. The system has to be the whole package. No, it works fine in that area, because we have a second vote, which then creates the full proportionality.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I'd like to follow up on that second part, the regional representation or the added seats, if you will. As you know, P.E.I. is guaranteed in the Constitution a floor of four seats in the federal Parliament, based on the Senate floor. It is constitutionally guaranteed. I don't get the sense that there's a huge appetite out there to greatly increase the number of seats in Canada's Parliament—we're already at 338—but I could be wrong.

When you have a relatively small region such as P.E.I., with four seats, creating that second tier of members—I don't want to say “second tier”, but I will for the sake of clarity—and doing that proportionally would be an awful challenge, I would think, with a limited number of seats, such as four. In terms of expanding the region to include the maritime provinces or all the Atlantic provinces, I think Mr. DeCourcey would agree that there are differences between the provinces.

I'm wondering how that might work with a small number of seats, such as the four seats in P.E.I.

[Marie Burge]

I have no idea how you'd have to work that out. You're going to have to work on it.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Absolutely.

[Marcia Carroll]

I don't know how you'll work that out, but I think we need to look at the big picture as opposed to regions. With a proportional system, we would hear a variety of voices from across the country. It doesn't matter where they come from, because the parties would have the ideology, which then would be voted in, that would be represented proportionally in our legislature, which would cause our governments to work differently.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Your recommendation is that the added seats, or additional seats, or whatever term we use—

[A voice]

Top-up seats.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

—the top-up seats wouldn't necessarily be tied to a region or a province, in your opinion.

[Marcia Carroll]

Well, I think they have to be tied to somewhere. They have to be tied to a province or a region.

For me, when you look at proportional representation, it's not the fact that P.E.I. has four seats. It's about how all the popular vote is reflected in the House, and then those voices are heard through representation of the popular vote. That currently doesn't happen.

[Marie Burge]

I would like to add that I wouldn't want to be the person proposing to Prince Edward Island that we would lose a seat or gain a seat.

[A voice]

Yes. Let's be clear on that.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Constitutionally though, there are four senators and the number of seats cannot drop below four senators. That's guaranteed constitutionally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much.

Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

To the panellists, you've all mentioned certain values that are important and the problems with first past the post. What issue would you rank, in whatever system we come up with as a committee, as the number one issue that this new first-past-the-post design would have to address?

[Marie Burge]

Collaboration would be number one, the fact that parties will and have to collaborate and in that collaboration a variety of voices have to be brought to the table that are not there now. If you have proportional representation, in fact you have more voices there than just those of the individuals who are present. You have the interests of the people, of the various sectors that you will then have represented, and that collaboration is key. We know from past experience that where we have parties collaborating, we have really good policy coming forward, so I would think the result of proportional representation on national policy would be really amazing.

There is something else. A study was done on climate change and the study showed that the more advanced the democratic system is, the higher the participation in work to make sure that climate change is on the agenda and is being worked on seriously. I really feel that not just the collaboration but the kinds of policies that come out of that will be totally different and progressive.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Ms. Carroll.

[Marcia Carroll]

For me it would be the proportionality. It would be how the seats are divided up and who actually sits in those seats. If you capture a certain amount of the popular vote, that translates into a certain number of seats. That's not what currently happens. Right now we see a really disproportionate piece. There's a huge majority in our House right now. That's not what the popular vote reflects.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Ms. Ledwell.

[Jane Ledwell]

I would say the principle and value behind our analysis has simply been that we wanted representation in parliaments, provincial and federal, that better reflects the diversity of Canadians, including the 50% who are women.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you. Collaboration, proportionality, and diversity are the three things.

Ms. Ledwell, you were saying that P.E.I. would not have an appetite for a quota system. Why do you feel that?

[Jane Ledwell]

It's not perceived as fair. It's perceived as a kind of imposed fairness. There's a kind of attachment to the idea that everyone has equality of opportunity with a level playing field.