Evidence of meeting #38 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 pei.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Leonard Russell  Chair, Commission on P.E.I.’s Electoral Future
Jordan Brown  Chair, Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island, Special Legislative Committee on Democratic Renewal
Jane Ledwell  Executive Director, P.E.I. Advisory Council on the Status of Women
Marcia Carroll  Executive Director, PEI Council of People with Disabilities
Marie Burge  Member, Cooper Institute
George Hunter  As an Individual
Brenda Oslawsky  As an Individual
Mary Cowper-Smith  As an Individual
Sylvia Poirier  As an Individual
Judy Shaw  As an Individual
Donna Dingwell  As an Individual
Lewis Newman  As an Individual
Darcie Lanthier  As an Individual
Josh Underhay  As an Individual
Leo Cheverie  As an Individual
Anna Keenan  As an Individual
Dawn Wilson  Executive Director, PEI Coalition for Women in Government
Don Desserud  Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Prince Edward Island, As an Individual
Peter Bevan-Baker  As an Individual
Eleanor Reddin  As an Individual
Lucy Morkunas  As an Individual
Teresa Doyle  As an Individual
Philip Brown  As an Individual
Ron MacMillan  As an Individual
Peter Kizoff  As an Individual
Patrick Reid  As an Individual

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

Would status of women not be advocating for that first and foremost since it is the quickest way to get that diversity and to get that balance of gender, whereas through another electoral system we may get 8%, I think you said, closer but we may never get there?

4:35 p.m.

Executive Director, P.E.I. Advisory Council on the Status of Women

Jane Ledwell

It's been recommended, and the appetite has not been there.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

Having seen the results of the 2005 referendum, would you be able to say that the appetite is there for MMP?

4:35 p.m.

Executive Director, P.E.I. Advisory Council on the Status of Women

Jane Ledwell

We're in the midst of a plebiscite and we're working really hard to help share information about the various systems. Our interest as an organization is in having people vote in a plebiscite with a system that best matches their values and to really understand what democratic values can be expressed through an electoral system, and also which ones can't, quite frankly.

I would hope that our engagement in the plebiscite wouldn't be interpreted as enthusiasm for going through a plebiscite process. The consensus among our council members is that in-depth consultation and meaningful discussion—such as what you are undertaking—across the province is a better option than a plebiscite or a referendum.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

Thank you to all of the panel members.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you, Ms. Sahota, and thank you to the witnesses, and thank you for the frank discussion. We're definitely taking away frank words from today's hearings, which help us immeasurably.

We'll start with Mr. Hunter for two minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Hunter.

4:35 p.m.

George Hunter As an Individual

Yes, that was a big surprise. My name is George Hunter, and I'm from Kensington. I'm not really very educated about electoral reform, but I certainly like to follow Canadian politics and try to understand the American ones. I was thinking to tell you a little about politics. My little hometown of Kensington, with a population of about 1,300 people, had a chair for the chief magistrate and a chair for each one of the six councillors. There were two more chairs for the press, and one for the general public. This would be a municipal government. That's quite a way to run some kind of a democratic institution, but if they knew better, they'd do better, but that's Prince Edward Island politics in a way.

I noticed at the start that these public meetings pretty well run along the same lines where the meeting has an agenda for 90 minutes. The experts get to talk for 80 minutes and the general public for 10 minutes, so I'll be quiet on that.

The most unrepresented people that I know of anywhere probably work over here aboard this ship. These fellows get left behind by shipowners and people like that. They're not even supplied food and that. There's a great organization in New York City called the Center for Seafarers' Rights.

Anyway, I'll close her up.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Hunter. We appreciate them. You're talking about the need for more democracy.

Go ahead, Ms. Oslawsky.

October 6th, 2016 / 4:40 p.m.

Brenda Oslawsky As an Individual

Hello. My name is Brenda Oslawsky, and I'm on the national council of Fair Vote Canada, which is a member group of the P.E.I. coalition for proportional representation.

It's been more than a year since the current provincial government announced a plebiscite on electoral reform. In my experience of going door to door and at event stalls, I found only about 20% of Islanders were aware of the plebiscite. This is after a year. Fewer than that were aware of the electoral options or what proportional representation is.

A plebiscite or referendum is not an efficient way of deciding this issue, or probably any issue. We didn't bring in the vote for women or the Charter of Rights with a referendum. In Switzerland, which decides many things by referendum, it took two referendums to finally gain women the right to vote in the early 1970s, decades after other western European countries. Only two of the over 90 countries that have PR have implemented it through a referendum or plebiscite: New Zealand and Switzerland. Ultimately, a referendum or plebiscite may simply be a way to thwart an idea whose time has come: if a citizen has a right to vote, they have a right to have that vote count or matter.

Thank you.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

I'd now ask Ms. Mary Cowper-Smith to speak.

4:40 p.m.

Mary Cowper-Smith As an Individual

I would like to speak in support of proportional representation. I am here on behalf of my two little granddaughters and in fact all the children and youth of Canada who I hope will inherit from us a better voting system than we currently have.

I have voted in every federal and provincial election since I was old enough to vote, and almost every time I either felt my vote was wasted or I felt compelled to vote strategically. As a voter, I have felt frustrated and cheated.

Clearly, proportional representation would eliminate both of these issues. Citizens would not feel forced to vote for any party or candidate who was not their first choice, and every vote would count. The distribution of seats in the House would represent the will of the voters—all the voters—across the country. Very likely, more people would exercise their right and responsibility to vote, knowing that their vote would make a difference.

Under a system of proportional representation, the co-operation necessary among parties to pass legislation would result in laws that would be more representative of the true majority of Canadians. Such legislation would also be less likely to be reversed by the next government. There would be more women, more visible minorities, more indigenous people, if voters could influence the outcome of more than one seat. Parties would nominate a more representative range of candidates to attract the votes of the diverse population of Canada.

Canada is far behind other democracies in electoral reform. It is time for us to choose a voting system that is fair and that gives voters an opportunity to elect a Parliament that is truly representative of their views.

Canadians are fortunate to live in a country that is safe and egalitarian. We can make it even better—more just, more inclusive, more progressive—by adopting a system of proportional representation.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Poirier.

4:45 p.m.

Sylvia Poirier As an Individual

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome your committee here. We were afraid that decisions might be decreed from the middle of the country, so we're very happy that you're visiting P.E.I.

My comments are few and simple. I ask that you invite the people of Canada to vote on this very important issue.

In P.E.I., as you've heard, we have a plebiscite. We were hoping for a referendum. There is a number of issues with the plebiscite. The complexity of the questions is daunting. We all know that in order to get good results, a research question, which this is in fact, has to be clear, and the questions are not clear. In addition, it is a preferential ballot, which I think will provide the opportunity for many spoiled ballots.

In closing, thank you for coming to the birthplace of Confederation, and I ask that all Canadians be allowed to exercise their democratic vote.

Thank you.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Ms. Shaw, go ahead.

4:45 p.m.

Judy Shaw As an Individual

My name is Judy Shaw. I was not born in Prince Edward Island, but I retired here to my family's farm in St. Catherines, Prince Edward Island. Prior to that, I worked for a large agri-business in Canada and in Switzerland, for 34 years. That's where my comments come from.

I also want to thank you very much for the opportunity to speak here, and also for the fact that you are present in Prince Edward Island, the most beautiful province in Canada.

My comments are limited to one aspect; that is, the great importance of how we vote and what changes can be made. For this reason, I believe it should be taken to the people by either a referendum or a plebiscite.

I was here all afternoon, and one of the things that didn't come out this afternoon was the fact that the people around your committee, as well as Mr. Russell and Mr. Brown, had the opportunity to come into a committee and learn a great deal from the discussions you had around the table. Please don't take that away from the people. Only through a referendum or a plebiscite could that happen.

With all due respect, I would consider it incredibly arrogant for a committee, which had the opportunity to have this discussion, to take it away from the people.

That's all I have to say, and thank you very much.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Ms. Dingwell.

4:45 p.m.

Donna Dingwell As an Individual

Thank you.

I just want to say thank you to the committee. I realized this afternoon that this committee is actually formed with the PR system, which is awesome. That's what Canada wants: a PR system put in place.

I actually sit on the P.E.I. Federation of Labour and was asked to come and speak on behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress. I also sit on the coalition for PR and have learned so much in the last year about our election system. I am going to read just a few notes, since it's only two minutes.

CLC's slogan is “Proportional Representation. It's not complicated. It's just fair.” Canadians have an opportunity to choose a new way of deciding how their votes count and how elections shape future governments. It's an opportunity to choose new election rules that make voting matter so that more people feel it's important to participate. New rules let people see their vote still counts, even if the candidate or party they vote for doesn't win.

The simplest way to achieve this is for Canada to choose new rules like those used by most other countries. Some of the biggest modern democracies in the world have rules based on PR. As we know, times have changed. Not only do we all get to vote today; most of us vote for the political party we want to win far more often than we vote for any individual person, although that's still important.

When there were just two political parties, things still worked out, but today Canada's politics are more diverse, and first past the post isn't able to reflect that reality. Because local votes aren't reflected in the results, people feel their votes are wasted and stop participating. Studies of elections in countries that still use first past the post also show that fewer women and candidates from minority backgrounds are elected.

When we are talking about diversity, with Canada being multicultural, we really need to have more minorities and a more diverse section of MPs in our House.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Do you feel proportional representation achieves that best?

4:50 p.m.

As an Individual

Donna Dingwell

Yes, I do. Specifically, MMP would be the simplest way for Canada to move forward.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you. Unfortunately, time is up, but you've made your point, for sure.

Go ahead, Mr. Newman.

4:50 p.m.

Lewis Newman As an Individual

Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee members, I will confine my remarks to the public education campaign to precede a plebiscite.

When you recommend to the Parliament of Canada how to do this, please do not follow P.E.I.'s example. We have been kept in the dark. I called the chief electoral office in P.E.I. about a week ago, and I was told that there would be a mailing to every household in October. Voting starts October 29. There is really no time for public discussion or discussion among our friends. I think a lot of people, like me, are perfectly ignorant of the nuances of mixed member proportional representation and dual-member proportional representation. The only one of these five that I understand is first past the post, which is the only one I've ever seen. I understand it, and I fear that this is the one that P.E.I. is going to pick on its plebiscite, because we are ignorant of the other methods. Whether this is planned by the establishment or accidental I don't know, but we are certainly very much in the dark at the present time about these methods.

Our media has let us down badly. There has never been a good discussion that I know of in any of the media about what these different methods mean. I am very disappointed about that, and I am very disappointed about our government not letting us have an opportunity to learn about the other methods. This is really not a fair plebiscite, so far as I am concerned, I really think it should be postponed for about six months, but that's not going to happen.

Anyway, that's all I have to say.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you, Mr. Newman.

Go ahead, Ms. Lanthier.

4:50 p.m.

Darcie Lanthier As an Individual

I'm Darcie Lanthier.

I would commend, first of all, the Liberals and even Justin Trudeau. I was a very good Liberal for a long time, but my member of Parliament is Lawrence MacAulay, the member for Cardigan, so you can understand why I'm no longer a really good Liberal.

But Justin Trudeau did in fact tell us that this would be the last unfair election; 2015 as the last unfair election, that was a promise. We were also told that every vote would count. We cannot just tinker with the system a tiny bit and have the result of every vote counting. My favourite is DMP.

Last October, we changed a strong, stable Conservative 39.6% majority for a Liberal landslide of 39.5%. We have a 39.5% majority in Canada, a 40.8% majority in P.E.I., 42.5% in New Brunswick, 45.7% in Nova Scotia, 38.6% in Ontario, 40.6% in Alberta, 41.5% in Quebec, and 44.1% in B.C. Does this sound like a system that's working for everybody? I don't think so. It's not working for me.

I've been out knocking on doors and, to a person, what young people say is, “I don't vote and I don't vote because the system doesn't work; I don't believe in this system.” I'm trying to get them to come out to vote to change the system. There's some movement there, I'm hoping. We can only hope.

I went to every single hearing on Prince Edward Island from our local committee, which doesn't have the courage to actually make a decision but who is putting it out like this in the ballot. A young person listened to everything that was said and stood up at the very end and said, “I didn't choose the system that we're using now. Why don't you change it to something better? Let's try that out for a couple of elections, and then if you want to change it, have a plebiscite and we'll know what we're voting on.”

If you think you can do a better job, it's your job to do it. That's why we voted for you. More than 60% of us voted for a party that favours electoral reform and proportional representation. It's your job to get on with it. I sure hope you do.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

We'll go with Mr. Underhay.

4:55 p.m.

Josh Underhay As an Individual

Good day. I just want to say welcome to P.E.I. It's very 1864, delegates from Upper and Lower Canada coming down to Charlottetown. It's awesome. It's perfect. It's very apt that you guys are here, so welcome, everybody.

I just wanted to echo some of the other people who are here supporting proportional representation.

John Nater, you had a concern earlier regarding the districts and the fact that some of the members would be list members and some of them would be representing a district. One of the options not on the literature that the panel is studying but that we are looking at in P.E.I. is the dual-member system. It's pretty interesting because the solution I think to the concern you were discussing is actually to combine the districts. In P.E.I., for example, we'd be guaranteed four. Therefore, if we ended up with two districts of two each, that would be four. We wouldn't have to double the number of MPs across the country. We could keep the number of MPs relatively the same.

By combining the districts you have a couple of advantages. You're alleviating the concern of list members who aren't accountable to a particular region, so you take care of the concern about lists. You get more collaboration between parties—I think that Marie Burge was mentioning that earlier—so you get more collaboration, people working together. It also still offers regional representation.

To one of the other concerns, regarding stability over time, essentially in our current system we have these massive shifts. You have a blue majority and then you have a red majority and you have these huge shifts. Proponents for the first-past-the-post system like to say that it's more stable and that minority governments don't work. But as Darcie mentioned about the total number of votes representing the people, it would actually be stable over time. If you had a minority government system representing, say, 10% Greens, 20% NDP, and so on, representing what the people believe, the next election wouldn't shift very much, and the election after that wouldn't shift very much. Over time, you would have a stable representation in those minority governments, which can work and works in many countries.

Thank you.