Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 6th, 2016

[Peter Bevan-Baker, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

Our Island, and I would like to suggest our country, have been built on strong principles, principles like fairness, neighbourliness, inclusivity, and integrity. I would like a voting system that reflects those values.

On fairness, Islanders and Canadians like fair play. We don't like injustice. Is it fair when 40% of Islanders elect a majority government that holds 67% of the seats and therefore 100% of the power? I would like an electoral system that reflects our desire for fairness.

As for neighbourliness, one feature of island life is our desire to help each other, and that's reflected in an infinite variety of ways, in fundraisers and socials, going all the way back to the day when you would help your neighbour get the crop in. This naturally collaborative instinct is not reflected in politics today. Politics is combative, hostile, and unfriendly. It's quite the opposite of who we are as Islanders and Canadians. I'd prefer an electoral system that promotes co-operation and working together towards shared solutions.

On inclusivity, Islanders are inclusive. We don't like to leave people out. We embrace diversity. But our current electoral system consistently creates a legislature that does not reflect the rich variety of island life. We are diverse ethnically, socially, and in age, and yet our Parliament is dominated, as somebody said, by pale, stale males. My community is 51% female, and yet our legislature is 15% female. I would like an electoral system that would result in a more diverse Parliament that better reflects who we are.

Concerning integrity, Islanders are principled people, but our politics, unfortunately, has not always been that way. Patronage, cronyism, and corruption have long, storied histories on Prince Edward Island, and part of the reason for that is that, for over a century and a half, two parties have shared power almost equally, holding 100% of the power 50% of the time, which has been fine for them, but it's created all sorts of problems. I'd prefer an electoral system that would minimize the opportunities for the abuse of power, not facilitate it.

In short, I would prefer a proportional system.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's a very eloquent statement. Thank you.

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

Just so you know, Peter Bevan-Baker is also a member of the Prince Edward Island Special Committee on Democratic Renewal and is the leader of the Green Party of P.E.I.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Bevan-Baker, yes, we were discussing you at dinner, but not by name, so it's nice to meet you.

Ms. Eleanor Reddin, go ahead, please.

[Eleanor Reddin, As an Individual]

I support proportional representation. It only makes sense to me that the percentage of votes that a party receives should be reflected in the percentage of seats in Parliament or in the legislature. I appreciate that the committee has come to P.E.I., but I suggest that you not use our current electoral reform process as a model.

I realize that a number of people, as Anna Keenan mentioned, have put a lot of effort into the current process, but ranking five possible options on a ballot in a plebiscite is unlikely to result in any change for the better.

I suggest that you not recommend a referendum or a plebiscite. Recent examples of referenda are Brexit, and the failure of the peace process in Colombia. Referendums are not necessarily good indicators of what would result in positive social change, political change.

Prime Minister Trudeau and the Liberals promised that the last election would be the last first-past-the-post election, so there's no need for a referendum or a plebiscite.

The only reasonable alternative, in my view, to first past the post is proportional representation.

I hope the committee will not recommend a referendum or a plebiscite, but will choose a form of proportional representation from the available models and put that forward for action. Personally, I favour the dual-member proportional, and I did even before Anna made all those convincing arguments this evening.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Ms. Lucy Morkunas.

[Lucy Morkunas, As an Individual]

I commend this committee for the work your are doing. This is proportional representation in action.

I'm an accidental political junkie. There was little political engagement in my family when I was growing up in Ontario. Over the last few years I became concerned with government at both the provincial and national levels. I stumbled into an introduction to political science course at UPEI a couple of years ago and it just went from there. Another course on electoral reform coincided with Prince Edward Island's own exploration of the topic of electoral reform. I wrote a paper on the best electoral system for Prince Edward Island and got a pretty good mark. I am now volunteering to help bring proportional representation to the island.

Last fall, the P.E.I. Special Committee on Democratic Renewal hosted a series of public consultations. I remember commenting from the audience to the committee that I didn't support a plebiscite, but at that point it was a done deal as far as P.E.I. was concerned. It is not a done deal for you. I think you, as a committee that reflects the popular vote, that has listened to the testimony of experts and civic leaders, that has access to resources of analysts and researchers, are in a better position to make an informed recommendation for change to PR, and PR it should be. There has never been a citizens' assembly or a royal commission or a study that has supported the status quo. In taking all that information, do what is best for voters: make 2019 the first election with proportional representation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll hear from Teresa Doyle now.

[Teresa Doyle, As an Individual]

Thank you so much for coming here to Charlottetown.

I am a musician, an activist, and an incurable political junkie. I am looking around this room at the faces of people who have the opportunity to make history. You've been given such an incredible task. What you are about to do is the most important thing in Canadian democracy since women got the vote.

I feel the excitement in this room, and I know you can do it. Even if we fail with our flawed plebiscite here in Prince Edward Island, we are all working so hard. You are the people who can get this job done.

I've been voting for 40 years. Sadly, I have never voted for the winning party, but I am not a particularly unlucky person, because in most of those cases I was in a group of 60% of the country that was not represented by the government in power. You have as little as 38% of the popular vote giving a party 100% of the power, and that happens in Prince Edward Island over and over again.

A couple of years ago, we had a very unpopular highway project, and in an informal plebiscite, 93% of Islanders said, “We do not want those hemlocks coming down. The road is fine the way it is. We don't want to spend that $26 million.” What happened? The government with 38% of the popular vote rammed that through.

This makes the work of activists absolutely gruelling. In my lifetime, I have spent so much of my time when I could be writing songs coming to meetings and begging people, who were actually being paid, to do the job, to do the right thing. But 60% of us go home empty-handed because the power continuously lies with so few.

I am happy to say that I ran for the Green Party in the federal election last year, and 75% of the Green Party candidates in Prince Edward Island were women. We had a very strong showing. I had a great experience, but I knew there was no chance of winning. I am very concerned about the state of our democracy, but this woman will not run again under first past the post.

Please, make history. We have great confidence in this committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Philip Brown.

[Philip Brown, As an Individual]

Thank you, and welcome to Prince Edward Island. We are very pleased that the committee came to Prince Edward Island.

First, I want to touch on the subject of a preferential ballot. I have a strong opposition to that. The root of this is choosing a preference where there is agreement on the subject, and the exercise is to distill the options. It is efficient when choosing a variation of a proposition. I'd like you to think about choosing a new car. You decide on the make or the model—or you decide whether it's going to be a four-door car, a minivan, or a sports car—and then you decide which one you are going to buy. You don't have to choose the differences. You have already decided on one thing, and then you distill that down.

Parties must present voters with options, and vigorous, respectful debate is not an enemy of democracy. A preferential ballot will lead to fewer policy options, as all parties will try to be at least the second choice.

If we are going to change the way Canadians vote, we should allow Canadians the opportunity to vote on the options. To say Canadians voted for this in the last election, I believe, is a stretch. Canadians voted for a $10-billion deficit, and I think the budget presented one slightly higher than that. Every election we make choices. I expect most non-partisan voters have to accept some compromise when they choose a party and its platform. I have friends who had much trouble voting for the current government based on a certain issue, but they thought the previous government had to change, so they did that.

I don't believe this issue was central to the mandate that the government received, but I do agree with Mr. Cullen that the desire of the government to look at the subject does present the opportunity for a full and wholesome discussion. If the discussion concludes that our current system is the best option, then this discussion is still worthwhile.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. MacMillan

[Ron MacMillan, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for coming to P.E.I. It brings Parliament to our province and we're very appreciative of that.

I guess I'm another—what is it—male, pale, and stale, so I apologize for that. I was the Conservative candidate in the last election in Charlottetown—the unsuccessful Conservative candidate, I should say, so I'm open to all options available. I have been unable to find any option that would have got me elected so if you can come up with one, kudos to you. That's all I can say.

Like other candidates across Canada and in Prince Edward Island, I knocked on thousands of doors during the federal election. I can only speak of the Charlottetown riding, which is where I ran as a candidate, and I can say that the electoral system was not front and centre. It may have been brought up with candidates for other parties—I'm not sure—but with me it was not.

I got asked about lots of issues at the doors I knocked on, but this was not one of them. There were issues like jobs, the EI system, Canada Post, and the refugee crisis. There were many issues that were brought up, but this was not a significant issue, at least not to me.

I'm not sure what the answer is, whether it's a referendum, a plebiscite, or a ballot question at the election in the fall of 2019. I'm not sure, but I do think, Mr. Chair, that there is some process beyond just this.

I appreciate the excellent work this committee is doing, but I do think there is some process beyond this and beyond just going back to Parliament, because if it was not an issue at the door for me, it may not be an issue in other ridings either. Above all, it's very important to get buy-in from the public on this issue. This is a very important issue for Canadians. I offer a word of caution to the committee. Just make sure that the public buys in to whatever the recommendations to Parliament are, and then it's up to Parliament.

There is a process out there. I can't put my finger on whether it is a referendum, a plebiscite, or a ballot question on the next election, but I think there is some process beyond this committee and beyond Parliament to ensure that there is buy-in from the public.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. MacMillan.

Mr. Peter Kizoff, go ahead, sir.

[Peter Kizoff, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for being here. I realize it's a tremendous contribution you're making of time and effort, travelling the country, one-night-stands, going from place to place like rock stars, and presumably not trashing too many hotel rooms. I know it's been a lot of hard work, and like many other Canadians, I am interested in this issue and very appreciative of that.

I want to start off with something with a little audience participation, if I could. Could all those who can comfortably stand up, please stand up for a moment.

This is an election 100 years ago and I'm going to arbitrarily assign 4% of this group, which is about 30 people, as electors. You, sir, will represent indigenous voters, because this is who was voting 100 years ago, so, sit down, sir, please. You, sir, will represent south Asians 100 years ago. You sit down, please. You, sir, will represent east Asians. You sit down, please. All the women sit down, please.

This is who was voting 100 years ago, lest we forget. Thanks. Everyone can sit down.

I agree with our previous musician friend that this is history in the making, and I can't underline that more. This is a historic opportunity. Now that I'm older, I play a little game with my friends called, “I'm so old that...” whether it's in my work as a family physician or as an observer of social change. Just think back to a previous generation, whatever it is, and think about the illegality of homosexual orientation, and the illegality of interracial marriage in the sixties, in the United States. The list goes on and on. We changed profoundly. We look back at previous generations and say, “How the hell could they do that?“

Well, this is what we have now. What this is is the GTA, anatomically correct, so to speak. Each of these little animals represents 51,000 voters, colour-coded according to the party they voted for. In one group over here are those who voted Liberals, about 1.25 million voters in the 50 ridings of the GTA, and over here are the same number of voters, within 1%, who voted in the group either CPC, NDP, or Green. Check out the outcome by MPs. There are 47 Liberal MPs and three CPC MPs.

I'm on the executive committee for the riding that I live in, which is Simcoe North, in Ontario. I was away on a canoe trip when you were in Toronto, and that's why I'm here. I'm visiting my friends in P.E.I.

I go around to schools and talk about electoral reform. I would challenge any member of this committee, if you wish to take up the challenge, to go into a high school civics class, as I have been doing for the past two years, and try to explain how first past the post makes sense. I guarantee that to anyone who's not been indoctrinated in voting first past the post, it's inexplicable. You cannot make sense of it. Unless you think I'm manipulating by presenting an aberrant situation here, about 52% of these voters got what they voted for, which is about what happened in the last election. As you may know, only 49% of people got what they voted for.

This is the take-home message, I hope, at the end of the day. Who can live with this? Who can honestly live with this? This is an accurate reflection of what happens every election under first past the post.

My challenge is that you have to look at historical perspective and see that you are making history. Get rid of first past the post. That cannot work. Where you go from there is up to you and how to make it work. First past the post's day may have come, but it's gone now.

By that same token—and it's the last point I'll make—if the argument for a referendum is that we want Canadians to have a chance to show us their preference, then you have to have a system where Canadians have a chance to show their preference, not a 50% chance, but close to a 100% chance.

By all means, have a referendum that doesn't have first past the post on it. Have people try a new system for two or three election cycles and vote again, because first past the post is going down if it goes head to head against any kind of proportional representation system.

Thank you for that time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That was more than two minutes, but it was well worth it.

Patrick Reid, go ahead.

[Patrick Reid, As an Individual]

I just want to thank all of you for coming to this small place that we call home. This means a lot.

I learned about this about a week ago. It made me the most enthusiastic about anything to do with government in my entire life. The fact that you are here really means a lot.

I'll give you an idea of where that enthusiasm has come from. I have been through five elections now, believe it or not. I'm only 32, but I've been through five elections, which I think is one piece of evidence of how our current system is broken.

I can tell you right now that I'm trying not to be dramatic by saying that I don't really feel like I live in a democracy right now. Democracy, as far as I've been told my entire life, is when a majority come to a consensus. That hasn't existed in my whole life. That's just flat out wrong to begin with. That right away is really dismal. I think all the committee has to do is look at the trend in terms of voter turnout as the population has gotten older and more young people are starting to want to become engaged. There's absolutely nothing preventing people from becoming engaged except our voting system. I haven't voted once where I thought it counted. I turn up every single time because I care about this country and I go home hoping that some day somebody will make a change to this system. This is the first time that there's been any talk about it.

Essentially, I think it's necessary, unless you think it's right that Canada has 58% of its population show up at the polls, and that gives the government a mandate to basically make every single decision for four years. Even as an MP I would not be very enthusiastic showing up knowing that only 58% showed up, and also that 39%, essentially, make all the decisions.

I'm here hopefully to advocate on behalf others who have voted recently, basically other young people who've only experienced a minority majority government.

I'm also here to advocate for a system called direct party and representative voting. I know that it's not currently in place in any federal government in the world. What I'm hoping is that this committee will look at some of the failures and some of the strengths of the systems and perhaps be open-minded enough to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Do you have some kind of description of the system that you could give to our analysts?

[Patrick Reid]

Absolutely. Yes, I can give you—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

—because to actually go over it would be a little difficult.

[Patrick Reid]

The beauty of it is it's very simple. I agree with Anna Keenan. Putting this in a plebiscite or a referendum, the complexities that obviously...I mean we have a committee on this. You are spending hours and hours and hours on this. A referendum, a plebiscite can't happen if you want change.

Essentially, in a nutshell, you can find a very articulate—far more articulate than me—presentation on DPR voting at dprvoting.org. It's a two ballot system—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If you do have something in writing, that would—

[Patrick Reid]

Yes, absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Well this has been a great day in Charlottetown. Everyone has been so engaging. We really thank you for coming out and making it a very special set of hearings and open-mike sessions for us.

Tomorrow, we're off to Fredericton. It's our last day on a three-week tour, but then in about 10 days, we have one more stop, which is Iqaluit, and then we can say that, truly, we've covered the whole country.

Thank you again for coming.

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

Mr. Chair, a couple of people in the audience have said that they want to see collaboration, and that it was nice to see this committee getting along. I just want to mention that last evening, members from all three parties did go and get screeched in, in Newfoundland. I just wanted to let you know that we went together.