Evidence of meeting #39 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 women.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
I'm going to stop you because I should have been more clear.
I'm not talking about the instruction at those university and college-level courses. I'm talking about going to them and asking, “Can you deliver this content to the community at large so that Canadians who are not in university or in college can go and get accurate information.” I'm just using them as a conduit, but not necessarily to their normal customers.
4:30 p.m.
Assistant Professor, Department of History and Politics, University of New Brunswick Saint John, As an Individual
Yes. I mean, you mentioned SSHRC, and there are different grants at universities. It would have to be selected through the mechanisms they use, but there would be opportunity there.
I want to pick up on where you started to go with the question. I don't think I said the exact number before, but in this survey of all the policy actors in the civic education community, 77% put Elections Canada as the most trusted. It's not that Elections Canada hasn't made efforts. Jean-Pierre Kingsley I think in 2004 sent out postcards to people coming of voting age. I think when we saw the debate around Bill C-23, there was that ambiguous nature of what the Elections Canada role should be.
I would return to the clarification. We don't know a budget number, but there would have to be more resources. In terms of colleges and universities playing a role in the community, right now it's up to the individual faculty member. There are opportunities, and you can play that role as part of your day-to-day work, but again that's up to the individual faculty member. I think if there were more resources out there coming from an agency like Elections Canada, from the federal government, then that might help.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, Professor Lewis.
Mr. Elbert, thank you for all the work you put into designing a system that we can consider.
We'll move on now to the afternoon open-mike segment. We have another one this evening. I'll just explain for those who are in the audience how we function in the open-mike section. Each person has two minutes to deliver their comments. This has worked well everywhere. We have two mikes at the front. We'll make sure that both mikes are occupied all the time, so while one person is speaking, the other person can gather their thoughts in preparation for taking the active mike.
I will call Mr. John Gagnon first, and then Ms. Helen Chenell.
Mr. Gagnon, go ahead. You have two minutes, please. There will be a signal to indicate that you have 20 seconds left, which might help.
October 7th, 2016 / 4:35 p.m.
John Gagnon Member of the Executive Council, New Brunswick Federation of Labour
Good day. I'm John Gagnon representing the New Brunswick Federation of Labour. I'm going to speak on proportional representation.
We believe that a thorough consultation of Canadians is necessary. This consultation could take many forms, town hall meetings, the forum we have today, and similar or different forums. Improving our representation and accountability to our government is paramount to Canadians.
As for the costs, we believe Elections Canada should be consulted. In saying that, we believe that the infrastructure required by Elections Canada to run the elections should remain the same. We are talking about costs and that aspect.
The majority of Canada's peer nations have had some form of proportional voting the last few decades. Some of them include New Zealand, Australia, Scotland, and Wales, and they have similar histories and cultures to Canada, so it's not new. It's out there. Our primary goal is to make sure every vote counts and to ensure that no party gets the majority of the seats without getting the majority of the votes. We believe that's only fair.
Under our current system, some parties may be able to win all the seats in a particular region, even though they don't even come close to a majority of the votes to garner that. With the proportional representation system, if you get 30% of the vote, well, you get 30% of the seats, which makes sense to us. Votes would more accurately reflect the views of the voters if you had that system.
It would mean that regions will no longer appear to support one party. Just take a look at Atlantic Canada. The perception is that it's Liberal and everybody supports the Liberals. It's not the reality. They didn't get all the votes. I'm not saying this to be derogatory; it's just for argument's sake. It could be the Conservatives somewhere else.
One thing that's great about proportional representation is that we can include an aspect within it where you can still elect your MP. This would be great in that, in addition, you not only elect the local representative but you choose the party that best reflects your views under the system. I think that's lacking in the old system.
That's it?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Mr. Gagnon. You were talking about mixed member proportional at the end, basically. That's what you were saying, that we can have both.
4:40 p.m.
Member of the Executive Council, New Brunswick Federation of Labour
Yes.
Thank you.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
We're going to have to go to Ms. Chenell now.
Ms. Chenell, go ahead for two minutes, please.
4:40 p.m.
Helen Chenell As an Individual
Thank you.
First of all, I would like to thank this committee for coming, for their tireless efforts, and for the time they've taken away from their families and homes to travel across the country and hold these meetings. It's definitely a perfect example of a co-operative government. I do appreciate it, and I want you to know that, as a citizen, I trust you to go back and make a decision.
I don't see any need for a referendum. With only 3% of the population, you're telling me, being engaged, how could we ever have a vote? Take your information. You've heard lots of it, obviously, if this is any example. I trust you to come up with a decision.
I'm here for a selfish reason. I believe the first-past-the-post electoral system to be mathematically incorrect and morally wrong. I never want to hear again, as I'm going door-to-door, someone say, “My vote doesn't count”, “Nothing ever changes”, and “My party never wins”, or as in the last election, which was very disheartening, that people voted out of fear—fear!
Everywhere in today's society we're offered choices. Grocery stores have food from all over the world. Clothing comes in every style, shape, and colour. There are more channels on our TVs than we could ever watch. Yet why, when we elect governments, do we send a message to voters that, unless you vote for the winning candidate, your ideals, your goals, and your dreams for this country don't count and they won't be seen?
The current electoral system needs to change from excluding people to including people, so that we might not have the term “small parties”, but just “parties”.
Thank you.
4:40 p.m.
David Kersey As an Individual
Thank you for this opportunity.
Earlier this year, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced, “My predecessor wanted you to know Canada for its resources. I want you to know Canadians for our resourcefulness”. Canadians want a more resourceful government. They want discussions around industrial, climate, and innovation strategies from their government, to move us beyond a country with disproportional dependence on resources.
We don't see that. We see a Parliament where government continually rejects private members' bills and ideas from other parties because they may score political points ahead of the next election.
Eight out of the 10 top countries on the 2015 UN global innovation index, including the innovation powerhouses of Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland, have electoral systems based on proportional representation. Canada ranked 16th on this same index. These top innovative countries govern with coalition-based majorities and adopt significantly more private members' bills from their coalition partners. These countries have what the political scientist Arend Lijphart calls consensual forms of democracy versus our confrontational form.
If we continue to have governments with single-minded policies from their PMOs and cabinets, we wind up with an “all our eggs in one basket” economy. We can see where that has gotten us. Diverse ideas equal diverse economies equal resilient economies.
I ask you to seriously consider our Prime Minister's statement, be resourceful, and move our electoral system into the modern age with of all the other innovative countries.
Thank you for this opportunity.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
James Norfolk As an Individual
You have a copy of my minutes already. I'll just make a quick summary.
First of all, I am an unabashed supporter of the first-past-the-post system. It's simple, it's straightforward, and there's a clear winner every time. I do not approve of multiple counts. One, there is no guarantee that 50% is mandatory for legitimacy. A close election is good for democracy. If maybe a couple of hundred votes separate the winner from the third party, hey, with a little bit of work, number three can be number one. Change can happen.
With regard to parties being excluded because they're small, well, Ms. May is proof of that. She has successfully been elected, yet her party does not come in first, second, or third elsewhere in the country. I give you Fred Rose, a communist who won consistently in the 1940s. If Igor Gouzenko had kept his mouth shut, he'd still be there. I give you the Social Credit, a powerhouse in the west for 40 years, and yet, east of Saskatchewan, “Who...?” The Bloc Québécois and the Reform were nothing in 1990, yet look what they did to Canadian politics. Change can happen.
As far as multiple counting is concerned, to quote Mark Twain, there are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics. Figures never lie. Liars...and the corollary of that is that numbers can be made to tell you anything you want.
I do have a question. I read last month in The Globe and Mail an article by Gordon Gibson, a well-known B.C. Liberal. He was questioning whether this change was even constitutional. I don't know if the court has weighed in on this, but maybe it should.
I just got started, so if you have any questions, my phone number is on the page. Feel free to call me.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Maurice Harquail As an Individual
Monsieur le président, honourable members, first of all, congratulations on your being elected and having the opportunity to visit the picture province of New Brunswick, with all the beautiful colours.
Parler, to talk, parle, parliament, to express yourself in a democracy is so important.
I ran in four federal elections and I had the honour and privilege of serving with Pierre Trudeau, whose son is now our Prime Minister.
I wanted to just come and say that I've been active for 20 years in our federally incorporated former parliamentarian association. We meet twice a year. We have an executive director. We speak at high schools and universities. We do speak about how there's 900 potential members and we have about 500 who are active. You may want to use that organization to get the message out on all the points that were made here today.
As to Ms. May about Elections Canada, I was asked two years ago to speak at the Wu Conference Centre on elections just before the election. We had a panel with the director for Elections New Brunswick, youth, women, and all that. Halfway through my address, I asked the students if they had ever heard of the Honourable Milton Gregg, who was a war hero, recipient of the Victoria Cross. He was minster of veterans affairs. He was a colleague in the House of Commons, who brought in legislation for veterans. He did all these great things. Not a hand went up, nobody in that classroom put their hand up, and I said, “By the way, my main point is that he was president of the University of New Brunswick.”
It just gives you an example of the importance of history. We talked about communication. You can utilize the former parliamentarians association. I've always wondered over the years how it is that it hasn't really been in the curriculum that we talk to young people in kindergarten and grade 1. I mean we're paying the bucks. We're spending the money. Why over the years have we not brought it into the curriculum to teach our history and to teach the matter of how important it is to participate?
I just want to say I support the Australian idea of mandatory voting. When I wasn't in Parliament, I was in liability dispute resolution. When you deal with liability, you're talking about negligence. For people not to participate is a form of negligence. We have to find a way to focus this, to bring it out that there will be a penalty. We have a society of rules. You have to do certain things to get your driver's licence. You're not allowed to drink and drive. There are all these things that are incorporated in legislation. Surely we can find a way to encourage people and parents to get out of this rut and away from the culture of the disconnect and get back into participating in this important process in society, in the best country in the world.
Thank you.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much.
Thank you also for your service to the country at an exciting time in political history, I must say.
4:50 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes. Four elections and, yes, great guys like Don Jamieson and Allan MacEachen, any one of them were as capable as the prime minister. There was a dozen of them. If the prime minister was out of town, any one of them could have handled that job.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, and thank you for your suggestion of getting the former parliamentarians involved. That's an excellent idea, and it's been noted for certain.
Go ahead, Mr. Patrick Lynch.
4:50 p.m.
Patrick Lynch As an Individual
I want to thank the committee for offering me the chance to present today.
I just want to say this. Most arguments in favour of proportional representation do not hold up when tested against the rules of logic. Take, for example, the idea that proportional representation leads to more compromise, and that such compromise is beneficial. That's nothing more than a paper fantasy, something that doesn't exist in the real world. I ask you, are watered-down decisions derived to mollify competing political factions somehow better than insightful, appropriate, and decisive decisions? Does appeasement for the purpose of maintaining a fragile hold on power somehow strengthen the nation or does it imperil the nation? You might want to look at Italy and some other countries like that.
It's naive to assume that multiple party representation in elected assemblies will lead to an elevated spirit of working together. Never forget that political parties, by their very nature, are all about expanding their influence and gaining advantage by electing more members. To that end, stirring up problems rather than being co-operative is the means to the end.
Another major problem with proportional voting is that it permits extremist parties to gain a foothold in the nation's affairs. Why go through all the tough work of building a national party, building up constituency organizations, etc., when you can latch on to some heated or controversial issue, run a slate of candidates, get some votes, and then at the end be awarded seats in the assembly? Is that the way we really want to choose who governs us?
Over the course of 150 years of our history, our electoral system has been a model of excellence. Compared to the often chaotic and unstable governments of other nations, we have been well served by both majority and minority governments. People are suspicious, and rightfully so, as to why the government wants to change our voting system. On the one hand, they talk about improving democracy, yet in the same breath they deny us the opportunity to have our voices heard through a referendum.
Changing a 150-year tradition of voting is not something that should be done by a committee or passed by the majority government of the day. Our traditional voting system is an innate and fundamental right. If it is ever changed, it should be only by referendum. The people must have their voice.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Roch Leblanc As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon. My name is Roch Leblanc, and I live in the Beauséjour riding. I'm a father of two and a national representative at Unifor Canada.
For the past two years, I have been on Unifor's membership mobilization and political action team. My has included providing education, supporting social and community causes, coordinating political campaigns, strengthening solidarity among members, and encouraging them to become active at every level.
We see Unifor as much more than a union. We are a social leader, whose political involvement incorporates all of the elements I mentioned.
Leading up to the 2015 federal election, I knocked on a lot of doors with candidates from all over the Atlantic region. A comment I often heard from people was that they weren't going to vote because their vote didn't mean anything or wouldn't make a difference.
That illustrates this idea that people have: if they don't vote for the winning candidate in their riding, it effectively silences their voice in Parliament and the views they want their representative to express. And, considering the election results in Atlantic Canada, all of those people were right.
Of the 32 seats in Atlantic Canada, 32 went to Liberal candidates. That was the outcome under a first-past-the-post system.
Democracy in Canada is in need of a proportional voting system. Had such a system been in place at the time of the 2015 election, the very same votes would have resulted in a different allocation of Atlantic Canada's 32 seats. The Liberals, with 58.7% of votes, would have received 19 seats. The Conservatives, with 19% of votes, would have received six seats. The NDP, with 18% of votes, would have also received six seats. The Green Party, on its end, would have received one seat.
Proportional voting has numerous iterations. I am hopeful that the solution the committee proposes will be based on one of them.
I came all this way today because I believe the issue of electoral reform currently before Parliament is the most critical issue facing Canadian democracy at this time. I can tell you that our members are ready for this change, and we hope you will see it through.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Margaret Connell As an Individual
Thank you, and thank you for the opportunity to be here to speak. We don't get this opportunity very often. It's very much appreciated, and all your hard work is as well, of course.
I'm a teacher by trade and by nature. The fundamental job that I've had for most of my life is taking things that are very complex and complicated, with all the chaff around them, and then distilling it down, getting rid of the chaff, and getting at a core idea.
I have three points to mention today. They're brief.
The first one is on the topic of whether or not we need proportional representation. When I take away the chaff of all that there is to say and learn about that topic, I think to myself, “What is any election anyway?” To my mind, any election is simply a manifestation of a core question: what do the people want? That is what an election is. It's a question. Majority governments that are in place with less than 40% of the people's vote don't answer that question. It's that simple. If an election is the question of “what do the people want?”, then we must see that reflected in the results—so “yes” to proportional representation.
I should have said earlier that I'm speaking on behalf of the Fredericton chapter of the Council of Canadians. So far, from what we can understand, I think we're in favour of a mixed member scheme for proportional representation. That could change, depending on what we find out next.
The second point is on the subject of a referendum. I think there's a massive gap between the ideology of a referendum and the reality of it. The ideology is that you should let the people decide. That is, after all, the democratic way, and that sounds right to my ears. The reality is that people have to make that decision based on some kind of knowledge, and by and large, they don't have it.
We, as the Council of—am I done already?