Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 17th, 2016

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

In the system we use in Ottawa and in the provinces, your party is elected, and you have a party leader. Whether you're in government or opposition, the party leaders then select the individuals who will fulfill various portfolios. For example, I am in the shadow cabinet as the critic for democratic institutions and Blake is the deputy critic because our leader, Rona Ambrose, at her own absolute discretion, decided to do that. She could have done the reverse. That's true for every cabinet minister as well.

However, it sounds to me as though that is not how it works here. I gather that it is not the case. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that the premier does not get chosen and then turn around and say, “and this person, that person, and that person will be become members of cabinet, and I'll put them into the following portfolios.” I'm assuming that the legislature as a whole makes those decisions.

[Paul Okalik]

Yes. The members elect all the cabinet ministers, and then the premier assigns the portfolios from there. The only real authority of the leader in our territory is to assign portfolios, and they also used to be able to appoint deputy ministers. I don't know what the practice is today.

It's rather a weak system of parliament. It's had its day, and I think we're past that point. That's how we exercise it today. That was the first real ministerial removal where a minister fell. That's the first time it's happened as a ministerial review. It's a secret ballot. It's like your party system when you have a secret ballot to assess your leader. That's how we still do the check in our system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

We'll go to Mr. Cullen now.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our witnesses. It's nice to be here. Nakurmiik.

I'll start with Mr. Buscemi. I thought your testimony was incredibly powerful and, unfortunately, too familiar to a lot of places in this country. I represent northern British Columbia, up against the Yukon and Alaska borders. What you described in terms of people's priorities—not having a safe place to sleep, not having good food, and the threat or the actuality of violence—means that electoral reform isn't hitting your radar.

One of the criticisms of the current way we vote in this country is that we like to throw the bums out, as they say. There's something satisfying in that, right? You have a government for a while, and if you don't like them, you toss them all out. First past the post does an okay job of that. The difference between the winner and the loser can be a few percentage points, but the change can be 100% when it comes to being in power.

It's been proposed to us that longer-term issues, such as poverty and climate change, don't do well when every eight to 10 years, or so, the country flips, and all the stuff that was being done is reversed by the new government as part of their promises. The new guys come in with their agenda for a while, and then they get thrown out. I think you can maybe see where I'm going.

We've heard from young people that one of the reasons they don't vote is they don't think it matters. One vote's not going to affect anything, or they live in a place where we already know who's going to win. Some of the systems that we're considering give more chances for each vote to matter.

Is this too far away from trying to draw people back in, or draw them in for the first time into having that voice, which is what I believe a vote should be—a voice, and some power in their world—or am I too far away from that?

[Franco Buscemi]

Thank you for the question.

When I was looking at the voter turnout for this region, every year the number of voters was pretty consistent. I think there was a larger youth voter turnout on this last election. There was a lot of hype around it.

I can only speak for myself. With any election, and not just a federal election, as an Inuk, I'm represented by two Inuit land claim organizations, one national Innu organization, and one international Innu organization. That's on the Inuit side. Then I have the municipal election, then the territorial election, and then the federal election. I feel a bit overrepresented at times.

There was excitement. I could feel the excitement in this last election. It was different from others. I wasn't overly excited. It takes a lot for me to get excited. Definitely I think a common question is, “What's the point of voting?”

Victor mentioned a mobile poll. I believe it would do very well. Some of our organizations, because they have fewer restrictions, have experimented with having mobile polls. They've had great success going through the high school, going through the elders' centre, and going to the store where people already are. I think those are things that can adjust voter turnout, which is really the problem. I don't think there are a lot of people dissatisfied with the system here.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Do you have any thoughts on lowering the voting age itself? It's one of the things this committee is looking at. It's 18 right now, so maybe it could be 17 or even 16.

I don't know if you have any comment on that.

[Franco Buscemi]

I think dropping it to 16 isn't a bad idea. I don't think it will increase voter turnout, but you learn to drive at 16. It's not a bad time to learn how to vote too.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Anawak, it's good to see you. You raised your hand earlier; I don't know if you still have that same thought.

Mr. Okalik put forward some ideas about the challenges of working in consensus-based governments or minority governments. I've been elected under both types of regimes. I actually enjoyed minority. It's a lot more nimble, a lot more active. Majorities tend to concentrate power a bit, at least in the Ottawa system. I don't want to speak for the territory here.

I'm wondering if you have any thoughts to add to what Mr. Buscemi was talking about earlier. I saw your hand go up, and I don't want to let this time go without your having a chance to speak.

[Jack Anawak]

Qujannamiik. Thank you.

Just carrying on from what Mr. Okalik was saying, when you have a consensus government and you have a legislative assembly of 22 members, that's like having 22 parties. There really is not much accountability, so there really is not much of a chance. Even if you're operating in a minority, as cabinet does, because you have a cabinet of eight, including the premier, the rest of the members don't really have the cohesiveness to throw the bums out, because there is no party system. Even if there is a constant minority, there is really no accountability because there are no party politics, so it doesn't really matter how.... For lack of a better word, there really is not much of an opportunity for it to work all that well, because 13 so-called opposition members have 13 different ideas of what to do.

The party system works even in a territory like Greenland. They have a party system. Even though I think they're smaller than Nunavut, they have a party system. The Yukon has a party system. I think with a party system we'd probably be better off in Nunavut.

At the same time, when you have only one representative in the House of Commons, I know it's very hard for them to keep in touch with the people because of the size of the territory. As I said earlier, you could go through six different ridings in about two hours down south. Here you have to go to 26 different communities. When I was a member of Parliament, it took a year to go to each and every community at least once. Without a party system up here it's very hard, as I'm sure the former premier knows.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Ste-Marie now, please.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Good evening, gentlemen.

As my colleague Mr. Reid was saying, you are one of the most interesting groups of witnesses. This trip has certainly been worth it. I am happy to listen to you. Your testimony is very touching.

Once again, we see the reality of a remote area, vast spaces and a northern climate. This leads to a lot of challenges in the area of communications, either in accessing the Internet or ground transportation.

Mr. Anawak said that there are 26 communities in Nunavut that are not connected by roads.

Mr. Okalik, I believe you said that there are 22 elected representatives in the Nunavut Legislative Assembly. This led Mr. Buscemi to say that he sometimes feels overrepresented, because aside from the members of the Legislative Assembly, there are municipal elected representatives.

I am discovering your territorial assembly system. Do you think it has too many elected representatives? The ratio is about one representative for 1,500 people, but they are dispersed over a wide area.

Would anyone like to address that point?

[Paul Okalik]

I believe there are too many. At the same time, our territory is very big, so it can be a challenge. We started with 19. We are 22 with our small territories, so there's a little overrepresentation at times. It was the choice of the last assembly, so we are following through with that at the moment.

Without a party system, you can't really do anything to fix it, because there's no discipline. In a party system, you promise something that you'll.... I recall that in Ontario they used to have a lot more representatives, and one party said they were going to cut it back, and they did. Without a party system, we're stuck with the current system that we have. There's no discipline, no consequences.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

thank you.

Mr. Tootoo, do you agree with that? You seem to want to speak.

[Victor Tootoo]

I do not agree. I like the number 22; in English, it's my name.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Very well, thank you.

[Victor Tootoo]

That's not the only reason I disagree. I don't feel that Nunavummiut are overrepresented at a territorial level, a national level, or an international level. In fact, I think quite the opposite. I think we are under-represented.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Very well, thank you.

Mr. Tootoo, you spoke of the voting age being 16 at the territorial level, if I understood correctly.

Would you be favourable to lowering the voting age to 16 in federal elections?

My question is addressed to all four of our guests.

[Franco Buscemi]

To the first question, as an individual, I feel overrepresented by all the different levels of government. At the federal level, I feel the territory is under-represented. It has nothing to do with our population; it's about land mass. We just have too much land for one person to cover.

Yes, I believe voting at 16 would be very good because you have students you can easily engage. You know where to find them. They're at school. Actually, they would probably become some of the most informed voters, because it would become part of their studies.

[Paul Okalik]

Yes.

I would agree.

[Jack Anawak]

When we're teenagers, we know everything, right?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Jack Anawak]

They're already in high school anyway, and that would be, I'm sure, part of their curriculum. I don't think there's any problem with having 16 as a voting age.

[Victor Tootoo]

Yes, I agree that lowering the voting age to 16 is a good idea in getting more voter turnout. I think Franco mentioned earlier the buzz in this past election, and I think of myself at 16, and I look at my 16-year-old children and how much more politically astute they are compared to how astute I was at that time. That's in part due to technology and social media and all the information that's available to us at our fingertips these days, but I also think that it is in part due to, for lack of a better term, the political acumen of youth these days, right across this country.

Youth are more astute in what's happening at the municipal, territorial, provincial, and national level. I think it's tied to the fact that they care about what's happening around them, and they want a say. I think that applies to Nunavut and to everybody across the country. If you lower the voting age to 16, you are going to see a higher voter turnout in terms of percentage from that cohort of the population, that particular demographic, and because of their instant access to education, and education regarding our electoral system, you'll have more informed voters.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, gentlemen.