Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 17th, 2016

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

Thank you so much.

I'd like to thank our panellists for being here and thank the members of the audience for coming out today.

It's my first time here in Iqaluit and I'm delighted to be here in Mr. Tootoo's riding. I would like to convey my condolences on the passing of your former mayor, Mayor Pearson.

Unfortunately the senator has left, but I'm sure you'll all have some feedback for me. He was talking about the culture here of consulting Canadians through plebiscites and said that since passing the Plebiscites Act in 1974, you've had four plebiscites. The 1982 division plebiscite had a participation rate of 52.99%, so that's 53% of the population.

You had a little more success in the 1992 and 1995 plebiscites. One that really stuck out is the 1997 equal representation plebiscite, where you only had approximately 39% of the population participate on such an important question as whether or not to have gender parity in your territorial government. As a couple of witnesses say, there is the importance of taking our time and doing this right, and in some research, it is said that the plebiscite of 1997 was rushed, that folks didn't have the right information, that folks didn't feel engaged, and that there was some dirty politicking, dirty campaigning, happening around that time.

It's close to 20 years since you had that referendum. My concern is whether we are rushing things in terms of trying to fit in a referendum. Are people engaged enough and are they educated enough in this process that we're not going to set ourselves up for failure? I don't want to say that your 1997 referendum was a failure, but 39% participation is not so great.

I'd like to get your feedback on that. What can we be doing, if we are going to go that route, to make sure that we are setting ourselves up for success rather than failure?

[Terry Forth]

Again, before you have a referendum or a plebiscite, I think it's extremely important that there be a totally adequate process of education.

I would agree that if the current calendar you're working with is fixed and can't be interfered with in any way, and if our minister is intent on pushing this through Parliament in time to impact on the next election, then it's probably why we need to go to—again, I keep bringing up Mr. Cullen's option—some sort of a staged process, so that the next time around, a referendum would in fact be more feasible rather than this time.

That therefore leads to the suggestion that whatever it is you recommend, you make it feasible and make it a reasonable approach.

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

Thank you.

Actually, that speaks well to what you've said, Mr. Chambers. You mentioned that “no massive change” should be undertaken right away, that we need to have some time to settle into a new system, and that it should be staged and so on.

Do you think it's best that we maybe take little steps before then, with incremental change, and take this a few years down the line, and then, as you mentioned, maybe two or three elections from now kind of test the temperature to see how it's going, or is it rip off the band-aid and go full throttle?

[Brad Chambers]

First of all, what I'm proposing really could kick in right away. It's just that the first election under what I'm proposing would more or less be the same, and then people would make a choice about how things would go forward, and they would continue to have the power to make additional choices.

While we're making a decision about electoral reform, it's a decision that just happens to include a lot of empowerment for the voter. They don't have to make a yes/no referendum decision and then find that everything is out of their hands and we're sailing off on some unknown sea.

Whether or not we're rushing, I think it would be terrible if it appears to the public that we're rushing or being forced. I think it was in the 1982 constitutional work that there was an initial timeline, and then Pierre Trudeau extended it and extended it again. I think that was in recognition that it has to appear to be deliberative. I think that is absolutely fundamental.

On the other hand, I do fear that there's a potential to lose momentum. Who knows what happens after the next general election? Who knows what party may get a majority government, and then just put the kibosh on the whole thing or start over or whatever? I do have fears in that direction as well.

[Kuthula Matshazi]

I think that all governments, regardless of whether they are Liberal, Conservative, or NDP, want to engage as many people as they possibly can. In taking a strategic approach to this issue, one of the ways that you can tackle it is by looking at youth education. If we can help people when they are still young and then make them understand why they should participate in politics and in political processes, by the time they get to be 18 years old, they will fully understand their civic duties. They will fully understand what's in it for them, and then they will be able to participate in the system.

I agree with my colleagues that education is fundamentally very important, but let's do more moving forward. Let's target it to the youth, and then as they grow it will be inculcated in them, and they'll grow up with a—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Mr. Boulerice.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chambers, I may have the opportunity of getting back to you. I found your Swedish example very instructive. However, if we applied it, Nunavut would have 22 members and each one would represent about 1,500 people. That is a rather small number as compared to the 110,000 people I represent in my riding in Montreal. That said, we could still discuss it.

Mr. Matshazi, my question is addressed to you, but I would first like to make a comment.

I find it very interesting that someone from Zimbabwe is representing a community with a high percentage of Innu. I imagine that you can have some fascinating discussions on the consequences of British colonialism, but in very different environments.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I quite liked the comments you made earlier. You said we had to find a way of encouraging people to participate more wholeheartedly in their democracy, and that the system should not create distortions between the popular will and the results. You added that there is no perfect system, but that we could and should do better. You want a more representative system.

You have seen the elements we have to work with. Like you, people tell us that they want a more representative system, a system that is more proportional. They also want to preserve the link with the local representative, which is very important.

As a northern elective representative, can you tell us how we could ensure greater proportionality in a territory like Nunavut?

[Kuthula Matshazi]

Thank you. That's a very interesting question.

I guess we can achieve proportional representation. I think one of the issues is the huge size of Nunavut. I mean, it would be difficult for us to look at proportional representation in terms of numbers. However, if we can look at Nunavut in terms of numbers and also in terms of the geography, I think in several special.... I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, what I'm trying to say is we recognize that we don't have many people, but at the same time we also need people to be fully represented.

Maybe we would say that we can divide our territory into three regions. Then we can have three MPs. The only reason we would do that is to sort of break down the territory, and then, based on even the small number, have those small numbers be involved in the political process.

We don't have the numbers that all the other territories around us have, but at the same time we want to make sure that people are engaged in the process. You understand the unique nature of Nunavut. We shouldn't be punished for being 32,000 people. We should still be incorporated in the political process.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Matshazi.

Mr. Chambers, we find your hybrid system suggestion interesting. Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley also talked about this. However, you added a new element when you wondered if people would want their riding and neighbouring ridings to be merged into one. I imagine that this would mostly be done in more urban or suburban areas.

To my knowledge, you did not say how many ridings would have to be merged, in municipalities or large Canadian cities. Would it be two, or seven? We would need to know, because the degree of proportionality would vary according to the number of ridings that were merged.

[Brad Chambers]

I think we would end up with a mixed bag. I think we'd have some single ridings. We'd have some ridings in pairs. In the middle of Toronto and Montreal, perhaps we'd have 10 or 15 ridings that could conceivably merge together if they wanted.

I don't think we need to cap that or set criteria for it. I think it can be organic. That's the whole philosophy that I'm bringing forward, and over time people will form opinions on it. Maybe they'll decide that a two-MP riding is not that proportional and they don't really like it.

We haven't really talked about what the balloting would look like in either of those types of ridings, and that's not really a major point of discussion. However, let's say it's preferential balloting or something; you could end up with very large ballots if you had 10 or 15 ridings.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Or lists.

[Brad Chambers]

At some point at least, you would have to switch from a candidate preferential ballot to a party preferential ballot. There are complications, but again let voters decide. If they don't like the size of their multi-riding unit, then they can change it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Nater now has the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair; and thank you again to our panellists for the excellent insights today. It has been fascinating.

I'm going to start a little off topic and then try to work my way back, and hopefully I'll get back to the issue at hand.

Senator Patterson, for example, currently has a bill before the Senate, BillS-221. It deals with Senate representation. It would remove the property requirement to be appointed a senator. It's not going to change the overall makeup of the Senate. It's not going to change how senators are appointed. It's not going to change how senators are elected. However, it is a move that I think would be a small step towards recognizing some of the unique challenges of the north.

Property ownership, as we know, is not as common in the north as it is in the southern part of Canada, so it's an important change to the Senate that does not undertake a substantial change that would necessarily take a long period of time in consultation.

In the panel prior to this one, there were some suggestions that campaigning in Nunavut and in the north is a challenge. It's costly; it's time consuming. There was a suggestion that there should be some kind of subsidy, some kind of financial benefit to help in campaigning, in representing some northern areas. Again, it's a change that would certainly support the north, would help in the north, but it wouldn't necessarily change the overall structure of our electoral system in Canada.

That leads into the comments we've heard from this panel and previous panels that this electoral reform change shouldn't be rushed. We should take our time. We don't want to rush into something without fully exploring all the options.

Where I'm going with this is that in an effort not to rush into wholesale fundamental change but still keep the discussion going, are there recommendations that each of you would have to help the north be better represented in Ottawa, better able to undertake that representation, that wouldn't necessarily change the fundamental makeup of our electoral system? Are there changes you would recommend in the short term that we could implement fairly quickly that would improve engagement of Nunavut and of the northern territories? Do you have any thoughts on any short-term changes we could make quickly?

[Kuthula Matshazi]

If we're looking at the short to medium term, I think one approach would be to accept the uniqueness of Nunavut, and instead of having just one MP, we could have three MPs. Each MP would represent a region. There are three regions: Kivalliq, Kitikmeot, and Qikiqtaaluk. To me, that's low-hanging fruit.

[Terry Forth]

I would agree. Three members of Parliament would be a big step forward. I suspect it might be low-hanging fruit, but likely not fruit that can easily be picked, unfortunately.

I think the alterative would be to build in some fairly significant budgetary measures that would give members of Parliament, and even those running for Parliament, access to funds that would make it more feasible to represent this population. I think that's critical.

On the issue of the bill that Senator Patterson has brought forward, my understanding is that property ownership barely exists here, not just out of choice but because of our system of not having land title. Therefore, very few people would qualify to become senators. Some kind of reform system along those lines would be a big help. I would think you'd have to do it across Canada, though. You couldn't just do it in Nunavut.

[Brad Chambers]

I don't have anything informed to add.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Finally, we'll go to Mr. DeCourcey.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I don't expect to take too long, because this issue has been brought up by a number of my other colleagues. It's the notion of incrementalism and of an approach that would allow for people to feel some level of comfort with the change.

The question that I have, or what I'll leave you with, is a final comment on this notion of our finding a solution or solutions that allow for incremental changes to take place so that people can feel comfortable. If we were able to do that, does it allow us to evade the need to put any big question to a plebiscite?

[Brad Chambers]

To answer the second question first, I haven't had a chance to give my thoughts on a referendum yet, and I think that is a vital decision-making point going forward. I think that integrity and legitimacy are as much about the process as they are about the product, and democracy needs to be democratic. It seems absurd to me that this decision will be made any other way.

Some people said that multi-party consensus is efficient, but there are some systems that favour existing parties over parties that aren't even born yet or aren't really on the radar. Even multi-party consensus is a biased way of making a decision.

I think a lot of people are backing away from a referendum because they're afraid that they'll lose the referendum and we'll end up back where we started, not because they're philosophically against it. That's why I think it's important to come up with a system—which is what I've tried to do—that keeps some power in the hands of the voters, so that they don't get a one-shot deal at giving input on this issue. It's harder to do incremental electoral reform. I don't really see too many good options for doing it in pieces, but at some point you have decide which system we're going to have. The way to make it incremental is to continue to give them decision-making power on an ongoing basis.

I forget the first part of your question that I haven't answered yet.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

No, that was the whole question.

[Terry Forth]

I don't have any magic answers, unfortunately, but I do believe that regardless of how long it takes or what sort of incremental approach is put in place, there does need to be a referendum or an opportunity for Canadians to express an opinion.

[Kuthula Matshazi]

I thinking changing any system is a process, and one of the levers that we can use is education, but education will take a long time. Education is very useful for us to change the attitudes in people who understand their civic duties. Proportional representation will help us engage people in the political process. If they are now engaged in the political process, then over time it becomes incremental and people start engaging in discussing issues of civic duty and so forth. They start engaging in the political process. I think proportional representation is a platform on which we can move this incremental change into a different system.