Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 17th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Buscemi.

[Franco Buscemi]

I definitely think there's a calculation that can be done. There are a lot smart people in this room and then there are a lot of smart people connected to everyone in this room. Whether it's increasing the number of people each MP represents to reduce the number of seats so that you can increase the number of each representing larger land masses.... I mean, with St. John's, Newfoundland, do we need two different MPs, or can there be one MP who can still adequately represent the city, freeing up a seat for, let's say, Labrador, for example? The entire Labrador region has one seat and also a huge land mass. I definitely think that you can adjust the numbers so we have better representation for all Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Okalik.

[Paul Okalik]

I'm a lawyer. I study law, so I can't really push for something that might be going against charter rights. I understand that there are limitations in our current system that we can't do much about. The current system of senatorial elections is something that we can do something about, I believe. That would be one way of getting more representation for our territory. The current practice, as I said, is workable.

Qujannamiik.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Anawak.

[Jack Anawak]

Thank you.

I just want to add to what has been said earlier. The issue of proportional representation is a problem unless there's a special dispensation.

You have to go back to the 1970s. We were part of the Northwest Territories until 1999, but we were always at the losing end in the eastern part of Northwest Territories as Innu, as one group of people—one group—because there were fewer people in the eastern Arctic than there were in the western part of the Northwest Territories. That's why we went through the process of negotiating the land claims. There was also a special discussion on the issue that the Northwest Territories be split into two, as you know.

That is why we fought hard to get our own territory. It would be a setback if we got into a situation in which there was no special dispensation.

Let's say that proportional representation is introduced. It would be a setback for us, for something we fought so hard for, to just suddenly lose this, unless we were given that special dispensation.

[Victor Tootoo]

Should Nunavut suffer as a result of any changes? The obvious answer is no. If there are changes to our fundamental system of elections, I think what you have heard from all of us here tonight is that no, Nunavut should not have less representation at the federal level. Perhaps we should see more.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, if I can take 10 seconds for the record, I want to outline that Blake Richards was right; he was elected by way more than 50% of his electors.

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

I got 51% but he's my colleague and gets to remember this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The whole theory goes down the drain there, Mr. Boulerice.

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

That makes about everyone here, except Alexandre.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

This has been a really interesting panel. Not only did you give us the opportunity to learn so much about the political culture in Nunavut, but in some way you held up our current parliamentary system and allowed us to see it in different circumstances, because you have the Westminster model but you operate differently, without parties. I find that very instructive, and from that point of view, among others, the testimony is very valuable.

We're going to break for about 30 seconds because we're going to go to our open-mike session, but first I would just like to thank all the people who assisted us in organizing this meeting today, notably Madeleine Redfern, who could not be with us today; Senator Patterson; public servant Vyann Andersen-Goudie and Becky Kilabuk; MP Tootoo and his staff; and our extraordinary committee staff and the interpreters. They're a bit shy back there; they don't want any attention. I also want to thank the excellent committee staff who worked so hard to make this a day to remember.

We're going to break for about 30 seconds while the mikes get set up. Thank you again. It's a pleasure meeting you all and learning of your experiences and insight.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll proceed to the open-mike session. We have four people on the list, with Peter Williamson to start. We'll have Mr. Williamson for two minutes at mike number one and Thomas Ahlfors at mike number two.

[Peter Williamson, As an Individual]

Hi. I'm Peter Williamson. I'm here as an individual.

I was here this afternoon and I found the presentation made by NTI really interesting. I thought the questions from the members of the committee were really good, so I want to speak to those a bit.

Just to back up first, though, there was also discussion around what Nunavut meant to the presenters. For me, I remember back in the late 1980s or early 1990s when the CBC announced that the federal government had withdrawn article 4 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, which was the commitment to establish Nunavut. I remember being very surprised at the withdrawal of that article.

The Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut, the predecessor to NTI, said, “If you're going to withdraw article 4, there's not going to be a vote to ratify the agreement”, so it really wasn't because of the goodwill of the Government of Canada that we have Nunavut. It really was because of the determination of Inuit to establish the Nunavut territory and government. For me, that's very important.

When I listened to NTI's presentation this afternoon, what really stuck out for me was that they thought that Inuit in Nunavut should have a member of Parliament elected to represent the Inuit of Nunavut and, to me, that makes a lot of sense. Some of the members had questions around that idea, and I'd like to address those.

One of the questions was, if you have a member of Parliament from Nunavut representing Inuit, what about the Inuit in the other regions? Would that MP be able to represent them as well?

There was another question about section 35 of the charter, regarding first nations, Inuit, and Métis. What it meant to me was what kind of justification can there be to elect an Inuit person from Nunavut that would accommodate some of the concerns that people might have around that?

For me, there are bigger questions at issue here. If we need to come up with some justification for Nunavut and there are questions around making sure that Inuit in other regions are represented and making sure that it's not just Inuit but also first nations and Métis who are represented, then that is an issue. In each of the jurisdictions and territories in Canada, aboriginal people face issues too, and it shouldn't just be the Inuit of Nunavut who have somebody to represent their issues.

I think taking a broader look at the issues that aboriginal people face in each province and territory and making sure that they have a voice is very important. I'll just use one example.

One of the policy issues that Canada has when it comes to land claims negotiation is occupancy. Under the comprehensive land claims policy, each aboriginal group that wants to negotiate a land claims agreement has to prove that it was there first. It has to be able to say, “We were here first. This is the land we occupied and this is when we occupied it.” It's not just Inuit but all of the aboriginal peoples in Canada who have to prove that. They were here first—we all know that—and still they have to prove that.

These are the kinds of issues that I think are important to aboriginal people. Being able to elect somebody from the province or territory that they are in would give them a voice in the Parliament of Canada, where they could address these issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Aaron Watson, please come up to mike number one.

Go ahead, please, Mr. Ahlfors.

[Thomas Ahlfors, As an Individual]

Thank you for having me here.

Unlike pretty much everyone you've heard since your dinner break, I'm not actually from here. I've been a resident of Nunavut for the last four years and a citizen of Canada for the last three years. Since then, I've voted in the federal election, the territorial election, and the municipal election.

One thing that living in Nunavut has shown me is that it is a unique place, so Nunavut's voice needs to be saved. The only way to really do that is to make sure that we have representation in Parliament that the people of Nunavut have voted on. Proportional representation, whether it happens elsewhere in the country or not, cannot affect our having a voice in Parliament. We need at least one representative—if not more, as you've heard—who are voted for by only the people of Nunavut.

On top of that, I think it needs to be protected. What happened in the last election was that Nunavut—the fastest-growing jurisdiction in Canada—went from having one voice in 308 to one voice in 338. That's a loss of 10% of our voice. We can't have that reduction happen again. If you're looking at expanding the size of Parliament to accommodate proportional representation, you need to first guarantee that Nunavut has a seat that the Nunavummiut voted for. Second, if you're going to increase the size of Parliament, there needs to at least be a Nunavut resident who is part of that, so we do not lose our one out of 338.

In addition, when I voted in the last election, as Ms. May said, I voted for a change in the voting system. However, I didn't vote for proportional representation; I voted to get rid of the first-past-the-post system. The reason was that I wanted to make sure that whoever represents my riding has the support of at least 50% of the people in the riding, and not 38% or 47% or whatever number. It should be 50%.

There should be some kind of system—an alternate vote, a runoff, or whatever—to make sure we get to that 50% representation in the riding. If we go to some other system and have proportional representation, it should be on top of that, not replacing that.

Finally, you're here in Nunavut. You've come to Iqaluit to consult with Nunavummiut. Honestly, that's like showing up in downtown Toronto or downtown Montreal and saying that you consulted with Ontario or Quebec. You haven't consulted with Nunavut; you've consulted with Iqaluit. I can understand, because it's very difficult to get around, as we've heard, but at least some of the smaller communities should have been visited by one or two of you to really hear Nunavut's voice.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Would Ms. Maatalii Aneraq Okalik come to mike number two?

Go ahead, Mr. Watson.

[Aaron Watson, As an Individual]

Hello, and welcome to Iqaluit. It's nice to see you here.

Recently I had the privilege of meeting privately with Minister Monsef and I wanted to share a little of what we spoke of that day.

To offer a little insight on electoral reform in Nunavut, I'm certain that the truly partisan members of federal parties would hold a strong opinion. By the way, I'm the president of the Nunavut New Democratic Party.

Many wouldn't like reform because we might end up being less represented federally than we already are. Other people who are members of certain parties, who work here but aren't planning to retire here, may or may not fully support electoral reform. This is true because party members generally follow their parties no matter what. Those who aren't local or are going to retire in the south may not be in touch with or care about the concerns of Inuit and lifelong residents of Nunavut regarding political matters. The concern of having less representation federally may be of little consequence to them.

Nunavut and many of its people may appear unmoved on the issue of electoral reform unless there are provisions to give us more representation at the federal level. We are a territory, a province-in-waiting. We should have at least two MPs in this vast territory that is the key to Canada's Arctic sovereignty.

Since we do not have the population to back up the addition of another MP, I will give reasons why we should. Nunavut is the largest riding in the territory, a province-in-waiting; Nunavut has and patrols the largest coast in Canada; we are resource-rich, and development has just begun; we have the largest self-determining indigenous government in Canada; we have the second-largest land claim in the world; and we are the fastest-growing population in Canada.

Thank you. Qujannamiik.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Next we have Ms. Aneraq Okalik.

[Maatalii Okalik, President, National Inuit Youth Council]

Unukut. Good evening.

Qujannamiik. Thank you for the opportunity to address your standing committee.

Honourable chair and all the members around the table, tunngasugi. Welcome to Nunavut.

My remarks may be more than two minutes, so I ask for unanimous consent in advance to be able to complete my remarks, honourable chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You may go ahead.

[Maatalii Okalik]

Qujannamiik. Thank you very much.

My name is Maatalii Aneraq Okalik, and I sit, as Elizabeth May has indicated, as the president of the National Inuit Youth Council within Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, so I represent Inuit youth across Canada.

I have the opportunity now to share a bit about who Inuit youth are and what their priorities are in relation to your standing committee as you review electoral reform.

As you are aware, there are 60,000 Inuit who live across Canada, and the majority of our population is made up of Inuit youth. It's very different from the realities of the southern Canadian population.

We are situated across four Inuit regions, and that is reflected in four provinces and territories. Definitely, representation is one of the highest issues with respect to elections and federal representation.

As Elizabeth May indicated, I testified before some of your counterparts on the standing committee on aboriginal affairs, specifically on suicide prevention, and at that time, I indicated the social inequities that Inuit face in Canada. I think that as we address the question on electoral reform, these inequities should be taken into consideration.

Inuit Canadians do not have the same quality of life as the majority of our fellow citizens: 39% of Inuit and Inuit Nunangat live in crowded homes, versus 4% of all Canadians; 29% of Inuit aged 25 to 64 successfully complete a high school diploma, versus 85% of all Canadians; 70% of Inuit households in Nunavut alone do not have enough food to eat, versus 8.3% of all Canadian households. The number of positions per 100,000 people in Nunavut is 30 in terms of access, versus 119 in urban health authorities across Canada, and 70.8 years is the average life expectancy for Inuit, versus 80.6 years for all Canadians.

Not only are we dying younger due to the aforementioned social inequities, but the leading cause of death is suicide. Across regions, we have a five to 25 times higher rate than the rest of Canada.

These are really important social inequities that we face on a daily basis. They have implications on our day-to-day lives, our quality of life, and they have a significant impact on how we are engaging in elections and how we're engaging with the federal government as a whole.

Compared to other jurisdictions with representation in the House of Commons or in the Senate, we are not represented accordingly. In relation to the Nunavut legislature, a lot of you, I noted, had a number of questions with respect to how the consensus-style government works, as well as representation. We are aware that there are 26 communities in Nunavut, with 22 representatives. Some of the communities that we have in Nunavut are multi-constituency communities by virtue of the unique needs and realities within smaller communities compared to some of your respective ridings.

There are 30 standing committees in the House of Commons alone, in contrast to those that sit in the Senate. When you have one MP for a region that is facing a number of social inequities that would be discussed on the standing committees, how are we to ensure that the basic needs of the population, who are supposed to be represented as equal Canadians, are being addressed effectively and are reflective of our realities and our culture?

When you make formal recommendations to the House, as well as ensuring accountability in spending, legislation, and issues related to departments and their respective mandates, how are we being represented when we have one MP trying to sit on all 30 of these committees when faced with these issues on a daily basis?

I sit on the board of directors for an Inuit organization and I lead the youth contingent. Inuit organizations like this one are required to work and lobby with a number of the departments that you work with through your standing committee to deal with these social inequities and the lack of an Inuit-to-crown relationship. In order to attack some of these issues, we need more representation.

A lot of you have indicated interest in the youth perspective on voting. In my position, I had the experience of helping create awareness and excitement about the last federal election, and I'd like to share some of my findings with you.

As a volunteer president with a day job working with the National Inuit Youth Council, I felt the responsibility to create basic awareness among Inuit youth, as Canadians, about the process of voting. They need to be aware of the way in which they can vote by having identification, as well as the locations where they have to show up in person to vote if they are students. Nunavut and the other Inuit regions don't have a university setting in southern Canada where they can vote outside their constituency and know that their voice is being heard. Actually, that's not my responsibility.

Inuit youth don't necessarily see themselves reflected in the materials that are being disseminated. Some of our regions have legislation in place, because we have the Inuit language here in Canada. We have official languages acts, as well as protection acts, but when the material reflective of that reality isn't being disseminated, Inuit youth don't see themselves in the process and don't have the appropriate information to be able to make their vote count. However, because of the composition of our population, Inuit youth can essentially decide the vote.

People are able to vote by going to an Elections Canada office. Are there many offices in our 53 communities in Canada? How many Service Canada offices are available for individuals to be able to attain the identification required to exercise their suffrage?

I made a call on behalf of an Inuit youth interested in attaining a social insurance number in order to get a passport. This was in Pangnirtung. This youth was told to go to the Gatineau office. That's a $3,000 cost for airfare, which is not an essential service in Canada. Our communities are fly-in only, and it's a two-day trek.

When only 1% of the Canadian population has been to our homeland and the issues that we're facing on a daily basis are not reflected in the House of Commons, I worry that the social inequities we face in this developed country will not be addressed accordingly.

Qujannamiik. Thank you very much for affording me the time to share my reflections.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to say something?

Okay. Go ahead.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks again to everyone for coming here.

What you've heard this afternoon and tonight are a lot of the same things that Maatalii pointed out and that the indigenous affairs committee heard when they were here. It's true and it's recognized here that it's hard for Inuit to move forward. Basically, we're living in third world conditions. You have to have your basic needs met in order to move on.

As one of the guys asked, “What's more important: what I am going to eat, whether I am going to be safe, where I am going to sleep, or electoral reform and the date of the next election?”

Look at the idea of proportional representation. I think it was pointed out that no one from here is too supportive of that idea. If you look at the way funding has been doled out in the past, you'll see that it's on a per capita basis.

We have such a huge infrastructure deficit. We're very far behind as a result of that already. Per capita funding is something you can look at to see how it has affected us here. It would basically end up being the same in the electoral system.

From what I know in my previous capacity as a member of the Legislative Assembly, there were a couple of electoral reform and electoral boundaries committees struck to look at that. It may be a suggestion for your research staff to contact the Legislative Assembly to get those reports, as well as some previous amendments that speak to our Elections Act.

The goal of any election is 100% turnout. I think in my first one I had 101% turnout. That's when they had those old outdated lists that nobody wanted to go on.

There's been some really good stuff here. If you're able to get hold of someone at the Legislative Assembly, that could be helpful to you, especially given the unique challenges that we face here. That should be helpful to you in looking at some modifications to try, such as mobile polls. It might make it a little bit easier for you.

I'd like to thank everyone for coming and participating.