Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 17th, 2016

[Brad Chambers]

Could I make one quick point on that? A referendum can be divisive, and we should stay away from them, but this isn't Charlottetown and this isn't Brexit. I don't see neighbours throwing rocks at each other's windows because they prefer a single-member vote over MMP.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

That wraps up the round. Thank you so much to our witnesses. It's been a good discussion. It's nice to meet someone who lives in Lac-Saint-Louis. I don't know what it was called at the time, but it was very nice to meet you, Mr. Forth.

Mr. Matshazi, thank you very much for your very interesting testimony and for relating your experiences in Zimbabwe. Mr. Chambers, thank you for your original idea that you defended so well.

We scheduled an open mike session after this panel. Is there anyone in the room who would like to say anything about electoral reform? We would invite you to the table rather than bring out the mike. If anyone in the audience would like to say anything, let us know by raising your hands. No? Okay, good; we're fine.

We'll suspend until six o'clock. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare this final segment of our day of hearings here in Iqaluit open, and I'd like to welcome our four witnesses for this evening.

We have with us Mr. Jack Anawak. Nice to see you again, Mr. Anawak. We have with us as well Mr. Paul Okalik, member of the legislative assembly, constituency of Iqaluit-Sinaa, but also, notably, the first premier of Nunavut. It's an honour to meet you this evening. We also have Mr. Franco Buscemi. Nice to meet you again, Mr. Buscemi. Finally, from the Baffin Chamber of Commerce, we have Mr. Victor Tootoo.

I can tell this is going to be a great panel.

We'll start with Mr. Anawak.

[Jack Anawak, As an Individual]

Qujannamiik.

There was nothing written in Inuktituk to tell me where I was supposed to go. There were no directions as to where we were to go to.

Thank you for coming to Nunavut.

I am only hearing myself. Sorry, there are technical problems.

[A voice]

What channel is English?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have to wait. We have to sort out the translation.

It seems good now. Everything's good.

[Jack Anawak]

Do I start over?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

[Jack Anawak]

Qujannamiik.

Thank you.

. As I said earlier, as I was walking in there was nothing written in Inuktituk to tell me where I was supposed to go. If I didn’t speak English or French, I would not know where to go because there are no directions in Inuktituk. You are in Nunavut, and there are three official languages in Nunavut—English, French, and Inuktituk.

Thank you for coming to Nunavut, and I am grateful for the opportunity to address the committee and to speak to the concerns of Nunavummiut regarding electoral reform and democracy.

I will go back to English.

We have 26 communities spread across an area the size of western Europe. There are more than 400 million people in western Europe. There are 37,000 of us in Nunavut. We make up one-tenth of one per cent of the population of Canada, yet our land comprises one-fifth of Canada.

In a way, Nunavut is a microcosm of Canada, a vast land, sparsely populated by international standards. We joke about how Americans see us, see Canada—not just us, but Canada. They think it's all igloos and dog teams and lumberjacks, yet this is how many southern Canadians see Nunavut. For the record, we don't have any lumberjacks up here.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Jack Anawak]

I speak to you today as a former hamlet councillor in a community, as a mayor, a former member of the legislative assembly, a territorial minister, a former candidate for federal office, and a former member of Parliament.

When it comes to our electoral system, our concerns are twofold: promoting participation and supporting candidates and voters, and ensuring our interests are properly represented and promoted in Ottawa.

As to promoting participation and supporting candidates and voters, as you may have heard, the cost of living up here is very high. I encourage the committee members to visit the Northmart and Arctic Ventures to get a sense of how high the cost of living is and to see the prices of our groceries. A person considering running for office here has to consider forgoing income for the duration of the campaign. While this is true in many ridings, we have high costs for food, housing, electricity, heating fuel, and child care. For us, choosing to run for office usually means living off our savings in the most expensive riding in the country.

Finding ways to support more candidates to consider running for office has to be part of any discussion on electoral reform in Nunavut. I don't know what form this could take, but I know that it has discouraged many good-quality candidates from running for office. They can't afford to take anywhere from a few weeks to 78 days off from work.

It also means travelling throughout the campaign. We're a huge territory. While our territory is measured in millions of square kilometres, many ridings in southern Canada, southern cities, are just a few square kilometres in size. Just for the record, when I was running in 1993 for re-election, I happened to go down to Ottawa and drove around six ridings in a matter of a couple of hours. Here there are 26 communities spread across about 900,000 square miles. It has to all be by air. There are no roads connecting.

You can understand our situation when running for office up here in Nunavut.

It means strategically choosing which communities we have time to visit and which communities we can afford to visit. Candidates here spend thousands and thousands of dollars in airfare just to be able to meet voters. Can you imagine doing that in your riding? For a candidate, it means having limited opportunities to meet with voters across the territory. For voters, it may mean to only have a single opportunity to meet a candidate in your community, if they can afford to visit your community at all.

Electoral reform for us is more than changing the voting system. It means encouraging our system to be one that encourages candidates and voters to participate in a democratic process.

Iqaluit, the capital of Nunavut, is the easternmost community in Nunavut. We are almost due north of Ottawa. Kugluktuk is our westernmost community, almost due north of Edmonton or Calgary. On top of being very spread out, our communities have large variations in geography, culture, language, economic opportunity, and priorities. Can each of you imagine representing a riding that has as much variation between communities as Ottawa, Winnipeg, and Calgary, and everyone in between with all those differences?

Although our population is small, an MP in Nunavut has to contend with these variations in community dynamics and priorities. We have to try to represent everyone despite having limited communication with each community in a cohesive way in Ottawa. Suffice it to say it's very difficult to do so effectively, no matter how hard you work as a member of Parliament.

Electoral reform for us has to recognize that not only our population but our size has to be a consideration in the way we elect MPs and the number of people we elect to represent us.

I'll revert back to Inuktitut.

I sincerely hope that regardless of which voting system you adopt, you consider granting an extra seat in the House of Commons to reflect Nunavut’s unique needs and challenges and to ensure that our hopes, aspirations, priorities, and politics are accurately reflected in the House of Commons in Ottawa.

I thank you for this opportunity to address you and I hope that your visit is very worthwhile.

Qujannamiik . Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. We're having a great visit, and thank you for painting that picture of not only life in this vast territory, but the life of a political representative in this vast territory. It's very interesting to contrast and compare to, as you were mentioning, the more compact urban ridings that many of us are from.

We'll move on now to Mr. Okalik, please.

[Paul Okalik, Member of the Legislative Assembly, Constituency of Iqaluit-Sinaa, As an Individual]

Qujannamiik. Merci.

Thank you to all of you for giving us and the people who are here with me, my colleagues, an opportunity to speak in front of you.

What I’m going to basically talk about are the things you’re going to consider. I will probably talk more in Inuktituk and I will also speak in English.

First of all, I’d like to talk about elections, so I’m going to start with having arrangements so that people can vote. This is my concern here in Nunavut, a concern that the Nunavummiut have.

Every year, at one time of the year, we hunt for our food, so if there should be an election when we are out hunting, this would create some conflict for the hunter. You have to consider the aspect that people do go out hunting. Elections are very important, but surviving with our country food as well is important, so this is what I’m going to start with.

The other thing you can consider is online computer voting. I have done that myself, but the addresses of the websites are written in English and in French only. They do not represent Inuit. How are they going to deal with the technical issues? We don’t want them to be left behind with the kinds of issues they have just because they can’t speak the language.

I will return to English.

Perhaps the final area that I would like to focus on in my brief presentation is that I have no real issues with the current practice of first past the post, as it has been our system for quite some time. If you are looking for alternatives, I would have some reservations about the proportional representation model, as it pretty much creates a permanent minority government, and that in itself creates challenges. I do not envy countries that try to govern under this system. I, being a Canadian, would be concerned that such a system could fracture our nation into regional, linguistic, and cultural divisions.

As you can see in our own territory system, we have a consensus model, which is the same thing as a permanent minority government, and it does have its challenges. For that reason, I would have to say that the proportional representation model is a bit of a concern.

If it's the desire and the will of the committee to move forward with a different model, I stress that it should be as simple and as clear as possible for all concerned. The alternative vote model would be my preference, as it maintains the clarity and simplicity to the voters and is in keeping with their wishes.

To conclude, if the committee could also recommend on changing how the senators are chosen in our country, I want to be able to elect mine. Please recommend a vote for our senators. That would be a perfect model for us here in our own territory, so we could have real representation in the Senate too.

Qujannamiik. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Okalik.

It was very interesting to hear the perspective of someone who is familiar with the consensus government model but who has also held important executive power here in Nunavut.

We'll move on now to Mr. Buscemi, please, for 10 minutes.

[Franco Buscemi, As an Individual]

Qujannamiik.

I'm going to speak about some of the barriers I believe contribute to Nunavut's low voter turnout.

I'm going to start with the very first election that we were allowed to vote in. The first time the Innu had the right to vote dates back to 1953, the 22nd Parliament.

Then, in 1977, 10 years after the Toronto Maple Leafs won their last Stanley Cup, the first senator from the area that's now known as Nunavut was appointed. In 1977, in the 31st Parliament, the Innu had a representative in Parliament for the first time. I don't remember it, but that was not very long ago.

In 1993 Nunavut finally had a dedicated seat in the Senate, whereas before the Nunavut rep was one of the three NWT reps.

Since 1977, when Nunavut got its first representative, we've had two different senators and six different MPs. Since 2015, we haven't had a representative in Parliament who could speak Inuktitut. Nunavut makes up 21% of Canada's land mass.

It's 6:47 here and Nunavut stretches across three time zones. It's 5:47 in Arviat, 4:47 in Taloyoak, all in the same territory.

If you want to travel east or west in Nunavut, it will take you two days. You'll have to leave the territory. The Nunavut MP represents two million square kilometres. The MP from NWT represents 1.3 million square kilometres. The Yukon MP represents 483,000 square kilometres. St. John's, Newfoundland, has 446 square kilometres and has two MPs. Charlottetown has 44 square kilometres and an MP.

Other barriers I've observed are that many of the political platforms in campaigns include plans to address issues that have been challenging Nunavut for as long as I can remember. Anyone in their thirties would have lived in conditions or witnessed high levels of poverty and overcrowded housing. A lot of people suffer from PTSD, with little or no mental health services to deal with these...I hesitate to say “historical” traumas, because a lot of these traumas are from the 1950s and as early as the 1980s, and a lot of them continue today.

There is a lack of reconciliation between Canada and the Inuit. There has been no substantial investment in the people of the Arctic. The investment that we've seen historically in the Arctic often has been motivated by a military agenda. More recently it is related to resource extraction.

There's a continued denial of a devastating dog slaughter carried out by the RCMP from the 1950s. If MPs represent Canadians, MPs in the practical sense are represented by government departments, programs, and services, and our interactions with government often haven't very positive from the very early days.

We haven't done very much to adjust this. It took a lot from the Nunavut land claim organization, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, for the Government of Canada to invest some funds in an Inuit employment plan, which is in the agreement that the government signed.

Nunavut has three regions: the Kivalliq, the Kitikmeot, and the Qikiqtaaluk, more commonly known as Baffin. I believe that if we had three seats in the Senate in our current model, it would adjust some of the representational issues we suffer from in our great land mass. The reason I say this is that if we can have three guaranteed representatives in the Senate, that will ensure we have three MPs in Parliament under the current model that was adopted in 1985.

The reason I bring up things like overcrowded housing, poverty, and abuse is that if you're not sure where you're sleeping, or if you're sleeping in shifts, and if you're not sure what your next meal is going to be or when it's going to be, and if you're not sure when the next time you're going to be sexually abused or physically abused will be, who really cares when the next election is?

I hate to leave you on such a sad note, but that's the reality of the territory. I'm going to leave it at that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Buscemi.

Thank you for that description of recent political events that have shaped Nunavut. You're right. The events you mention were not that long ago. In fact, I can remember the last time the Leafs won the cup. I'm not that old. I was just a kid, but being from Montreal, I was very disappointed .

We'll go now to Mr. Tootoo, please.

[Victor Tootoo, Baffin Regional Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you.

[Witness speaks in Inuktitut]

I wanted to thank Franco for talking about some of the difficult issues.

I'm representing the Baffin Regional Chamber of Commerce. I was asked to come here today to be a witness. My understanding of why you're here is to look at better ways to represent the views of Canadians and improving public trust. I got that off the website.

How to do that is not necessarily about changing the entire system. The system we have now is not broken. Single-member plurality is the status quo. Some of the knocks against it are mounting viable candidacies across the wide range of territory and space, especially in Nunavut, and low voter turnout. I think that's the issue. Low voter turnout is the issue in Nunavut and across Canada.

What do you do about voter apathy?

They say that poor voter turnout happens because of disenchantment, indifference, and complacency. People don't care. Is it because they watch CPAC, and they watch what's going on in the House, and they say, “I'd rather not vote for somebody like that?” I don't know if that's accurate or not, but it's a possibility.

Let's talk about the different types of options or systems that we've seen here and in other parts of the world.

In 2005, B.C. came up with a single transferable vote, which is pretty much a ranking of candidates. Even though they got a 58% yes, because they were doing it by referendum, it had to be 60% in order for them to make that change. It didn't get changed in B.C. Perhaps that's an indicator of referendums across our nation and their effectiveness, or lack thereof.

There are a number of different options for electoral systems and their reform. Another is the mixed member proportional system that New Brunswick brought forward and reported on. You can have regional party lists with that system as well. There is also the runoff voting or alternative voting that Paul Okalik just mentioned.

One of the things that most of the witnesses here will remember is that prior to 1999, during the division and creation of Nunavut, there was also a discussion about dual-gender ridings. The idea was to have one man and one woman elected from each riding in our territory. That's another consideration as well.

Those are considerations in contemplating a change to the type of system that you have, but remember that I said at the beginning that I don't think the system is broken. I don't think it needs to be fixed. However, you do need to deal with voter turnout.

There are other ways that you can address that. One is ballot design. Another is voting equipment; Paul also talked about that in terms of the choices of how you're able to vote. As well, there are nomination rules and political party rules.

There is also the eligibility to vote. Our organization is called Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, and in our land claim beneficiary voting, the eligibility age for voting is 16.

What is this about voter turnout? The theory is that the probability of a person voting, times the benefit of that person voting, plus the duty or stratification of that person voting, have to outweigh the cost.

Most of the other witnesses today have talked about the factors that go into the cost to vote here in Nunavut versus the factors that go into the cost to vote in the ridings that you are from. I don't know where every single person here is from, but I'm assuming that you have less distance to cover in your riding than you do here.

How do we get people interested in voting again here in Nunavut? I think if you consider something like a mobile polling station in the smaller communities, with people who are fluent in Inuktitut going to elders' facilities or to their homes to record or get their ballots or get their vote in some form or another, you would increase voter turnout in Nunavut at a lower cost. You can't do this across the whole country. I understand that in larger ridings you would have to go to, I don't know, 10,000 voters, but in a small community in Nunavut, if you want to get to the elders, there would be 10, 20, 40, or 50.

Paul also mentioned the timing of elections. It seems these days that elections in Nunavut never happen on a warm summer day—I can't recall that ever being the case—when it is easiest for people with disabilities to go somewhere. You've been outside here in Iqaluit today and you've seen how slippery it is. Imagine you are in a wheelchair and you're trying to get to a polling station in December in Nunavut, and this is Iqaluit. This is the capital of our territory. This is the best our territory has to offer for people with disabilities. The amount of culture shock you would get coming from Saint-Louis in Montreal to here is similar to what you would get in going from here to Qikiqtarjuaq or Kimmirut, even though Kimmirut is only 100 miles away.

Therefore, making it easier for a person to vote in Nunavut would increase voter turnout.

I'm not sure that the only reason you guys are here is to talk about better representing the views of Canadians and improving public trust. I know you want to consider other options for our electoral system, and by all means. That's why we live in a democracy: it's so everybody can consider the different options that they have placed before them, but I don't think our current system is broken. I think you need to be able to incent people to vote, and it's not with a stick. Mandatory voting would be difficult to enforce in Iqaluit, let alone smaller communities in Nunavut, or to implement. I think you do it with a carrot and you make a public display of your actions to show something worth voting for.

That's it for me. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

I have a feeling we're going to have a really great discussion.

Indeed, we're here because we're interested in gaining different perspectives from across the country, and this is a very special perspective. I mean, for many of us, it's the first time we've been here; we want to be able to factor those perspectives into our thinking about electoral reform, and you certainly delivered some excellent testimony.

Without further ado, we'll go to our round of questioning. We'll start with Ms. Sahota for five minutes, please.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to especially thank all the witnesses and all of the people here from the community who are in attendance and hopefully will participate in the open mike tonight.

The testimony was very real. I think it will be very memorable for us going back and deliberating on what we're going to come up with. Thank you for that. As the chair said, this is my first time in Iqaluit also, and it's been quite the experience, even though I haven't been able to go very far. Just to get the perspective that we're getting in this room today, it's been quite emotional even to sit here and listen.

One thing I do want to explore is the consensus voting system that you have here at legislature. You talked about it a little bit, Mr. Okalik. Can you explain? It's very rare. NWT has the consensus model, and you have it here, I believe. I may be wrong or I may be fuzzy on the facts, but how does that end up working? You said it could be quite difficult to get legislation through or “get anything done”, I think, were your words. Can you elaborate a little bit more on that, because it sounds great? To an outside person, it sounds like the ideal model to try to work towards. Could I get a little insight on how that works?

[Paul Okalik]

The consensus model is a carry-over from the NWT, which we are a part of. There are 22 ridings, and each individual runs on their own platform and gets elected. From there, there is a formal leadership forum where candidates for premier and ministers are vetted and chosen by all the 22 members that ran for office.

The cabinet ministers are always required to be a minority in that assembly, so it's a permanent minority government. I think some of you have worked under the minority model, and it can be challenging for all concerned. You never really get the outcome that you desire, because you have to work with all members. You never really know the results, because as long as you appease the majority of the assembly, you'll stay in government regardless of what progress you make or not for your own territory. That's the model that we're working under today. It's not ideal at times.

That's why I prefer the party system in some ways. It's because you run on a mandate. You get elected and you deliver, because you have the majority. In our system, that doesn't always happen. We have to work with all members to make sure that you try to produce as much as you can. It's a different system, but it's also a very challenging system.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

When looking at different models, we've often been throwing around these words, which you will hear from the experts, that through a proportional system, we probably would have coalition governments or minority governments. Sometimes you'd have co-operation and sometimes it's compromise. Both have different connotations.

On one side, people will advocate for a thing. You are working together and you're going to come up with better policies that cater to more people. On the other side of it, you're going to end up compromising. You're never going to know what the end results will be and what you'll get, and maybe more people will be dissatisfied with the results.

What is your perspective on that? Do you think you end up with more compromise or more coordinated efforts and more co-operation?

[Paul Okalik]

In our current system, you can't really promise anything, because you don't know if you will be part of the government at any point in time. You can't really promise results. Therefore, you have to do your part in trying to deliver as much as you can for your riding.

It's something that I think we have to really examine ourselves. That will take a bit of time. I also studied political science in university, so I studied various models in school. With the models that I've looked at, I have issues and concerns regarding proportional representation.

Look at our country. We had the Bloc not too long ago. I didn't really enjoy watching that part and the way our country was fractured into cultural, linguistic, and regional factions. Yes, the current system has its flaws, but it's better than proportional representation. In trying to govern, a minority government is at times stable, but it can create a lot of instability, and I don't think we need that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Okalik.

We'll go to Mr. Reid now, please.

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

First of all, thank you to all our witnesses for, I think, one of the best panels we've had across the country. It is really informative.

I also want to thank my colleague Ms. Sahota for raising a line of questioning that I think has been very informative, and I want to continue that line of questioning. I mean no disrespect to the other panellists when I focus on Mr. Okalik to continue this line of questioning.

Your territory, along with the NWT, are the only two in Canada that operate a parliamentary system without a party system overlying it. Of course, the parliamentary system—I won't say it was designed, because in a sense nobody designed it—evolved over a period of several hundred years with parties in place. They were a feature from the early 1700s in England and onward. Therefore, we really have very few models to draw upon to see what it would look like if we don't have the government-opposition model, which was how it evolved first in England. Then when it came to Canada, there was an enormous amount of pressure. There was an expectation that you would form into a government and a shadow government, a government and an opposition.

This raises a number of questions. You've dealt with some of them, some of the problems that are associated with not having a party system, such as the difficulty of making promises and not being able to have a platform or a mandate in the sense that we have now outside these two territories.

I want to ask about a different issue that may or may not be a problem. You may have found a resolution to it.

At the federal level and in our provinces, there is an expectation that when the prime minister or premier and the cabinet lose the confidence of the assembly, they are dismissed and an election is called. Is that how things are handled here, or are they handled differently through a replacement of the cabinet, while no election is called?

[Paul Okalik]

We go through a mid-term review. We had one halfway through this current mandate. The members assessed the progress and the work produced by the various cabinet ministers. One minister fell, was voted out. It's a system of checks and balances on how the government is doing. After that, there are really no checks. They pretty much have another three-year pass, because as long as they appease a couple of members from the other side, they maintain a majority. That's how the system works. It's not always healthy.

In a party system, you go in with a clear mandate and you produce the results; if you don't, good luck in the next election.