Evidence of meeting #40 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 nunavut.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Would they be listed by party, or would they essentially be independents? I don't know if you've thought.... I may be going too deeply down the road here.
Chief Executive Officer, Executive Services, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.) (Interpretation
I'm not sure. That's something probably more for discussion, but if it's an aboriginal voice, then.... Here in Nunavut we select our government, and it's not partisan, so I would imagine something like that. I don't know if that would break any federal rules or regulations, but something like that might work. It's still up for further discussion.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We've looked at the New Zealand model as well for a number of different reasons, but one of them was around how the Maori fare. New Zealand is comparable, and yet is not. They have one distinct group and a long history of having dedicated seats, since 1867, I think.
One thing we've noticed, though, is the change that New Zealand went through in going to a proportional system. The Maori were always—even with those dedicated seats—dramatically under-represented in the legislature. It was a ceiling, and the Maori never got beyond it. In the seven elections since they changed to proportional, Maori have either matched or exceeded representation in the legislature.
What is the change that we're looking to make? We actually have talked quite a bit about gender and how the House of Commons is doing on a gender basis. We haven't heard testimony yet about the matching idea, that there would be a man-woman component, yet we also know that in many systems, the proportion of women.... Since our proportion is very low right now in Canada, I think it hurts us on many levels of policy-making and culture.
That's more food for thought.
Maybe we could have a quick comment from Mr. Fleming around electronic voting, and I wonder if Mr. Arreak would support this. It has been promoted for a couple of advantages. Maybe there would be more young people, or maybe it would help those living remotely or people who have access or mobility issues.
There have been two big downsides. One is about security, about how you stop an election from being hacked or delayed, and the second one is equal access to the Internet.
I don't know if the association of municipalities has an estimate of what it would cost to bring the territory's municipalities up to a code at which people, if they wanted to vote online, could know that the system was not going to crash because the satellite turned three degrees.
October 17th, 2016 / 2:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Nunavut Association of Municipalities
That's a good question.
I think the Internet is widely used in the north. It's kind of a made-for-the-north technology, because the geographical costs of going to Toronto or Hamilton or wherever are huge, but you can experience whatever is in Hamilton and Toronto through the Internet.
If we did implement Internet voting, then you may want to consider having at the polling station something like what we call up here CAP sites, but bring in the computers and that kind of thing. That might be an alternative.
In making those comments, I wasn't expecting to rush out and say we're going to go with electronic voting from now on, but just to suggest that it work that way.
I don't think that computers are the issue up north, because I think a fair number of people have them. It's the infrastructure, especially on voting night, with so much news going through the Internet and so on.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Good afternoon, gentlemen.
An interpreter informed me earlier that there was a funeral at this time for an important leader from your community, or at least that is what I understood. And so I want to extend my sincere condolences, and thank you for being here today.
I want to greet my colleagues, particularly Mr. Hunter Tootoo, as well as the members of the team.
All through the consultations we have held in the provinces and territories, we have mostly heard about the need to increase the proportionality of the electoral system.
Liberal
Liberal
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you.
As I was saying, in most of our meetings, people have recommended that we opt for a reform that would allow for increased proportionality. People spoke about a mixed proportional system, and other similar systems. Since we have heard little from you on this topic, I would like to hear your respective points of view.
I will also ask you a question that goes to the heart of the issue: if the reform of the system led to increased proportionality, would you prefer that the current voting system be maintained in the three territories, or that a proportional system be adopted, with three MPs for all of the territories?
Chief Executive Officer, Executive Services, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.) (Interpretation
Qujannamiik. Thank you for that question, and thanks to Ms. May for facilitating some of it.
First of all, thank you for your condolences. I think Mr. Pearson has left his mark with the people. It is a very sad and happy day for us, happy for him and sad for us.
It's really difficult. When we say “proportional”, is that something that you guarantee has to be Inuk? For example, in Nunavut, to run for office, we're really happy that Hunter is Inuk, but some years it wasn't an Inuk, and so it was difficult.
I was really encouraged to hear that you are looking at some of the barriers to representation. I commented about women having a different world view, and they face the glass ceiling corporate-wise and politically. In Nunavut, the majority of the breadwinners are now women, and they're single mothers. How do we equip them to help us address some of the day-to-day challenges they face in trying to put food on the table? How can we use the tools that government has in their hands to make it better for the people who live here?
That's often the challenge, I think. That's why Nunavut took seriously the idea of two forms, with the male and the female in representation, because we thought that in our world Inuit women see the world differently from the men who were predominantly in authority positions, but now it's women that are really disproportionately represented. They are the ones who are carrying the weight of the families in Nunavut.
Executive Director, Nunavut Association of Municipalities
Chair, thanks for the question.
In light of the vast territories we have, I think the main thing we're trying to emphasize here is whether we can get two MPs and whether, as was suggested earlier, it would require an amendment to the legislation or something. I think that's the main thing we're looking for. As for the design of the system, whether it's first past the post or a proportional system, I would leave that to the committee, because it's the committee that's going to have to sell that to the rest of Canada.
If you want to, say, recommend that the territories have a minimum of two MPs, and then you also propose that we totally transform the electoral system to move away from first past the post to a proportional system, a bloc system, or a ranked system, it might be too much for the country to handle all at once.
I'd leave that to the committee. I think the main thing we're looking for is two representatives per territory. Those are my comments.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you.
To conclude, I'd like to ask Mr. Arreak a question.
Mr. Fleming was talking about the Senate, and about electing senators. What are your thoughts on that?
Would it be a good idea to reserve seats in the Senate for first nations and Inuit members?
Chief Executive Officer, Executive Services, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.) (Interpretation
Yes, on the idea of the Senate, someone once told me that they are supposed to be the sober mind of Canadians, and I think it wouldn't hurt. Since you asked me, yes, absolutely, it would be helpful to have Inuit to help the senators discuss the issues at hand from their perspective.
Liberal
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
I have had the great honour and privilege of having been here before. The first time was in 1986, when the minister I was working with was Tagak Curley, for the creation of Ellesmere Island National Park Reserve. I've had great fortune to be able to travel this land. Few Canadians have had this opportunity.
I've been fortunate also to work with your president, I believe, Cathy Towtongie. I worked with her at COP 21 in Paris. There has been a lot of climate leadership from Inuit people. I'm very drawn to your proposals.
It may just be because I'm the Green Party that I don't think it's a bad idea that caribou and polar bears should be represented in our Parliament. Maybe that's too much for most people, but I think that when you're looking at a land mass and you look at it as a partner instead of as an asset, it changes perspective in a very powerful way.
I want to let you know that although we are here, so far from southern Canada, a lot of Canadians are actually listening to us live. They don't have video, but they are watching Twitter. There are a lot of people who like what you just said. They like the idea that land is a partner.
I want to go to the New Zealand model because you expressed a lot of skepticism about how mixed member proportional might work for Canada. I know, thanks to knowing Cathy Towtongie, that Inuit do not want to be described as a first nation. She was very clear on that. This is a different relationship. It's community partners, as Canadians first, but with a perspective that needs to be heard.
First of all, I should tell you that one of our expert witnesses, Sean Graham from Alberta, actually has advocated this to us on the record, so you're not the first witnesses to suggest that there should be two members for each of the territories. It goes right against our principles of representation by population, but his model, which is one of the ones we're looking at, would put two ridings together across most of Canada and still have two MPs. One would be elected the current way and one would be representative of proportionality, but to make that work he was suggesting we would put two MPs for Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and Yukon.
The other model, of course, is mixed member proportional, under which, as we were discussing, in New Zealand the seats for Maori have been there for quite a number of years. They have a minimum guaranteed number of seven seats for which only Maori voters can make those choices, but due to mixed member proportional, Maori MPs are also being elected in the proportionality system, so that right now the number of Maori members of Parliament perfectly reflects the proportion of the population of New Zealand that is Maori.
I want to go back for a bit more discussion on whether you could see some form of a system, when we're reforming our voting system, that had reserved seats for indigenous peoples but didn't make divisions along ethnicity lines. That is, for purposes of getting a voice out there, we would ask Inuit, Métis, and first nations people to vote for Inuit, Métis, and first nations representatives without breaking that down. Would that be feasible? Do you have any thoughts on that?
Chief Executive Officer, Executive Services, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.) (Interpretation
I think it is great to see this relationship coming from the federal government between the crown and the first peoples, with the first peoples being a party.
How does that filter down into the electoral system? As we said, we have Hunter who got in through the current process that we have. Second, having an Inuk guarantees that there will be the Inuit voice. I think it's not a bad idea that this committee should consider. However, as I said, our organization hasn't really discussed this formally, so I would not want to put too much weight behind that other than to say that I think it's a great idea when you go down this path, because it's thinking outside the box and it's trying to figure out how to honour the new relationship between the crown and its first peoples.
Legal Counsel, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
I would reinforce the general proposition that if one introduced a mixed member electoral model and made no other adjustments, it's possible that representation in a Parliament would actually go down. That's because if you add to the current complement of MPs—if you add another 60 or 80 MPs—and there's one MP from Nunavut, unless there's some high level of predictability that Inuit are going to figure on those party lists, it's possible that a reformed system for the House of Commons would actually deliver less by way of Inuit representation. Clearly, that would not be, from an Inuit perspective, a desirable result.
That said, if one accepts that as a possibility, there are only two ways of fixing that situation. One way is to introduce rules that define the party in terms of the priority they attach to the candidates on the top-up list, and I think that from NTI's point of view, we'd be somewhat nervous to start suggesting how a party should run itself in a democratic system. I think there's a fair bit of constraint on our side as to how intrusive one would want to be in terms of how parties conduct themselves.
Of course, one could come up with other features of electoral systems, as I think you're suggesting, that would provide Inuit with additional assurances they would need, so we've offered a number of ways of doing that. One would be to look at the special geography of Nunavut. One would be to introduce MPs who would represent Inuit as one of the three aboriginal peoples of Canada. There are a number of techniques you could use, but it would be important to adopt something that would accept that a reformed House of Commons should actually provide Inuit with more assurances that they're being well represented.
Legal Counsel, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
I would just make one observation, sir. We've made reference to the New Zealand system, but we're aware that when it was first introduced in New Zealand, the Maoris were approximately half the population. This was not introduced as a generous gesture; this was essentially giving a half the population only four seats. It was a cap. It was a ceiling. It wasn't a phase.
I appreciate that the motivation in New Zealand today is obviously radically different in terms of the justification.
