Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 17th, 2016

[James Arreak]

Not a bad idea, I think.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[James T. Arreak]

People would have a chance to say, “Hey, it's election day. I'm free to go vote.” As employers, we give our staff time to go vote on that day, so I don't know how much of a contribution that would make.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, thank you to our guests today. It has been a fascinating panel, and we certainly appreciate your insight.

I want to follow up with all our panellists on what Mr. Aldag was talking about. If I understood correctly, you are not necessarily in favour of a referendum, for a number of reasons, and that's certainly a valid opinion. I don't want to read too much into your comments. I do think you would agree that there needs to be a sense of legitimacy to the change in process. That was your recommendation, that there should be a clear platform commitment to some form of electoral reform. I know from my town hall meetings that it is challenging for Canadians to provide input when they don't know exactly which proposal is being made.

Am I reading too much into this? Is that the sense you are getting from the people of Nunavut, that there should be some kind of clear platform commitment, and then a change made after the 2019 election?

Perhaps I'll throw it out to Mr. Fleming as well. You made the comment that in discussing this issue with your 25 mayors, there wasn't a clear sense of specifically where electoral reform should go. If I get the sense correctly, you are probably thinking there should be some kind of clear platform before further discussion is undertaken.

[Brian Fleming]

One example would be here in Nunavut, where we just had a referendum on whether municipalities should be allowed to sell land. It was overwhelmingly “no”, so we're just going to stay with the system.

On some of these referendum questions, the more clearly laid out the question that we've voting on the better, because if it gets long-winded, it's pretty tough for people to wrap their heads around.

I'll add to Alexandre's question about how to get voters out. I don't think it's necessarily the task of politicians, but at least up north, if you can get into the schools and talk to people about why it's important to vote, I think it can go a long way, because there is quite a disconnect up here. Someone living in Grise Fiord is wondering “Why do I need to vote? What's Ottawa going to do for me? It's a long way away.” However, if more school awareness programs and things like that can be done, I think they will help to educate people about voting, especially because we have so many youths here in Nunavut.

[John Merritt]

Thank you, sir.

I think you're interpreting NTI's outlook correctly. I think there's a perception at NTI that the public expectation in Canada is that we would not have the current House of Commons reform an electoral system on its own without the Canadian public having some further say on the matter. That seems to be a widespread opinion in Canada, and it's probably better to go with that as the current Parliament, rather than to resist it or try to stare it down. If there's a need for some further democratic sign-off on this issue, then the choices are obviously a direct referendum-style vote or a federal election.

NTI has had good experiences with Parliament in terms of the ability of Parliament to respond to Inuit agenda on a number of things. The Nunavut Act itself, the creation of the territory, came about through an act of Parliament; there wasn't a national vote on creating a new territory in Canada. We've had two quite complex pieces of legislation adopted by Parliament to implement the Nunavut agreement, one on planning and project assessments, which essentially replaces the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in Nunavut, and one on Nunavut waters and surface rights.

Since probably the late 1970s, NTI has appeared at parliamentary committees at least two or three dozen times, and that experience has generally been positive. I suspect this might be good news for people doing your work. I think there's a healthy respect for the ability of Parliament to deal with complex issues in a way that's fair and representative. We're here today, of course, as a vote of confidence in Parliament's ability to do that. We don't see the referendum as necessarily an ideal vehicle.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

It's the turn of Mr. DeCourcey, please.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all three presenters.

My colleague Ms. Sahota asked earlier on about the distinction between the three territories, and therefore the importance of having distinct representation in the three territories.

Mr. Reid talked about some testimony we heard in Whitehorse. One of our witnesses referred to the north being the north, but there was some debate on whether it would be acceptable to have representatives elected through a collective proportional vote share across the north if proportionality is introduced. There has even been talk of that vote share extending south into some of the northern provincial boundaries.

Certainly constitutional questions come into play, but would it be palatable at all if somebody were elected based on a vote share that crossed territorial boundaries? I know you've mentioned it a little and shared some of your concerns with an MMP model, but can you offer a definitive point of view on that question?

[John Merritt]

Before Mr. Arreak responds, I would note that there are Inuit living in northern Quebec and in Newfoundland and Labrador as well. In relation to that question, it's important to remember that any system like that might have to be open to an Inuit vote that would include Inuit living in territories and provinces, not just in the territories.

[James Arreak]

As well, I think it would be difficult to implement, because there are barriers you don't know of that exist between the jurisdictions. For example, in Nunavut, even though we're a close and similar culture, there are some gaps there that I think you should be aware of as a committee responsible for this.

Those kinds of challenges do exist, if there were that kind of model, even though we just said that.... We do exercise it at the ITK level, but at times it's pretty challenging when there are different positions and parties in Nunavut.

[Brian Fleming]

Mr. Chair, if I understood the question correctly, we'd be voting for two or three more MPs on a northern basis, regardless of the territory?

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

In a theoretical MMP model, if you maintain the one constituency MP and then there was a proportional vote share that extended across the territories to elect however many more MPs, would that be acceptable? The vote share of Yukoners, people from the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut would all count in a proportional election.

[Brian Fleming]

I think it would be very difficult to do too. I'd be concerned about the representation. For example, in the Northwest Territories, a well-known candidate from Yellowknife could probably take the entire.... If they were to win Yellowknife, they'd probably take the proportional vote there. I'd be concerned on that basis alone.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

This is my last question, Mr. Arreak.

You talked about the alternative vote ballot, the ranked ballot, as perhaps an option in a large single-member district. Let's say that there are no additional seats proposed for the north based on the concept of representation by population. Would you propose to this committee that for large ridings like Nunavut, a ranked ballot be introduced? Are there any challenges you see in people comprehending a ranking system? We did have some discussion about that in the Northwest Territories, where the idea of ranking people one, two, three, four, five was not a very comprehensible idea to some people in the population.

[James Arreak]

I think a ranked ballot system, as proposed, is difficult to facilitate. It would require quite a process to support it and for the public to understand it intuitively. There are some logistical challenges with a ranked ballot process. Those would be considerations, I guess.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Did I understand you correctly that on the idea of building some level of consensus within the large geographic area, there's value in exploring the idea of a ranked ballot?

[James Arreak]

Yes.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thanks very much.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. DeCourcey.

That ends this segment of our meeting day. That was a great discussion.

Thank you again, Mr. Arreak, Mr. Fleming, and Mr. Merritt.

We'll break for about five minutes, and then we'll come back with our second panel.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll open this second segment of our meeting.

We have a number of witnesses on our panel, including Senator Patterson. It's nice to have you here today. Our condolences for the passing of, I believe, your first mayor of Iqaluit, who was obviously well loved and will be missed.

In addition to Senator Patterson, we have Mr. Terry Forth, as an individual; Mr. Kuthula Matshazi, a councillor for the Town of Iqaluit; and Mr. Brad Chambers, who is appearing as an individual.

Each witness will get about 10 minutes. We'll start with Senator Patterson because I know you have some time constraints, Senator.

Go ahead, please.

[Dennis Glen Patterson, Senator]

Qujannamiik. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me to appear before you today.

I would like to welcome all honourable members of Parliament here and thank you very much for this opportunity to discuss my thoughts on electoral reform as they relate to my home jurisdiction of Nunavut and here in my home community of Iqaluit.

I understand that today marks the final day of committee hearings outside of Ottawa. I want to strongly commend you for taking the time to visit every province and territory in the country. I'm sure it has not been easy.

I have two messages for you today.

First, we have a long-established tradition of dealing with important public policy questions in the Northwest Territories and Yukon, which I respectfully ask you to consider in formulating your recommendations to the government.

Second, please let's not rush this important process. It's especially important to us northerners to have an opportunity to weigh in on a question with significant national importance, such as this one.

As you know, Nunavut was officially separated from its sister territory, the NWT, on April 1, 1999. The NWT and Nunavut, in their relatively short time as fully elected governments responsible to their people, have forged strong traditions that the rest of us could well emulate, including a tradition of respectful relationships with the aboriginal peoples who are the strong majority in both territories.

Another of our strong traditions is the so-called consensus system of government, which has served us well in making major progress on challenging issues such as the resolution of complex and comprehensive land claims and significant progress in what we call “constitutional development”, reflected in the steady acquisition of province-like responsibilities from Ottawa in areas such as health, public utilities, and management and a revenue share of lands and resources in the NWT in 2014, a process that is being negotiated in Nunavut as we speak.

We've managed to do all that without partisan politics in the NWT and Nunavut. It is a great system in which I proudly served for 16 years, and a system I'm most comfortable with and welcome in the Senate of Canada, now moving towards more independence and less partisanship.

What I want to emphasize today, honourable members, is that we know how to address big public policy questions successfully. We agreed to divide the Northwest Territories to create a new public government in Nunavut with a strong Inuit majority, alongside the largest and most ambitious land claims settlement in history; to establish a new regulatory regime—because we don't use the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act here in Nunavut—and to determine a boundary for division. All that was done without strife, and certainly without bloodshed or bitterness.

We did so by taking our time, as it was a process of more than 20 years. We did so by consulting all citizens at every major step of the way, and this is my message to you today, respectfully.

Dear parliamentary colleagues, I ask you to respect that the NWT and Nunavut have a very strong tradition of consulting the people on major public policy decisions and have established from the first days of elected government a long-standing and well-established system of public voting—we call them plebiscites—to ensure that the general electorate is consulted on major public policy decisions such as the one you're wrestling with, reform of the electoral system.

In Nunavut, the Plebiscites Act regulates direct votes on community and Nunavut-wide questions. This fundamental tool for legislators to secure a mandate for major changes in public policy was established in the NWT when major electoral and constitutional reforms were contemplated by the elected legislators of the day.

The Plebiscites Act was established in 1974 and became a crucial vehicle to assure the federal government that the people of the NWT were supportive of major political changes. I want to give you some examples of the important questions on which the people of Nunavut were given a voice.

In 1982, when Nunavut was part of the NWT, there was a very important vote on whether or not the Northwest Territories should be divided into two territories. The outcome of this vote, in which 56.5% of residents of three years' standing in the NWT voted “yes”, was absolutely critical in paving the way for the creation of Nunavut.

Then in 1995 there was a vote on which community should become the capital of Nunavut. The choices were Rankin Inlet or Iqaluit, and 60% voted for Iqaluit as the capital, compared to 40% who voted for Rankin Inlet.

Please note that we then considered what I thought was an exciting and beneficial change to our voting system in territorial elections. It was a very exciting proposal that would have seen one man and one woman guaranteed to be elected in each territorial riding. We held a plebiscite to determine the wishes of the general electorate. The question in that vote was, “Should the first Nunavut Legislative Assembly have equal numbers of men and women MLAs, with one man and one woman elected to represent each electoral district?” The result, which sadly was very disappointing to me, was that 57% voted against the change.

People must have a voice and a vote if we are to change our way of electing MPs. However, for that vote to truly be representative of the will of the Canadian people, I strongly believe that it's important to ensure that every Canadian has the opportunity to make a truly informed decision.

I have a Senate Facebook page. Facebook is ubiquitous in the north, even though we have very slow Internet. Some of my posts have had a reach of over 4,000 all the way to 19,000 people. My most popular post to date has had 933 interactions, which include likes, shares, and comments.

In September I launched an Internet survey asking respondents to identify how much they understood about the options available for electoral reform. I've received only two responses to date. This, to me, is an indication that more engagement and a better, deeper understanding of alternative systems are needed.

In preparing for today, I reviewed your committee's mandate and noted in particular the welcome emphasis on principles of engagement and legitimacy connected with your study of alternative voting systems. I also noted that the standing order establishing the committee directed the committee to study and advise on additional methods for obtaining the views of Canadians.

Today I've described a decades-long tradition of a territorial government seeking the views of their electorate on proposals for significant policy change through what we call plebiscites. I do hope this history of our experience dealing with major changes in a non-partisan system of government, time-tested over decades in our albeit short history of representative elected government, is informative. I also hope that your committee will consider this method of engaging northerners and obtaining their views. This is how we make important decisions on matters of public policy in the north. This is how we've engaged our aboriginal majorities and established successful partnerships to implement modern treaties, enshrining aboriginal rights alongside public government. This is how we persuaded the federal government to draw new boundaries in the north and on one-third of the map of Canada, and to create a new contiguous territory of Nunavut alongside a modern treaty.

I respectfully recommend that a public vote is similarly what will be required to give legitimacy to any plans for electoral reform in Canada.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Senator, for that interesting perspective. It adds a lot to our discussion.

We'll go now to Councillor Matshazi for 10 minutes.

[Kuthula Matshazi, Councillor, Town of Iqaluit]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't think I'll use up all my 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Pardon me, sir?