Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 17th, 2016

[Kuthula Matshazi]

I'm saying that I don't think I'll use all my 10 minutes, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's fine. Take whatever you need, up to 10 minutes.

[Kuthula Matshazi]

I will try to address the key issues.

Before I begin my presentation, I would like to offer my condolences to the family of Mayor Bryan Pearson.

Second, I'm pleased that the government has taken this initiative to review the electoral system. It's an interesting opportunity. I heard about electoral reform when I first came to Canada, and it has been an ongoing public discussion; however, there has been little debate by senators and members of the House of Commons. I'm presenting here today as a city councillor of Iqaluit.

My presentation is going to be short, because Senator Patterson has already given a very comprehensive and extensive history of the electoral reform landscape in Nunavut. I couldn't have done it any better, because he has been here for so long that he has a better grasp of the transition of the northern territories than I have, so thank you so much.

While Canada is a strong and respected democracy, we inherited the first-past-the-post system. The government believes that it is time to create a new system that is broad and representative of voters' views. Of the 34 member countries of the OECD, Canada is one of only three that continue to use the first-past-the-post system to elect legislators. It's time to remind all Canadians that they are in charge. We need to modernize our voting system so that it provides all of us with an opportunity to participate more fully in shaping our country.

In the first-past-the-post system, the candidate with the largest number of votes wins, even if that candidate has less than the majority of the votes cast.

While proponents of the first-past-the-post system argue that the system is simple for voters and most likely to produce governments with a stable majority, others have noticed that the first-past-the-post system routinely forms governments without majority populace support, and at times with less support but more seats than the second-place party.

The first-past-the-post system incentivizes strategic voting, which distorts voter intention, and sadly, minority rule and strategic voting can weaken the perceived legitimacy of elected representatives and governments.

While there is no such thing as a perfect electoral system, as a country we can do better. We deserve broad representative politics that lead to elections that inspire Canadians to vote. That does need to be emphasized, based on the number of people who usually go out to vote.

We need stable governments that respond to the needs of Canadians, and a representation that reflects our diversity and political views.

The five principles that guide the parliamentary committee study are very noble: looking at the effectiveness and legitimacy of the voting system, encouraging engagement and participation in the democratic process, supporting accessibility and inclusiveness for all eligible voters, building integrity into the system, and taking into consideration the accountability of local representation.

Senator Patterson has touched on all of these issues, and I will just emphasize the issue of local representation.

As a territory, we are huge, and we feel we might be better represented if we adopt a different voting system, one that will provide us with not only one member of Parliament but maybe a couple more, and one that is not based on the first-past-the-post system, but something that will be more representative of the voting electorate.

Finally, one issue I want to stress is the issue of effectiveness and legitimacy. From a democratic participation principle, I think it is very important that the system we have should have legitimacy so that people can have faith that when they go to vote, their vote will count, and that the system they are voting in will help them have a reflection in the division of power so that it's not just one person with a slim majority taking all the power, the winner-take-all situation. If we can build some form of equity into the system, I think we might see a lot of people participating in the system.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We'll go now to Mr. Forth, please, for 10 minutes.

[Terry Forth, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. It's my privilege, and it's a great privilege, to have the opportunity to be here this afternoon and to address this committee on some very important matters. I believe that electoral reform is a very important question, central to our form of democracy in Canada.

I promise to keep my comments brief, but first I'd like to point out that many of us here in Nunavut have a day job that sometimes complicates the ability for us to speak independently on occasions such as this. Nevertheless, I want to make it clear to the committee that I'm here today as a private citizen. I'm not in any way representing the organization I work with on a daily basis, or any other organization of which I'm an active member. The views I may express here today are mine alone.

Second, I'd like to touch briefly on my own history. I grew up and was educated in southern Canada, in the very large cities, even then, of Toronto and Montreal. My first employment following my university graduation was in the Lakeshore-West Island area, where I also lived for most of the eight years that I was living in Montreal before I came to the Arctic.

For half of my adult life, I have lived and worked in the north, initially in the Northwest Territories and for the past 17 years, since the beginning of Nunavut. For both my wife Mehrun and me, our working and living lives in the north stretch back over an almost 49-year time span. My work experience and fields of interest have included adult education, housing education, human resource development, and economic development. My wife Mehrun was a registered nurse and midwife.

I've worked closely with Inuit during all of that period, and also with other indigenous people, in all parts of the three territories.

I want to confirm Senator Patterson's observation on how major decisions have been made in the north and about how parliamentary democracy should work, at least in recent decades. The decision not to divide the Northwest Territories, as the senator has pointed out, into two territories, the Mackenzie and Nunassiaq, as it was called then, as proposed in legislation first introduced into the House in 1963, ultimately emanated from the Carrothers commission report in 1966. I'm sorry to be a little pedantic about history, but I think it's important that the idea of dividing the Northwest Territories was not new. It originally stretched back to the early sixties.

Second, the Carrothers commission, which was formed right after the legislation died on the order paper, after two years recommended not to divide the territory. I think that decision may in fact have been the last time that important and crucial changes were contemplated in any of our three northern territories without a broad public consultation process that culminated in some sort of referendum or plebiscite.

As Senator Patterson has pointed out, in Nunavut we actually have a Plebiscites Act for direct votes on community or Nunavut-wide questions, and I'll come back to this in a minute. I think it's also important, though, to emphasize that a critical aspect of the Inuit land claims process in Nunavut was the decision to work towards a parliamentary form of public government rather than Inuit self-rule.

I believe that electoral reform falls into the category of an important and serious issue that calls out for an opportunity to hear the voices of all the people, particularly the citizens of Nunavut, who have come to the party a bit late. I also understand and agree that the issues at play are complex and difficult to understand. It's not easy to explain the various options under consideration. Nevertheless, and with all due respect, I do not believe that this is reason enough to deny the people an opportunity to have a say and to then leave the matter solely to parliamentarians for a decision.

Furthermore, I believe that Parliament has an obligation to ensure that appropriate steps are taken by way of public information and education to ensure that the voters of Canada all understand the electoral options that are being considered. In my opinion, again with all due respect, this should involve more than the use of websites and travelling parliamentary committee hearings. I believe there's a strong expectation here in Canada's newest jurisdiction that something as important as changing the rules governing how federal elections will run would require a referendum and an opportunity for all citizens to vote for the process they would most favour.

If the outcome of the consultations that you have embarked on is to go ahead anyway, with just a vote in Parliament, then I agree with the Mr. Cullen's suggestion that this should, in effect, become a temporary or interim measure, to be followed at some early point down the road by further consideration, after people have had a chance to witness and experience first-hand the impact of whatever changes are brought about. This would then provide an opportunity to review and reconsider, making further modifications to electoral reform with public inputs and preferably a public vote.

It's also important to reflect on the history of electoral evolution in Canada's north. Inuit, who continue to make up the vast majority of our population here in Nunavut and in other parts of the most northerly areas of the Northwest Territories, were only enfranchised in 1948. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that the first time Inuit voters living in what is now Nunavut had an opportunity to vote in a federal election was perhaps 1953, but from my brief examination of the records, it appears that it was likely many years later that Inuit first had an actual opportunity to vote, and that was simply logistics.

As a quick aside, when I filed my first income tax return, having moved north, it was as a foreigner, as a non-resident of Canada. It was the same income tax form that was completed for citizens living abroad, so the north was sort of barely part of this country. It means that Inuit have really only taken an active role in our federal electoral process for perhaps 60 years. That is not a very long time. I know that potential members of Parliament were campaigning in parts of what is now Nunavut in the early sixties.

I had an opportunity in 1968 to see one of the candidates campaigning in Chesterfield Inlet. His campaign methods were somewhat interesting, as he distributed oranges at the meetings he held in the community. Of course, this was so that potential voters would recall his last name when they were voting, which was Bud Orange.

Mr. Chairperson, I think the committee needs to look at Nunavut as an example of how referendums or plebiscites on important matters of public interest can actually work. There have been several examples, as Senator Patterson has clearly indicated: the fusion of the NWT, the location of our capital, and gender equity in our legislative assembly. Other territory-wide decisions concerning land title and the sale of beer, wine, and spirits have also been conducted. Local decisions concerning prohibition of alcohol are also undertaken in communities from time to time.

From a personal point of view, I believe that a better initial option for Canada would be one of the two majority systems: alternative vote, as is the case in Australia, or a runoff, two-round system, such as they have in France.

I believe that many voters here in Nunavut may already think we have a majority voting system in place now, but of course that's not true, and in fact our current member of Parliament, with all due respect, did not win a majority of the votes in the last election, but just over 47% of all votes cast. One of the two majority systems I have just cited might have produced a different result here in Nunavut, and of course the same might have applied in other parts of Canada as well. We can only speculate.

I promised to keep my comments brief, so I will end my presentation here, Mr. Chairperson, but will be happy to respond to any questions the committee members might have during the question period.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Mr. Chambers, please, for 10 minutes.

[Brad Chambers, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Thank you for coming to Iqaluit. Thank you for having me on this panel. It's an honour to be here.

I submitted a brief on electoral reform and I will speak quickly about what I propose. I will, for the most part, skip over the analysis of the various options that are typically discussed, except to say the obvious, which is that there are trade-offs and drawbacks to all of them, and you have the challenging task of not only picking one proposal out of the noise, but then trying to rally everyone to it.

I'd like to start by drawing attention to geography. It is easy for urban Canadians, when sitting around dreaming of electoral reform, to map the German system or the Irish system or whatever system onto Canada, but one defining characteristic of Canada is its widely dispersed population. Nunavut is, of course, the most dramatic example, but it is not just true for Nunavut or even just for the territories. Our expansiveness, combined with a long legacy of first-past-the-post elections, means localness is more important here than perhaps anywhere in the world. Even expanding ridings by 50%, as mixed member proportional systems might, hurts local representation in many parts of Canada. This may not be nearly as true in urban areas, which often have less distinct riding boundaries and where an average urban street can separate two ridings.

Alienation is an easy problem to have in Canada, and local representation, as local as possible, is key for voters to feel they can continue to be connected to government during elections and between them. Many Canadians in small towns or even small cities, and especially those in rural and remote areas, will feel a great loss if they are subsumed into larger ridings. This could hurt voter engagement of marginal groups; it's detrimental to the inclusion of aboriginal groups, farmers, and any other interest that struggles to be heard in a riding of 100,000 or more people, and it could be lost entirely in a larger riding. The solution is to have a hybrid system, which is a system with some single-seat ridings and some multi-seat ridings. This solution has also been proposed by a few others, as I'm sure you know.

I don't propose this as a one-issue solution. I think there are benefits to a hybrid system other than just balancing localness and proportionality, but while everyone seems to want to keep local representation, they propose larger ridings, and that concerns me. The problem here, or let's call it an opportunity, is that there is some difficulty in determining which ridings should remain single-seat ridings and which ridings should be merged. I don't think it's as simple as looking at physical size. There may be some urban ridings of a distinct nature that want to maintain their distinctiveness. There may be some rural or remote ridings that value the ability to elect multiple members over maintaining the most local riding they can, so I propose this decision to be the riding's choice—not just once, but on an ongoing basis.

What's at stake when deciding between a single-member riding and larger multi-member ridings are two important decisions. The first decision involves localness and proportionality. These are the two electoral reform features talked about the most. There is no way to maximize localness and proportionality at the riding level. To gain proportionality, there are some costs to localness.

The second decision, although much less discussed, is how constituents are represented, but I believe it is important in practice. There's no way to give constituents competition and choice among multiple MPs, as in multi-member ridings, while also keeping the strength of representation in small single-member ridings with an MP with a duty to serve all constituents. The larger ridings can only weaken an MP's feel for the riding, which would be at least 50% bigger than now, and it make it harder for constituents to identify with their MP.

These are very important factors that affect people's connection to their democracy, and what happens when you make that decision for them? Your five principles for electoral reform apply to the process as well as the outcome. Taking these important decisions away from voters and putting them up front in this process in electoral reform invites many people to be against whatever is proposed. Keeping this in the hands of the electorate means people aren't pulled in as many directions and are more likely to accept this change.

The mechanism I propose for this is a yes-or-no question at election time, asking voters if they want to stay as they are or change. In the first election, upon implementation, it would be a question of staying as a single-member riding or joining a multi-seat district. In the future, they could vote on switching back or on switching from one district to another. Leading up to the election, there would be a petition process to see what options should be put to voters. In most parts of the country, the primary merger option would be fairly obvious.

This is the short version of what I propose. This system has some unique advantages.

First, while mixed systems are not terrible, they are a blunt tool. Why impose a compromise system on the whole country when we can have location-specific solutions?

Second, it's the most democratic, because voters decide. It has a small initial step that leaves some future decision-making in the hands of voters, making it the most sellable to the public. Change must be incremental for the electorate to support the changed initiative. The best proposal in the world accomplishes nothing if it's voted down.

It's one of the few proposals that can possibly be initiated for the next election, since there are no changes to electoral boundaries. It just needs time for a petition process in each riding to have a merger option to vote on at election time.

It would improve proportionality on a national level, while allowing ridings to stay the same size as they are now, where and when that is considered important by those constituents. It is as proportional as people want it to be, and it's as local as people want it to be.

While it has a unique procedural element to it, what I propose will involve tried and true political systems in the actual election itself. Federal elections are not the place for experimenting with brand new election systems.

Our riding choice model is moderate, easy to sell to the electorate, balances localness and proportionality, and is strong on effectiveness, on legitimacy and voter engagement, and above all excels at being democratic, which is what this is all about.

Qujannamiik. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chambers.

We'll go now to the round of questioning. Each member of the committee will have five minutes to engage with the witnesses.

We'll start with Ms. Sahota, for five minutes, please.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to start by thanking all of the witnesses. Your presentations were very informative.

I'll start off with Mr. Chambers, since you ended off with giving me a lot to think about in your proposal.

I think when you were summarizing all the different options we have to weigh and the different trade-offs we'd make with moving to different systems, you were bang on with the complexity of the issue, because there's always something we have to trade in order to gain something else. That is the position we're in, and we're trying to figure out what's most important to gain and what's the least of our priorities so we can trade it off.

There is one issue I see with putting the question of whether they want to merge or not merge to the people at every election. You said that in some areas the boundaries or regions you would merge together to have a multi-member district would be quite obvious. What if one current riding of that multi-member region votes to stay as a single-member region, but the other three or four vote to merge? What happens then? The intent of the majority of the people there is that they would like to merge, but then one riding that is the obvious choice to fit into that merger is saying they want to stay as a single member. What would you do in that situation?

[Brad Chambers]

That riding would stay as a single-seat riding. It could be a Switzerland in the middle of a multi-member riding around it. I don't see any particular problems with that.

The complication is each riding has to know what's on the table. There does have to be some coordination. If riding A wants to merge with riding B, and riding B is more interested in merging with riding C, there does need to be some coordination there. However, as I said, in most parts of Canada there are obvious urban blocks or geographic delineations that would lead to obvious grouping, and that's what the petition process would have to figure out.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Forth mentioned that he has a large Facebook following, and even when.... Was that the senator? Yes. Sorry, Senator.

You have a large Facebook following, and even when you put this question to people, there were only a couple of responses. How do you feel about Mr. Chambers' proposal? I think one of the good things about our system currently is that it is simple to understand. Whether that's lower on the totem pole, and you can trade that off....

It's not that big of a deal, perhaps, but ballot choices would be different in a single-member riding from those in a multi-member. Do you think not knowing in every election period whether you're going to be a single-member riding or how you're going to be voting going into a multi-member riding or whatever creates a lot of complexity for the average voter? You've been in politics for a long time. I feel you would probably have a good opinion on what the voter thinks.

[Dennis Glen Patterson]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the question.

With all respect to Mr. Chambers, I think what he proposes is too complex. I gave some examples of the very crystal clear question that we created in reference to the very important subject of choosing a capital and dividing the Northwest Territories. With all respect to our population, we're still struggling with achieving success, even with high school graduation. I think it would be very helpful to keep in mind clarity and simplicity in any reforms recommended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you for your testimony. It was very direct and to the point and well backed up.

Go ahead, Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Forth, you mentioned that you'd like to move toward the runoff system that France has or Australia's AV system as models that are appealing to you. Why are those models more appealing than moving toward the system that New Zealand has, which is often cited to this committee as an ideal system to look at?

[Terry Forth]

It was in the interests of simplicity. At this stage I wasn't taking exception to the New Zealand model. I was looking at a simple majority approach. I think most voters think that's what we already have, and we don't, obviously.

It wasn't any more complex than that. It wasn't because I was rejecting the New Zealand system out of hand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses. This has once again been a very interesting panel. I'm grateful to all of you for giving us the benefit of your insight.

I have to mention for the benefit of everybody else on the committee that one of our witnesses today is a part-time constituent of mine. Mr. Forth has a cottage in South Frontenac in part of my riding. There are a lot of grumpy Queen's University professors in South Frontenac who complain about the lousy Internet service. They build their perfect home at the side of a lake under a hill, and then it blocks the Internet signal.

Coming from someone who lives half the year or more up here, I know you won't be complaining about the South Frontenac Internet service.

[Terry Forth]

Don't get me started, Mr. Reid.

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

First of all, thank you. Your presentation was very informative in other respects.

I have to weigh in on a comment you made about the French system versus the alternative vote or instant runoff. I don't think either of these systems is ideal for a Canadian election, but different systems work for different things.

My own party at one time had a French-style system, with two rounds. We've now moved to a preferential ballot with a single winner. Of the two, that is better. The reason the French system is problematic is that in the second round, you have a situation in which the best way to win is by engaging in very aggressive negative campaigning. I happened to be in Europe during the second round of one of the French presidential races, and watching the coverage on TV was most discouraging. It's just an observation.

Mr. Chambers, have you submitted a brief to our analysts outlining how your system would work?

[Brad Chambers]

Yes, I have.

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

Okay, we'll make sure to look for that and read through it. I have a feeling we'll profit by a careful reading of it.

I too had questions relating to practical implementation of this idea. I want to start, though, by congratulating you. It's an unexpected pleasure when we get somebody who has thought through, in a different and innovative way, how to deal with these problems we talked about and has a made-in-Canada solution. I think we sometimes don't realize what it means to try to create solutions that build upon the best of other examples while taking into account Canada's unique problems.

I gather from the way you described the public consultation process that it would not be possible to introduce your proposed system for the 2019 election. Rather, the 2019 election would be the point at which information would be gathered from constituents across the country as to what they'd prefer for their own representation.

[Brad Chambers]

The initial election would obviously be different. That first election would be when the riding-by-riding, initial yes-or-no question on merger proposals would be voted on. They would be implemented for the next election.

That's part of the reason I like it, as a matter of fact. It has that small initiation step. It gives people time to work their way into it, and there's no massive change right away. It's incremental, and I think that benefits the public. If you want to maintain integrity and legitimacy, you need time to settle into a new system.

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

I can see how it works in the south, but up here, were you contemplating the possibility of either a merging of the representation of territories in Parliament, which has been suggested by some people, or alternatively, the possibility of creating more MPs for existing territories, which has been suggested by other people, or was it neither of those options?

[Brad Chambers]

I don't really know what options are realistic. I had assumed that anything across provincial boundaries would not fly, would not be possible. If it was possible, though, that opens up a lot more opportunities for a place like Nunavut. Assuming that's not true, I'd say our only options for merging would be across to the other territories. That could be the option that's put forward to Nunavut voters, and they'd have to decide if they wanted to merge with NWT or Yukon. Our size makes that seem not particularly attractive, but we seem to be in a position where Nunavut doesn't have a lot of attractive options on the table.

If additional MPs were added to the north, that would obviously open up additional options, or if boundaries with the provinces were not a no-go, then that would open up some opportunities to maybe merge with Labrador. I assume that those things are not options.

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

I agree. I think it's conceivable constitutionally to have the three territories sharing representation in some way, but the Constitution is pretty clear on provincial boundaries being inviolate. Of course, the great irony here is that the Inuit population in Canada is spread across one territory and two provinces, as opposed to there being an Inuit population of any size in Yukon, for example. There is an Inuit population in Labrador, however, and a very large one in northern Quebec.