Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 17th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll go to Mr. Cullen.

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

Sorry. I want to say thank you very much. It was an innovative proposal, and I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do share that appreciation for innovation.

The provincial jurisdiction thing does come up when, as Mr. Arreak was proposing to us earlier, there is direct representation based on ethnicity. There would potentially be first nations, Métis, and Inuit representation. Do you try to capture people geographically in that representation, or do you capture it in a way that it is presented, as it is in New Zealand? I don't know if we have other examples. I'm sure there are some.

Mr. Matshazi, first of all, congratulations on your election to office.

I'd like to quote your cousin, Beacon Khumalo. I looked you up. He said on the night of your historic election win:

Winning is actually when he delivers (on his promises) so I think this is half the point where I can say he has won.

I like that quote, because on election night we celebrate the winners. We say, “Oh, they have won”, yet they're not truly winners, particularly according to your cousin and I think others, until they deliver on the promises that got them elected in the first place. That quotation struck me simply because the formation of this committee is an effort to fulfill a promise. Mr. Trudeau won the last election federally under our current system, but won it with a promise, which is ironic, to do away with that system. As I said, 63% of the people in the House of Commons....

I'll turn this question to Senator Patterson. I'll read you another quote, this one from a former senator. This is weird for a New Democrat, but we're going there.

Senator Len Marchand was talking about first nations' strength in our country in terms of representation. He noted back in 1990 that the current voting system is bad and a barrier because it “fragments aboriginal voting strength to the point where an aboriginal vote is next to meaningless.”

What I'm hearing so far today, if I found a theme throughout the testimony, is to please do no harm to the north. Our voices are often singular in terms of Nunavut, but for three vast territories across the north, the theme is “Don't come up with a system that will do us harm”, and maybe there can be some enhancements.

Let me put both of the citations I just read those to you, Mr. Patterson. One is about fulfilling a promise, and the second is about the dilution of aboriginal first nations, Métis, and Inuit voices in the current system that we have right now.

[Dennis Glen Patterson]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and for that question.

I think you understand perfectly the perspective we have in Nunavut. We're by far the largest jurisdiction in the country—bigger than Ontario, bigger than Quebec—with the smallest population. The Inuit, in turn, are a small minority within Canada, especially small compared with the first nations and Métis. I think you've summarized perfectly a concern that I have, which is to consider the Inuit minority in Nunavut. That's unique in Canada too. We have the highest majority of aboriginal people in Nunavut. Consider the Inuit minority in Nunavut within Canada as a fragile, small voice, and whatever system is devised, it should do that no harm.

Thank you.

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

I'll follow up on the questions of legitimacy, because in various forms, both you and Mr. Forth have put forward the idea of legitimizing what we're doing.

I would suggest that Nunavut has had a unique experience with plebiscite, referenda-type questions across a population of 32,000, of which 20-odd thousand would be voting. Canada as a country hasn't had such a spectacular experience with referenda. As some have suggested, it opens up or creates unforeseen divisions. The recent Colombian and U.K. referenda asked one question but got an answer that was entirely unrelated if you look at the exit polls and what people had on their minds. They were popularity contests, unpopularity contests....

Is there another way that we can legitimize this process? Some people have put forward the idea that it's this committee, and then further to that, the House of Commons should come forward with a consensus point of view. It would give Canadians the assurance that one party isn't bringing in a system favourable just to them, which is one of the fears. First, you're getting a bad system, but otherwise you're just cooking the books and making the rules favour partisan interests, outside of referenda. For us as New Democrats, a referendum is not off the table, but we see problems with it. Are there other things that can increase the level of legitimacy?

Perhaps with the little time left, I can have just a couple of quick thoughts from across the table.

[Kuthula Matshazi]

As I mentioned in my presentation, all these different types of voting systems are going to be contentious. It's always going to be contentious, as well as those bringing them forth.

To go back to the system that I suggested, I see it as a political platform that opens up the opportunity for more people to participate in the system. Then if they get more engaged and we start talking more and more, it's a way to engage more people. You encourage them to start talking about these other different alternatives, because right now people are disengaged.

How do you bring them to the political platform where they can start engaging and discussing different ideas about electoral systems? This provides a platform where they can come in and start discussing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Ste-Marie is next.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

My question was originally for Mr. Patterson, but unfortunately he has to leave to go and take a plane. So I am addressing it to all three of you.

I would like to get back to some things said by the witnesses in the first group, while keeping in mind the principles we have been asked to advance, which are the following: effectiveness and legitimacy; engagement; accessibility and inclusiveness; integrity; and local representation. In the discussions with the first group, Mr. Fleming talked about the need for an elected Senate, and for adopting an electoral system for senators. Mr. Arreak appeared very interested and open to this idea.

I would have liked to hear Mr. Patterson's opinion. In my opinion, this is in keeping with the principles of the committee.

I would like each of you, in turn, to give me your opinion about the idea of an elected Senate.

[Terry Forth]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wasn't here to hear Mr. Fleming express those views. I personally believe that an elected Senate is both desirable and workable in Canada. It would go a long way to solve the issues of regional representation for the north. As it stands now, with only one member of Parliament, with all due respect, we don't have a big voice. This would be a way of broadening that voice through an elected Senate and with some legitimacy. That's my view.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

Gentlemen, what do you think?

[Brad Chambers]

Thank you.

Should the Senate be elected or not is one of those questions that when asked in isolation has an obvious answer: yes, it should be elected.

My fear is that there are constitutional and regional balance issues. It's messy and complicated. My fear is that I don't want to see that sabotage other reform measures. I don't want to see a referendum that has one omnibus question on Senate reform and electoral reform just sandbag everything. Maybe you could put that on a slower track, but yes, by all means.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Matshazi, what do you think?

[Kuthula Matshazi]

Thank you, Chair.

I would support the elected Senate. One of the reasons the question might come up is the issue of legitimacy, as is being written in the newspapers. Ultimately, it becomes an issue.

The financial costs that have been related to the Senate and its operations draw attention. It's integral to our political capital as a democratic system. To advance and ensure that the august Senate has legitimacy and is perceived in a positive light, we need to have people elected instead of being appointed.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Chambers, my next question is for you, and is about the system you are proposing.

To your knowledge, is there a similar system being used in another country or another region?

[Brad Chambers]

At its heart, it is a hybrid system. The only country I know of that uses it is Panama. I don't really understand why, because it's such a small country. I know that a hybrid system has been posed by Mr. Kingsley, formerly of Elections Canada. I know that Fair Vote Canada has put forward a similar model, as have others.

At its heart, it's a hybrid a system that is not new. As I stated in my speaking notes, I think that's very important. I know that a lot of innovative and creative suggestions have been brought forward, and many of them are interesting, but we can't get too creative and too innovative when we're talking about this. Maybe somewhere in a municipal setting or even a provincial setting it would be great to try new things. At its heart, it's a hybrid system that isn't that dramatic. In fact, most of those advocating a proportional representation system often don't know what to do with the north. They just say we'll keep them all single.

It's actually quite common to be proposing something like this. Really, in what I'm suggesting, it's the process element that's different. I think that has important meaning, but at the end of the day, elections will have integrity and there shouldn't be concerns that it's a wacky new system that will have unintended consequences.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. May is next.

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

Thank you, and I thank the witnesses for coming.

Brad Chambers, thank you for putting effort into a system that is unique to your proposal. We will be looking at it.

I don't know if it's appropriate to turn to my colleague Scott Reid and say that if we absolutely are going to make observations on voting systems based on what you saw in France, can we all now agree that the first-past-the-post system is definitely dangerous from what we see happening in the U.S. presidential election?

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

One could make some comments about some of the personalities involved in it, if we wished, but perhaps we'll wait until after it's over.

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

Your answer may trump my question.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Sorry. We should not engage in repartee among the members of Parliament here.

I don't know if this is unfair to you, Mr. Matshazi, but we have not had any witnesses with any experience with the Zimbabwe electoral system. Would you feel comfortable if I were to ask you about your experiences in the electoral system in Zimbabwe before you moved to Canada?

[Kuthula Matshazi]

Absolutely.

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

Okay.

It's a complicated system. It started out as first past the post. As I understand it, there's a lower house of about 270 persons, for which 210 are elected by first past the post and 60 seats are reserved for women to be elected proportionally. I don't think anyone would hold up a government under the thumb of Mugabe as a great democracy—I hope you will forgive me for saying so—but I wonder if you have any comments on whether that is truly proportional and how first past the post has worked for Zimbabwe. As well, would you have recommendations for us?

We're certainly glad you're in Canada. Congratulations on being elected and keeping all your promises to the citizens of Iqaluit. We've had no one else from Zimbabwe before us, and I'm tempted to ask you about this, if you wouldn't mind commenting.

[Kuthula Matshazi]

Thank you very much.

It's difficult for me to comment on the Zimbabwe situation. That's not to put it down or anything, but I think talking about the level of democracy for a mature democracy and for an emerging democracy—some might say a pseudo-democracy—would be like comparing apples and oranges.

On the concept of proportional representation, in any kind of democracy, if you are striving to build representativeness into a system, I think that is good. One, it builds legitimacy, and two, it draws a lot of people into the political process and gets them engaged.

I think that is the basis of my support for the proportional representation system.