Evidence of meeting #44 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was ridings.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Brampton North, ON

You'd have to set different rules, and they would be for the nomination process.

6:25 p.m.

Director, Advocacy and Public Policy, YWCA Canada

Ann Decter

You could set some kind of affirmative action rules around nominations. There have been suggestions in the past. When there were the subsidies for votes, there was a suggestion that you wouldn't be able to collect the government subsidy for votes—I know we don't have it anymore—unless you had a certain percentage of women candidates, for example.

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Brampton North, ON

Would you agree that changing the electoral system alone, without having some kind of legislation in place, would not ultimately have a huge effect?

6:25 p.m.

Director, Advocacy and Public Policy, YWCA Canada

Ann Decter

The evidence isn't really clear that changing it alone won't do anything. The biggest factor to go with it, I think, is that you have a country that already believes in women's equality. I think if you had a country that didn't believe in women's equality and where women weren't, as I mentioned, extremely well educated, in the workforce, all of those things, then I don't think, on its own, it would make a difference.

On the evidence, it seems that Canada is positioned to have women benefit from a move to proportional representation. We can only cite the evidence as far as it goes.

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you very much. We'll go to Mr. Reid now, please.

October 20th, 2016 / 6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the presenters for their presentations.

Thank you to Wilf Day, who is sitting on the side. Wilf and I have communicated on numerous occasions over a period of more than a decade, largely dealing with redistribution. I've been on the relevant committee twice, and Wilf has had intelligent thoughts on redistribution on both of those occasions. His thoughts are very much appreciated by me and by members of other parties who have been in communication with him, as well.

I wanted to start, if I could, with Mr. Lavergne, who I think is the right person to turn to, although I stand to be corrected.

I have a series of maps that were distributed. I think you are the person responsible, and I think Wilf is also partly responsible. I'm trying to make sense of them. I can see that you've gone through and that you have four maps for each region of the country represented by an MP on the committee. I see eastern Ontario; that's me. I see Montreal; that's presumably for Sherry Romanado's benefit. It continues right down to New Brunswick for Matt DeCourcey, and so on.

Having said that, it looks to me like you've put forward two systems to show us. One is called MMP-8, and there are two maps for that for each region. The other is called rural-urban PR, and there are two maps for that for each region. Am I right, so far?

6:30 p.m.

President, Fair Vote Canada

Réal Lavergne

Yes, you're essentially right. There is a map for each of the members of the ERRE. Wilf is the one who did all of these maps. That is why I was frantically pointing to Wilf over here.

You're supposed to have one map for MMP in each case, and one map for rural-urban in each case. Rural/urban also illustrates what the STV might look like because under rural/urban you might be using STV as your multi-member mechanism.

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Okay, so now let me ask some questions about those maps.

I'm looking at the ones for central eastern Ontario. There are 19 members of Parliament in the region right now, if you leave out Durham, which I assume is how you've drawn the region.

The first map says six local MPs; the second one says three regional MPs. That, of course, adds up to only nine. May I assume that the other 10 who aren't mentioned there are on a proportional list, either for some other region that is larger than this, or for the region as a whole, or else for an Ontario-wide list, or something like that?

6:30 p.m.

President, Fair Vote Canada

Réal Lavergne

That's right. This is an MMP-8; it's actually MMP-9, in this particular case. So the region is going to be—

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

What does the code MMP-8 or MMP-9 mean?

6:30 p.m.

President, Fair Vote Canada

Réal Lavergne

It means that the top-up region would have an average of eight seats.

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

In this case, you said it's actually nine for this region.

6:30 p.m.

President, Fair Vote Canada

Réal Lavergne

In this case it's nine.

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

So you have nine regional seats for the region that includes 19 members of Parliament now, and then it has six local MPs and three sort of subregions that are.... Or am I misunderstanding?

6:30 p.m.

President, Fair Vote Canada

Réal Lavergne

No, it's not a region that's 19 now. This is a region that currently has nine. It currently has nine and the MMP—