Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 26th, 2016

[Carole Bezaire, As an Individual]

Good evening, committee members.

First, I would like to sincerely thank you for all the work you did over the summer. You spent many sunny days inside. I followed you in the morning, afternoon and evening. I attended meetings. So I can appreciate the energy that you were looking for in these meetings.

After all that, you have pretty much heard everything on the matter, but you haven't heard from everyone. In fact, although they were invited, many people did not come. They did not want to participate. I, myself, invited people to come with me to the meetings, but I was told that you didn't want to hear what they had to say. Which isn't true. They didn't believe that you wanted to hear from us, nor did they believe that their vote counts and that it can change something. I won't go any further because I think you know where I'm going.

Tonight, I would mainly like to say that I would like you to remember why you decided to get into politics. A long time ago, you believed that you could change the world, that you could make a small improvement to the day-to-day lives of your constituents. I think you have a golden opportunity to do so. Give us a true democracy. Work by means of consensus and change the political culture.

To do this, you have to take the bull by the horns, which means changing the voting system because, even though there are ways to improve the system, to have true change, we need to adopt a new voting system.

If you haven't already, I invite you to read chapter 5 of the book by Professor Jean-Pierre Derriennic, who you met in Quebec City, I believe.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, we met him in Quebec City.

[Carole Bezaire]

It was indeed in Quebec.

I think that it will give you a good idea of the path you could take. If you take that path, I am sure that you will make liars of many political analysts who believe that, because you are too focused on your own interests, you will not be able to make the change.

Good evening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Bezaire, for attentively following our committee's work. It is greatly encouraging.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Olsen, please come forward.

First we'll hear from Ms. Arrioja.

[Aurora Arrioja, As an Individual]

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Aurora Arrioja.

First of all, I would like to thank the committee for the extensive work you have been doing and continue doing to examine the options for electoral reform and to reach Canadians and consult them on this issue.

I think every Canadian has had the opportunity so far to express an opinion, and those who have responded to your call have made the effort to educate themselves on the issue before giving their opinion to you. I think it's very important that you have and are consulting with Canadians across Canada.

The best possible system I can think of for Canada is one that involves proportional representation. It would just be fair that all voters were represented in Parliament. I think it is our right to be equally represented in Parliament.

All votes should have the same weight, but at this moment they don't. For reasons that have been already brought out by members of the public who have spoken before me, I really do not support a referendum. I don't think it is necessary after this extensive consultation, and I think it could even be undecidable.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Is Ms. Olsen here? Please come to the mic. You will be followed by Ms. Sonia Smee.

I'll let you go ahead, Ms. Olsen.

[Marilyn Olsen, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I'm sorry; I didn't hear my name earlier.

I scribbled a few points and came rushing over here from my workplace. I'm a full-time worker and have a full family life, as we all do, so I applaud your work and efforts just as I know you probably applaud mine for doing my little part to keep the Canadian economy going.

I'm hungry. I was watching Ms. May and I was thinking how I would love to have a dumpling.

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

If you had just said something, I could have shared it.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Marilyn Olsen]

No, it's okay. Thank you.

At the end of the day I literally scribbled a few notes because I really didn't know how this was going to evolve, and my heart is pumping as well.

For me, voting takes place locally, as for all of us; thus, my vote needs to count to elect my member of Parliament in my riding. That's my feeling on that point.

First past the post has worked for better and sometimes for worse since Canada was formed in 1867. We're approaching that 150-year mark, so in my humble view I think it's not the best, but it's not the worst.

Any changes that may need to be made should be planned—I don't mean to be negative on this—but maybe a little better than these public consultations have been. I'm a pretty locked-in person, and there was nothing held in my riding that I know of, and not enough advertising for the one that was held in a nearby riding. The newspaper ad on Monday in the Ottawa Citizen caught my attention right away.

It's not the most convenient time, and I know you're trying to do the best for all people. That's the difficulty with trying to do that broad consult. I totally appreciate it and get it. I maybe take objection to saying that many people aren't here because they don't want to be, because many people are home doing their laundry or having their supper. In knowing that, many people are maybe trying to be their voice here.

In closing, then, the current government received less than 40% of the popular vote during the last election. We've seen majority governments having a similar kind of popular vote. Again, it's not the best, but not the worst.

This is such a fundamental issue to our democracy that all Canadians need to have a say in this basic way we select our elected representatives. Ultimately, then, I ask this committee to allow the people to decide via a referendum on any changes that may be considered.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Is Mr. Alan White here? Would you come to mic number one, please?

Go ahead, Ms. Smee.

[Sonia Smee, As an Individual]

Good evening. Like so many of my friends in the audience, I'd like to thank you, not only for this evening, but for the opportunity that you're giving Canada. I believe it's really an extraordinary opportunity that Canada has right now. I realize you're not here all of your own accord, but you're doing the legwork.

I've been educating myself this summer. I have been reading, debating, over wine, tea, coffee, whatever, in between working full time and caring for my child and my family. I didn't really understand, but I have come to perceive first past the post as a kind of dark ages or infancy for democracy. I pray and hope and urge that Canada can come out of the dark ages. Your committee has shone the light on some other ways of doing things, and I hope that we can come out of infancy into a more mature democracy.

I have a son. Our youth, his friends, all face a precarious future, not just a precarious job market, and my heart goes out to them. I don't know how I'm going to help them, but I really believe that proportional representation can bring in a new era and really lead the world and not just Canada, and take us out of precarious times. Right now, I see nothing on the horizon for change. I see nothing to say to my son why he should engage.

I have to say that as a youth, I engaged in politics and then I gave up because I didn't understand how first past the post worked. I gave up.

I believe that proportional representation and your committee, by its recommendation, can bring about an elegant, orderly, well-governed sea change that Canadians want and will benefit from. I support the rural-urban model that Fair Vote Canada has presented to you. Ranked ballots, from what I can tell, will only codify what has been strategic voting. I see it as a tool, not as proportional representation, and it would be a sad day if that's the “change” that Canadians are offered.

To see that the few are ruled by the many just goes against my conscience, so the rest is logistics. What we do come up with? I see that through proportional representation we will have more questions, we will have more research, and we will have more substantial debate, but we will have less polarization. I believe that with more members, we will also have less corruption, so with less polarization and less corruption, we will have more stability.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. We'll have to—

[Sonia Smee]

I thought it was a yellow card, not a red card.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Well, the yellow card came late.

Go ahead, you've got another 10 to 15 seconds, but then we'll have to move on.

[Sonia Smee]

The committee has a mandate by a majority government, but also by the other parties that voted for change and proportional representation. The committee has a mandate. Either way you cut the pie, you have a mandate, and I urge you to heed that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Is Mr. Matthew Hauch in the room?

Go ahead, Mr. White.

[Alan White, As an Individual]

Good evening. My name is Alan White. I met with my MP as long ago as the 1970s to urge for electoral reform, and since then I've been advocating for ranked ballots and so on through the years. However, this summer I've been reading all I can get, and I've been going to various meetings and so on, and I'm now convinced that proportional representation is a preferred option.

I am concerned, though, that with all the nuances of the various systems proposed, it's fairly complex and intimidating to people trying to learn it and trying to understand it. I'm rather concerned that this could actually cause a reduction in participation rather than the increase that we'd all like to see.

What I'd like to do is just summarize quickly four points that came out of one of the constituency meetings that I attended, which had a general consensus. One of those points is that we supported mandatory voting, or possibly an incentive to vote, as a way of increasing the vote and making people realize that voting is a civic duty. With the mandatory requirement there, we felt that there should be a “none of the above” option included, so that people don't have to spoil their ballots.

We support a return to giving all the parties funding related to the votes that they receive, similar to the system that was in place a few years ago. We support increasing emphasis on individual candidates, as opposed to strictly party and party figurehead options.

The other point is that we feel that the referendum should only be held after a trial run, after the voting has had one opportunity to show itself.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. White.

Is Mr. Hauch here, Matthew Hauch?

Mr. Joel Charbonneau and Mr. Julian Potvin-Bernal are next.

Welcome, Mr. Charbonneau. Go ahead.

[Joel Charbonneau, As an Individual]

I am here to tell you that I am in favour of the first-past-the-post system. I am also here to criticize the lack of consultation.

I live in the riding of Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. As far as I know, my MP held a single consultation, and only about 20 people participated.

If such a major change is made that will have a big impact on the future of our democracy, the only way to proceed is with a referendum.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau.

Is Mr. Clive Doucet here tonight?

Could you come to mic number one, Mr. Doucet?

Go ahead, Mr. Potvin-Bernal.

[Julian Potvin-Bernal, As an Individual]

Good evening. My name is Julian Potvin-Bernal. I wrote this at my seat; hopefully it's coherent.

I'd like to talk more about the actual system. I personally support a PR system, but I want to gloss over that quickly and talk about something else.

On that matter, though, I think a variation of STV would work very well in terms of being a flexible expression of voters' stances. It's a very complex opinion you're trying to present in a ballot, and allowing a ballot that has all the parties listed with all the candidates of each party and ranking amongst everybody seems to be quite a flexible way of expressing that view. Also, a variation of it would work for the Canadian geography, obviously.

Regarding the actual system, you've listened to many witnesses throughout the summer, experts in the matter who most likely know a lot more about the system than all of us sitting here, and that is the point and the reason I want to talk about the referendum issue and about why a referendum is not necessarily fitting for this topic.

The issue we're talking about here is to institute a system that reflects voter views, and both sides of a topic are not necessarily equal, in the sense that it's arguably more of an objective debate than a subjective debate.

I think it would be disrespectful to the work of the whole committee and all the witnesses who spoke to you if the 99% of Canadians who aren't in these rooms got off their couches and went to vote in a referendum in a black and white manner, yes or no, when the issues are very much more complex than that. It's an impossible task to formulate a question that can reflect the full gradient.

I know that many people have taken flack—for instance, Professor Dennis Pilon—for suggesting that voters might be ignorant on these matters, but it's the truth, and not a shameful one, that you might not know as much as everybody sitting here and all the witnesses who spoke to you.

If a referendum is a matter of unanimity in the committee, then perhaps it's fair to have one and to have as much education as you possibly can and engage everyone, so that if you have a referendum you can have a coherent outcome to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Potvin-Bernal.

Mr. Doucet, it's nice to have you here tonight.

It's Clive Doucet, the councillor and writer.

[Clive Doucet, As an Individual]

Good evening.

I'm not used to the refined atmosphere of Parliament Hill. City Hall is more my bag, so if I'm a little rough, I hope you'll forgive me.

I want to make two very simple points. The first one is about the referendum. Do you remember when we brought in NAFTA? I don't remember any referendums. We seemed to be able to cope with that.

The second thing is that if there is a referendum, the best way to kill it is to do what you are doing now—ask people to talk about what choice, what kind of system they want. The whole thing will dissolve into conflict: first past the post this, mixed proportionality that, etc.

If you want to have a referendum, make it really simple: “Do you think we need electoral reform, yes or no?” I'll tell you that when you get the response, it will be yes. We need electoral reform. We need it because most Canadians are disenfranchised. In the last several elections, 60% of Canadians were not represented in the House of Commons, and that creates tremendous illegitimacy among the people. People did not really believe in the government, because it didn't represent the majority of Canadians. I don't really care what you choose, but we need to have a system that represents the majority of Canadians.

The second thing I'd like to talk about is who wins. I was a politician, and I know that you guys don't sit here unless you win. At the end of the day, you have to win. I had that lesson impressed upon me in the last election. Who wins? Well, there are a whole bunch of people who win. The Canadian people win. The majority of Canadians, 60%-plus, are left of centre. Who wins around the table? Well, people mention the Greens and the New Democrats, but the biggest winners are the national governing party, the Liberals. They are the biggest winners because they will always have the biggest chunk of that 60%, and that will guarantee that Mr. Trudeau will be Prime Minister for life.

I don't think he was being unthoughtful in promising that this is the last first past the post. He will be Prime Minister for life, because coalition governments will be the order of the day, and he will lead the coalition. It's that simple.

You look around the world—Sweden, Finland, Germany—and you see coalition governments. I know the Swedish government had one majority government in the last 50 years. The Swedes seem to do okay. I think we can do okay.

Anyway, Nathan, everybody, I'm glad to see you here. I hope I didn't disturb anyone's place in the world.