Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 26th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Doucet.

Next are Mr. Cardozo and Mr. Lamarche.

[Andrew Cardozo, Executive Director, Pearson Centre for Progressive Policy]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's hard to come after Clive Doucet, although I'm not sure I agree with everything he said. Every party comes to an end at some point. Sorry; it's just the truth.

I have three points I want to make.

The first is that I want to urge you, when you make your report and put forward a system, to talk about the pluses and minuses, the benefits and the downsides of any system you put forward. I say that because in a lot of the debate that happens around this, people talk about one system or another as if it is perfect and don't talk about the imperfections. You are dealing with a bunch of really complex systems that have pluses and minuses. At the end of the day, you'll pick one as you balance it all out. I urge you to be honest with Canadians about that. Tell them about the positives and the negatives of the system you put forward.

I happen to support proportional representation, but it is far from a perfect system. I think it is a little more perfect than our current system, which hasn't served us all that badly but which I agree is somewhat antiquated.

The second point I want to make is about the need to reform our political culture. That goes beyond the mechanics of our system. If we go to proportional representation, we are going to have minority governments forever. It becomes really important for parties to be able to work together. I think that we will be changing from an adversarial system to a collaborative system.

I want to remind you of the motion that you passed this week in the House of Commons on Yazidi women and girls. It was a tremendous motion put forward by the Conservative Party, supported by the other parties, and then supported by the government. What happened was a negotiation, on the floor of the House of Commons and behind the scenes, to come together and form a motion that everybody was able to work with. The Yazidi motion should really be the gold standard about how government can and should be done. I urge you to do that more and start practising it soon.

The third quick point is just in terms of decorum in the House of Commons. I'd urge you to adopt a Green Party approach to question period, which is that when the leader of the Green Party stands up to put forward a question, the party doesn't stand up to applaud and heckle during that period.

I notice that the Liberals have followed that recently, over the spring. I think that's tremendous, and I urge the other parties to do the same. What you do in question period really changes how people look at politics and government.

Thanks.

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

Can I just add that no one knows how difficult it is to control my caucus?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'll invite Teresa Legrand to the mic.

Now it's time for Mr. Lamarche.

[Julien Lamarche, President, National Capital Region Chapter, Fair Vote Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the Quebec National Assembly, in September 2011, a member said the following:

We have about 30 months before the next election. We have the time to do what every party has always demanded, which is a proportional system.

These remarks in the Quebec National Assembly in September 2011 were made by Gérard Deltell, who is a member of this committee.

We can quote the comments of Gilles Duceppe, Bob Rae and Jason Kenney, who said that they are in favour of proportional representation. We can also quote Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Harper, who said they wanted to get rid of the current first-past the-post system.

I think with rural/urban proportional, we have achieve balance between the geographic reality of Canada and the need for voter equality. We can have more competition and choice in cities, while with a 15% top-up we do not need to change the boundaries of rural ridings.

In September 2007 a Strategic Counsel poll found that 47% of respondents knew nothing about the proposed reform of Ontario MMP, 41% were somewhat informed, and only 12% were informed.

We are taxpayers and citizens, and we simply deserve an equal and effective vote. Referendum advocates often say it is our voting system, so we deserve a say. If it's our voting system, it would give us an equal and effective vote. I want their voices to matter in every election. The referendum advocates can't say the same about my voice.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Eric McCabe, please go to mic number two.

We'll hear now from Ms. Legrand.

[Teresa Legrand, As an Individual]

Hello. First of all, I'd like to add my voice to the chorus of thank yous. I've had the opportunity to attend a few of your sessions, and I know you've worked very hard.

Today I want to address a few points about representative democracy, which is the exercise we're engaged in. We have a representative democracy. We will have one at the end of this, regardless of the system.

I consider myself to be a non-partisan Canadian. I've supported various elements of the platforms of various parties. I don't belong to a political party, which I think really puts me solidly with the majority of Canadians, although perhaps not the majority of people in this room. I'm an engaged non-partisan person.

When I look at your committee, I'm pretty sure that you're all members of political parties. I like the way you've changed it so that the organization of the committee is proportional rather than representing the results of the first-past-the-post election, but still, you're all party members. You're a minority.

As MPs, I believe you all operate as if you represent everyone in your riding, regardless of whether or not they voted for you. I hope that's what you bring to your role in this committee, that you represent all Canadians, the vast majority of whom are not party members.

All Canadians are represented by an MP. We've talked a lot about people feeling disenfranchised. Everybody's represented. Anybody who walks into one of your constituency offices, I would hope, is going to be treated equally to any other Canadian who walks in: you're going to help them if they have something that's within your purview. However, they don't all feel as if they're represented, because their vote didn't count in the last election. I think it's very legitimate that on the one hand, yes, everybody has a representative, but a majority of Canadians really don't feel represented.

Of these non-partisan Canadians, most of them probably don't have electoral reform at the top of their list of things they're really concerned about, but I think that most Canadians want to have a better system, and poll after poll has shown that they do. We're counting on you to deliver a better system for the Canadians who want to have a better, more collaborative government. I hope that you come up with a solution that's better, that we can all live with, and that will be a big improvement.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Ms. LeGrand.

I'd invite Daniel Horn to mic number one while we listen to Mr. McCabe.

Go ahead, sir.

[Eric McCabe, As an Individual]

Good evening, everyone.

I'd like to mention that I've lived in Canada since 1973, and for about 40% of that time I've lived in rural ridings. My experience with both provincial and federal elections during that time has led me gradually but inevitably to the fact that the case for changing our electoral system is so strong that I would be extremely disappointed if this committee does not make a recommendation to Parliament to change the voting system.

A report from the Law Commission recommends that to the extent practicable, we should create a legislature that closely mirrors the political preferences of the electorate instead of one that is overly generous to the party that wins a plurality of the vote, rewarding it with a legislative majority disproportionate to its share of the vote.

We have a representative democracy. Most citizens do not have the time to research, study, discuss, and come to rational conclusions on the issues that we must collectively deal with if we are to live together without serious conflict. Parliamentarians are elected to carry out these responsibilities on our behalf. The majority of voters in the 2015 election voted for parties that included electoral reform in their platforms. Any change to our first-past-the-post system is not irreversible. Parties opposed to change are free to make change back to first past the post into a major campaign promise in the next election.

If this committee honours the principles of effectiveness, legitimacy, and local representation, it must recommend to Parliament that a proportional representation system that would best suit our country's federal structure and geographical reality be in place for the 2019 federal election.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. McCabe.

Would Colin Betts come to mic two, please?

Mr. Horn, go ahead; you have two minutes.

[Daniel Kyle Horn, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I'm presenting a new voting system, proportional seat distribution, or PSD. It maximizes party proportionality in Parliament without compensatory seats or larger ridings.

With PSD, voters mark a single X for their candidate, as they do now. Once all polling results are in, total votes for each party and independent candidates are calculated. Independent candidates with more votes than any other candidate in their riding receive their riding seat as now, but total votes for each party are used to divide all remaining seats among the parties, minimizing overrepresentation and under-representation in Parliament.

Once each party's seat count is calculated, seats are automatically assigned so that each riding is represented by the candidate of the party with the most outstanding success in the riding. In creating this new system, I've strived to ensure it is principled, impartial, internally consistent, and robust enough to provide suitable results even in odd and unlikely voter scenarios. I have successfully simulated PSD provincially and nationally. When applied in each province and territory separately for the 2015 federal election, PSD shows great regional proportionality, a Gallagher index composite below 2%.

PSD calculations are fully automatable and thus rapid. They took under two minutes on my old laptop. Results are maximally proportional, and since parties receive seats by popular support, when your candidate does not win your riding, your vote can still help your party get a seat in another riding. In simulations, over 98% of votes decide Parliament.

I have written a comprehensive description of this new voting system with design justifications and extended examples. I'm happy to share it with anyone interested. I ask this committee to give proportional seat distribution serious consideration. There are no compensatory members of Parliament, no bigger ridings, and 39% is 39%.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Andrew Hodgson, please go to the mic, but first we'll hear from Mr. Betts.

[Colin Betts, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak.

I just scratched out a few notes and I just want to make a couple of observations.

One is about the strangeness of changing the system of elections for the House of Commons while we see the continuation of an unelected, unaccountable upper house. While I'm encouraged that members of Parliament are discussing electoral reform, I hope that this discussion will continue and eventually look at both houses of Parliament. Direct accountability to Canadians by the Senate can only come through an election of senators; otherwise, why do we have them? I hope that work does continue to move us toward a democratic upper house. Frankly, it would be a great place to look at proportional representation.

Another consideration that I want to raise is with regard to voter turnout. Whatever the ease of the first-past-the-post electoral system, a system that sees more than 40% of its citizens not casting a vote—not 60% casting, but 40% that do not—raises concerns about the legitimacy of that very system. If first past the post was such a success, we wouldn't be looking for alternatives. We're a mature democracy, and let's be frank: 39% of Canadians supporting a governing party when 60% of Canadians come out to vote means that 25% of Canadian citizens are electing a government. Let's not be afraid to be bold.

Finally, I have one other thought, which is that this is the worst way to have a conversation. I'm sitting here talking to you. You're sitting here talking at me, as opposed to all of us talking in groups and coming to a form of consensus. I don't know what other meetings have been like, but I hope that at the end of your sessions you will continue to talk to and engage Canadians one on one or in groups, because I think your experiences across the country as elected members of Parliament and from hearing from Canadians from coast to coast to coast will be very beneficial for us to hear. I think that our ideas will be very beneficial for you to hear in a more conversational format.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

I'd ask Mr. Brett Hodnett to come to mic number two.

Mr. Hodgson, the floor is yours.

[Andrew Hodgson, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I have a list to read to begin with.

The Canadian flag, medicare, repatriation of the Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, free trade, votes for women, the Fair Elections Act, and most recently assisted dying are all examples of legislation that has had a profound effect on Canadians and that has been passed without a referendum. To those who have been proposing a referendum, would Canada be a better place if we had held a referendum on all these issues? Some of these issues, such as medicare, might not have passed. I was around, and I remember it was a very divisive debate. The Canadian flag was a very divisive, nasty debate at the time. What is there about this issue that makes it so special that it needs a referendum when so much other important legislation has not required one?

I also wonder about people suggesting that this is a profound and disastrous change to our Canadian electoral system when the committee hasn't recommended anything yet. I'm going to wait for the committee to recommend something. I hope very much that they'll recommend a system that will do a better job of fairly and accurately representing the diversity of opinions and concerns of everyone in our Parliament. I don't think it's very hard to do better than first past the post.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Marlene Koehler, please go to the mic.

Mr. Hodnett, go ahead.

[Brett Hodnett, As an Individual]

I just wanted to say that I strongly support switching to a system of proportional representation. I don't feel as if I'm represented in this country, and it would be really liberating to have that change.

I did an informal survey of my family and friends, and more than 50% of them routinely vote strategically for parties they don't believe in. There's also a handful who don't vote at all because they don't feel it makes a difference in their riding. You get quite disillusioned and cynical with this system, so I really hope you'll recommend a system of proportional representation.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Nathan Hauch, please come to mic number two.

Ms. Koehler, go ahead.

[Marlene Koehler, As an Individual]

Like others, I thank you for your work and the opportunity to speak. I don't have a formal presentation, but I thought I should register the things I agree with and the things I don't.

I agree that we should continue to have a representative democracy, and for me that has implied a party system. Therefore, I would like to see voters vote for the vision of a party that they see put before them and that they be able to hold that party accountable in some manner. It's clearly important for elected representatives to maintain contact with their electorate. Almost everyone I've heard speak, no matter what they think of first past the post or proportional representation, expresses that kind of view.

Party proportionality is important, and for that reason I support proportional representation. I would say that historically—if one can say historically—I preferred mixed member proportional. I'm certainly open to other models. Your committee is in the best position, having heard from the greatest number of Canadians and experts, to shape a proposal that reflects your best sense of what you've heard and what you understand. That's what we elect you for, so I wish you well in that decision-making.

I do want to say that I am opposed to a referendum. I don't believe that there are many things on which there should be a referendum. I don't think most of us chose first past the post; I think we rather inherited that from when we were a two-party system. I don't think we have to choose this any more than the many important decisions that you're called upon as our representatives to make in every Parliament.

I thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Ms. Koehler.

Before we go to Mr. Hauch, I'd like Mr. Gullon to come to mic number one.

Go ahead, Mr. Hauch.

[Nathan Hauch, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Can everyone hear me? I'm hard of hearing, so I don't know.

Perfect; that's wonderful.

My name is Nathan Hauch. I have a strong interest in electoral reform. I would like to express my sincere thanks to you for your work and to present my view for some form of proportional representation.

First, I would like to argue against a referendum to resolve this issue. Referenda are fraught with their own challenges, as we have heard, among them what constitutes legitimacy by way of turnout, the wording of the question, and the threshold that must be met to grant a change in the electoral system. I believe Canadians will hold judgment on the electoral system when casting a ballot in a general election, where they will weigh that issue with others.

One criticism of a referendum is that it undermines the authority we invest in you, our elected officials. If a ballot is believed to be skewed toward one party, I believe the voters, offended by such unfairness, will make their views known.

Second, you have heard that proportional representation results in a diluted relationship between an elected representative and the voter, but with proportional representation a dilution of the relationship need not be the result. Parties, in building lists, may have considerations of a regional nature. Mixed member systems also afford local representation while allocating overall seats based upon the party's proportional share of the vote.

As well, lists have the benefit of encouraging greater election of women and people of diverse backgrounds.

Third, I want to suggest that preferential ballots may result in a diluted result of what many voters actually want: that their will be reflected. It may privilege certain parties, resulting in more majority governments.

Fourth, while first past the post has resulted in stable governments in many cases, we have had minority governments fairly recently, and the sky did not fall. While there was some uncertainty, there was bargaining between parties, which, given that parties represent varying views, has at times provided more compromises.

Fifth, it has been argued that proportional representation may result in massive party fragmentation. This can be reduced through the use of a threshold for representation such as we see in Germany, with its mixed member system.

Finally, I submit that proportional representation, by making every vote count, encourages collaboration. It is important that first past the post, in its typically winner-take-all results, results in more adversarial relationships between parties. Indeed, I personally feel that much of the drive for the reform, or for reform generally, is based on the desire for a less adversarial system. Under proportional representation, there is much evidence to suggest that voters will punish parties they perceive to be overly adversarial.

In conclusion, many Canadians would be pleased if, after every election, the public discourse switched over from who has won and what can be done to usher in change in four years' time to what the parties working together will do today to work together and appeal to a wider range of voters. Coalition governments supported by proportional representation better reflect the will of voters, not only on election night but throughout a government's term as well.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hauch.

Mr. Christopher Mahon, please go to the other mic.

Mr. Gullon, go ahead.

[A.C. Gullon, As an Individual]

Thank you.

To the translator, I'm skipping the first two paragraphs and the fourth one.

Having in the late sixties been part of a merger that gave me a family connection to Germany, I have given some thought several times since then to proportional representation. I have concluded that it is an oxymoron: there is no representation at all, and the resulting governments, wherever it has been tried, give disproportionate weight to the lunatic fringe.

Elizabeth, I do not include the Green Party in that last group.

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

I know you don't.