Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 26th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 46 of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.

We finished our witness hearings; last night we had our last set of witnesses. Tonight is our big open-mic evening here in Ottawa. We've had open-mic sessions all over the country. We spent about three and a half weeks travelling the country.

We have crossed the country and visited the three territories and 10 provinces. At each stop, we heard from witnesses but also set aside time to listen to comments from the public.

We will do the same thing today.

We're going to basically use the formula we used on the road when we had public open-mic sessions.

Those of you who wish to speak have registered, which is great. Essentially, each person at the mic has two minutes. I know it doesn't sound like much, but it has worked very well everywhere we've gone.

I'll call two people up to the mic. At any given time we'll have two people at the mics, the person speaking and the person waiting to speak. The person waiting to speak can gather their thoughts, and when the person speaking is finished, we'll go to the person who's waiting. Then we'll call another person up to the mic that's free, and they can wait for their turn.

We have, to start off, Ms. Helen Johansen and Mr. Mark Batten-Carew.

Go ahead, Ms. Johansen, please, for two minutes.

[Helen Johansen, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak with you.

I think that democracy is the worst of all possible governments except for all the others.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I've heard that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Helen Johansen]

I believe that 30% of the vote should lead you to approximately 30% of the seats. A majority government shouldn't be based on 38% of the popular vote.

I do not want to have to vote strategically so that a particular group or party does not get in. I want to be able to vote for the person with the values and interests that I have.

Parliament should reflect Canada's diversity. A minority Parliament is not all that bad. It forces parties to work together, and it also.... If you think back in time, our universal health care system was actually put into sway by a minority Parliament.

I also want to tell you that I am very concerned that the Prime Minister is on record as having expressed support for the alterative voting system, which is used to elect members in the House of Representatives in Australia.

If Canada were to adopt the alternative vote, it would be a major step in the wrong direction. The alternative vote would produce a House of Commons that would in general be even more politically unrepresentative of the electorate than the House produced by first past the post.

I know this from personal experience because I married an Australian. In our family, we know what happens in that country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Helen Johansen]

I would like to add that changing Canada's voting system to a proportional one should really be a no-brainer.

I would say to the Liberal government, please stick to your promise and change the electoral system so that it is a proportional representative one.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Johansen.

I call Mr. Stephen Nickerson to mic number 1.

I have a couple of cards here. From time to time, when there's about 20 seconds' time remaining, if we're really going over time, I'll put up the yellow card. That will be followed, at some point, by the red card, which signals that time is up.

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

That's so biased. Where's the green card?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Green means go. At the start, it's a green light.

We'll give the green light for two minutes to Mr. Batten-Carew.

[Mark Batten-Carew, As an Individual]

Hello. My name is Mark Batten-Carew. I strongly endorse the proportional representation submissions from both Fair Vote Canada and Leadnow, but I'd like to go further to impress upon you why single transferable vote-plus would be the best proportional system for Canada.

STV-plus is one form of the rural-urban proportional model. It uses multi-member ridings. Right away, this provides better proportionality than MMP. In addition, one seat from each riding would be moved up to the regional level to be used as a top-up seat for even better proportionality.

There are six reasons why STV-plus is the best proportional system.

First, STV-plus uses ranked ballots, along with multiple seats per riding, which enables voters to be much clearer about their intentions than they can be with a single X.

Second, since STV-plus has multiple seats per riding, each of the three major parties will stand a good chance of getting at least one seat in every riding. In fact, with STV-plus, over 90% of all voters will have a local MP from their first-choice party, and over 98% of all voters will have at least a regional MP from their first-choice party.

Third, STV-plus provides the most proportional representation in Parliament, as measured by its Gallagher index of 2.2, which was better than all 62 other systems tested by Byron Weber Becker.

Fourth, STV-plus provides the strongest support for independent and minority candidates, due to the fact that there are multiple local MPs, giving minorities a greater chance to win a seat.

Fifth, STV-plus enables voters to hold MPs to account by giving voters the chance to change the MP they vote for, while still voting for their first-choice party.

Sixth, STV-plus encourages a new civility in politics, both during the election and in Parliament. Since there are multiple seats to win, it will be impossible to know whom to target, which will reduce negative campaigning. Also, after earning a seat, every MP will have to work with their former opponents, so there will be consequences for bad behaviour.

I want to make one point about mixed member proportional. MMP is basically just first past the post with a layer of proportionality added. In effect, MMP asks, since you were forced to vote strategically at the riding level, which party did you really want to vote for? In contrast, STV asks, what combination of representatives will best satisfy the largest number of voters?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

I just have a little note of caution to speakers. The interpreters have to keep up. I understand you want to get it all into two minutes, but we'll give you a little flexibility for the sake of the interpreters. Every now and then, I can tell that they're struggling. Thank you very much.

Also, we are in a House of Commons committee room, and the formal rules of committee proceedings apply. That means there cannot be any pictures until the gavel comes down at the end of the meeting. If you could respect that rule, that would be greatly appreciated.

I call Mr. Christopher Wilson to mic number two, please.

Mr. Nickerson, go ahead, please.

[Stephen Nickerson, As an Individual]

I submitted a brief, but there is no time in two minutes to talk about that, so I thought I'd address the question of this referendum that we keep hearing about.

I assume there is a perceived need for a referendum because the current House was elected using the old FPTP system and as such does not accurately reflect the will of Canadians. While I sympathize with this concern, I think it would be better if the cost, delay, and potential divisiveness of a referendum could be avoided.

The decision that gave this committee its credibility, and the highlight of the electoral reform process to date, was when its makeup was adjusted to reflect the proportionality of the popular vote in the last election, instead of the seat count. The crowning accomplishment of this committee could be something similar.

Several briefs have been submitted to this committee extolling the simplicity and efficiency of weighted or fractional voting. It is a system based on the House as it is currently constituted, but it provides near-perfect proportionality by weighting the votes of each member according to the popular vote obtained by their party.

If there were to be a free vote in the House of Commons, and the votes were counted in this way, the results would be almost identical to those that would be obtained by a referendum. This is the principle on which representative democracy is based, and you have the opportunity to make your work an example of what is possible, if you follow through—and it is imperative that you follow through.

Personal legacies are on the line. Not only will Justin find a place of honour beside his father's bill of rights and freedoms, but each member of this committee and the party they represent will be remembered for their contributions, both positive and negative. Eventually, PR will come to Canada, and this is your opportunity to get on the right side of history.

I'm sure that if we adopt some sort—any sort—of PR, future Parliaments would, over time, come up with a system that truly meets the needs of all Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Nickerson.

I'll call Gerald Ackerman to mic number one.

Now we'll hear from Christopher Wilson, please.

[Christopher Wilson, As an Individual]

My name is Chris Wilson, and I'm a senior research fellow with the Centre on Governance at the University of Ottawa.

From the first few comments here, I may be in the wrong place, because I didn't come here to advocate for anything. I came here to learn from you. In particular, what I'd like to learn from you is, over the course of these last few months, in all the submissions you've read and received, in all the comments you've received during this time, what have you learned that is different from your initial position on this subject? What has changed your mind about what's needed? What can lead Canadians into the future?

I'm very curious to hear what you have to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You threw us for a loop there.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Wilson, unfortunately, the format doesn't lend itself to that, but I'll take a stab at it. We travelled across the country and we heard that a great many people would like to see their vote better reflected in the seat count of the House of Commons, but it's a highly technical issue. We've learned about different voting systems that typically aren't discussed and about experiences in other countries. I think you'll find our report full of interesting facts and insights.

We'll go to Mr. Ackerman, and I'll ask Bradley Mullen to come to mic number two, please.

Go ahead, Mr. Ackerman.

[Gerald Ackerman, As an Individual]

I have been interested in Canadian politics for quite some time, and I have come to understand what is wrong: that the majority of the seats in the House of Commons are controlled by those people who vote in two provinces: Quebec and Ontario. I'm sure this is not news to anyone.

I have worked with each of the other four parties over this period of time, and I ran for one of those parties in 2006. Those are my credentials, if you like, and that's why I'm here tonight: to say this system stinks. It is not right. It is not fair. Most Canadian electors do not get their voices heard. That has to change.

The simplest way to change it is with what John Carley will explain to you tonight, what has evolved from a group of grassroots people of various political orientations who have put together a plan somewhat like the plan on page 3 of the handout tonight, except it isn't to deal with the seats in the House of Commons. It's the votes of the representatives. That's what's called for. That representative from my riding will vote in accordance with how many of his party are represented in the entire House. That's the key. That keeps it fair, simple, and exactly what I want to have happen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

David Shostal—

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

Mr. Chair, just on a point of order, Gerry mentioned he ran in 2006. He ran against me, and he was a great guy to campaign against.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Not everybody is. He was a really thoughtful and intelligent candidate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you for letting us know. I was wondering where; it was in your riding.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Ackerman.

Go ahead, Mr. Mullen.

[Bradley Mullen, As an Individual]

Good evening, Mr. Chair and committee members.

I'd like to be the first to rise in favour of the first-past-the-post system, and hopefully not the last. This system is simple, straightforward, and easily understood by all voters, and does not require an entire briefing document to explain. It allows for effective majority governments and lively minority governments, which have enough threat of turnover to keep the governing party on its toes. It has produced a functional and effective multi-party system that represents the views of the vast majority of voters while keeping the loonie fringes at bay.

It's also contributed to a remarkably peaceful and calm and orderly political history for Canada. We are remarkably free of revolution and political disorder in this country.

If the government wants to hear from all voters about electoral systems and not merely staffers, seniors, academics, and activists, I encourage it to ask us directly, including those who favour the current system, by holding a referendum with a clear question and clear rules of procedure.

Finally, if the government wants to hear from the public, why are they holding this meeting at suppertime in Centre Block? That excludes quite a few people who have families or are otherwise occupied with their day.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.