Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 26th, 2016

[Darian Bittle, As an Individual]

Hi. My name is Darian Bittle, and I strongly support a referendum. The voting system belongs to the people of Canada, not just the few who can come to a committee meeting or a town hall.

A referendum guarantees that everyone's voice is heard. Anything else would be undemocratic.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Harding, please come to mic number two.

Mr. Gibbons, go ahead, please.

[David Gibbons, As an Individual]

Good evening.

My family comes from a small borough on the Quebec side of the river called Quyon, Quebec. Four years ago, I had the privilege of going to Vimy Ridge. There I saw where my uncle's brother lost his life. It had a profound impact on me and my family. Given that he gave his life for our rights to be democratic in this country and to make decisions, and given the fact that we are now approaching Remembrance Day, I'm sure you would all understand how this decision you will make here today will impact our country for years to come.

For 150 years we've had the current first-past the-post system, and for 150 years it has worked relatively well. We have produced great prime ministers—Mackenzie King, Pearson, Mulroney, etc.

With this in mind, I would implore you that before you do anything, please let all Canadians have a right to vote.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is Mr. Harding in the room? No.

Ms. Chelsea Mahon and also Ms. Emma McLennan, please both come to the mics.

Go ahead, Ms. Mahon.

[Chelsea Mahon, As an Individual]

I'm here today to express my concern that one of the fundamental traditions of our parliamentary democracy, how we elect our representatives, could be changed without the direct approval of those doing the electing.

If there is a real desire among Canadians to change the way we elect you, our representatives, we should be presented with options and provided the opportunity to vote for a new system or to keep the one we have, but it must be our choice to make, not yours.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

I must say you're all respecting the time limits.

Is Ms. McLennan here? No.

Okay, is Mr. Carley here?

Go ahead, sir. Mr. Redins, please go to the mic.

[John Carley, As an Individual]

Apparently the submission that we made does not correspond with anything on the document we received here today, because it's not multi-member proportionality, but party proportionality in the House of Commons.

A lot of people feel their votes don't count. One of reasons is that a majority government can be elected with 39.6%. We have proof of that.

We're suggesting another form, and it's single member, whereby everybody in a particular constituency has the right to vote for the person they think is the best person to represent them in the House of Commons. However, when they get to the House of Commons, they are limited to the proportionality issue because, according to our plan, the power of their party would be related to the percentage of votes they get across Canada.

For example, if a party got 50% of the vote, then they would have 50% of the power in the House of Commons. Similarly, if they only got 10% of the vote, they would still have 10% of the power. In the case where they only got 10%, usually they had one or fewer elected members, but yet the people who voted for that party considered their vote lost.

This single-member party-proportional system is the way to get around that without having a lot of gerrymandering. You have the same system of electing your member as you have now, but when they get to the House of Commons their vote is based on the percentage of votes they got across the country. This allows for everybody to believe their vote counts, because it does, and it can be done simply.

A lot of people tonight have been concerned about their rights regarding a referendum, and I'll respect your right now to cut me off. I just wanted to raise those two points. We have a lot of support for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It sounds like weighted voting.

[John Carley]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, it's come up many times in our hearings.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Redins, I'll call Mr. Gussow to mic number two while you speak.

Go ahead, sir.

[John Redins, As an Individual]

Good evening.

First of all, I've been involved in one federal election, three provincial elections, and one municipal election. I'm disappointed that my MP didn't have any consultations in Ottawa South. His office's response was he had one in Gatineau. That's why I want to see the statistics from the minister.

As a former resident of Thunder Bay–Superior North, I can tell you voters feel alienated both federally and provincially by the theft of resources and commodities, and they get peanuts. They have no voice. That's why you have talk about separation in northern Ontario all the time. I campaigned on PR. I also believe that you'll probably get a lot of co-operation from indigenous people if you have some type of representation at all levels.

My background was in the automotive field; when you buy a new car, you want to test drive the vehicle. What's the best way? Test drive the vehicle, and then go for the referendum.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Andrea Strathdee, go to mic number one, please.

Mr. Gussow, go ahead.

[David Gussow, As an Individual]

I wanted to make a representation. I submitted a brief so that you people can look at it.

It's a little different from some of the others. I tried to submit a brief that would enable a consensus, a compromise, for all the members.

For instance, for the Liberals, it agrees with what one would expect, maybe, that what the Prime Minister wants is a ranked ballot, so it deals with that as an optional preferential vote. In the case of Mr. Reid, it tries to accommodate his wishes when he was the spokesperson for the Conservative Party on a bill in 2007. It was the bill for an elected Senate. In other words, it wanted proportionality for multi-members, and if there was one vacancy, then it went for the ranked ballot. Obviously I'm trying to go for proportional representation for Ms. May, as well as for the New Democrats, because I think it's essential that they have it. I even thought of Monsieur Thériault, because with proportional representation you would have had

—a recognized party in Parliament and all the advantages that it might have.

In any event, this is my background.

I was a House of Commons table officer. I have been retired for 19 years, so it was a very long time ago.

I've heard of different things over the years, things such as mixed member proportional, how it worked in Germany, and so on and so forth, but I wasn't going for that. I was trying to do a brief that you all might be able to agree with.

The key, of course, is that it's dealing with parliamentary reform, not just House reform. In other words, House reform is the preferential ballot, and Senate reform, as Mr. Reid had proposed, is proportional representation, which might avoid a referendum.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Gussow.

Mr. Martin Laplante, proceed to mic number two, please.

Go ahead, Ms. Strathdee.

[Andrea Strathdee, As an Individual]

Hello. My name is Andrea Strathdee, and I support a referendum for electoral reform. I think it is very important that the majority of Canadians consent to and be able to understand any changes made to the electoral system.

I'm also proud to be from the small town of St. Marys, Ontario, and the rural riding of Perth–Wellington. I've always been very appreciative of the strong relationship between the member of Parliament and the constituency. I think that is a very important relationship to maintain, and I hope that if the electoral system does change it will maintain that strong relationship.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Jerry Dan Kovacs, please go to mic number one.

Go ahead, Mr. Laplante.

[Martin Laplante, As an Individual]

Good evening.

I am Martin Laplante, one of the co-founders of 123 Canada, which promotes preferential systems and two-round systems.

I would first like to thank the committee for this “great window on direct democracy”, as Steve Guibord said.

The committee has heard from many respected witnesses—that was quite nice—and has examined PR in particular with great breadth and depth, but I can't say that it has seriously examined other electoral systems to the same degree.

Journalists, MPs, and even many activists have noticed that the committee has heard from something like 100 PR proponents but from virtually no proponent of preferential voting. Has unanimity suddenly broken out in the ranks of academia? No, of course not. We're in contact with a lot of political scientists who are proponents of preferential voting, and they were simply not given the opportunity to present evidence.

The campaign platform on which this committee is based was that it was to be a committee to review a wide variety of reforms, such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting, and the committee has done a commendable job on three of those four.

In Canada, as in the U.S., there is a slow conversion to preferential ballots, which not everyone has noticed, starting with municipalities in Ontario, provincially in New Brunswick, most likely, and possibly P.E.I. Maine and many other states in the U.S. are converting. There are nearly 100 countries around the world that use a preferential or two-round system in some of their elections, so there is no lack of expertise or scholarship in this area.

Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, it was not sought out as expert testimony at this committee. This makes it a challenge for the committee and for Parliament to come to a consensus based on evidence, because so much of the evidence is missing. That was our disappointment.

You have heard the opinions of a self-selected group—and I'm part of it—who have told you what it considers to be the faults of the current voting system, but what do the voters themselves think?

We can see this by looking at strategic voting. Strategic voting allows voters to soften the distortions in the voting systems, and the distortion that they are choosing to soften is vote splitting. They could use it to soften other distortions, but that isn't their choice.

Well, I seem to have run out of time.

Thank you very much to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you for your remarks.

Could Sharon Reeves come to microphone number 2?

Go ahead, Jerry Dan Kovaks.

[Jerry Dan Kovaks, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm here tonight because of Elizabeth May, whom I saw on an airplane travelling from Calgary to Ottawa a few weeks ago. She impressed upon me the importance of average Canadians making representations before this committee and making their views heard. I'm glad to see a room filled with people here tonight.

For those who do not like the present system of first past the post, for whatever reason, the question then becomes, what will we replace the present system with? I did a bit of research, and I compared first past the post with the mixed member proportional representation system for 60 years, from 1957 to 2016, involving 20 federal elections.

I determined that if you have a mixed member proportional system, you essentially have the first past the post, but it then addresses some of the concerns that other Canadians have regarding the idea that, for whatever reason, their vote's not counted, their views aren't heard, or they don't have adequate representation because of the current system.

My results show that under a single-member plurality system, in the last 20 elections since 1957, we would have 11 majority governments and nine minority governments. If you change our present system to one involving mixed member proportional representation, for example, you will have two majority governments—and John Diefenbaker and Brian Mulroney would be glad to hear they were theirs in 1958 and 1984—and 18 minority governments over a 60-year period.

What does that mean for our system? It means that we might add members of Parliament. It might cost additional financial resources. It will involve not just changing our electoral system, but it means that our parliamentary system will also change. With more minority governments, it means that we might need more co-operative government. We might need more interaction with parliamentarians.

The bottom line is that if you change the system as I've suggested, the parties that stand to gain the most are the smaller third parties, such as the Green Party and the New Democratic Party. The party that loses the most is the Bloc Québécois, for obvious reasons.

I have given a copy of my presentation to the clerk. My PowerPoint presentation, hopefully, will be distributed to all of you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Jay Fallis, please go to mic number one.

Ms. Reeves, go ahead.

[Sharon Reeves, As an Individual]

I would like to thank the committee for all the work that it's done this summer and fall. The percentage of votes a party gets should approximate the percentage of seats it gets in the House, and because of this, I'd like to go on the record as saying that I strongly support a change to a made-in-Canada system of proportional representation.

While no voting system is perfect, they are on a continuum, with first past the post at the bottom of the list for representation, fairness, and democracy. I'm counting on the Liberal government to live up to the pledge it made in its party platform prior to the 2015 election and on the Special Committee on Electoral Reform to recommend a system of proportional representation in the report that it tables on December 1.

This committee has provided every opportunity for Canadians to provide feedback on electoral reform. You've heard from many thousands of Canadians, most of whom overwhelmingly support a move to PR. I trust members of Parliament of the Canadian government to represent the views of the majority of the Canadian population and to support the move to a PR voting system without holding a referendum.

It would certainly be desirable for the committee to have an all-party consensus for PR, but not at the cost of a referendum that could be exploited for partisan reasons. If the committee can't come to a consensus, the recommendation of the majority of committee members for a system of proportional representation will have to be sufficient.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. McKinnon, you'll go after Mr. Fallis.

Go ahead, Mr. Fallis.

[Jay Fallis, As an Individual]

In reference to a report I sent you all earlier this morning, I'm going to talk about a system referred to as ABC-plus, which I think, at the very least, should be considered seriously by the committee.

The system offers voters the capacity to make up to three selections on the ballot.

The first choice is worth four points, the second choice is worth two points, and the third choice is worth one point. In single-member ridings, the points are added up, and the candidate with the most points wins. In multiple-member ridings with a maximum of six seats per riding, each of the party candidates is listed under the same slot on a ballot. When a party wins the most points, it wins the first seat, and then its total is multiplied by a number less than one and compared to all the other parties to determine the next winning seat. This continues until each seat is distributed.

There are a couple of advantages to the system. First, having checked with a former Canadian CEO, I can confirm that the seat redistribution model I have proposed would be implementable by 2019 and that recounting could be done by hand, unlike other ranked ballot systems.

Second, we can draw from experiences in four nations that use modified forms of this system.

Third, it would improve regional representation for each of the political parties and would guarantee voters a greater capacity to influence the final result.

Finally, having run this by actors on all sides of this debate, four of five political parties represented here today, and experts in the field, I can confirm with certainty that it would at least be palatable to most Canadians.

The final thing I want to say is that a couple of months ago I was studying in the Library of Parliament and flipping through the big manual on procedure and House affairs, and I found, on page...something like 892, a little citation that referred to the previous electoral reform committee that we had. As someone who has studied the subject extensively, I was shocked. I had never even heard of the committee before, and my plea to this committee is to not be another citation in a big, green book; be the committee that brings electoral reform to this country—which, clearly, a lot of people want.

That might mean recommending some form of ranked ballot in coordination with proportional representation, and it might even mean recommending some referendum, but this committee needs to find unanimity if we're going to proceed further.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Ted Cragg, please go to microphone two while we listen to MP Ron McKinnon.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I have a really great five-minute presentation. I'll cut it down. I'm here today to talk really quickly about a system called ranked pairs, which I emphasize is not ranked ballots. I submitted a not very brief brief entitled “The Ranked-Pairs Project”, and I urge you all to delve deeply into that document for the particulars.

Ranked pairs is a member of the class of electoral systems called Condorcet methods. You've already heard at least one witness, Dr. Maskin of Harvard, on August 30, speak of majority rule elections, which is just another name for bare-bones Condorcet. As you may recall from Dr. Maskin's presentation, however, it's possible, though arguably rare, that bare-bones Condorcet in a real election doesn't work. In order to deal with such cases, we need to complete the basic Condorcet model, and that's what ranked pairs does.

In summary, ranked pairs is easy for voters to understand and do, although somewhat more work for election officials. It can use the same ballots we use now, changing only how we mark them and how we evaluate them, though I do propose a different form of a ballot to facilitate using optical reader technology, which has been tried and true for generations.

In a single voting round, each voter casts a single, simple preferential ballot from which, in a single counting round, a round robin one-to-one matchup of each candidate against the other candidate ensues, holistically considering all preferences from all ballots. There's no harm whatsoever to any candidate due to the presence of similar candidates. There's no concern about vote splitting, no strategic voting, and the result will be readily accepted by most people as the true majority decision.

Ranked pairs are scrupulously unbiased and confer no systemic advantage to any party. As an added bonus, we can use the exact same ridings, so we don't need to wade into extensive redistributions and the time and effort that would entail, meaning that it is eminently feasible to implement well in time for the next election.

While my immediate purpose is that this be a straightforward plug-in replacement to our existing first-past-the-post elections, it's important to also note that it can be easily used to augment a mixed member PR system in whatever flavour that might end up, or even replace a multi-representation system such as STV. It slices, it dices, it chops.

I would refer you again to the details in my submission, “The Ranked-Pairs Project” and my website, ranked-pairs.ron-mckinnon.ca, and I will be happy to make myself available to the committee should you have any questions or concerns.

Thank you.