Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 26th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. McKinnon.

I'd invite Jon Legg to mic number one, and we'll give the floor to Mr. Ted Cragg.

[Ted Cragg, As an Individual]

Thank you very much. Merci.

My name is Ted Cragg, and I'm here to state my support for a proportional system of voting.

I believe that every vote should have equal weight. I believe that Canadians deserve a system that doesn't require them to vote strategically no matter where they live across the country. I myself have voted for many different parties and I can sympathize with the Conservative voter in downtown Toronto, the NDP voter in Alberta, or you name it across the country. We've heard lots of stories of people having to vote strategically.

The system we have now is not designed for the type of multi-party plural democracy that we live in. It's designed for a country that has two parties, where you can choose one or the other. It is simply a question of modernity to bring us up to a system that virtually every other modern democracy uses, of course, in the world.

Referendums sound very fair and democratic, but we can certainly see lots of results around the world where results have been skewed and they've been unexpected. There are examples of this, of course, in the U.K., and recently in British Columbia.

I would also point out that there's certainly no guarantee that a referendum would bring the kind of turnout that you might expect. You could have a referendum with, say, 40% turnout. Does that make it more accurate or legitimate? We saw in British Columbia that they set a particular threshold of 60% in order to pass the provincial referendum they had there. It raises the question of what the most accurate system is, and the method of changing it.

You have all been elected by Canadians and you're empowered to discuss this issue and make a suggestion, and I'd like to thank the committee for your work. I think it has been fascinating to see how a committee that is proportional, in what's otherwise a majority government situation, has been able to function together, and to see you evolve in that process over the last few months bodes well for the future as, of course, you would have more collaborative governments if we change the proportionality.

Theerefore, I applaud your work. This is a real landmark occasion for Canada. We've never had anything like this at the federal level. It's impressive to see, but the work, of course, is not done. I highly recommend a proportional representation system.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Lavergne, please come to mic number two.

Mr. Legg, go ahead, please.

[John Legg, As an Individual]

Members of Parliament, I'd like to add my thanks to that of many others for your hard work in Ottawa and across Canada.

I'd like to skip the unfairness and anti-democratic aspects of the first-past-the-post system, of which you are all very much aware, and encourage you to adopt one of the proportional representation systems you've been studying.

I'd like to quickly cover three subjects: the change of culture with coalition governments, why coalition governments are more efficient than our present system, and a plug for a delayed referendum.

On the change of culture with coalitions, I hope it's not too naive to think that parties would work better with each other because of the need to form coalitions after the election.

Second, coalitions are more efficient because there would never be any need to reverse, replace, or amend the previous government's legislation. I don't know how much time members of Parliament are spending now on changing the legislation of the previous government, but it seems to me that this activity would be a waste of time. If a coalition that represents over 50% of the population passes the legislation, there would be no need to revamp, replace, or amend the previous legislation because it would have been so well supported and represented in the House.

Finally, as Mr. Howe, the professor at the University of New Brunswick, said, “A referendum after the fact is a better idea.” I believe that when New Zealand adopted the system of proportional representation, it included in the package a referendum after New Zealanders had had a chance to vote via the new system. I believe Canada should use that model and I think it would be unwise to use a referendum before trying out the PR system.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

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

Just to be clear about this, there were actually two referenda in New Zealand before the system was adopted, and then one afterwards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Gary Corbett, please go to mic number one.

Mr. Lavergne, nice to see you again.

[Réal Lavergne, President, Fair Vote Canada]

Good evening. I realize this is my second chance, but I wanted to finish up some of the thoughts I started to share with you when I testified last week and ran out of time. I also want to formally thank you, on the part of Fair Vote Canada, for all your work on this file. The hours and effort you're putting into this are truly impressive, and we have nothing but respect for the collegial and consultative approach that you have taken.

I know this is a crucial moment in your deliberations and I take it for granted that you will seriously consider MMP as one of the made-in-Canada options that you will be seriously looking at. There are good reasons for doing so. However, what I would like to suggest tonight is that you really consider some of the other options as well, and I'll explain why.

In brief, what I would like to suggest is that you try to find a way for every sitting MP to be able to run for office again in 2019 in an area corresponding to his or her existing riding, whether it's a single-member riding or as part of a new multi-member riding.

There are two ways that this can be done. One is STV. I spoke to you the other day about STV as a model that maximizes voter choice, but the appeal of STV at this juncture for your fellow MPs is that it would, in fact, allow every sitting MP to run again for office in the same riding, albeit as part of a multi-member version of that riding. This strikes me as a very fair type of proposition to be putting forward to sitting MPs that I think would be appreciated. We are asking MPs to do what is right for Canada, but wouldn't it be nice if they felt they were being given a fair chance to be re-elected under the new system being proposed?

You could also consider having multi-member ridings in urban areas while keeping single-member ridings in rural areas, as Jean-Pierre Kingsley has proposed. The downside of this approach, if no additional measures are proposed, is that it would deprive rural areas of proportionality, which is unfair for them.

That's why we in Fair Vote Canada are proposing taking it a step further by adding a small layer of top-up seats in the order of 10% to 15% of total seats under rural-urban PR. The simplest way to make way for these top-up seats without disruption would be to add new seats to the House. Anywhere from 35 to 50 new seats would suffice to do this. This would make it possible to leave existing riding boundaries much the same and regroup them into multi-member ridings in urban areas.

Again, this could be politically a very attractive proposition for sitting MPs. A model like this would involve a minimum of disruption and, like STV, would give every sitting MP a chance to run for office again in 2019.

We trust you and are counting on you to put forward a made-in-Canada PR option that is most likely to meet with the approval of both parliamentarians and the Canadian public.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. Next are Mr. Corbett and Mr. Lucas Holtvluwer, please.

[Gary Corbett, As an Individual]

Good evening. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to speak.

I'm Gary Corbett, a resident of Ottawa Centre. I support our current system. I think it's served us very well for the last 150 years. I see no need to change it. I appreciate all the effort that's gone into changing it or in putting the thought forward, but at this time I see no benefit in cost or any effective outcome.

That's all I had to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Holtvluwer—am I pronouncing it properly?

[Lucas Holtvluwer, As an Individual]

It's pretty close.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'll call Mr. Michael Mallett to go to mic number one, and Mr. Holtvluwer can now proceed.

[Lucas Holtvluwer]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. It's much appreciated.

I'll be quick and straight to the point.

I'm outlining my points in favour of a referendum. In the last election campaign, the Prime Minister promised that this would be the last one under the first past the post, as you all know. Along with that promise came the promise of a consultation. What better way to consult than a referendum, right?

First past the post has been criticized for being very undemocratic, in the sense you can get 40% of the vote and still be in government and have 100% control type deal. It would be very ironic for the current government to impose change without at least the approval of the majority of Canadians.

Another point to keep in mind is that this change would be huge because it would shake up how the House is made up. That obviously has an effect on all the other law-making that goes on. It is also a change of constitutional proportion. I believe it's best left up to the people under the Constitution to decide.

Of course, there is precedent for a referendum, as you were saying before, Mr. Reid. In New Zealand, they had two referendums before they chose to actually reform their system, and they've also had a referendum in Britain. Even though the New Zealand one had multi-stage voting, it still produced reform.

That leads into my next point, which is that beneath every objection to a referendum is the fear that voters will not vote for change and for reform, but that is what happened in New Zealand, and they did end up getting reform.

Therefore, yes, if you have a clear question in a referendum and provide the appropriate amount of information to Canadians, Canadians should be trusted to make this important call.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Would Jean-Nicholas Martineau please come to mic number 2?

Now it's Michael Mallett's turn to speak.

[Michael Mallett, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I didn't bring any notes, so before I just ramble awkwardly, one of the issues I believe the committee is looking at is electronic voting. May I speak about this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes.

[Michael Mallett]

This is a good place for it? Okay.

As a software development professional, I advocate and develop open-source software. I believe very strongly that open-source software, such as Linux and Firefox, is more secure than closed-source proprietary software, such as Microsoft Office or Apple iOS. One of the reasons is that open-source software can be publicly audited and the source code can be read by anybody with the skills necessary to do that, whereas closed-source proprietary software is a black box and nobody knows how it works.

I would suggest that our current paper ballot system is publicly auditable, insofar as I understand that when I put my paper ballot in a box, at the end of the day a human being counts those paper ballots and other people are in the room watching what they do. I think we should look to the United States for what not to do in this regard. I think that they have implemented a disastrous electronic voting system that undermines their democracy. They have voting machines that are owned and operated by for-profit businesses. Nobody knows how their black boxes work.

There are examples of good implementations of electronic voting, such as in Estonia. Citizens in Estonia are issued ID cards that have an encryption key stored within them. I understand Canadian military personnel have such technology. It's not fanciful future technology; it exists in Canada. We can do this. That's a really important point.

If I have a couple of seconds, I'd also like to say that I don't like first past the post. In the last two federal elections I voted for a losing candidate. I feel unrepresented. I believe that there are many good alternative options that the committee has been looking at. I throw my weight behind pretty much anything that's not first past the post.

I would put forward, though, a little bit of a thought experiment in relation to any kind of party proportional system. Sometimes it behooves an MP during a Parliament to leave their party, to cross the floor, because a schism develops for whatever reason. I would be curious about what would happen in a party-proportional system when an MP who is not a representative of a riding, but rather a representative of solely the ideologies of a party, left that party and crossed the floor to become an independent. Would they be a rogue MP or would there be a by-election or would it go to somebody else on the list? It's worth consideration.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Carl Stieren, please go to the mic.

Go ahead, Mr. Martineau.

[Jean-Nicholas Martineau, As an Individual]

First, I would like to congratulate the committee for the great work that the members have done. I'm sure you had to make some long flights.

I would like to talk about three points.

The first is the need to change the system. As you know, Canadians want to change the system. Frank Graves of EKOS appeared before the committee and said so. His company conducts polls, and the majority of Canadians want a new system.

I was surprised to see that the rate of participation in the last election was the highest in 18 years. However, this means that almost 30% of Canadians did not vote. That's a problem. Changing the voting system may be a solution.

It is important that the new system includes elements of proportionality. We have majority governments when the majority of Canadians did not vote for them. With 35% or 40% of the votes, they have the majority in the House. This seems strange to me, and I think that is true for many Canadians, as well.

The second point is simplicity. Many MPs and commentators have said that our system is simpler than others. Please, stop insulting the intelligence of Canadians. I think that Canadians are as intelligent as Germans, New Zealanders and Australians. Our ability to understand a new voting system is as good as theirs. Saying that the one we are using now is simpler comparatively to the others is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians.

The third point has to do with the referendum. As I said earlier, we know that the majority of Canadians want change. Why spend millions of taxpayers' dollars to find out what we already know, which is that we want to change the system? Your answer may be that you need to determine which system to change it to. That's true, but I hope the Prime Minister will offer a vision. He can use the committee's report to determine exactly what vision he wants to give to Canadians. Then, we will move forward, and people will have the opportunity to understand the vision and the system that we want to adopt.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Martineau.

Jon Westlund, please go to mic number two.

Mr. Stieren, go ahead.

[Carl Stieren, As an Individual]

Thank you. My name is Carl Stieren, and I live in the riding of Ottawa–Vanier, where I vote.

First, thank you to all the members of the electoral reform committee, all you hard-working members—and there's more. I attended your last meeting, and to your credit, I could not identify by political party who was speaking at that meeting. You all raised points that were valid and non-partisan.

Second, the percentage of the seats in Parliament should match the percentage of votes for each party. Germany did it, New Zealand did it, Scotland did it after the Second World War, without a referendum but with careful consideration by all political parties. It was the conservatives in Germany who said, “Hey, wait a minute. We can't have list proportional; we need single member”, so they invented mixed member proportional.

As for lead time, we've had nearly 100 years since Parliament has been discussing electoral reform. We've had the lead time.

Third—and who would have thunk it—the last method proposed for proportional representation, in my opinion, turned out to be the best. Rural/urban proportional representation, with top-up seats, as suggested by Réal Lavergne, can keep the size of one-member rural ridings. That's with a nod to Nathan Cullen, whose riding is larger than Poland. We should do that.

Finally, we should design a system that should ensure that a party that just meets the threshold of nationwide votes for proportional seats always gets their matching proportion of seats. If we had a party that met, for example, a 4% threshold of the vote, they should still get 4% of the seats. If this means enlarging the House of Commons by 10%, that's a small price to pay for democracy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Carole Bezaire, please go to mic number one.

Mr. Westlund, go ahead.

[Jon Westlund, President, Humanist Association of Ottawa]

Good evening. I'm Jon Peter Westlund, president of the Humanist Association of Ottawa. We're a secular community group that has been active since 1967.

The Humanist Association of Ottawa supports the implementation before the next federal election of the mixed member proportional system proposed by the Law Commission of Canada in its 2004 report entitled “Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada”.

Our membership is pleased with the government's initiative to move Canada towards a more robust democratic system. The defence of democratic principles of governance and free and open debate is one of our most cherished values.

Most Canadians believe that our first-past-the-post system is archaic and that Canadian democracy would be better served by a system that introduces proportionality to voting. The mixed member proportional system would strengthen our democracy by having the composition of Parliament more closely reflect the electoral will of the Canadian people. The current system makes our population appear more regionally politically divided than it really is, and a proportional system would show in the House of Commons that the major parties enjoy support across the country.

An advantage of the mixed member proportional system is that it doesn't increase the size of Parliament. Many ridings would increase moderately in size, but voters would still elect a local candidate and in addition a regional candidate.

A referendum, although it will be demanded by those who oppose the change to a system with proportionality, should be avoided if possible. In the 2015 federal election, four of the five seat-winning parties ran on a platform that included change to the electoral system, and they collectively won the majority of the popular vote.

In conclusion, the Humanist Association of Ottawa believes that the mixed member proportional system proposed by the Law Commission of Canada is the best voting system for our country in the next election, but the most important point is to introduce proportionality. Other systems that allow this would also be a huge step forward for Canadian democracy.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Aurora Arrioja, please go to the mic.

Go ahead, Ms. Bezaire.