Electoral Reform Committee on Aug. 29th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Jean-Pierre Charbonneau]

Otherwise, those elected have the responsibility to take the leadership in making that informed decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Rayes, the floor is yours.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the three witnesses who are with us today.

Mr. Charbonneau, I am going to let you continue your remarks, given that my question is somewhat in the same vein as you mentioned.

This is the first day when I have taken part in the work of this committee. I have just come from my constituency. Funnily enough, I can tell you that, despite all the activities I have taken part in this summer, no one has talked to me about electoral reform. I am hearing all these great discussions about it. I am hearing a lot about cases where counties have moved from first-past-the-post voting to proportional voting, particularly in New Zealand. As you rightly mentioned, people in that country thought about the matter for a long time. It took them exactly 10 years to change their way of voting.

When I look at the results, I have the impression that the debate we are currently having is a false one, contrary to what is suggested. We are told that, by changing the method of voting, more people will become interested in politics and therefore more people will go to the polls. We are told that the turnout rate may well go up. But in the countries where the method of voting was changed most recently, that basically did not happen. In New Zealand, the participation rate was 85% when the country made the change and went to 88% at the following election. But, at the most recent election in 2014, the participation rate was 76.9%. So, rather than having the impression that people will be more interested in politics if the method of voting changes, we have to take a closer look at the studies that have been done on people’s lack of interest. The reason why people do not show up to polling stations has more to do with a lack of time and interest.

I would like to hear your comments on the process that was put in place in New Zealand before they made the change. You have mentioned it already. Could you continue with your comments?

[Jean-Pierre Charbonneau]

What you are saying, in other words, is that people are not tripping over themselves in the buses in your constituency to talk about reforming the voting method. That is true everywhere

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Yes. Exactly.

[Jean-Pierre Charbonneau]

I heard that argument about a number of topics during my 25 years as an MNA. It is always used by those who favour the status quo. They say that they do not hear the topic being talked about in their constituencies. You are right about one thing: a method of voting is not changed primarily to increase the turnout rate. Even with proportional voting methods, the rate can change with the political circumstances and situations, and with national and international events. Those are what can get people mobilized, depending on the leadership of those most involved. You would not change the voting method in order to increase the participation rate. You would change it because of the representation. Do you believe in representative democracy or not, and what does political representation mean for you? If a political party wins 39% of the votes cast and governs a country like Canada, would it not be better for it to form a coalition with another party in order to obtain a parliamentary majority and in order for that majority to be a popular majority too?

In his remarks, Mr. Broadbent gave some examples from western Canada. We could give some from Quebec and from the current situation everywhere. The problem is that we have under-representation and we have non-representation. In a representative democracy, that is very serious. Parties representing 10% or 15% of the electorate end up with one or two members.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Charbonneau—

[Jean-Pierre Charbonneau]

That is much more serious than finding out whether the participation rate has gone up by 1% or 2%.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Charbonneau, that was not what I meant by the question.

Since this debate started, it has been suggested to us that, by changing the voting method, we would better reach minorities in certain regions of Canada. We are told that more young people and more First Nations people would go to vote, and so on. So, by extension, some people feel that more people will become interested in politics and will turn out to vote.

I would like to hear what the three witnesses have to say. Perhaps that could confirm what I feel about it. When I look at the statistics from different places where the voting method changed, I see that the participation rate has not increased.

Do you agree with me on that?

[Jean-Pierre Charbonneau]

You have just had my answer, but I know that it does not satisfy you. It is not what you wanted to hear. My response is clear, however: that is not what counts. Even if the participation rate drops, that is not the crux of the issue. The biggest concern is representation.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Perfect. So you are specifically saying that, at the moment—

[Ed Broadbent]

Could I comment on this issue?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Just a minute, Mr. Broadbent. I will happily let you comment next.

By the way, I am not passing judgment on your opinion about this. I want to know whether, in your opinion, greater representation is preferable to a greater number of people turning out to vote.

[Jean-Pierre Charbonneau]

I think so. But I was not born yesterday. You put those words in my mouth, but that does not mean that I am in favour of people not going to vote.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

No, not at all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

In any case, Mr. Rayes, your five minutes are up.

The floor now goes to Mrs. Romanado.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to all the witnesses for joining us today.

Mr. Broadbent, I'd also like to thank you for your service to the military and your years in Parliament.

Mr. Charbonneau, thank you for the work you did when you were a member of the National Assembly.

I'm going to touch a little bit on something we haven't talked about today.

Mr. Broadbent, with regard to the report that my colleague mentioned, he mentioned that a ballot is simple and easy to understand. It's something that 55% of respondents said was important to them. Given that some folks still think that when they go to the ballot box, they're voting for their prime minister, how important is education going to be throughout this change process? Herding cats is not easy.

In Quebec, we had a lot of difficulty because some people did not know exactly what the real issues were.

I'd like to get all your opinions on the importance of educating—what we should be doing, and who should be doing what in terms of this process.

Thank you.

[Ed Broadbent]

Let me begin by agreeing with you implicitly on what you're asking about the importance of education. If I recall correctly, and I think I do, the outgoing head of the electoral commission had objected because the budget that allowed him to do more education of the public—I'm turning to some of the MPs now—had been cut. In any case, I think I'm right on that. The point is that this is a very important thing that should be done, particularly if we're introducing a new system.

That said, again I agree with you. A lot of people, before they go to the ballot box, think that somehow the names of the potential prime ministers are going to be on there, rather than their local MPs, so there is that confusion.

Having been an MP for many years, I believe that in fact it's a small minority who have that problem. Most adults understand that they're voting for a party, and that if that party gets most of the seats, the head of it is likely to be prime minister.

In the new system, if there is a new system—and I certainly hope there is—I think Elections Canada has to have a good budget to explain this, and in a non-partisan way, obviously. As for the political parties, I really hope a report will come out of here that has a consensus that the parties—hopefully all parties, but certainly a majority of parties at least—will support. I would like to see them campaigning on this issue together, just for once. If they reach a consensus on an electoral system, they'll be able to campaign together to explain the system. The MPs would have a role in explaining it, as well as their constituency associations, Fair Vote Canada, civil society organizations, and Elections Canada. I think it all should be done.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Charbonneau, would you like to answer?

[Jean-Pierre Charbonneau]

You have before you someone who has often been mistaken for the speaker of the House of Commons. When I would meet people, all over Quebec, they would ask me whether I was not the speaker or the former speaker of the House of Commons. I would then have to tell them that there were two kinds of Parliament, and the other one was called the National Assembly.

For the purpose of the report on the estates general held in 2001-2003 chaired by Claude Béland, I had recruited a committee of non-partisan citizens of all stripes. One of their recommendations was to increase people's civic competence. The idea was to put great emphasis on education and citizenship, both among young people and among adults. When we see how many adults are semi-illiterate or struggle with societal codes, we realize that we have a lot of catching up to do.

You have heard from Professor Henry Milner who, at the time of the estates general, wrote a book titled Civic Literacy. He carried out a comparative study between civic literacy here in Canada and civic literacy in some northern European countries. The conclusion was very clear: here, civic literacy is weak compared with what it should be and what it is in countries with the same or similar standard of living.

For such a change to be made, it is clear that people must be educated. In my opinion, the lack of a referendum would not mean that clear and specific explanations on what the change will entail should not be provided. In fact, it would be easier for Canadians to understand what is happening, as Mr. Broadbent was saying, if a political consensus was reached or there was the largest possible political majority in this committee and in the House of Commons on this issue. It is important to know what would reassure people. All the political parties should agree on a change, and members should not pass the buck by saying that they will propose five options from which to choose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau. We understand.

We will now begin the second round of questions, starting with Mr. DeCourcey.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

I'll ask my questions to Professor Dawood in this round, or at least will start there.

Going back to the idea of democratic legitimacy—and you've mentioned some of the aspects you think might be important—is there a process or are there lessons you can leave with us that would help enhance the legitimacy of this conversation and this process during the citizen consultation process we'll undertake here in a few weeks?

[Prof. Yasmin Dawood]

First of all, I think it's excellent that the committee is consulting broadly with Canadians from all parts of the country. I think that's very commendable and stands in some considerable contrast to what we saw with the Fair Elections Act. I think it's very important that Canadians feel that there is a voice for them in this process.

I suppose one thing that would be helpful would be some kind of centralizing mechanism to find out exactly what people think. Given the number of town halls that are being held, given the dispersion of conversations, it's not always clear what people are saying or thinking. I don't know whether the committee has considered how to aggregate this information or make it available so that we can all benefit from it.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much.

Going back to the idea of potential constitutional limits—and you talked about arguments for and against limiting Parliament's ability to make change—are there any specific changes or things that we should be careful about interfering with within certain constitutional limits, such as potentially increasing the number of seats, or seat distribution, or the way that constituencies are represented? Where could the line be, or potentially be, when considering system changes?