Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2016

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you.

Professor Montigny, Mr. Colas told us earlier that if they had had money at the end of their process and when their report was published, they could have taken to the road and met with the public.

I want to hear what you have to say about your research chair's perspective and the survey. I am sure your analysis helped you determine how electoral reform is really perceived.

Once the decision has been made, in preparation for the next election, what do you think needs to be done to educate the public? In our democracy, we want the public to vote with full knowledge of the facts. What are ways to make the public understand the implications of electoral reform?

[Éric Montigny]

I have two responses.

First, and your colleague referred to it, there's the events in Scotland. The population is adapting to the rules established.

Second, in Canada's case, clearly a significant change in political culture would be required. One of the consequences of adopting a proportional electoral system is the more frequent occurrence of minority governments. The population is used to this type of government.

One thing would be different in Canada's case, and that's the occurrence of coalition governments. There's no tradition in that regard here. Sometimes coalition attempts were made that could be surprising, but there was never a real coalition. This could be a significant change in political culture.

Another important factor is how the media will act. Those who cover political life must also adapt to a change in political regime. This will change in particular how they cover MPs. If there's a different electoral system and the party discipline is relaxed, the media would be required to change their ideas and view of an MP's role.

Work must be done not only for the public, but also by the witnesses who cover political life, and that requires information. A factor that was also measured is the importance of having citizenship education courses, which do not really exist in Quebec. The public is largely in favour of this type of course at school.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

As a mother of four children, I completely agree with you. Currently, the integration of this course into the ethics course is at each teacher's discretion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Do you have something to add? We must then turn the floor over to Mr. Maguire.

[Bernard Colas]

I want to make a quick clarification.

First, the Law Commission of Canada's job is not to go around selling a solution. After we prepared the report, we stopped working on electoral reform.

Second, the commission has found all sorts of clever ways to communicate with the public. We have already created theatre plays, not in the electoral field, but we have made videos and many other things to reach people.

The committee could also think creatively about how the message could be spread not only through the media, but also through plays, videos, or other means.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Maguire.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here with their presentations.

Mr. Montigny, I was most interested in some of your quotes, which I took some notes on. They were to the effect that there was a reason for keeping first past the post, and one was the link to members. That would be a portion of what we would continue to do under a changed system anyway.

My colleagues have asked questions about the size of boundaries, how many would be in each, and whether it's an open or closed list. I find all that extremely valuable to this discussion. As well, I think it is important to consider the voting system as only one part of this change.

Of course, I look forward to reading your report, Mr. Colas, as well. I think that would be most interesting. I haven't had a chance yet. Maybe you could expand a little on the making of the lists that you mentioned.

One comment was that the proof will be in the pudding for what comes out of this group, and we certainly need to have the input that you've given for those topics. We know that a referendum is perhaps not legally required, but I think you made the point that consensus is required for legitimacy.

I wonder if you could expand on those points. Could each of you make a few comments?

[Éric Montigny]

Consensus does not mean unanimity. That's the first thing I want to emphasize. In the case of a consensus, there must be two components. First, there must be a search for a consensus, a process, a procedure to bring together the parliamentarians. That's what I see, I think, with you today. We'll have to see the results of your consultation and what measures will be taken. The second thing is that a significant portion of MPs must support the reform project. Citizens are always a bit suspicious when they see their elected officials fiddling with the electoral system, and they know that partisan interests may enter into play.

That said, the documentation shows us that political parties and governments that tried to modify electoral systems in their favour, thinking that it would benefit them, were wrong. Political figures, on the institutional level, adapt. Things are rearranged. When people thought they could carry out a reform that would benefit them, in the end, that did not turn out to be the case.

I invite the committee to reflect, first and foremost, on the reform proposals based on the improvement of democracy and not on partisan interest. In any case, history teaches us that political parties that attempted electoral reform based on a past result were not always rewarded in the end because the voter and political life evolve.

Does that answer your question?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Colas, would you comment?

[Bernard Colas]

If your committee comes up with a proposal like the one the Law Commission is proposing, it developed independently—there were no politicians in our group or anyone who had been in politics—you would be perceived as caring about the system more than the short-term election perspective. You would be setting up a system that would favour a greater diversity and a greater taking care of the opinions of one another in order to come up with a good policy for Canada.

I don't see how people would think that you have a conflict of interest. To the contrary, possibly they would think that you put aside your conflict of interest, because you were all elected with this system, and if you change it, you take a risk, but you take a risk for the benefit of Canada. I don't think the population would say, “Oh, these guys are doing something in order to trick the system”, but rather, “They're doing something to improve Canada.”

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I have a quick question as a follow-up. We've had chief electoral officers come before us and make comments about the timing and how much time would be required to make the changes. Some have said to get it done before the next election, as the Prime Minister has indicated; others have said we should walk before we start running and make sure we get it right and put things in place.

I took personally your comments about measuring the intention and the will, as well. What would be the best way of discussing this with the public? We're getting lots of feedback here, but once the report comes out with its recommendations, how would you educate the people? A number of people said there would need to be an education process as part of the changes to make sure that people understand what they are voting on. Yes, some say it is very simple and that we can explain it and move on, but my experience is that it is not that simple in the whole country.

[Bernard Colas]

One basic instinct of a human being is about fairness. If you have young kids, the kids will say it's not fair. The first question you ask Canadians is whether it's fair for someone to be elected with 30% of the vote, or 40%, or whether it's fair if you have 20% of the vote and you get only 10% of the seats. They will answer “no”. Then you say, “Okay, we're here to make a proposal to correct this system and to improve its fairness.” I think it's a good pitch to start with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Be very quick, Mr. Maguire.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

That's very good, but...that premise works well when you ask that question in a two-party system. We've been very open in Canada and we have multiple parties, so it is possible to win under the present system without 50% of the vote.

I'll just leave it at that.

[Bernard Colas]

Right now, you'll get elected if all your population is in one region, so you tell the minority groups not to try to settle in various places but to all go to Saint-Léonard, Outremont, or wherever, and then they will be able to influence politics.

If you want to create ghettos, it's a great system. Otherwise, you can tell people that it doesn't matter where they live because they'll have the chance to elect the person they choose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

Go ahead Mr. DeCourcey.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you Mr. Chair. I know you'll give me the same speaking time as you gave my colleagues this evening. I have a long question and I want the witnesses to have the opportunity to respond.

We know that you're not in favour of a referendum. We've heard a great deal of testimony similar to yours, but we've also heard a great deal of other testimony indicating a referendum would be essential. There are also opinions in the grey area between the two positions.

Almost every witness told us that a consensus would give legitimacy to the process, legitimacy that could not be established otherwise. I know we still have work to do. However, I believe the only way to reach a consensus on the new system recommended to the government may be to propose a referendum to the citizens. It's simply the usual practice. We must not forget there are different partisan views.

If the only way to reach a consensus is to submit the question to citizens through a referendum, what should we do? And how should we recommend this to the government?

[Bernard Colas]

Good question.

As I explained, if we want to destroy the new system project, we simply have to say we'll hold a referendum, then work to counter the idea of the project, generate fear, and say that it will result in a new system, that there will be chaos, and that there will be minority governments and elections each year. We can very easily alarm the public by presenting a situation that should not occur.

So, if the different parties reach a consensus and present a proposal to improve the running of the country, and steer the public in that direction, we could have a referendum. Otherwise, if a group half-heartedly proposes that a referendum must be held, and the day after the release of the committee's report, the parties separate and turn on each other, then money is wasted.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

If one of the recommendations is to allocate funds to one group but not to another, is that really valid?

[Bernard Colas]

I don't know.

We solved the problem by opposing the idea of a referendum.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Yes, I understand. The committee must focus on that issue.

[Éric Montigny]

I find your question interesting because it reflects, I suppose, how you will need to negotiate with each other to reach a consensus.

That said, you also have the challenge of agreeing on a specific electoral system. Based on the experiences of referenda held elsewhere, the challenge is to reach an agreement on a type of electoral reform and on whether you'll choose the mixed, proportional or preferential system.

I don't want to interfere with your negotiations and the committee work, but it seems you must reach an agreement first on the electoral system you want to put forward to the public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I have one more question.

Yesterday evening in Toronto, a citizen—not an invited witness—said he felt traumatized, overwhelmed and torn by the need to vote strategically. This obviously affected me in a way.

In terms of strategic voting, I observed that it was not difficult for voters to vote for the local candidate when they did not like the candidate's party. On some occasions, people have told me they voted for me and not for my party. This did not seem very damaging. In my view, it becomes damaging at the level of the parties. For example, a voter really wants to vote for a party but feels the need to vote for another party to block a third party. In that case, it becomes very difficult, especially on an emotional level.

Do you think adopting a proportional system will eliminate the need to vote strategically?

In other words, even in a proportional system, will there still be circumstances in which the voter will decide to vote for a candidate to prevent another candidate from being elected?

When we speak of political science, we seem to be discussing analysis, and when we start analyzing things, we make calculations. It's normal.

That said, will we eliminate the scourge that is strategic voting?

Go ahead Mr. Montigny.

[Éric Montigny]

First, to go back to what I was saying, there's no consensus on the percentage, the significance of strategic voting, simply because it's very difficult to measure. That's the first thing.