Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2016

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I'm not convinced. As a strategy, the Liberals could give the message to select “reject” for Conservative candidates and vice versa.

[A voice]

I understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. May, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank our guests. It's a pleasure to see you again, Mr. Côté.

The next question is for Mr. Derriennic.

Thank you very much for the work you have done with your book. I'd also like to thank you for sharing it with the members of the House of Commons. I've read it, and I think I understand your position. My question is similar to the previous one.

What would you do in the case of large constituencies like the territories?

Would you amalgamate the three?

[Jean-Pierre Derriennic]

I think the reasonable decision would be to establish three single-member seat constituencies in the northern territories. I think these people would become frustrated with the others, which would have the possibility of having several MPs. After two or three elections, they would ask to be grouped together to establish a single constituency with three seats.

In any event, the fact remains that three single-member seat constituencies would have little impact on the balance of political parties in the rest of the country. The fact that three out of 338 constituencies don't obey the same rules as the others cannot create an imbalance in the system. However, it may influence the choice that these people will eventually want to make.

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

Did you hear Jean-Pierre Kingsley's testimony?

I think your ideas are similar to those of the former Chief Electoral Officer. It is easier to group neighbouring constituencies in urban areas. As in the Irish system, the results aren't as proportional as in the case of the list system.

Is that what you think, as well?

[Jean-Pierre Derriennic]

Yes, that's my opinion, too.

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

Okay.

Mr. Côté, I find the majority judgment voting system a little difficult to understand.

Are the votes cast on the same day as the ones in the regular voting system?

Could you explain this to me?

[Raymond Côté]

Ms. May, I understand very well that you may have difficulty following me. I introduced two resolutions as part of my activism in the Quebec section of the NDP. The resolution was defeated both times, probably because the NDP activists weren't able to follow me on this.

The first thing is that majority judgment voting is a single-vote electoral system in which the results arrive as is. To add to what Mr. Ste-Marie said, the beauty of this system is that everyone has a voice. People also speak out about the candidates that they particularly dislike. Perhaps it isn't very good to encourage this kind of behaviour, but it might be worth using.

The other element is the lack of manipulation with respect to a first past the post or exhaustive ballot or preferential voting. In reality, if you really want to influence the vote of a candidate, there must be outrageous scoring and we need to convince voters who have a rather mixed or weak opinion of the candidate we want to defeat to issue an even stronger opinion. I can't imagine a single political party that would waste money trying to conduct an operation of that magnitude.

My friend, Yvan Dutil, who testified before me, and I studied physics together at Laval University. That's why we've known one another for so long.

I see the mathematical beauty of it, but also its simplicity, once you understand the basic principle. However, I know it's very different compared to other voting systems. Most people are unable to follow me on this. I keep on anyway. The great interest of this voting system compared to the others is that, strictly speaking, it is true that all votes count.

In fact, in the articles of the two French researchers, you can examine the results for each candidate: excellent, very good and so on. Voters can see, for example, that Raymond Côté obtained such-and-such a score, when they had rejected that candidate initially. They can also see that 15% of voters also rejected him in the end. Voters can also conclude that several people found that the candidate did not make sense.

I think this voting system will have a positive impact on our elections. At the least, it will bring a lot more fun than the other voting systems. That's one reason why I'm trying to convince you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Aldag, you have the floor.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thanks to both of our witnesses for being here and for the thought that you've obviously put into electoral reform.

I've done a number of town halls. I've taken the approach of trying to understand what values Canadians bring, my constituents bring, to electoral reform, and what things they hold dear, so that we can apply that to whatever decisions we make in going forward to new systems.

In this case, we have systems that have been given to us, ones that you've given thought to, so I'm almost trying to reverse-engineer it to understand the values and the principles that you've applied.

I'm sure you've seen that we have five to seven principles that we're working with. They include things like effectiveness and legitimacy, engagement, accessibility and inclusiveness, integrity, and local representation.

I would like thoughts from both of you. Do you feel that those general principles are reflected in what you've presented? Are there other values that you feel Canadians hold dear that are also reflected in your systems that will help us as we do some sort of grid to see which system meets this or that criterion and how many of those we are checking off?

Essentially, do your recommendations meet the principles the committee is working with, and are there other values that you've applied in the formation of your recommendations?

[Raymond Côté]

It's quite obvious.

You know, the majority judgment voting system gives voters significant freedom. First, voters must vote on all candidates and don't need to rank them in order of preference. A very generous voter who finds four of ten candidates excellent checks “excellent” four times. So much the better if the voter doesn't find any candidates to “reject”. However, a very critical or downright disillusioned voter is free to check “reject” beside the names of eight of the 10 candidates, and that choice will be reflected in the results.

The other element, which is why I insisted on the aspect to protect the system against manipulation, is that both the political parties and the voters see their behaviour change dramatically. Above all, voters, candidates and political parties have to play much more fairly. We are left to make calculations with other voting systems.

In the 2011 election, even before it was called, I was convinced that I might be elected. I invited the candidates for the Quebec region to my home to tell them, “Get ready to become MPs. We need to run a campaign based on the fact that we will win.” That was just a few days before the start of the 2011 election campaign. I knew that the NDP was the second choice for a large number of voters, and I knew that I could be elected MP. In a case like this, we put aside electoral calculations to better focus on how to reach voters, to affect them with its comments, to find arguments to convince them of its value. The situation was radically different from what Canada currently has.

[Jean-Pierre Derriennic]

It's not too easy to design a voting system that takes into account all the requirements of your mandate—I don't know what to call it. I haven't tried to add to it. I'm happy to work with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have a minute left. You don't want to use it?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I think I'm fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We were discussing Mr. Côté's system; that's why I was a little....

Mr. Deltell, the floor is yours.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Derriennic, welcome.

Mr. Côté, welcome. I am happy to see you again. We've crossed paths a few times, quite often during the elections. Thank you, and congratulations on having served your fellow Canadians for four years, and also for having been a candidate twice, in 2006 and in 2008, before becoming an MP. I mean it sincerely when I say that I have great respect for those who are candidates for election because it's a steep hill to climb. You had to have a lot of faith to come to the NDP in Quebec in 2006, and I congratulate you.

I know what I'm talking about. I have been the leader of a provincial party, where it wasn't smooth sailing in some ridings. I have great respect for those who run on principle, even if they know from the start that they are likely to be beaten hands down. Mr. Côté, I congratulate you on your political commitment. As for your comments about your NDP colleagues, I'll leave them to you; I wouldn't dare repeat them.

Now, my question is for both of you, because you have each expressed your point of view. I may be wrong, but from experience—I've been in politics for some time—I think that Canadians have three questions when it comes time to vote: “Who do I want to be prime minister?” “Which platform do I like the best?” and “Who do I want to see as MP?” Sometimes, the answers form the right trifecta: the leader, the party and the candidate, but other times, it's A, B and C. There is no perfect system, as you said so well just now.

Considering these three choices that Canadians have, how can voters benefit from the system you're proposing?

[Raymond Côté]

That's a very good question, Mr. Deltell.

It reminds me that my mother wondered how profitable it was for me to get into politics at the time. I always hid from her the fact that I was spending a lot from my own pocket for my activism. Let's try to keep that between us, if you don't mind.

We need to go well beyond the voting system, if not the method of representation. I would say that what we are seeing now is that the federal and provincial governments are being run by a bunch of “bossy pants”. The Prime Minister's Office concentrates a huge amount of power, which is one reason voter behaviour often means they vote based on the party leader.

In 2011, I was aware that it was mainly Jack Layton who had brought me to serve my people. This afternoon, I was eating on a patio on First Avenue, and two ladies stopped to talk to me. They asked if I was going to run for the next. That's the result of my work, my sweat and tears. It's important that I deserve it.

Having said that, voter opinion, as with politicians, will change with the voting system I'm presenting. In terms of knowing how it will minimize the importance of the party leader as a future prime minister, I can't answer beyond a certain point. However, I feel that this could especially help to again develop the representative's role in the House, based on representation. That is one of the very important goals I'm seeking.

[Jean-Pierre Derriennic]

I don't know what the answer to your question is. I think, regardless of the voting system, the three criteria you mention play into people's decision. And they don't do it the same way for everything. I don't know if there is a voting system that favours the criteria of the party leader, the program or the local personality—or personalities.

In the case of a riding with three or four seats, local personalities obviously continue to influence voter motivation. Suppose the voting system ends up creating coalition governments. I don't think coalition governments are a calamity, a disaster. Some of the best governed countries in the world today are run by coalition governments. We can know which conditions of coalitions are good and which are bad.

The conditions are bad when voters think they are scandalous. They are good when they correspond to the choice of the voters. Coalition governments are probably the most effective way of reducing the exaggeration of the prime minister's role. If we want governments to be more collegial and less quasi-presidential, as is the tendency these days, coalition governments might be the way to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You may ask one last question, Mr. Deltell.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Do you think the federal model should take a cue from the municipal model, where people vote for the councillor, alderperson and mayor?

[Jean-Pierre Derriennic]

I think the opposite, actually. Our municipal electoral system isn't good. If we had a parliamentary system at the municipal level… In Quebec City, people cast two votes. They vote for Mayor Boucher, but don't vote for anyone who wants to support her on municipal council because they don't want to direct their two votes to the same choice. Trying to reproduce the municipal electoral system at other levels of government would be a grave mistake.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have to move on to Mrs. Romanado.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the two witnesses and the participants who are with us today.

My first question is for Mr. Côté.

Along the same lines as Mr. Boulerice's questions, I'd like to know with regard to your criteria—“excellent”, “very good”, “good”, and so on—if the result is the median, the average or something else.

[Raymond Côté]

You consider the percentage for each cumulative qualifier. You count from the “reject” qualifier, and when you reach 50%, you get the qualifier that is applied to the candidate. When you have the “excellent” criteria, you calculate up to 50%, and you get exactly the same qualifier. That's the beauty of the system, basically.

From there, the candidates are determined primarily by their median grade, in other words, as you see in the examples in my brief, “satisfactory”, “acceptable” or “poor”. From the majority criterion, you make the determination based on the remaining distribution outside the median grade.

For the 2012 election, you can see that François Hollande came first with the grade “good +”. In fact, he won a larger percentage, beyond his median grade, compared to the more disgraceful or less inclusive qualifiers.

It's very simple. As I said to Ms. May, the other advantage of the system is that the winner, or at least the person who will be the representative, is determined in the first round. I personally don't like systems with two or more rounds.

Moreover, when the results are posted, voters can say that they gave a “very good” grade to the person who will represent them and be very happy with that. This aspect of the dynamic will significantly change voter behaviour.

As a future candidate, I'm aware that I have no choice but to tell my fellow Canadians that I will continue in politics. But the observation can be very cruel.

As you can see, a poll conducted in France in 2012 indicated that Marine Le Pen, who came third in the first round under the traditional system, came eighth out of 10 candidates because 47% of voters rejected him. His grade was “poor -”. This brings to light to what extent voters want nothing to do with extremist candidates like Marine Le Pen or his father.