Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2016

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

I thank the two witnesses for being here with us today.

Mr. Colas, you referred to the people you heard in Winnipeg, Regina and Toronto. Yesterday in Toronto, there were a lot of people who said, generally speaking, the things you already heard. I know that there are people who are listening to us live, and there are surely some who will attack me on Twitter after I've said what I'm going to say.

We just had an election campaign that lasted 78 days. I can swear on the Bible that no citizen spoke to me about electoral reform. According to a recent poll, this issue is of interest to 3% of the electorate. There are certain people who have an interest in electoral reform, but I doubt that they represent the majority of the population.

I am not at all convinced that people are concerned by the local representation of their MP. In your model, which I have not yet had the opportunity to look at, you talk about a two-thirds, one-third ratio. Are you suggesting that we increase the size of ridings in order to decrease the number of members on the list, or that we add members in order to maintain the size of the ridings?

There are 40 municipalities in my riding. Given that I spend two thirds of the year in Ottawa, without taking into account committee work and other activities, I find it hard to imagine that I could still serve my electors well if my riding were made bigger. Citizens often tell me that they would like to vote for me, but that they do not want to vote for my leader or for my party, which also implies that they object to the party's program. In my opinion, electors will vote either for the leader, the candidate, or the program and the party. I think that electors have a global view of the list of proposals.

[Bernard Colas]

Thank you for the question.

Your electors will be happy to hear that when they want to vote for you and not for your leader, they will be able to do so because there would be two votes to express. If they like the leader of the party, all the better, but if they do not like him, they can find another or vote for no one. By having two votes, they may choose one or the other. That is the first point.

The other point that makes the project acceptable is that it would not increase costs. If we do not increase costs, we will have to increase the size of ridings. In large cities, that is not too serious, but it will be more complicated in rural areas. In addition, we would establish lists. There would be two zones in Quebec, three in Ontario and one in the other provinces. The lists would be drawn up by province, and we would not have to effect constitutional reform, nor hold a referendum.

Since there are not enough members from Prince Edward Island, we would have to add a member from the list. In Quebec, there is the Montreal region. The system is flexible and you could find other solutions. In the Montreal region there would be additional candidates on the list. You would not be the only one to have to travel through your riding to encourage people to vote. You would do so, as would the people on the list. The same thing applies to the other regions. There would be lists based on our geography. The objective is also to help the electors who want to vote for members they know, who would either represent the riding or appear on a list.

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

I see.

What do you have to say about that, Mr. Montigny?

[Éric Montigny]

I have two things to say.

First, there is certainly a selection bias. Citizens who go to see an MP have a connection to him. People who come to see you have a connection to you as their MP. It is an important connection. However, in our measures, we also took into account those for whom that is not the case. That is the first point I wanted to make.

There is another point to be considered. You raised a good point concerning the size of federal ridings. We did some research on the work done by members in the ridings. Our initial hypothesis was that the members of the Quebec National Assembly spent more time than federal members in their ridings, because of Quebec government jurisdictions. We were surprised to learn that the federal members spent more time in their ridings in Quebec than the Quebec MNAs, despite the distance between Quebec and the Parliament in Ottawa.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I now give the floor to Mr. Boulerice.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Colas and Professor Montigny, for being with us today. Your comments are very interesting.

People often say that if we include a certain form of proportionality via the two ballots, that will complicate the system. I am counting on the voters' intelligence. Three-quarters of the OECD countries have a proportional system, and I don't see why Quebeckers or Canadians would be more confused by that than others.

I want to mention Scotland, where there are four levels of government. Each one of those levels has a different voting system. The Scots must be geniuses, because they manage to cope with all of that.

In 2004, after two years of studies and work, the Law Commission of Canada chose a mixed proportional representation system based on the Scottish model. Why did you choose the Scottish model rather than the New Zealand or Irish model? I would like to hear your point of view on that. Could you also explain the difference between closed lists and open lists?

[Bernard Colas]

We basically adapted that a little to the current system and to Canadian reality because we have a huge territory. That is why we chose the 66-33 ratio.

In Germany it is 50-50. In Scotland it is about 57-43. We chose a proportion that better reflected our vast territory.

As for the open and closed lists, the four commissioners came from various parts of the country. We wondered if we should decide on that or not. We thought that for the good of the report, we should make a decision and indicate that we were not in favour of a closed list, as this could generate mistrust on the part of citizens toward the political parties, and even lead people to think that the same people could fix the list, and so on. They could either vote for a list and trust the party, or vote for one of the candidates on the list. However, for a candidate to change rankings, he or she had to get at least 8% of the votes.

We did not choose a completely open list, because people pointed out that they would all be from the same party and would be competing fiercely with each other to change positions on the list. So we stopped the debate and presented that system. There is an example in the report. On your ballot, you can vote either for the list as it stands, or to change the list.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

If we adopted a system combining local members—such as the current one—and candidates from a list, I really like the idea that we would have provincial or sub-regional lists for Quebec and Ontario.

What do you think of having two categories of members, those elected locally, and those who would be elected from a list? People may sometimes feel that members on a list live in the ether, and sort of float above the electors. But in fact, they have offices in cities or towns and also meet people.

I also know that the perception of these members of Parliament changes according to the country and people's experience. In Germany, an MP is an MP. In other places, however, things are more nuanced than that.

Mr. Colas and Mr. Montigny, what have you heard about this?

[Bernard Colas]

We heard that these complaints were groundless and that everything depended on the individuals concerned.

I'll stop here so my colleague can have some speaking time.

[Éric Montigny]

It is paradoxical, because the distinction seems to be made by the members rather than the electors. The members who are attached to a riding have a greater sense of representing the people there and that region than the members who were selected from a list.

We also noted that the people whose names were on the list were also often people who were close to the leadership of the party concerned. When you think of the ranking given to the people on the list, you have to factor in the closeness to the leaders of the party of the candidates in question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Ste-Marie, you have the floor.

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

Thank you Mr. Chair.

Mr. Montigny and Mr. Colas, welcome to the committee. Your presentations were very instructive. I was very happy to hear them.

Before asking my questions, I would like to express some constructive criticism to the committee. Yesterday, in Toronto, we were patting ourselves on the back because we had a group of witnesses that was made up of three women. This was the first time that had happened. Today, however, all of the witnesses were men. Also, there are no women among the few observers present. We'll have to do better in future meetings. I am talking about a representative women's presence.

My first question is addressed to you, Mr. Montigny.

I was surprised by one of the statistics taken from the CROP poll conducted in Quebec in 2015. According to what you said, 70% of the population was in favour of some type of proportional representation.

I'd like to follow up on something my colleague Alain Rayes said. And in fact both Ms. Romanado and myself were talking about this earlier. We were saying that when we talk about the voting system in our ridings, people do not understand the term “single member plurality system”, or the term “proportional representation”, and so on.

How was that statistic arrived at?

[Éric Montigny]

In any case, I will give you the questionnaire and you will be able to see the wording of the question.

First, we are aware that there is an issue with making the language more accessible. In order to do so, we asked the same question in two different ways, and explained the meaning of proportional representation. In both cases, the results were the same. As far as the methodology goes, we were aware of the comprehension issue.

I would add that we must not confuse support for a measure with the profile an issue may have or not have. The fact that people are in favour of something does not mean that they will vote for another party, or that they will talk about the issue morning, noon and night.

Those are the two points I wanted to make.

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

Thank you. That's very interesting.

Mr. Colas, in your book you suggest a proportional representation system. You have explained it to us in broad terms. The details are in that book, which was written after several years of work.

My question is delicate.

I get the sense that this exercise is being done in good faith. We want to improve democracy while respecting our values, and so on. We could adopt such a system. By the same token, adopting this system would remove some power from the current government, which was elected using the voting system we now have.

What would lead it to agree to curtail its own power, or to lose its majority in order to improve democracy? How could we convince it to do that? Is my vision of politics too cynical?

[Bernard Colas]

That is an excellent question.

On the one hand, any electoral reform which mirrors the population's wishes will lead to minority governments—there is a good chance that that could happen—unless more than 50% of the population votes for the same party.

On the other hand, the rules of the game will change to some extent. We wonder whether political culture will not also change and if the people who are elected will be able to work together. Basically what the population wants is for those who are elected to act in a more patient and consensual way so as to arrive at solutions. Bills are often adopted unanimously, but on other occasions it is not that easy. This provides a certain stability, and ensures the party that takes power cannot undo everything the previous government did. What happened to the Law Commission of Canada is a perfect example.

There also has to be a will to do politics differently and to find consensual solutions. In the long run, the country would be the winner.

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

Thank you very much.

I will take advantage of the time I have left to ask you one last question, Mr. Montigny.

You talked about legitimacy. Legally speaking, a majority government can change the voting system without holding a referendum, and without the support of any other party. In your opinion, what would be the acceptable minimum support to provide legitimacy?

[Éric Montigny]

I would not set a percentage for support in this regard.

You have to measure two things: the intention and the will of a government, regardless of its majority, of including the opposition in the process and in the decision, and a large consensus to go ahead, to provide legitimacy.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. May, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses who are here with us tonight. It is really an honour to discuss your experience and your research, and particularly your report, Mr. Colas. Indeed, the 2004 report of the Law Commission of Canada is fundamental for someone who like myself is in favour of a proportional representation system. It may not be exactly the same system, but the research and the 2004 report contain a wealth of information in this regard.

Mr. Montigny, if I understood your testimony correctly, you took part in a symposium here in Quebec. How many people were present? Who was there? Were the participants academics and professors?

[Éric Montigny]

In total, 150 people participated in the symposium. There were academics, practitioners, representatives of institutions, and public servants. The symposium lasted two days. All of the parties, including yours, were invited. Unfortunately, no one from your political party came to the symposium. Aside from proportional representation, the whole range of issues involving people's trust in our democratic institutions was discussed at the symposium.

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

You said that a poll on the voting system showed that 70% of Quebec respondents were in favour of a proportional representation system. Who conducted that poll? Are the results available?

[Éric Montigny]

Yes. I am going to give the document to the chair. The poll was carried out by CROP, a Quebec polling firm.

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

And were Quebeckers the only ones surveyed in that poll?

[Éric Montigny]

Yes, the poll was carried out in Quebec only.