Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2016

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Colas and Mr. Montigny.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I have known Mr. Montigny personally for a number of years. He was a close advisor to a political party I once worked for. Éric, welcome. Mr. Colas, I extend our welcome to you as well.

I have questions for both of you.

Mr. Colas, you mentioned earlier that in your system, 66% of members would be elected as they are now, and 33% would be elected from a list. In reply to questions put by my colleagues, you briefly mentioned the fact that this creates two categories of MPs, or a two-tier system, if you will.

In your opinion, how would this work in practical terms?

[Bernard Colas]

In practical terms, the first point is that very few electors know the MP for their riding or speak to him or her. The person who has a health-related problem will have a tendency to address his concerns to the Minister of Health directly rather than to his MP.

The second point is that electors would have two people in their riding whom they could turn to. They could speak with the MP for the riding and to the MP from the list, or to people from the list. In that way, they would have a greater choice of people to turn to.

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

Thank you, Mr. Colas.

I appreciate your comments. However, as a practitioner, I must object. I have been in politics for eight years and have worked for two levels of government. I have been elected and re-elected, like all of the other members of the committee. I do not believe that citizens have a tendency to address their issues to the Minister of Health first if they have a problem in that area. They will speak to their MP first. That said, I respect your point of view, even if it does not concur with what I have experienced in eight years of active political life.

However, I do recognize one thing. In politics, we refer to it as the ATSP phenomenon—always the same people. Charity organizations always see the same people, just as we always see the same people in our riding offices. I represent 90,000 people at the federal level, and I may have dealt with 1,000 of those people, at the most. That is the reality.

I must tell you, Mr. Colas, that even if I don't share your point of view, I greatly appreciate that you have documented it and presented it to the committee.

Mr. Montigny, I would like to see the study which concluded that in 2012, if another voting system had been used, the Coalition Avenir Québec would have formed the government. That is news to me. It's unprecedented. I must acknowledge my favourable bias and especially my conflict of interest in this file.

[Éric Montigny]

It will be my pleasure to send it to you.

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

This study interests me greatly.

Concerning whether or not we should hold a referendum, you said that in your opinion this was not a legal issue but a political one. We agree entirely with you on that. From a constitutional perspective, we are not obliged to hold a referendum. However, we feel as you do that this is a political issue. As you said in English earlier: “It's up to the MPs to decide”. It is up to the MPs to decide. It is up to the MPs to decide whether there will be a referendum or not.

Basically, we the members of the committee feel that as MPs, we are in a conflict of interest when we discuss this matter. Of course we have a rather partisan view, and that is normal since we live in this environment. Members also think, as did previous Canadians, that the population should have the last word. New Zealand, which has the same British tradition as we do, held three referendums in 11 years before implementing a change.

Without quoting the Bible this time, I will say that I agree with the following words: “Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada. Changing the voting system would require popular support”. Who said that? You may be surprised. It was the Honourable Stéphane Dion, Minister of Foreign Affairs, the intellectual backbone of the current government and a very experienced minister.

Mr. Montigny, do you share the point of view of this gentleman, who was I believe one of your university professors?

[Éric Montigny]

I don't think there's any constitutional convention for holding a referendum. The broadest possible consensus must be sought. I understand your committee is trying to reach that consensus. That's what will be determined that at the end of the exercise. That's the first thing to consider.

The second thing to consider in terms of legitimacy is that in a representative democracy, the political parties that appear before the voters have democratic reform proposals in their political platforms. In a system of representative democracy, if we add up the political parties elected with the promise of modifying the electoral system, it also provides legitimacy to the process.

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

We are all also aware that, in its electoral platform, the current government committed to electoral reform. The commitment represented three sentences out of 97 pages. We can't say it was the main factor in the discussions.

[Éric Montigny]

I'll let you be the judge.

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

Mr. Montigny, you said there's no perfect electoral system. Why change an imperfect electoral system to another imperfect system, if there's no perfect system?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please keep your answer short.

[Éric Montigny]

Good question. I could give a three-hour course on the subject.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Colas.

[Bernard Colas]

Mr. Deltell, I don't understand why you say you disagree. It's like you're blocking communication, and, basically, we're not that close with regard to the element of the proposal and the fact the MP is in contact with the public in relation to the system.

What I'm trying to explain is that the constituency would be larger. We took into account the fact that citizens could speak to and contact their MP. So, instead of having 1,000 people contact you, maybe 1,100 people would contact you given that the constituencies would be larger, unless we increase the number of constituencies.

In short, you can't say you disagree. You may be in favour of something more nuanced.

I found it sad that you blocked communication by saying you disagreed when, basically, you're saying we could make things more nuanced.

Thank you.

[Éric Montigny]

I want to add one quick thing. I think your meeting will be successful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Romanado.

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

Thank you Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Professor Montigny and Mr. Colas.

I did not read the entire document. It contains 232 pages, and we were somewhat busy this week. However, I'll definitely read it. I made an electoral system evaluation grid, and I discovered you did the same thing in table 12. I will therefore compare them.

I want to know whether I've properly understood the recommendation. Take Quebec, for example, which currently has 78 seats. Based on the model, 66% of the seats would be for MPs representing a constituency, and 33% for MPs chosen from a list. Is that correct? So about 62 people would represent a constituency and 16 people would be from the list. Is that right?

The 16 MPs on the list would be for Quebec as a whole. Is that right?

[Bernard Colas]

That's an excellent question and it applies to those who are concerned about contact with their MP. The province is large. We therefore divided Quebec in two, but you can find other solutions. Based on the solution we proposed, there's a list for the Montreal region. So, out of 16 MPs in total, eight would be elected from a list for Montreal and eight would be elected from a list for the rest of Quebec. It's very important to go province by province. However, for Quebec, given that it's a large territory with a high population, we established two zones.

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

That leads into my next question. I imagine that the eight people from Montreal will live in the city. Their residence will be located somewhere in Montreal.

Since not many people live in the north, I imagine the eight others may be in Quebec City, Sherbrooke or Joliette. We don't know. The citizens living in remote regions or the north may have a single MP, while those living in major cities will have two, three or 16 MPs.

I just want to understand what you're saying. Would it be fair for the citizens in the north to have a single MP if the other citizens have more?

[Bernard Colas]

We didn't say there needed to be obligations. The reform could be useful for encouraging the parties to make sure the lists cover members of visible minority groups, people from remote regions, or people in city centres. We even said that a person could be both in a constituency and on the list. The party can say “vote for us, we have a star candidate in eighth place” and therefore have the seven preceding candidates elected. The list can be established strategically.

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

Okay. I wasn't sure. Personally, I'm worried about the remote regions. It's already difficult for an MP to travel within a very large constituency, so imagine there's just one MP. In Montreal, there are 16 MPs, the population is denser, but there are other factors.

Can you tell me how this will be useful for Quebec?

[Bernard Colas]

The party determines who will be on the list, and the voters determine whether or not they'll vote for the party.

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

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Sansoucy.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Your contribution is very important for our committee's work. Thank you all.

First, Mr. Colas, if I understood correctly, you think the current situation, like the situation when you were writing your report, makes it completely necessary to proceed with electoral reform. I also understood that you think the findings from 2004 are still very relevant in 2016. We also spoke a great deal about your proposal for a proportional electoral system.

For the benefit of our committee, which does not have two years to carry out its work, can you tell us how you determined that a proportional electoral system was needed?

[Bernard Colas]

That's very important. It's a mixed electoral system, based on the “66-33” method. The voter has two ballots.

We made this finding after consulting people, both citizens and experts, including academics and politicians. The system seemed the simplest and corresponded the best to the values we targeted. We established 11 values or something to that effect on which to base our reform.

Based on the consultations and after comparing the different electoral systems, we came up with this proposal, which best corresponded to the values we established.