Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2016

[Jean-Pierre Derriennic]

I don't think that the mixed proportional system has any advantage over what I refer to as moderate proportional representation. I don't believe that maintaining single-member constituencies is better than having constituencies with three, four or five members. I think that voters would like to be able to choose their member and choose to which member they can reach out. I cannot prove that. We would have to apply it to see. I am convinced that local representation is necessary, that local representation comes from a member with a stronghold because they are competing with others in the election. After the election, they are alone in their riding and no longer have rivals. That may be easier for the members, but I don't think it's preferable for Canadians.

I think Canadians would like that. I believe the only justification for the mixed proportional system is having a proportional overall result while maintaining single-member constituencies. It is more complicated and more difficult to do in our current situation. I think that moderate proportional representation is a bit better than the mixed proportional system and much easier to implement. That is my opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Raymond Côté]

Mr. DeCourcey, since you like imagery, I must say that I completely agree with Mr. Derriennic on this. This is not so much about whether we prefer chocolate cake or strawberry shortcake, as both are cakes, but rather about whether we will continue to settle for cake. I think that, whether we choose the mixed proportional system or the system Mr. Serriennic is proposing, we will have to settle for one or the other, but it will still be an improvement over the current situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I want to thank the witnesses. We have had a good....

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

You are trying to say that it's not about choosing between a lager and an ale. I hope we will go celebrate together.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We are having a very thought-provoking discussion this afternoon. We have learned new things. We were not familiar with those two systems. So far, we have been talking about more known options. You have put forward some new ideas, and we thank you for that. It was a pleasure to see you again, Mr. Côté, and it was a pleasure to meet you, Mr. Derriennic.

We will now move on to our open microphone session. We have eight witnesses. I will explain the procedure to follow for interventions. We have two microphones. Interventions are limited to two minutes, so you have two minutes to speak. This process has worked very well in the other cities we have visited this week.

I will try to always have one speaker by each microphone. That way, even if only one speaker has the floor, the other one will be ready to comment as soon as they are done.

I invite Blanche Paradis and Esther Lapointe to come up to the microphones.

We will begin with Ms. Paradis' two-minute intervention.

[Blanche Paradis, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I assume we are all here so that we could some day have a House of Commons that is representative of the Canadian population—in other words, representative of its diversity in terms of gender equality and fair representation of immigrants. As for first nations, I will not speak on their behalf. It's up to them to say what they want. The objective is also to establish a House of Commons whose political persuasions are representative of various parties and political opinions in Canada. It must also be representative of people who live in various territories—local territories—but also in major regions such as the provinces. The current voting system has demonstrated its inability to provide us with such representation. That much is clear.

Around the world, 108 out of the 195 countries have adopted a proportional system, in one form or another. Of those, 58 countries have, in addition to the voting system—as the voting system does not resolve everything—implemented institutional mechanisms to promote gender equality and attract diverse people.

So the voting system issue is an important one, but it will not bring equality and representation to the House of Commons if we don't add institutional mechanisms.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Very well. Thank you very much, Ms. Paradis.

[Blanche Paradis]

Is that all? That's too bad.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You are echoing what we have heard elsewhere in the country, and it's very thought-provoking. Thank you very much.

Before we move on to Ms. Lapointe, I invite Jean Rousseau to come up to the other microphone.

Ms. Lapointe, you have the floor.

[Esther Lapointe, As an Individual]

I will introduce myself. I am the director of the Groupe femmes, politique et démocratie, and I am appearing here today on behalf of my organization. Our mission is to educate all Canadians on citizen participation, but especially the women we provide with guidance and support so that their numbers in position of power can grow.

Equal representation trumps everything else in a democracy. It embodies political pluralism, cultural diversity, as well as various peoples' living conditions.

I would like to remind the committee members of what the female situation is at the federal level. Women obtained the right to vote in 1918 and eligibility rights in 1920. Today, 95 years later, 26% of House of Commons members are women.

I have done calculations based on statistics provided on the House website. If we compare the percentages, the proportion of women has not even increased by 1% per election.

I continued with my calculations. I have made some forecasts. It would take 24 elections approximately every four years—so an entire century—to achieve gender equality in the House of Commons. That would take us to 2109.

Last October, after the election, we issued a press release to report on the situation, to celebrate certain advancements, including a gender-balanced cabinet. However, as that is not included in legislation, it will disappear, as the case was in Quebec, where we have already gone through a similar situation.

I would like to bring your attention to the fact that Canada ranked 46th, in October 2015, in terms of women's presence in Parliament and that, so far, as Ms. Romanado said earlier, we rank 64th.

So the message we want to communicate today is that we should find ways or add mechanisms in order to redress that inequality. Women account for 50.4% of the Canadian population. It's a matter of democracy.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Ms. Lapointe.

I invite Guy Boivin to come up to the microphone.

We will now move on to a former colleague who was a member for Compton, right?

[Jean Rousseau, Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group]

Yes, I was a member for Compton—Stanstead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, you were a member for Compton—Stanstead.

Go ahead, Mr. Rousseau.

[Jean Rousseau]

Thank you very much.

I have two comments. I would have really liked for you to come to Estrie, as that region has some particularities. We have two major universities with applied political science faculties. So the exchanges could have been really interesting, both with students and with faculty professors.

Another particularity of the Estrie region is that it is the forth-largest hub of multicultural integration in Quebec. There are over 40 multiethnic communities in Estrie. Those people are currently somewhat lost in the voting system, and they definitely don't feel well represented.

The anglophone presence is another consideration. Anglophones account for nearly 25% of our population, and 50% of municipalities are anglophone in some of the regions. Those people want to have their rights protected, and I completely understand that. They basically want their vote to carry weight. Numbers have been put forward today that suggest that, if a government is elected with 38% of popular support and the participation rate is 60%, actual support is about 20%, and it's even lower if we take into account members elected with a true majority.

Those communities want to be properly represented. Regardless of the form of proportional representation selected, what matters the most is the weight of the vote. Do Canadians ensure representation in the House of Commons by placing a small cross at the bottom of the ballot? That is what is important.

For decades, when a party came to power, it governed based on its economic and ideological doctrines. So people who have voted for other parties and represent 60%, 70% or 80% of the total, do not feel represented, do not feel protected and, most importantly, do not feel like they have a voice in the House of Commons.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rousseau.

Mr. Berthelot, could you approach the microphone?

We will continue with Mr. Boivin.

[Guy Boivin, As an Individual]

Thank you for consulting us.

Unless I am mistaken, you seem to be proposing a reform that leans toward a mixed proportional system. But wouldn't that be like applying a bandage on a gangrenous leg? Doesn't the reform open the door to numerous potential changes in order to resolve a lot of existing problems?

We currently have a British system in place that has never really represented the popular will. The current system is a dictatorship where the leader imposes the party line and where the members, mainly the backbenchers, become useful window dressing much more in the ridings than in the House of Commons.

Quebeckers like to identify with their members of Parliament, who sort of become their spokespersons without a political party affiliation. I propose that provinces be divided based on their surface area. Two members without affiliation to a political party per riding would be elected for a five-year period—one man and one woman, for true equality in the House of Commons. Ridings would never be orphaned again, and we would never have to start from scratch because everything was tossed away after a general election or when a member changes.

In parallel, a party leader would be elected for a five-year period, in a general election, to become prime minister, select his ministers, run the country and convince the House of Commons to change laws and regulations. The ballot would be split into two sections. In the first section, Canadians would be asked to select a party and, in the second section, two or three party leaders would be proposed. Voters would have to check the name of their preferred leader for each party. Once the votes were tallied, the chief electoral officer would announce the winning party based on the Canadian vote total. For the victorious party, the chief electoral officer would announce the winning leader based on the vote total across the country.

In conclusion, “one person, one vote” is not a democratic formula. A village will always have more elected representatives than more sparsely populated rural areas, so the village ideas will always be first.

Imposing financial penalties so that parties would increase their female representation would not resolve the issue of gender equality.

Furthermore, asking that visible minorities be represented opens up a Pandora's box. If a black person obtains an appointment, does the same have to be done for an Asian person, a disabled individual, a Muslim, a Jew, a Sikh, an aboriginal, a transgender person, a young person? Where do we draw the line in terms of minority representation?

The age of 18 for vote eligibility is when most people are capable of understanding the options available and their consequences. Canada is a country where freedom is a priority. No one should be forced to vote.

In closing, the government should require the municipalities to have a permanent voters list, as they can easily keep track of who lives on their territory. All federal, provincial and territorial services should be connected to that list, so that it would always be as accurate as possible. People would no longer have to contact several services for a change of address. They would inform the municipality, and all the services would receive the information, as it is done in Germany.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much for touching on all those aspects, Mr. Boivin. We are very grateful. Your comments were pretty thorough.

[Guy Boivin]

It only took me two minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It was a bit longer than that, but it was worth it. Thank you.

I would like to invite Mr. Saucier to take the second microphone.

Mr. Berthelot, you may deliver your comments.

[Maurice Berthelot, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

I would have liked to hear about mandatory voting, but it has not been discussed.

I represent the 7 million Canadians who voted and do not have a representative in Parliament. I am here for my children and my grandchildren.

We have a democratic deficit in Canada because young people are discouraged by voting. Something has to be done to encourage people to vote. That is our biggest responsibility as citizens. The status quo—in terms of politics, the economy and the environment—is no longer acceptable. We are at a crossroads in human history. We have to do something to make our politicians accountable and to reduce conflict in Parliament. Politics is the art of compromise, but there has been no compromise, or very little of it. It is your responsibility to improve things.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I see that Gerrit Dogger is here.

I now give the floor to Nicolas Saucier.

[Nicolas Saucier, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

My name is Nicolas Saucier, and I am from Quebec City. I'm a former student of Mr. Derriennic's, and I was employed by the House of Commons through three Parliaments. So I am pretty knowledgeable on these issues.

I was always told that I had been born in a democratic country, but my life experience shows me that this is not the case, as no government has been elected with 50% of the votes since I have had the right to vote. Since I could vote, 1988 was when the elected government had the largest percentage of votes, with 43%. So 57% of people had voted against that government. The worst year was 2006, with 34.5% of the votes, meaning that 65.5%, or two-thirds of the population, had not voted for the elected government. Since my birth, only once, in 1984, did the elected government garner the majority of the votes, with 50.03%, by the skin of its teeth. Before that, in 1958, the figure was 53.6%. So 26 years passed between those two elections where the government was elected with over 50% of votes, and the gap will be 35 years if we assume that the next government will be elected with more than 50% of the votes in the next election.

That's not so democratic. My concern is that the two main parties have been very content with this non-democratic system for a long time. I am worried. I applaud the Liberal Party's effort in proposing this change. I am very worried to see that the Conservative Party has its foot on the brake and is riding almost on the shoulder in order to slow things down.

I have been hearing the nirvana argument a lot. I am a communications professor at the university. In argumentation courses, we hear fallacious arguments, such as the nirvana one. According to that argument, if the proposed solution is not perfect, it must be rejected. That's easy. You find a flaw in a proposed solution and you eliminate it because it is flawed. That's like seeing the mote in your eye when you have a beam in there, and I would even say on your forehead.

We have a system that has not been democratic for years, and people are splitting hairs by saying that all this may not be ideal. Any of the proposed solutions would be preferable to the status quo or the current system.

In closing, I wonder whether any of the members around this table were elected by more than 50% of the voters in their riding.

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

I was, and what's more, I am a Conservative.