Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2016

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Nicolas Saucier]

That's great. I congratulate you because, at the very least, you are representative.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Saucier.

I would like to invite Richard Domm to come up to the second microphone.

We will now hear from Gerrit Dogger.

[Gerrit Dogger, As an Individual]

Thank you.

When we are trying to define what democracy is and to separate highly democratic states from less democratic ones, we first look at the representation system a state has chosen for itself. Therefore, the key criterion for assessing the democratic nature of that representation system is the representativeness of Parliament relative to its voters. Although Canada has a reputation as a model democracy, a cursory review of its democratic institutions indicates that it does not pass the most basic test. Our voting system is not representative. Each election is another reminder of that. The composition of our Parliament does not reflect voting intentions. In the last two federal elections, the government secured an absolute majority with about 40% of the voting intentions.

Canada has undergone major changes over the course of its democratization. It has become a diverse society where the expression of numerous and differing opinions is not only accepted, but actually encouraged, and I can attest to this as an immigrant. However, it is extremely unfortunate that the diversity of opinions that is our strength is not represented in Parliament. Let's look at a simple example. In the 2015 general election, only Liberal candidates were elected in the Atlantic provinces. All the citizens of that province with no ties to the Liberal Party were ignored.

The problems with the current voting system can be summarized in five points. There are probably more, but let's keep it to five.

First, the party elected by a minority of citizens can govern as a majority, as the previous speaker had pointed out by going over past elections.

Second, the system is unstable, as minor changes in voting intentions—variations by a few percentage points, for example—can result in major changes in representation. Once again, in the Maritime provinces, the Liberals went from a few seats in 2011 to all the seats in 2015. Did everyone in the Maritimes become a Liberal? I don't think so.

Third, the voting in each riding is limited to the candidates representing parties. If no Green Party candidate comes forward in the riding, citizens cannot vote for that party. The situation does not apply only to the Green Party, but to all unrepresented parties.

Forth, if a region votes for the wrong candidate, it is not represented within government.

Fifth, a vote consists of three decisions: the election of the government leader, of a party and of a member of Parliament. People generally like to think that they are voting for a member first, but in reality, few citizens know the name of their member or the candidate they are voting for. However, if we are voting for a member, why do we have parties, and why does the number of elected members automatically translate to the prime minister's election?

Similarly, the benefits of the proportional system can be summarized in five points. First, it truly represents the voting intention in Parliament. Second, it fosters a diversity of views and opinions in Parliament. Third, it is more stable for the parties, and their representation in Parliament is more stable. Between 2011 and 2015, we have seen Quebec go from orange to mostly red.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Can you wrap it up, Mr. Dogger?

[Gerrit Dogger]

Yes, I am getting there. I'm almost done, Mr. Chair.

Contrary to the ideas expressed, the proportional system, such as the one in the Netherlands and Italy, is just as stable as our current system, and all voters can vote for the party that represents them best.

If the system does not change sufficiently to represent my ideas, I personally don't see why I would continue to vote and legitimize a system that no longer has any legitimacy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Richard Domm.

I would ask Samuel Moisan-Domm to come up to the microphone.

Go ahead, Mr. Domm.

[Richard Domm, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

I want to begin by thanking the Liberal Party for questioning the current system we use to elect members. When I think of the current voting system, I compare it to the evolution of human beings who came from the jungle, then had kings and queens, and finally adopted the first-the-post system, which is a kind of a dictatorship.

I congratulate Mr. Deltell, who was elected with over 50% of votes, but what about the 40% of voters who are not represented? I am favourable to a proportional system, and I like the one Germany uses.

I want to mention that I was a candidate of the Green Party of Canada three times and of the Green Party of Quebec a few times. I ran every time knowing that I would not be elected, but I did so to give Canadians an opportunity to express themselves. I would like us to someday get to a proportional system where the one individual out of 20 who voted for the Green Party would be heard by the government. That is currently not the case.

To give you an idea of how much of a democrat I am, while I was running as a Green Party candidate, I put up signs for the NDP's Raymond Côté, and I would have become a member of all the parties, as that seemed important to me.

[Raymond Côté]

Oh, oh!

[Richard Domm]

He's laughing because it's true.

Yes, he was elected, and I'm happy about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

He is laughing with glee.

[Richard Domm]

The NDP's Mr. Cullen suggested trying the proportional system and potentially holding a referendum afterwards.

It's sort of like someone saying that they have always had the same cake and that, even if it was good, there is better. Let us taste what is better—a proportional system. A number of countries that have adopted proportional systems have progressed. I think that it is time for Canada to progress, as well.

In closing, we often talk about voters' intelligence. They do not lack intelligence, but they lack time. Ask my mother; ask the people around you. They are concerned about democracy, but they don't take the time to look into all the possibilities. It's complicated. They won't do it any more than they will learn to repair their car or a guitar.

As elected representatives, you have the responsibility to act wisely, with the future in mind, in order to represent voters who, like myself, run for office and have never been elected. It's all the same to me, but I want to be heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much. You have been heard.

Mr. Moisan-Domm, go ahead.

[Samuel Moisan-Domm, As an Individual]

I am my father's son; I think that much is obvious.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We will hear from only one person per family.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm kidding. Go ahead.

[Samuel Moisan-Domm]

I won't repeat the arguments that have already been put forward in favour of the mixed proportional voting system, in favour of mandatory voting, in favour Internet voting, and so on. I think that is progressive and would be a sign of progress.

I would like to establish a parallel between our society and our voting system. For example, all students in a class have the right to speak and express themselves. At work, when I participate in a team meeting, all of us on the team have the right to express ourselves, since every opinion has value.

It's the same thing in Parliament. There are some 338 members, and each of you has the right to express yourself, as all opinions have value, even if their respective weight may differ. Everyone can speak out. Ultimately, the voting system should make the same thing possible. A person should be able to express their opinion, whether they have the support of 5%, 15% or 40% of the population.

I would like to establish another parallel. In a group, there's often one individual who is more shy and will talk less. In general, an attempt is made to get that person to talk, to express themselves even though they don't really want to. It's the same when it comes to the voting system. It is important to hear from everyone with an opinion, even if the individual talks less.

Conversely, some people may monopolize the conversation and talk a bit too much. We are willing to hear them out, but not all the time, as we also want to hear from others. It's the same thing in a democratic system. If a party has 40% of the votes, we don't want it to account for 65% of the talk in Parliament, to impede the conversation, to dominate the media and to do only what it wants.

I think it is important for everyone's voice to be represented, so as to reflect daily social mores in school, in university, at work and in Parliament. It is important for everyone's voice to be represented, for no one to dominate the conversation and for everyone to be able to express themselves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, sir.

I thank all of you for your excellent interventions.

The committee is going to suspend proceedings for approximately 45 minutes. We will come back at 6:15 to continue our open mike session. Another member of the public wishes to take the floor. We will hear other witnesses afterwards.

[An hon. member]

I am extremely disappointed. Only two women have spoken, and after two minutes, in a very strict manner, you interrupted the first woman who spoke, whereas you allowed several male speakers to go on for three or three and a half minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Do you want to speak on this?

[An hon. member]

I am not ready to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Very well.

[An hon. member]

I repeat that I am disappointed that you cut off the lady's intervention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I thought she was finished, but if she wants to add a comment, she may do so.

We are trying to show flexibility. I don't want to cut anyone off, but there was a break and I thought she had finished.

Did you want to speak on anything else...