Evidence of meeting #28 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was elected.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
How can we inform the public? What does “excellent” mean? Does it mean that the person will work hard, that the person is educated, already has experience? How will we explain what an “excellent” or “very good” grade means?
Currently, the public simply chooses from the candidates.
What criteria are used to award an “excellent” grade, rather than “very good”?
Canadians will have to be educated on this.
4:35 p.m.
As an Individual
Thank you for the question, which I would describe as “excellent”.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
As an Individual
Educating the public won't even be necessary. In reality, there will be what voters determine in their heads. The system is already widely used by household surveys, particularly to describe laundry soap or the quality of the service at their banks. People are very comfortable with it. As part of the experiment in Orsay, researchers were concerned that people would be confused or would take more time to vote, but they didn't take more time and adapted very well.
One of the things I've learned from the work I'm doing in the field, as a politician, is to have great respect for people's intelligence. I think this voting system uses it much more than the others.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the two witnesses.
Mr. Côté, I won't ask any questions. I, too, believe in the intelligence of Canadians. I can understand that researchers are doing this as part of a pilot project, but I think it would be difficult to apply, given that it is a far too significant cultural change. Voters no longer make a selection; they make a judgment. We aren't there yet. I think we first have to make some progress. In 60 years, we'll say that we're there and that we were talking about it in 2016.
I was surprised when I heard one of your comments. You said that the status quo might be okay were it not for diversity. Could you come back to that statement, which I'm sure has a broader meaning. I guess the word “diversity” refers to something that is fairer, more inclusive and more representative.
4:40 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes.
Thank you, Ms. Soucy.
I have great memories of the 2007 election campaign, during which I helped you out.
4:40 p.m.
As an Individual
I must say that we have a choice as a society to make. Essentially, the discussion we're having is really very important, and it seems unfortunate to me that the media is not giving it more attention. After all, you came to Quebec City to meet with us, and I hope the journalists will be present tonight. But that's another matter.
The status quo might be acceptable if that's what the people wanted. A friend told me frankly that she wanted to be able to vote for the winner. If that's what the public wants, we will keep the first past the post system because people know this system and are comfortable with it.
Furthermore, that I'm being described as a revolutionary doesn't surprise me. I'm an extremely patient man, very persistent, too. Quite frankly, it's true that I am appealing to a certain revolution and especially to innovation. That's what I spoke about in my brief. Frankly, Canada has the opportunity to be a leader, to be downright innovative and to adopt a voting system that is truly new and different, compared to what the rest of the world uses. Canada, which has been a leader in the past, is currently lagging behind. It's shuffling along in its comfortable, old slippers. I'm calling on people to toss out their worn-out slippers.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you very much. I still love Canada.
Mr. Derriennic, your conclusion was brief, but a wealth of information. Could you go into more detail about the last two aspects that you raised? The first reminded us that every vote counts—I understood that fully—and the second had to do with the need for a more sincere, rather than strategic, vote.
Could you clarify how moderate proportional representation with preferential voting would enable the parties to be more attentive to the needs of Canadians, and would make the debate easier and less conflictual?
I'd like to hear what you have to say about those two things.
4:40 p.m.
Associate professor, Department of political science, Université Laval, As an Individual
Thank you.
First, the less conflictual effect potentially results, or should result, from the preferential vote given that, these days, the political parties exaggerate the differences between them. They do this all the time. We have proof: six months after an election, there are always commentators who say that the new government is acting just like its predecessor, and is itself doing what it criticized in the past.
Political discourse in our electoral system leads to the exaggeration of differences between the political parties, which isn't good for voter intelligence. I think Canadians are able to understand a lot of nuances in politics and understand that it's better to have a political discourse that's a little less simplistic. That should be an effect of preferential voting, in which we aren't just interested in voters convinced of the party, but where we know that we need to hold a discussion to get the second or third preferences of the others. That is a less conflictual aspect of the political debate.
Second, there's the regional question. The first Canadian political science article I read, when I was still French, was written by Alan Cairns in the 1960s. He explained that our voting system exaggerated the regional conflicts and gave the illusion that the Quebec of the time was fully Liberal and Alberta was fully Conservative, while that wasn't true at all.
So by allowing the representation of ideological minorities in the various provinces and regions, moderate proportional representation would also reduce the level of conflict. In terms of discourse, what strikes me in Canada is how society is much less conflictual than the political discourse. Let's take political discourse, particularly in Quebec, which pits the English, the French, the independantists and so on against each other. When we look at people's behaviour, we see that they are much more understanding and cooperative, even with people with different political views and who speak a different language, than the impression given by the political discourse. It's very unfortunate.
It would be good for us to have a political discussion that is a little more intelligent, a little more nuanced. This new voting system could help with that.
I think I've forgotten the beginning of your question.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm sorry but, since the six minutes are up, I will have to give Mr. Maguire the floor.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I welcome the two witnesses today, Mr. Côté and Mr. Derriennic. Thank you for putting your views forward and for the models that you have pointed out.
I didn't take the opportunity earlier with the previous two witnesses to say that as a Manitoba member of Parliament, it's a pleasure to be here in Quebec City again. I don't use the opportunity to get here enough. It is a great part of Canada, and my two colleagues here will certainly agree with me.
Mr. Côté, you just mentioned that the status quo is acceptable if that's what people want. Mr. Derriennic, you were talking about time frames and the implementation of a changed system. I would like you both to comment on the timing of changes from the point of view of acceptance by the Canadian public, by Canadian voters. As well, I wonder if you could elaborate more on your comment about the status quo, Mr. Côté.
We've had many witnesses come before us who said that it would take a very clear education process on the options for people to understand what they were voting on in the future. I wonder if you could provide your thoughts on the best way to do that education and how to get that message out to people.
4:45 p.m.
As an Individual
Thank you very much, Mr. Maguire.
You and I, we've had some sparring matches in the House.
Your question is quite relevant.
As for the status quo, just because I say it's acceptable doesn't mean I approve of it.
4:50 p.m.
As an Individual
It isn't that I approve of the status quo. On the contrary, I consider our system should be canned, the sooner the better. But obviously the public will be able to express its willingness on the matter. Such an outcome would be disappointing; I would be disappointed. It wouldn't be the first time in my life that I've been disappointed. I've already survived election results.
That said, I've certainly launched a radical position, in the sense that I am definitely making a call for freedom. I am a son of the Quebec region, where we are in love with freedom. It's a blunt call to break the chains of strategic voting, voting oriented to the election winner.
In addition, I'll share another beauty of the system I prefer. I fully endorse a system of proportional representation that would remain to be determined. I think Mr. Derriennic's proposal, aside from preferential voting, which I don't like, is entirely valid and should be studied very seriously.
Applying the majority judgment voting system would require amendments to the details of barely a few sections of Canada's electoral legislation. The Trudeau government could fulfill its promise for the next election. It's really very simple. So I think it could almost be done with just a snap of the fingers.
September 22nd, 2016 / 4:50 p.m.
Associate professor, Department of political science, Université Laval, As an Individual
As for the deadline, I'm not sure. I started with the government's statement of intention to carry out a reform that would apply in the next election. I don't think you will manage to implement a mixed system before the next election, as I feel that we would either have to double the number of members in the House of Commons—an unreasonable task—or revise single-member constituencies, a very complicated endeavour. However, if we were just to regroup them without changing their boundaries, it could be done fairly simply and quickly. That's all I have to say about the time frame.
Concerning the way to make Canadians aware of how important the reform and the entire issue are, I think we have to stop telling them that it's extremely complicated. We have to stop allowing journalists to tell people that it's not interesting, that it's of no interest to them and that it's too complicated anyway, when it's not that complicated. I manage to explain it to first-year university students. I manage to explain it at conferences held in cégeps. And I have tried to explain it here. Those of you who have read my book realize that you have to pay attention, but that it's not that complicated. Understanding this kind of a thing is less complicated than filing your tax returns.
So we have to consider the main options. I will surely look at Mr. Côté's project, which is of great interest to me. I had not previously heard about it. However, it seems to me that, if this project becomes part of the public debate, it will complicate things for so many people. I think my project is less complicated than his, and I am trying to present it. From there, it's up to you to do the work. I am doing the work on a small personal scale. I am not a member of Parliament or a journalist. I don't have a major platform to have my voice heard.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
So it's not so complicated that we would have to ask our accountant to vote for us.
4:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses.
Mr. Côté, I appreciate the point of view you have shared with us this afternoon. My question has to do with the system I believe the NDP favours. I think you used to be an NDP supporter, and you may still be one. The party has its own history, and I believe that it prefers the mixed member proportional system.
What do you think?
4:50 p.m.
As an Individual
I have been an active NDP advocate for 12 years. I have actually been supporting the NDP since I was a teenager, and this is one of the proposals I fully support. We need a proportional representation system. As Mr. Derriennic said—and maybe we should go for a beer together to resolve the issue of the majority judgement system—the system's complications mustn't be a deterrent. Beyond that, representation must be much more proportional. The current system, with its distortions, must be rejected.
The voters have gotten used to the current system, sort of like people get used to shoes that hurt their feet, but they tolerate them because they cannot buy new ones or they think they do not have the means to do so. People are stuck with that and continue to live with it. To add to Mr. Derriennic's comments about complexity, I think that a using a voting system's complexity as an argument creates a false debate. I will totally demolish that argument, and blood will flow.
Take for example a sample of 100 drivers on René-Lévesque Boulevard. A few drivers in that sample definitely won't know that the engine needs oil to operate properly. However, an engine contains a 1,000 moving pieces, and it's terribly complicated. Some people don't know the first thing about mechanics and still drive their car every day. I think that's awful, but what can you do? I won't stop anyone from driving their car. My first car was on three wheels when I picked it up. I had it towed to my parents' home and repaired it to get it on the road. My approach to the voting system is similar. I look at the mechanics of the voting systems, and the status quo seems untenable to me. However, if that is what the voters want, I will accept their decision. It wouldn't be the first time I am uncomfortable in a system I despise.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Great job with the metaphors
My question is simple. If you think the mixed proportional system is the best option, why did you talk about majority judgment voting today?
4:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I wanted to focus on majority judgment voting because, with my support for mixed proportional systems clearly known, I did not want to reiterate my stance. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to do so.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Professor Derriennic, one of the reasons you proposed the mixed proportional system in your testimony is that it could be implemented as of the next election. If we had no deadline to implement a new system, would you still feel that a switch to other proportional systems—or even a mixed proportional system—could be beneficial?