I'm so sorry, Ms. Desrochers. It's been a long week.
Evidence of meeting #29 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 young.
Evidence of meeting #29 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 young.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
6:45 p.m.
As an Individual
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen MPs, and everyone here.
I'm going to give my personal opinion.
During the elections, I'd like there to be proportionality. Say, for example, that 10% of voters vote for the Bloc Québécois, but the party only manages to have five MPs elected. I'd like five other members from that party who weren't elected to be given a seat to better represent the proportion of the 10% of voters who voted for candidates for that party. A seat should be given to candidates from that party who received the most votes. Perhaps a Conservative member was elected with 9,000 votes, while the Bloc Québécois member wasn't elected, even though he received 8,000. I would like those people to be elected to represent their voters.
Voters' choices aren't currently being respected. People vote hoping that a certain party wins, but it doesn't. In the end, there are only five or 10 MPs who reflect their values and represent them very well. If 10% of the population wants MPs of that quality, MPs who represent their values well, those MPs need to be elected.
Canadiates also need to be verified. I don't know how members from very special parties can be allowed to stand for election. I think it's absurd.
I have nothing more to say. I absolutely want the people to be considered. They need to be respected. They're the voters who elect the MPs.
I also think the party's mission shouldn't change. The fact that elected MPs change their mind and don't respect their agenda is totally offensive.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
So you are in favour of proportionality in the distribution of seats.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You also do not want floor-crossers, members who switch from one party to another.
6:50 p.m.
As an Individual
That's right. Members from one party suddenly joining another party is absolutely not acceptable.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
So you do not want there to be floor-crossers. We talked about that a little this afternoon.
Thank you, Ms. Desrochers.
Mr. Battah, do you want to talk about the electoral system?
6:50 p.m.
As an Individual
It should be the same three minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I read off your website your remarks when you were nominated to be chairman of this assembly, and I will quote your statement:
[We] will broadly consult Canadians on how to change the first-past-the-post voting system.
[We will] examine options available for modifying Canada's electoral system so that the distribution of seats...better reflects each party's share of the popular vote... I look forward to working with [all party] colleagues...to create and execute a consultative process that gives Canadians...the opportunity to weigh in on the kind of voting system they feel best suited to Canada's democracy.
You must remember your words, I'm sure.
6:50 p.m.
As an Individual
Thank you.
As parliamentarians, you all know that words matter.
Mr. Chairman, I didn't see in your words where you suggest that the decision will come from the people, and it must come from the people.
In my earlier intervention today, I wanted to add my personal view. I told you I've become cynical in my old age. I'm now 65. If voting mattered, it would be banned. That's my view. Therefore, if the people don't make the decision through a referendum, then this exercise is rhetorical embroidery. Think of that one: rhetorical embroidery.
The Prime Minister wrote a mandate letter for electoral reform to Ms. Monsef, and he said, “As Minister of Democratic Institutions, your overarching goal will be to strengthen the openness and fairness of Canada's public institutions. You will lead on electoral and Senate reform to restore [Canada's] trust and participation in our democratic process.”
Well friends, let me tell you something. It's going to take a lot more than a way to change a vote to restore trust and participation.
I agree completely with Mr. Green, who made a comment earlier. If there is no unanimous decision, by all the parties, this exercise will be bogus. You are too honourable human beings to turn this exercise, which is so important, into something bogus. The last word goes to the public, to the people, and nothing else.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That is noted, and thank you for your words of encouragement.
Francis Blais, you have the floor.
6:55 p.m.
Francis Blais As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, members of the committee.
I heard a commentary on Radio-Canada that said that demographic change in Quebec was soon going to mean that when an election is held, the baby boomer generation, generation X and generation Y will each represent one third of electors. This means that it will be one of the first times that young people will be able to have a bigger influence on electing a government.
I would first like to talk about preferential voting. Something that I like less about that option is that it eliminates small parties. The message that sends to young people is that if you vote for someone and you get shut out, you may as well stay home because there is no point in voting. In fact, small parties are as good as the big ones; democracy speaks. No one party is worse than another; it is the people who choose. If a party exists only in Quebec and nowhere else, I think it has as much right to exist as other parties in the West or that are more independent.
Now let us talk about funding political parties based on the votes they get. I think it should be restored. If the parties are short of money, the public is going to pay at the end of the day. The public will take the financial losses and I think it is important to fund these parties again.
Recognizing small parties is also important. Whether it is one or two or 150, they are all entitled to be recognized.
In the case of the mixed proportional system, I am afraid we will always end up with centrist governments, with the same old deadwood in the same place, and we will never manage to get rid of it. This means we will always end up in the same place. At the end of the day, there is always a province, the aim is to reduce its influence and it still seems to be a war between two peoples.
Essentially, I think democracy and a referendum go hand in hand. Democracy means asking the people what they want. I do not understand why some people call themselves democrats and do not want a referendum. I do not know who you are talking to, but I think it is important to see that it is the public who decide, who elect you, who give you a job. I think it is important to ask people what they want.
Essentially, I am neither for nor against. I think some work has to be done to present us with what is good, the advantages and the disadvantages. It will then be up to us to choose what we want.
Thank you.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
If I understand correctly, you are in favour of proportional voting, but not necessarily of the system.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That is a good philosophy. Thank you.
Sylvain Chartier, it is your turn.
6:55 p.m.
Sylvain Chartier As an Individual
Hello. I have the good fortune not to be a parliamentarian, so I do not have to beat around the bush.
I get the feeling that we are all a little out of focus. There is your committee, which is sitting today, but ask around with your neighbours to see who knows what you are doing. Not many people, except those already in the know, those who are informed, who are in the loop, who know what is happening.
And yet any change in the voting system is going to affect us all. It is said that the devil is in the details, but details are what we are not being given, because no matter what voting system is chosen, there are different ways of getting there. There are hundreds.
During the election campaign, the government promised to change the voting system. It made many other promises for which we have not yet seen results. If we are going to place our trust in someone, we have to be able to determine whether the person is capable of delivering on their promises. So far, not many things have been accomplished.
Second, how is this reform to be applied? As I was just saying: there are thousands of ways of applying it. When a proposal for reform is presented to the public, we will have to be told exactly what it is, and not just have an broad proposal put to us. At present, the government is not proposing anything. It is gathering ideas, and then, someday, it will present us with its proposal.
Even the government whip, Andrew Leslie, has stressed the importance of having a discussion with the public and not with a few members of the public. He says that the Liberals' seven months in power — at the time he said it — was ultimately not very long at all for holding a complete and inclusive consultation. So this is improvising of the kind we saw with the process for medical assistance in dying. We know that subject is still being debated, even though the law has been enacted.
The bill to legalize marijuana is to be introduced in the spring, but the public is not being consulted to this extent.
So the government really has to prove itself.
Your committee is rather small. There are not many of you around the table. As well — given that I do not have to beat around the bush — there are people who are on their cell phones right now. There are others who do not understand our language well. This does not promote consultation.
I propose that each political party be able to consult its members and be subsidized by the government for doing that. Prof. Kenneth Carty of the University of British Columbia has said he is afraid that the changes made will weaken the country.
If the goal is to improve the system by making changes, you should start by changing yourselves, stopping the systematic hypocrisy and lying during debates in the House, and having regard and respect for your adversaries. The last time I attended parliamentary debates, a government member told a third party member that he was eager to see his party disappear, and that that party was worthless. I think when we have this kind of language, we are not ready to talk about proportional voting or anything else of the kind.
7 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Mr. Chartier.
I would like to clarify something. You spoke about consultation. While there are only 12 members here, the Committee has invited the 338 members to hold public consultations in their own ridings. I think a little more than a hundred, so far, have held consultations. So we are trying to meet as many people as possible, taking into account the time constraints we have, especially.
Thank you for your comments. You have stated some good principles, of course.
Mr. Samson, you are our last witness. You have the floor.
September 23rd, 2016 / 7 p.m.
Daniel Samson As an Individual
Hello everyone. I hope everyone is doing well.
I am the deputy director of an employability organization that assists young people aged 16 to 35 years. We help over 3,000 people in the region every year. We provide them with guidance in their individual and group activities. I am responsible for leading activities relating to the voting system. Explaining a voting system to young people between the ages of 18 and 35 is not easy. It takes me an hour and a half to explain the issues and objectives to them, how it works, using diagrams. Our voting system is archaic and outmoded. Young people want to be involved in and understand politics. When I ask them which of them voted in the last election, it is always one person out of five.
After my workshop, when I explain the platforms and parties to them, and members of Parliament come to meet with them, they are able to talk about politics and understand it. I am here representing these young people and an organization. I will therefore not tell you what voting system we want to see. Instead, I will tell you that young people want to be heard. When they go out to vote and get involved in the process, they want to feel that their participation counts for something.
Personally, I would adopt proportional voting. I will let young people choose for themselves. I would certainly also agree with a referendum on the voting system, to get young people to participate.
I am prepared to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
In fact, the topic you have raised has been a somewhat recurring one at our hearings. We are often told that we need to meet with young people and get them involved at the secondary school level. If we are able to interest them and explain politics to them at that stage, they will vote throughout their lives. So what you are doing helps to raise young people's participation rate. We congratulate you and thank you for that.
Does someone else wish to speak?
Mr. Castro, you have the floor.
7:05 p.m.
Hernestro Castro As an Individual
Hello. My presentation comes at the last minute, but I wanted to take the time to listen to the others before I said things of little significance. I hope that my remarks will not be insignificant
There is something that concerns me. We have talked about mixed proportional voting, geographic voting, regional voting, MPs, and so on, but I have not heard anything about the realities of nations in Canada. I know that the subject of the nation is sensitive, in Canada, but it is also unavoidable. Whether or not one is a sovereignist, we have to "cross the Rubicon", as they say. I think that a reform of our institutions should include this aspect.
I will start with the First Nations. I worked for a time in Manawan, with the Atikamekw, and because they are spread over several regions, they are always in a minority. We therefore need to create a firmly rooted place for the First Nations. I know this is complex. How could we do this? In spite of the fact that the subject is taboo, we have to address it.
The other factor concerns cultural communities. Again, I know that people who favour a national approach will say that this is part and parcel of Canadian multiculturalism. However, with all due respect to the sovereignists, it exists. There are a number of cultural communities here; we are not just individuals. The sovereignists have some work to do on recognizing those communities, and people who are not sovereignists also have a way to go, to recognize that a Quebec Nation and First Nations exist.
That is what I wanted to say.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you for that broad perspective.
The testimony has been excellent. I think my colleagues would agree with that.
This is our fifth day of travel around Canada. It has been exceptional. We are very happy that we decided to come to Joliette. We are visiting only 18 Canadian cities, and Joliette was one of them. We made a good choice. Thank you very much.
Thank you for hosting us, Mr. Ste-Marie.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I thought we had been relatively open in terms of people who wanted to speak.
Mr. Perron, you have the floor.
