Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 23rd, 2016

[Yves Perron]

I went quickly earlier because I wanted to have the time to say everything.

I talked about the list of second-best candidates. Essentially, there would not be two different candidate lists. All candidates elected would have campaigned and met with the public. I think that is important in our political system. It is also important that people be able to reach their member of Parliament and that their member be accessible.

In the present system, there are 338 ridings. I think it was Mr. Boulerice who talked about twinning. That might be possible in urban areas, but maybe not in rural areas. I was a candidate in Berthier—Maskinongé, and I can tell you that it is a large riding. The election campaign was long, but it was not long enough for someone to whom it is important to meet everyone in their riding.

Mr. Généreux, you said your riding was enormous, and that argument struck a chord with me. This makes no sense. We have to reduce the size of ridings, to bring members closer to their communities and raise our level of democracy and the importance of getting out to vote. If the candidate I vote for is not elected, but their party does well at the national level, it might be appropriate to go back and try to get them in a kind of second round or second chance.

Not changing the voting system has one big advantage when it comes to seniors. We must not end up with a ballot that looks like what they have in the United States, where people vote for eight things at the same time, with the result that they get all mixed up. People should vote for the candidate of the party they have chosen, and the rest would happen afterward.

I encourage you to consider that possibility.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Do you want to comment, Mr. Généreux?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I would just like to add something to what you have said.

There are rural ridings. I am going to make a joke here. We should split Montreal into 18 Quebec administrative regions and spread all the electors in Montreal around the other regions in the province. That way, there would be equal numbers of electors everywhere in the province.

Seriously, the issue you have raised is an important one. That is a situation I live with. The members around this table do not represent urban ridings alone, they also represent rural ridings. We represent these people and we would like to meet them more often. However, the large distances prevent us from doing that. I have travelled 1,500 to 2,000 kilometres in a weekend in my own riding to take part in activities. It becomes virtually inhuman at a certain point. The distances are very large.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We do still have to return to Montreal.

We could hear two or three final witnesses, and I would ask that they make fairly brief comments. Do the people in the room agree? I see they do.

Mr. Green, Mr. Battah and Mr. Massicotte, you will each have two minutes.

Daniel Green, you can start.

[Daniel Green]

I would like to draw something to the committee's attention.

A number of comments have been made on the lack of knowledge about the various voting systems. I have had the opportunity — perhaps the misfortune — to read the PowerPoint document prepared by the Library of Parliament, which was offered to members to help them make presentations at their community meetings. I have rarely seen a presentation as hard to understand, to the point that last Friday, in Vimy, MP Eva Nassif, accompanied by the Minister, Ms. Monsef, completely lost the thread of her presentation. People left the meeting even more confused than they were when it started. Even MPs have a hard time explaining things to their constituents.

I propose that the committee take the time to have a meeting to see whether the pedagogical material offered to members is sufficient for giving an objective explanation of the various voting systems proposed. I think that is not the case. There is some pedagogical work to be done so this can be presented to the people who are going to have to decide.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

This is indeed a complex subject. The analysts have really managed to make it as comprehensible as possible. I have used the slides and it worked very well. You do really have to study the document before presenting it, however.

I agree that there is some education to be done. It is a complex subject. We have to go out to people and explain to them what it is all about. That is the process we are engaged in.

Mr. Battah, you have two minutes.

[Ken Battah]

Thank you.

I would like some clarification about the time we have for putting this all in place. Could someone here tell me what the present government's plans are in terms of bringing this change into force?

The summer of 2016 is virtually over and it will be 2017 in a few months.

Essentiallly, I would like to know how much time will be needed for bringing this change into force. Your recommendations are going to be submitted at the end of the current year, I believe.

What is the government going to do with these comments after that?

What has to be done before a referendum is held, if there is a referendum?

What's the game?

We do not know that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Obviously, we are focusing on our terms of reference. We have no control over the government's decision. We are a legislative committee.

Under our terms of reference, we must submit our report by December 1. Witnesses have told us, on the question of holding a referendum, that it should be set for before the spring of 2017. The Chief Electoral Officer has said he would need some time — I have forgotten exactly how much — to prepare for a referendum. It also depends on the complexity of the system to be adopted. If it is very complicated and there has to be a redistribution of electoral districts, that cannot be done overnight.

For our part, we are limiting ourselves to our objective, which is to submit a report on or before December 1. We are working very hard and very intensively on that.

[Ken Battah]

To conclude, I would like to make a comment.

You all have life experience and, as you know, people are resistant to change. Proposing a major change is going to call for very thorough discussion.

Good luck to everyone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We shall see where it takes us.

Thank you again. Your comments were superb.

I now give the floor to Jean-François Massicotte.

[Jean-François Massicote, As an Individual]

Good evening.

For those who do not know, I was an intern with Mr. Scarpaleggia during the summer. I traveled back and forth between Pointe-Claire and Ottawa for the entire time, and I was happy that it was the other way around this time.

When we work on the other side, we do not have access to microphones. I will therefore take the opportunity I am offered this evening.

Like Mr. Scarpaleggia, I have been to Latin America. I spent five years there. I returned to Canada in April. Politics there works somewhat differently. There is an example there that I thought was worth considering. On the question of holding a referendum that has come up several times, the idea is to conduct a public consultation but without focusing on one question.

If a referendum were eventually considered to be a good idea, I would personally think about including more than one question. For example, "Do you want electoral reform?" "Should there be a maximum time for which an MP can be elected?" Please do not pelt me with tomatoes. There could be a dozen questions included.

As long as we are going to spend public funds on a referendum, it could deal with more than one question. That might be worthwhile. A witness said that including more than one question would confuse people. However, if there are clear questions, presented as a relatively distinct set, for which the answer was yes or no, it could be useful. I think we could explore various topics and resolve issues that are, as was said earlier, somewhat sensitive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That is what New Zealand did. There were two referendums before the election and two more afterward. People could choose the status quo or indicate their preference for other systems.

In November, there is going to be a kind of referendum in Prince Edward Island where the same principle will be applied. People will be asked to indicate their preference among various systems. That is a good idea.

We have to conclude there. Thank you for coming to meet with us.

We will look forward to seeing you again someday, I hope.

The meeting is adjourned.