Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 23rd, 2016

[Thérèse Chaput, As an Individual]

I am back, but with a lot less gas in my car.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Chaput had to leave the room to go to her car.

Ms. Chaput, you have three minutes.

[Thérèse Chaput]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin by thanking the committee for coming to our region. I think it is very good that you are travelling across Canada in order to find out whether people prefer the status quo. I hope that not many of them will tell you that they wish to keep the status quo.

My goal today is not to suggest mechanisms on the proportional voting system, but rather to make a strong push for you to recommend that a referendum be held when you make your main proposal.

I don't know why that word frightens so many people. Yet, the dictionary defines a referendum as a consultation of the people. Consulting the people is a beautiful thing. You consult the population to get ideas, but unlike the lady who spoke earlier, I feel that the people are intelligent enough to make a decision once you have proposed something to them. That may be one or two scenarios—I don't know what your work will lead to—but when a decision has to be made on how representatives will be elected, I must have my say. I feel that Canadians—be they Quebeckers, Manitobans or anyone else who is part of Canada—must have an opportunity to share their thoughts on this.

I would never use the Americans as an example, but I have friends who live in California, and they are frequently consulted. They are not afraid of the word “referendum”. They even have their say on issues I find silly, but they are consulted and are very proud of it. In Canada, 175 or 200 people will decide how we will elect our representatives who will work for us over four years.

I really hope that the consultation will not be limited to asking us to express ideas. You will do a good job, and it would be nice if you were to put your proposals to Canadians and ask us what we think.

I really hope that will be the outcome, so that democracy would go all the way.

Thank you for listening to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you for being so eloquent, Ms. Chaput.

We will now go to Linda Schwey.

[Linda Schwey, As an Individual]

My name is Linda Schwey. I was born and brought up in Montreal and I came here today because I think these meetings and hearings are just fabulous.

I lived for many years in Denmark where there is a proportional system of voting. This is common in many European countries because they have so many parties. When I came back to Montreal in 2005, Denmark had eight political parties and a population of 5.5 million. Now it's not so terrible. Where I lived we never had an MP who lived in my district, but it didn't really matter, because Denmark is a very small country. It is two and a half times the size of Lake Ontario.

If someone who represented me didn't live in my district, the person lived not too far away. In Canada this would never do. You cannot have a person representing you who doesn't live near you at least. In Denmark there is a list of people who would be voted in as MP if they got all the votes because it's not tied to the place where they come from. I don't think the people in Joliette would like to have an MP who lives in Montreal. This wouldn't be right.

Aside from that, when you find out at the end of an election that you have 40% to achieve proportionality, you would say that the NDP, for example, should have five more MPs. Where do you get these MPs? They are from a list that the party itself makes. It does not have any input from the people themselves. The people have the list of who's going to be elected MP, but it is the party that makes these lists. Usually, the people, the voters, agree with who's on the list; however, sometimes the party gets an idea that they want to reward somebody and so they put that person's name on the list.

It's not just a matter of having your name on the list, there is also competition as to where on the list your name gets put. If you're number 10 on the list, and you're only going to end up getting five extra MPs, then you're never going to become an MP. If you're higher up on the list, you have a bigger chance.

What we're doing is throwing away a system that elects an MP who got 38% of the vote, and we're accepting a system where we get an MP who got zero votes, because the MP came from a list and was not somebody who was elected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you for sharing the experience of Denmark. We appreciate that.

Mr. Vincent, go ahead.

[Gérard Vincent, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, thank you for giving me the floor.

In terms of the form, I would say that the current system is pretty suitable for the representation of voters in a riding by an elected representative. Although proportional representation would guarantee a better distribution of seats to the parties based on the vote, it would be unrealistic arithmetic for voters. They would see their choice of candidates from the party they chose based on a preferential list.

The only proportional correction I see as an option would be separating the party leader form their riding by having them elected based on the votes cast for the same party. In other words, they would automatically have a seat in Parliament if they obtained at least 1% of the Canadian vote, and the leader would remain the incarnation of their party during the vote.

As for the substance, I would say that the measure I am proposing to remedy the inequality of the vote would be twofold. Although a party would have more chances to form a majority in Parliament, as it is currently the case without obtaining the majority of votes, it would still be required, as much as possible, to have another level of legitimacy by ensuring that it would obtain the consent of enough parties in the House to form a majority based on the election vote for any legislative measure.

The dual approval would increase the scope of the legislation. It would be akin to moral support and rallying that would trump any partisanship. In addition, the speaking time for each party, regardless of which party it is, would be based on the percentage of votes that party obtains in the election. The House of Commons would thereby recognize the equality of the parties without any other privileges assigned, except letting the party that led the ballot maintain its right to govern and to set the stage for legislative measures.

Moreover, as in the case of party financing, research budgets for parliamentary business would be prorated to the election support parties obtained. The parties with fewer elected members, but a strong voting percentage, would benefit through all those measures from larger visibility, would support or denounce government measures and would occasionally get credit for them.

What I have in mind is no less than a true revolution of our political mores. Our differences and our interests aside, could we create a Canadian brand of democracy?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you for your proposal, Mr. Vincent.

We will now continue with a third panel of witnesses made up of Danielle Perreault and Fred-William Mireault. Please be seated.

Good afternoon and welcome.

Ms. Perreault is the general manager of FADOQ in the Lanaudière region. Fred-William Mireault is the president of the Regroupement des étudiants et étudiantes du Cégep de Lanaudière.

Ms. Perreault, we will start with you. You have 10 minutes.

[Danielle Perreault, General Manager, FADOQ-Région Lanaudière]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the Réseau FADOQ, I thank you for inviting me to appear before you. I'm very happy that seniors can have a voice in today's consultation.

In 2014, the Réseau FADOQ submitted a brief on the electoral reform, a reform that the former government had already begun. I have drawn heavily on that brief to share a few ideas we have developed. One of the things we want to stress is the importance of the voter information card. Seniors actually often no longer have an ID card as such—in other words, their photo no longer appears on their health card. In addition, many seniors no longer have a driver's license. It is difficult for them to properly identify themselves.

Those people should have a voter information card. I think that it exists, but it is not well-known or used. That could be a democratic way to encourage more people, especially seniors, to vote, even though seniors tend to be the ones who vote the most, as we know. However, the fact remains that some of them may be hindered by the difficulty of identifying themselves.

Seniors often sell their house to go live in residence, and having to travel in order to vote can be very complicated. Establishing polling stations in residences could be a worthwhile solution.

As for the matters of inclusion and accessibility, we feel that anyone who lives in Canada should have an opportunity to vote according to the precept established by everyone—in other words, with the respect due to them.

We at the Réseau FADOQ are also worried about the funding of political parties. As in certain provinces, contributions should be capped. That could help prevent some of the abuse, and parties would be more equal when it comes to the money they can use to conduct an election campaign.

Regarding participation and the promotion of the right to vote, changing the chief electoral officer's role was considered at some point. That idea is of concern to us. I don't know whether it is still planned, but it was in 2014. We feel that the chief electoral officer's role is very important because, over a period of time, that person educates all Canadians about their actions at the polls.

In addition, we would like the parachuting of certain individuals to be better defined because, in some regions, candidates are often people who don't live there and are pitted against the people who do live there, as is the case in Lanaudière, among other places. That is done to the detriment of residents who are rooted in their community and could shed a different light than an outsider might. As the person is prominent, the party decides to send them to a particular riding because that is to its benefit. However, for the region in question, it's not as beneficial to have someone who is not from the community and is not familiar with all of the constituents' needs.

The Réseau FADOQ submitted a social contract in support of seniors two years ago. That social contract was backed by the World Health Organization because that body felt that the four pillars set out—well-being, health, security and a sense of belonging—are important.

Of these four pillars, three can easily be implemented in the electoral reform we are talking about. Easy access to polling stations should be provided for everyone. That access, as I said earlier, has to be facilitated.

There are many seniors who live in Lanaudière, especially in the northern part, and they find it more difficult to get around. Public transport is different here. We are not in Montreal and there are no subway cars or trains available. There are various factors that prevent many people from voting. Access to polling stations is another topic we would like you to address.

It is important to include everyone, to make sure that everyone's voice can be heard and that this is not just an occasional thing, as the lady was saying earlier. Today we have your attention, but we should also have it during the election.

I also spoke about being able to count on the Chief Electoral Officer to ensure that the voting and balloting process is well overseen and monitored. The voting period may be very short, but it can also be very long if things are not done properly.

Basically, we feel it is unfortunate that very few people avail themselves of their right to vote. When you see the percentage of Canadians who vote as compared to number who are entitled to do so, it is deplorable. If there is one right that belongs to us as individuals in a democracy, that has to be our right to vote. There might be a way, without making it mandatory, to encourage people more strongly to avail themselves of their right to vote.

This could provide a different outcomes than what we have seen over the past few years. People were elected and that is a good thing, but if everyone who has a right to vote exercised that right, we might see some changes. The results would probably not be the same. There may be some mechanism you could consider to encourage citizen participation.

Let me go back to access and to the possibility of having polling stations close to where people live. Students could vote on campus. That is done in certain places. Why could senior citizens not vote in their environment? This would probably encourage more people to vote and to be more concerned with their democracy.

I may not have used the 10 minutes I had at my disposal, but my statement is complete. That is what I wanted to share with you.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Very well. thank you.

That was very clear. We all understood you and you did not go over your time. That's perfect.

We will now go to M. Mireault.

[Fred-William Mireault, President, Regroupement des étudiants et étudiantes du Cégep de Lanaudière]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the committee for allowing the youth of Joliette to express its opinion in this consultation.

This debate has gone on for quite some time at the Regroupement des étudiants et étudiantes du Cegep de Lanaudière. We consulted several organizations that advocate electoral change, such as the Mouvement pour une démocratie nouvelle. We also listened to the point of view of the students of the Fedération étudiante collégiale du Québec, the national federation we belong to. We came to the conclusion that the current voting system is no longer representative and adapted to current needs. After consulting our members, we decided to advocate the implementation of a compensatory mixed proportional system with regional compensation. I will provide further details about that.

We are opposed to pure proportionality, for the simple reason that that system is ideal in a country with a homogeneous population. However, since in Canada there are anglophones, francophones and first nations people, we felt that that system would negate the weight of each group.

We decided to add the preferential system because it favours bipartisanship. Often, the two parties that alternate in forming government are the second choice of electors. The use of a preferential system would ensure the continued existence of the two parties that have been in power in turn over the past 50 or so years.

As for the mixed proportional voting system, we chose a system whereby one-third of members would be elected from electoral lists and two-thirds would be elected as they are now, that is to say through the use of a single member plurality system. They would represent the local riding.

As for the regional lists, we do not want a single electoral list for all of Canada. As in a strictly proportional system, which we do not advocate, we want to avoid seeing Canada's language groups drown in the critical mass. The idea is to make room in Quebec for anglophone communities and first nations.

Each province would adopt an electoral list containing a certain number of members prorated according to the province's population. The lists would be drawn up by each party at a provincial convention. A given party would hold a convention in each province and the members of that party would adopt an electoral list for the province. That list would provide the order in which members would be elected.

The Chief Electoral Officer would provide an additional allowance to parties whose list contains an equal number of men and women, at least 10% of candidates of less than 40 years of age, and members of first nations. Since we cannot force people to stand for election, there would be no obligation. That allowance would be granted by the Chief Electoral Officer to encourage gender parity, and the representation of first nations and young people.

Regarding the vote, in a mixed system, each citizen would have two votes. They would vote for a riding member, who would represent local interests and ensure the representation of the riding in Parliament. The other vote would be cast for the party that would defend national issues and best represent the government's overall program. In this way we would avoid a relatively frequent situation, which is that electors vote for a candidate but do not like his party. It can also happen that electors like a given party but consider that the riding candidate does not represent a region well enough. We would prefer to avoid that situation by allowing for the expression of two distinct votes. Electors could vote on the same ballot, but there will be two types of members of Parliament.

The lists would be closed. Consequently, the party would choose the order of the members. This would be maintained according to the election of each member. As I have already said, there would be one vote for the riding, local issues, the experience of the members and the program of the party at a more local level, and a vote for the party, basically at the national level.

We decided to adopt a one-third, two-thirds ratio to keep the compensation balanced and to avoid creating overly large ridings. If we grant too many votes through a compensation system, the current ridings of the members would be too big. Consequently it would be harder to reach people.

We advocate, rather, electing one-third of the MPs through electoral lists and two-thirds using the first-past-the-post system. Candidates would have the right to stand for election in both systems, but they could of course only accept one of the two positions. We would like to see a dual candidacy system for the simple reason that the electoral list legitimizes the election. However, people should not say that those who are elected through the electoral list do not have as much legitimacy to sit in the House of Commons as members who are elected in a riding.

This would also allow us to maintain the ratio of men and women, and youth and first nations people, as I mentioned earlier.

As for the representation threshold, many countries that have adopted the mixed proportional system have established a minimum threshold of representation to avoid having parties that only obtained 0.5% of the votes from being represented and having this divide the House of Commons. We looked at Germany, for example, where the representation threshold is 5%. The first member elected in a party that has been elected through the electoral list must have obtained at least 5% of the vote. We find this figure too high and think that once again it strengthens the two-party system. And so we propose a 3% threshold in order to control the division somewhat, the fracturing of the House of Commons, but also to allow new parties to take their place.

Gender parity has been achieved in the countries that have adopted this type of voting system. Male-female representation is much more equal and is maintained more easily without coercive measures. We find this very interesting. It is also good for the parties themselves. Indeed, if party members had to choose the MPs who would be on the electoral lists at provincial conventions, this would encourage people to join political parties. We know that the number of members in all parties has been on the decline for 50 years. This could increase those numbers, in addition to ensuring a higher level of citizen participation.

I use the House of Commons as an example. We are not necessarily in favour of revising the number of MPs. We would keep the current number of seats at 338. There would be 225 ridings, and 113 members would be elected through the electoral list, by compensation. Those 113 seats would be divided according to the weight of each province, in order to avoid having 113 seats come from Ontario or western Canada, and to ensure representativity even in compensatory seats.

Also, the regroupement is opposed to any measure to make voting obligatory. If this were to be debated again, we would be against any obligatory vote or any type of compensation for people who do vote. We are against imposing penalties on those who do not vote, or providing financial rewards or other compensation for those who do. We think that this undermines the whole principle of the right to vote. It must not become a duty, an obligation, but should remain a right. People must have a choice, they must be able to decide on their own. And so we are opposed to that.

Moreover, whatever the type of voting system that is recommended by the committee and chosen by the House of Commons, we are in favour of a referendum. The population needs to be consulted on the voting system. Of course, a referendum will be held only if the decision is made to change the first-past-the-post system. We would like to see a national referendum on the issue, with a double majority, that is to say that one option would have to obtain 50% plus one among citizens for the referendum to pass, but also among the provinces, to make sure that the bigger provinces do not decide on the voting system for all of Canada.

We think it is important that we be democratic in trying to reform the democratic process.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you for this very complete perspective on the matter. You have touched upon all of the points in the mandate the House of Commons referred to us.

I thank you for these two presentations which were extremely clear. You have given a new flavour to our deliberations. This is the first time we have had both a seniors' representative and a youth representative. We have had witnesses who work with young people, but this is the first time that we have before us a young person involved in governance and politics. I think this will lead to some very interesting exchanges.

In order to begin these exchanges, I now give the floor to Mr. Aldag.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thank you to both of our panellists. As was mentioned, you have provided some very interesting insights.

Mr. Mireault, as you were going through your presentation, I kept writing down questions and you answered them, so it was very effective and very well thought out. I commend you on the quality of the submission.

One piece that I didn't catch was the piece on the referendum population. Did the 50% of provinces—50% plus one, I think it was—have to represent 50% plus one of the population as well? I know you said not to worry about having the large provinces dominate. Could you clarify that point?

[Fred-William Mireault]

As I mentioned, there would have to be a double majority. And so the majority of the population of Canada, that is to say 13 million electors out of 25 million, and also the majority of the provinces, would have to accept that option, otherwise it would be rejected. Six of the 10 Canadian provinces would have to agree. If we include the territories, as they would no doubt be included, we would need the approval of seven provinces or territories, in addition to 50% plus one of the population.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Okay, perfect. That's clarified.

Given the quality of your submission, I'm assuming that you looked at the principles that we were given to work with as a committee. Are you familiar with the principles we were given? They are effectiveness and legitimacy, engagement, accessibility and inclusiveness, integrity, and local representation. I'm wondering if the group that you represent thinks that those are adequate principles. Were there any other principles that you felt would be important from a youth perspective to include in the rethinking of our electoral system?

[Fred-William Mireault]

We didn't really examine that. We focused on the voting system itself. We feel local representation is clearly important. That is why we would like the first-past-the-post system to be maintained in the ridings. We certainly need a system that better represents the population's wishes, in order to avoid situations such as we have seen in the past, where the governing party is not necessarily the one that obtained the most votes. The idea is to offset that eventuality, but as far as we are concerned, local representation is very important.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Okay, perfect.

Ms. Perreault, I'm wondering, with FADOQ, if your organization has a specific electoral system that you are advocating. You covered many excellent points in your presentation as well, but are you looking at maintaining the current system or changing it to something else? Is there a preference that your organization has?

[Danielle Perreault]

At the FADOQ network, we consider that the way in which we function currently, with certain improvements, is acceptable. As I was saying earlier, certain changes need to be made, because there are discrepancies among the regions.

Access is our first preoccupation, because we know it is not always easy for seniors to get around. In the context of this reform we have consequently emphasized access and transparency, which is also very important for us. Equity is also important. We would like young people to be well represented, as well as women and the members of all of our various ethnic groups. This is important for us, because even within our network, we have members who represent all of that diversity. Those are our concerns regarding the current structure and the way in which things are done at this time.

We also need to talk about people's disaffection. We know that the senior population is beginning to show less interest in politics. We feel all of this is important regarding transparency, since these are still the people who vote in large numbers, although their interest in politics is diminishing. If we could show that there is change in this regard, this could stimulate their interest.

Then there is the issue of the ID card. I am bringing this up again because it is a source of irritation, perhaps more so than the system as such.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Généreux.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses. Ms. Perreault, Mr. Mireault, this is all very interesting.

Your presentation was very well done, Mr. Mireault, and I congratulate you. However, I would like a clarification.

In the system you are proposing, do you suggest that we maintain the current ridings?

[Fred-William Mireault]

No, in fact...

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

There are 338, but you were talking about 225 riding.

[Fred-William Mireault]

The ridings would be larger, since there would be fewer MPs representing ridings, but we would maintain the ridings.

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

I would like to mention the fact that my riding covers 7,500 square kilometres and contains 58 municipalities. You are telling me that my riding would be made even bigger. I don't know if you will one day become an MP. I hope so for your sake, since you seem interested in politics. However, if you must cover 2,000 kilometres during your weekend, in addition to going to Ottawa, you will find that that is a lot.

Inevitably, in order to maintain similar representativity in each of the ridings, with a certain number of electors, some ridings are going to have to be made smaller in large cities, and rural ridings will have to be made bigger. In my opinion this may be a problem. However, what you have presented to us was very interesting.

I would also like to know if you represent only your association or if you are also speaking on behalf of the student association you are affiliated with, in Quebec.

[Fred-William Mireault]

The point of view we have presented today is that of the Joliette association, but we also consulted the other students in Quebec to obtain a more representative opinion.