Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 23rd, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. DeCourcey.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Robertson and Ms. Roberge, thank you for your presentations.

You presented many things for us to consider in our proceedings. However, I'm wondering how we'll validate this process with Canadians. The committee must deliberate, reach a consensus on the recommendations and submit the recommendations to the House.

There are different ways to validate electoral reform with Canadians. I want to know your concerns regarding the process under way and its validation with Canadians, in particular with women, members of visible minority groups and aboriginal people.

[Mercédez Roberge]

I will expand your question to include the consultation process. I find it absurd that after almost 30 meetings of this committee, we're only the second group made up exclusively of women. That shouldn't have happened. Your committee should have conducted a gender-based analysis at the start of the process.

From an outside perspective, it has been very frustrating to wait for you to be given expertise, because that's the goal of the consultation process. The committee has deprived itself of significant expertise. I'm not speaking only of the presence of women, but also of racialized people and aboriginal people.

Concerning validation, I'm not in favour of a referendum to validate the result of your work. We're trying to work on electoral legislation. Electoral legislation is legislation. Not all legislation must go through a referendum. Why is this legislation in greater need of going through a referendum? I can't find anything conclusive on that subject, especially when people would be asked a question on something they know nothing about and have not experienced. It seems to me like an attempt to wreck everything and maintain the status quo.

I'm not against reviewing, after three elections, whether we've made the right choices. It's different. At that point, we can talk about it again. We can then determine how to improve the situation. For the moment, it's legislation and you're responsible for submitting a report. I hope you will supplement the expertise that was not provided so it contains the analyses I talked to you about, not only my analysis, but other analyses on a larger scale.

I also think you're responsible for suggesting the next steps, not only in terms of validation, but also in terms of reflection. I certainly can't speak for the first nations. However, it would be worthwhile for the committee to show openness to holding discussions to see whether aboriginal people want mechanisms established to improve their representation. I developed mechanisms and others did as well. While doing so, we took into consideration that we couldn't speak on behalf of aboriginal people, but we could ensure that the mechanisms weren't detrimental and were transferable.

So it's important for the committee to raise the issue and establish that any claims made by aboriginal people as part of the current electoral reform should be taken into account. If no claim is made, the committee could still start looking at ways to reach out to the first nations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Robertson.

[France Robertson]

I'm happy to speak, because I have difficulty when a person addresses certain issues.

Personally, the word “racialized” cuts me to the core. I'm not a race. I think it's important to say so.

I will now speak about consultations with aboriginal people. Today I'm here out of choice, as an aboriginal woman. I took the steps. Ms. Ste-Marie was the one who told me that a consultation was taking place. I think we must also be responsible for demonstrating willingness. I will also talk about the matter with the chiefs and verify their interest and how they view the consultations.

I think it's worthwhile to sit down with aboriginal people. It's a first step in terms of consultations. I don't know whether I'm the first aboriginal women to come here, but I'm happy to be here. I think you'll have the opportunity to hear from other aboriginal people. The door is open.

My role will also be to inform others that the consultations do not end today and that there will be more consultations at some point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're returning to Montreal on October 3.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Sansoucy.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At the start, it was noted that, from 2003 to 2010, Ms. Roberge was the chair of the Mouvement pour une démocratie nouvelle. Thank you to the two witnesses for their presentations.

I want to tell my colleagues that Ms. Roberge sparked my interest in electoral reform. If I remember correctly, in 2008 she led a workshop in Sainte-Hyacinthe where I first learned that while we use a certain type of electoral system, other systems could help us ensure that each vote counts.

Thank you, Ms. Roberge, for emphasizing the fact we should take the opportunity to reform the electoral system to increase the number of women in the House of Commons. We currently represent 26% of elected officials.

Esther Lapointe from the Groupe Femmes, Politique et Démocratie told us that if we wait for things to happen naturally, we'll be waiting another 100 years. In addition, there's no guarantee things will be done. We must take the opportunity to establish terms and conditions. Things won't happen on their own. In the last election, the NDP had 43% of the women candidates. Equity rules needed to be established, adhered to and very clearly imposed.

Also, Ms. Roberge was awarded the Prix Réformera in 2014, in recognition of all her work. She took up the challenge and went all over Quebec to speak about electoral systems.

Ms. Roberge, at the end of your presentation, you quickly spoke about the impact of ratios in a compensatory mixed-member proportional representation system. I want to have a better understanding of this notion.

[Mercédez Roberge]

A compensatory mixed-member proportional representation system means that we decide on the number of compensation seats and constituency seats. To properly correct the distortion of constituency seats, there must be a sufficient “bank“ of compensation seats. This must be monitored at the national level and at each sub-level, whatever it may be.

Statistically, to correct a ratio of 60% constituency seats, 40% compensation seats are required. This affects only the compensation technique. In the event of arbitration and if the number of constituency seats needs to be increased and the number of compensation seats decreased—if the goal is to maintain the number of current seats—issues arise, and not only in terms of effectiveness. The statistical effectiveness of correction may still exist, except that fewer compensation seats means less opportunity to also correct the male/female ratio, despite the measures implemented such as alternating males and females on the compensation lists.

The mechanisms are easier to implement. We can implement alternation on the lists, but we can't implement it in constituencies. The distortion and maybe—we don't know—the population's voting patterns could result in a lower percentage of women elected. The votes by constituency are still cast based on the first past the post system. We must still expect there to be fewer women elected in a first past the post system. It's still a majority system in part. More women would be elected as a result of the compensatory aspect. The compensation list must be consistent overall on a regional and national level.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Robertson, for speaking of the importance of tools we need to develop to meet with citizens who are under-represented as voters. That's a significant factor, and the committee has a vested interest in including these important tools in its recommendations for electoral reform.

I worked for almost 20 years in community youth organizations. Youth are also under-represented as voters. We should hold workshops such as the Voters in training program. We must focus on providing support, particularly financial support, to community organizations that meet with young people who are under-represented as voters.

The support and tools must be established in our electoral mechanisms. A centre such as yours can take the initiative to do so. However, the government must support you in your role, which involves encouraging under-represented voters to participate in elections. From an electoral reform perspective, where we're concerned about making sure that each vote counts, we have a vested interested in finding each of those voters and ensuring their vote makes a difference. I think it's an important aspect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

You can answer the question now briefly or the next time you have the floor.

[France Robertson]

I'll say one thing. Imagine if the ballots were written in atikamekw. It would be fantastic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Généreux.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

Ms. Roberge, clearly you're a woman who is very familiar with the issue. There's no doubt in that regard. You're very eloquent. Ms. Robertson said the word “racialized” cut her to the core. I must say it also cuts me to the core. I don't think it's the proper word to represent all the groups designated by the term.

I didn't do so, but if we analyze the situation of women and all so-called “racialized people,” given that currently women comprise 26% of the House of Commons, we probably exceed the 50% representation rate. I may be slightly wrong, but the number must be roughly 50%, if not more.

Would the new electoral systems that may be implemented in Canada improve the situation in that regard? That would be the case only if we imposed new rules. It wouldn't happen naturally. What system would encourage a woman such as you to run for office? You said you think the current system is not democratic enough. I'm trying to express myself clearly. What would make you run for office under a new system, when you wouldn't do so under the current system?

[Mercédez Roberge]

I don't want my case to become the centre of attention. Currently, the political pluralism in the population is not reflected in Parliament in Ottawa, at the Quebec National Assembly, or in any provincial legislature. I think that's a major problem on a democratic level. The votes are not equal. My vote may or may not be respected depending on where I live. It may or may not count. I think that's unacceptable.

I want to go back to the notion of “racialized people.” You said that by including women, “racialized people” would represent 50% of Parliament. I'm a bit skeptical. “Racialized people” are not women or aboriginal people. That's the term used.

In Quebec, in the past we spoke of ethnocultural diversity. All the cultures together create ethnocultural diversity. The term “ethnocultural minority” is not necessarily very nice to hear when you're part of a minority group.

The expression comes from organizations such as Québec inclusif that are increasingly suggesting we use the term “racialized people” because it refers to a condition related to racism and to being a member of a visible minority group, an immigrant individual who is foreign-born. The term “racialized people” includes people who are members of visible minority groups and foreign-born individuals. Some people, in particular those of Italian origin, have lived in Quebec for a number of generations. The measures being discussed are not to help those people, but to help those who need it and who are currently under-represented. Individuals who are foreign-born and who are part of visible minority groups fall under the term “racialized people.”

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

I misunderstood. I thought that gay people and certain other people fell under that category. Despite everything, I think it would be worthwhile to do the math, in particular since a large number of elected officials, I believe, are racialized people. I don't like the term, but I'll still use it.

Ms. Robertson, I think what you proposed is good. You have taken a step by deciding to come here today. You made a personal choice. In your groups, I suppose there are also men, but they don't seem to have taken the same step since they're not here today. That said, they may appear before us elsewhere in Quebec or in other provinces.

You made that choice out of conviction. Since you started voting, you've considered it important to promote democracy within your group, and not within your “racialized” group.

You alone made the choice. Nobody forced you. That's what I want to say.

[France Robertson]

Exactly.

In the last election, we focused on raising awareness. I wondered why, in our centre, we were continuing to carry out this work, when some of the work should be done by Elections Canada. It wasn't easy, but we took the time to do it. For us, it was a positive step.

I decided to come today because I thought it was important. I called a number of women from various regions of Canada to find out whether they would be participating in this meeting, but I turned out to be the only one. I thought I would attend for the Friendship Centre Movement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Your time is up, Mr. Généreux.

Thank you.

Since a cameraman from the MAtv channel would like to take some pictures, I would ask that everyone stay put after the meeting instead of rushing out of the room.

Ms. Sahota, go ahead.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Robertson, I welcome your presence here today. You're correct that it's very important for this committee to hear from the aboriginal community and from the female aboriginal perspective.

We've been hearing a lot from different communities, from disabled communities, and from the blind. I think it has really opened our eyes to the barriers that are in place. I know that you've done a great job of taking on this mission to educate the community, and I thank you for that.

We've been talking a lot about figuring out a new system that would diversify our Parliament, be more inclusive, and do a lot of things that we hope to achieve. However, we've also been struggling with over-complicating the system. It has come up from different witnesses about voters being able to understand a simple system when they go to the polls.

You were explaining that you have voted two times now. There are probably many others who have never voted, and we want to reach out to them and get them to vote.

Do you think there are certain pitfalls that we could fall into by having longer ballots, by having lists of 20 or 30 people on a ballot? Do you think that would be feasible for many people to get through? What about having two different ballots? There are different options that we're looking at and that may cause us to move in that direction. Do you think that would be a wise choice for us? What kinds of recommendations would you make?

[France Robertson]

I will talk to you about my personal experience.

I live in Pointe-aux-Trembles, in the Montreal region. I kept myself informed during the latest election campaign. I was familiar with the candidates in the Joliette riding, where the Centre de l'amitié is located. We made efforts to raise awareness. But when I had the ballot in my hand, I saw candidates' and parties' names. Of course, I voted for my preferred party even though I did not know the candidate. I also didn't know whether aboriginals were part of his concerns.

The party is important, but we first have to know the candidate. I thought it was unfortunate to be voting for a party without knowing the individual. Actually, the person whom I voted for and who was elected has no interest in aboriginals. I found that out later. To my mind, that is something of a failure.

As for ballots, we can sometimes see the candidate's photo or their name, and that's helpful. However, an awareness-raising process must first take place.

Some ridings have very few aboriginals. I smiled a little when I saw that Michèle Audette was running in the Terrebonne riding, which has very few aboriginals. It's a shame, but she certainly had no chance of winning the election. It's sad to see that aboriginal candidates are often chosen in such places.

Why not find her a riding that's made up of mostly aboriginals? We are definitely favourable to aboriginal candidates. I personally believe in that.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I think that's a great idea. One of our witnesses had mentioned before that sometimes having smaller ridings that include a high proportion of maybe aboriginal people or other racialized persons can really help that candidate succeed, and parties are forced to then perhaps run people from that community all across the board. I think that's very interesting, and that's been happening through our own system right now. I think that's what's causing the numbers to shift a bit, although we're not to the numbers we would like.

I have another question. You have confirmed in a way that you were voting for a party. Under certain systems at times you could have a vote for a party. You can also have a difference under STV, a list of lots of candidates who may all be from the same party and they are running against each other. If you don't know their individual platforms necessarily, or what kind of person they are, it would be quite difficult to rank them.

I saw that with my own nomination. We had a ranking system in our party nominations and it confused a lot of people. They didn't know the order to rank, what it meant to rank, and if they were supposed to put where you were located on the ballot, and they were supposed to indicate that number.

We went through those issues with a lot of people because they were used to a particular system of voting during the general election, and they didn't know how to vote in the nomination process. It was a totally different system. There's going to have to be a huge educational component. I do think it's necessary for us to have polling stations in these communities, just as we've been talking about having polling stations in schools and universities has brought up voter turnout among young people. Having polling stations seems like a no-brainer, and aboriginal communities would definitely make it inclusive.

I thank you for your input.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Could everyone give me one moment and we'll let the cameraman take a video.

I would ask that you stay put.

I want to thank everyone for their cooperation.

I will now explain the procedure to follow for the open microphone session. The interventions will last two minutes. Our role is to listen to the people who want to take the floor. We won't really have a question and answer period. Since we have only five speakers, we can be a bit more generous and give you about two and a half minutes or three minutes each. To give others an opportunity to speak, as well, it would be nice if you could limit yourselves to three minutes.

Mr. Battah, you have the floor for three minutes.

[Ken Battah, As an Individual]

Thank you. Welcome to Joliette.

With all that I've listened to today, I'm still trying to figure out why we're having this discussion on voting reform. I've become a cynic. How will a change in the voting system impact governing parties from taking decisions in Parliament, such as back in February the vote against the Palestinian occupation? To me, I don't get it. You have human beings who are militarily occupied, and parliamentarians in a majority said that's okay.

How do you vote for a governing party that is planning to support TPP? Ms. Freeland, I understand, wants it. Here you have a trade partnership where Canada's going to give up its soul in exchange for corporations to be able to sue government if ever they don't have the profits they're expecting to get. There are 37 lawsuits right now. Many of you are aware of this.

There's a governing party that supports a justice system which Canadians, for financial reasons, don't have access to. Beverley McLachlin, in a speech to the Canadian Bar Association, said that the system isn't working. People are showing up, they have no representation, they're representing themselves, and they're getting their asses kicked in the court system. It's not fair.

You have a governing party that changes nothing in CRA secrecy and how they operate.

Our Parliament supports an economic system where we have the Bank of Canada, which is our national bank, and instead of using it as we did in the 1930s and 1940s to build Canada, we're now using a dishonest banking system that has fraudulent banking where money is created from nothing.

These are the issues I'm concerned with. How will a modification to the voting system, whether it's proportional representation or another, impact the change and the philosophy of governing parties? That's my issue, and that's what I have to say for my three minutes.

Thank you for your patience.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm not really answering your questions, but just for general information, there are many who feel—and I'm not advocating for any particular change—that certain issues might be better addressed with a more representative parliament. For many people, this issue of electoral reform feeds into how they might like to see the country governed, but I don't want to get into this. That's essentially the reasoning that some people adhere to.

Thank you, though, for your comments.

Mr. Rainville, you have the floor for three minutes.

[Claude Rainville, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You are very generous. We usually get only two minutes to speak.

I would like to come back to the referendum issue. I feel that a referendum must be held on the double-majority option—one for Canada's anglophones and another one for Quebec. If that is not done, Justin Trudeau will definitely adopt the preferential formula because it will benefit him. That is how this works. People never want to lose power. They never get enough of it, and the population ultimately always pays for it.

I am trying to get this message across. It is directed specifically to the federal government. This should be based on three pillars so that the population would manage the finances, which would be managed by it and for it. I will give you an example. I am trying to get my message across to Quebec and to the Parti Québécois.

I see that you are listening very carefully. Let's say that 125 members were kept as as a mainstay and there were 125 wise ones, who have proven themselves as volunteers—usually, we don't get robbed by volunteers—and another group of 125 people, who would be elected a sort of a popular jury. In other words, our elected representatives would no longer have any financial authority, and those 125 individuals would make decisions on bills, acts and finances.

Justin Trudeau's spending power is fine, but we see what he has done to raise his image with NATO, the world's biggest war machine. I don't know whether you were aware of that. What will it ultimately lead to? It will protect African mines. Do you understand what I am saying? We don't have enough mines here in Canada. There are no more royalties, and drones can no longer even be used to determine how much material is being taken out per cubic foot.

In terms of forests, for example, when the Coulombe commission was doing its work in 2000, $22 billion was needed to obtain royalties. So $22 billion was needed for a $90 million royalty. In the end, we reforested. Do you see how rotten the system is?

As for Panama Papers, what are they concerned about? Are they concerned about the mafia? There is no more investigation. That concerns all capitalists.

At least you are listening. I must admit that I am hard of hearing, and it is difficult for me to understand what I am saying. It's great that the sound is coming through and you are listening.

There may be another benefit for society. The flow of money has no purpose. Credit cards actually leave a trail. Only change is left in circulation. I don't know what will be done with that mountain of money.

I will give you another example that has to do with the courts and the SharQc operation. The criminals were not sentenced, and they are free. Only honest citizens come before the courts.

I have a feeling that my time is up. Thank you for your generosity and for listening to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The rule is the same for everyone. Thank you for your comments.

Is Ms. Chaput back?

Is your car working? Is everything okay?