Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 23rd, 2016

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

Mr. Mireault, like my other colleagues, I won’t ask you any questions about the voting system. Your presentation was very clear.

You mentioned being inspired by your membership in the Mouvement Démocratie Nouvelle, the MDN, and the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec, the FECQ. The MDN appeared before the committee, but I don’t think the FECQ has presented its position to the committee. I know that the FECQ presented its position during consultations in Quebec, and it could adapt it fairly easily to present it to us. Our committee would be interested in knowing the position of students in Quebec. I invite you to pass on our message to the FECQ.

We spoke about the issue of voter turnout in the 18 to 34 age group. Although the rate has increased slightly, there’s still reason to question the low turnout of young voters. The Institut du Nouveau Monde has even described this phenomenon as generational suicide. So it’s important to take interest in it.

At a previous meeting, the importance of awareness programs and ways to boost interest and participation in elections was raised. What measures do you think would be the most effective for encouraging more young voters to vote?

[Fred-William Mireault]

As I said, for voter turnout, it's clear that young people who are part of the electoral process are more informed. For example, the young people recruited by Elections Canada to check names on the voters list tell their friends that they will be working in the next election and that the job is super interesting. They are informing other young people about the electoral process. What follows is an immediate mobilization of young voters so that they become interested in the electoral process and exercise their right to vote.

As for the measures that should be put in place to increase the participation of young voters in elections, it would be worthwhile to organize activities at CEGEPs and universities because that is where the students are.

Of course, not all young voters are students. There are young people who aren't in school anymore. To reach them, it would be a good idea to work more closely with youth forums. The Chief Electoral Officer could also launch a national campaign to promote exercising the right to vote in elections among young voters. We could show the impact of the failure of youth to vote on representation in the House of Commons and on Canadian politics in general.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Sansoucy.

Ms. Sahota, you have the floor.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

Madam Perreault, you were mentioning that local representation is extremely important to you and to your association. You talked about parachuting and how that wouldn't be acceptable. To parachute a candidate into a region where they don't have local ties is not preferred by you or your association. I find that's true. I've seen that happen in my riding as well, and there was a big protest against it. Even the local riding association didn't want to help represent that candidate because they were parachuted in.

With your list system that you've created, Mr. Mireault, you said there were about 113 list members who would be divided among the different provinces. Would they be assigned to a riding of a sort, or would they set up a local constituency office? Where would that be, and how would we make sure that the local representation piece was still there so we wouldn't be parachuting people in?

[Fred-William Mireault]

In terms of parachuting in candidates, I would say that if Canadians are against parachuting in a candidate at this point, all they have to do is vote against the candidate who was parachuted in.

The double vote makes it possible to indicate that a certain candidate was parachuted in, that the voter liked the candidate's party, but not the fact that the candidate was parachuted in the voter's riding. So the voter can vote for the party through the voters list, while for the local candidate, the voter could vote for a candidate closer to the region who has a better knowledge of the region's needs.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Maybe you could clarify a bit.

It would be a closed list, you were saying. At that point, you'd be trying to have proportionality by having people vote for members of a certain party on this list. Would they be left with a lot of options?

I don't understand. Would they be assigned to a whole province? If they were of that province but not of a certain local region, you would still have a problem. Do you see what I'm saying?

[Fred-William Mireault]

Yes, but we could adopt rules to avoid parachuting.

We are in favour of a closed list because, as I said, you can maintain the gender parity, alternation between men and women, and youth representation. You could adopt open lists in which voters would decide the order in which they would like their candidates, to justifiably avoid parachuting.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Okay. I'm also very impressed by your responses and your in-depth knowledge on these issues, so I hope you will entertain running one day. It would be a great career for you.

My second question is more about the referendum issue. You said we would come up with a recommendation here, vote on it in the House, and then put it to a referendum. A lot of witnesses and citizens have come before us and said, “That's what we elect you to do. You need to make these complex decisions. That's what parliamentarians do on a daily basis. Consult citizens, come up with a recommendation, perhaps vote on it to give it legitimacy in the House, but then move forward because we have been spending decades and decades talking about this issue but not having action.” What would your response to that be?

[Fred-William Mireault]

Basically, we're in favour of a referendum. Electoral reform wasn't a major issue in the last federal election. It can't be said that it was a referendum election.

Of course, it's good that a committee is consulting Canadians across the country, but they won't have a direct impact on the committee's recommendations or on the electoral reform that the federal government will propose.

We still think it's important that Canadians be consulted directly on the voting system that will be proposed. Coming here and talking is extremely interesting and enriching, but you can't be certain of the voting system that Canadians will choose.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I have one follow-up question to that. How would you see this referendum worded, ideally? Say we go with your recommendation and we put it to a referendum. It's quite a complex process to ask in a referendum question. How would you see that working out? What would be your ideal question?

[Fred-William Mireault]

There might be some kind of introduction explaining the proposed reform of the Canada Elections Act, and Canadians would vote for or against the proposal.

Going into details is complicated. Perhaps you could address the issue of the voting method more generally. The government would determine the terms and conditions, but it's important that Canadians have their say on the issue. Maybe you could give the government more room for the format and the details.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Do you not feel that might be quite complex for a lot of people who have never thought about electoral reform?

[Fred-William Mireault]

Of course it's complicated. In one sense, few Canadians have thought about electoral reform. Perhaps there should be an awareness campaign to inform Canadians about what electoral reform is, what it does, the different types of voting around the world and the impact of each type. It might give Canadians a better picture.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much. Both of you have given us a good, stimulating discussion this late Friday afternoon. Thank you. Thank you again for coming here and sharing your views with us. I hope you will read our report. You will find quotes in there, I'm sure. Thank you again, and good night.

The committee members will take a break until 6:30 p.m. The meeting will continue at that time in an open-mike session.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We are officially resuming the meeting.

We are now at the open-mike part of the meeting. Eight members of the public want to speak. We normally limit interventions to two minutes, but since we have only eight speakers—more people spoke at the start of the day—I will extend the speaking time to three minutes.

Please make your comments in three minutes, no more, to give others the chance to do so as well. If your presentations are long, I invite you to read just the number of paragraphs you can in three minutes.

We'll start with Daniel Green.

Don't be insulted if I have to interrupt you after three minutes. That's how we have to work in this context. I apologize in advance.

Go ahead, Mr. Green.

[Daniel Green, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Technical difficulties] of Canada. I ran for election in October 2015. However, I'm not sitting with you because I didn't win.

Still, I took part in about eight public meetings on electoral reform. I met with dozens of Quebecers on this. The message I'd like to share with the committee tonight is that the public is ready for a change. The public understands that the current system is not democratic. People are demanding more democracy in this country.

If I have the opportunity to be invited to testify before your committee—I made a request to the clerk—I will be able to use Legos to do my presentation on reforming the electoral system. You would be able to see what a throw away vote is. After the October election, people told me that they would have voted for me, but they didn't want their Green vote to be lost. People don't vote for who they prefer anymore, but against who they don't want to see elected. That's not a democracy.

I suggest to the committee—and I think Canadians are asking for this as well—that you come to a consensus. Every division could be seen as the same as a jury that hasn't made a decision. So I recommend to Mr. Scarpaleggia, the Chair, that after hearing from all the witnesses and all the stakeholders, he closes the door and doesn't come out until a consensus has been reached.

As a voter, as a taxpayer and as a Canadian, I ask you to give us the gift of democracy. I ask you to shut yourselves in a room to reach a consensus to improve the country's democratic system.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Green. I'll take note of your idea. We will discuss it together, perhaps in camera.

Yves Perron, you have the floor.

[Yves Perron, As an Individual]

Good evening. I'm here as a citizen.

Mr. Chair, could you please let me know when I only have 30 seconds left because I'm afraid of running out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

[Yves Perron]

I want to draw the committee's attention to principles that are important to me regarding local representatives, namely, their obligation to be accountable, their accessibility and their representativeness. It is important to have an MP you can approach and whose role is to provide services to the constituents, even if it means reducing the size of ridings and increasing the number of MPs, if necessary.

It is also important that your final plan be submitted to the public through a referendum. I think it's essential that a referendum be held and that it include a regional component. I would be very concerned to see electoral reform adopted if English Canada was in favour of it, but Quebec was against it. We've already been through that situation.

I would also like there to be no preferential voting. As we know, it favours bipartisanship. We prefer a mixed member proportional system. Everyone is talking about a two-thirds and a one-third proportion, but I suggest that the committee try to form a three-quarters and one-quarter. One-quarter might be enough to set things right. What we want from a proportional system is for it to correct the defects of the current system and represent the total percentages.

It is also essential that the banks of candidates provided by the parties are national, not regional. This kind of formula has already been proposed in Quebec. The fact that the regions would vote in a block for one party would end up distorting the percentages. That's a very important point.

I'm also suggesting an innovative idea, which is that these lists not be submitted by the parties. That way, we would keep the establishment of a party from controlling the lists and certain candidates, by running in both a riding and on the list, from being guaranteed of being elected. Instead, it could be a list of the best runners-up. Each member would have to run in an electoral campaign, meet with the public and take part in debates. If, in looking at the election results for the ridings, we saw that three Conservative candidates were missing to correct the percentages, we would determine which one received the most votes or the highest percentage in his or her riding. I think that approach would ensure that all elected officials were equally legitimate. I don't think this would be the case if we were given a list that could be put together in various ways.

I also think it's very important to recognize all the parties. A party with a single elected official should have the same budget as a party with 150. With this, we are recognizing the problem facing the Bloc Québécois, which currently has 10 MPs.

The public financing portion should be restored to ensure a plurality of voices. This is fundamental.

Perhaps we could also take the opportunity to regulate election signs and stop polluting the environment with coroplast. In fact, we are arguing the need to pay attention to these issues, to use electric cars, and so on. But there's a contradiction there.

I'm putting forward the idea of a citizen-initiated referendum. I don't know if this is the appropriate place to do it. If a government is elected after making speeches and promises, but three months later is doing the exact opposite of what it had announced, the public has to deal with that government for four years. Is that democracy? I don't think so. Perhaps the public could have a right of recall or be able to demand a vote or consultation on the matter.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

I will now ask Eric Trottier to take the floor.

[Éric Trottier, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen MPs.

Good evening, everyone.

First, I would like to say that I am in favour of having some proportionality in Canada's federal election system so that serious small parties could be represented.

Second, I am in favour of members for federal electoral districts being elected on the principle of 50% plus one.

Third, should an electoral system that includes a proportional component be chosen, I would be in favour of candidates elected on the proportional principle being candidates who were not elected in the election, going from the highest percentage result to the lowest. That's what the person who spoke before me explained in one part of his comments.

Fourth, I am in favour of strengthening the criteria for a party to be officially recognized in Ottawa. For example, the requirement could be a minimum number of members in good standing, a full political agenda and 75% of candidates in the 338 electoral constituencies. The goal would be to prevent recognition of small parties that aren't serious or parties with sometimes extremist ideologies. It doesn't add anything good to the debate.

Fifth, when someone runs for election, there should be more selection criteria. This mainly has to do with buddy candidates, naturally. The person should be proficient in the language spoken in the riding in which he or she is running. We need to avoid the election of an anglophone from western Canada in a French-speaking riding in Quebec. I think we've seen this already, but I'm not sure.

That concludes my comments. Thank you for listening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Trottier.

I'll now give the floor to Therese Desrosiers.

[Thérèse Desrochers, As an Individual]

I would just like to mention that my name is Desrochers, not Desrosiers.