Electoral Reform Committee on July 6th, 2016

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the honourable member for his question. It is an important one. More importantly, I'd like to express my gratitude in seeing him at this table. He has welcome knowledge to bring to this conversation, and we will all benefit from it.

Now, we have received $10.7 million, over the next four years, to conduct outreach to Canadians across this country. I have expressed that there will be a parallel process happening. As you reach out to Canadians across this country, Mark Holland and I will be doing the same. Our approach will be about reaching out to those regions and those peoples I mentioned who aren't traditionally engaged in the process. That's how the funds will be used.

As far as the budget and the resources allotted to this particular group are concerned, as you are well aware it is a decision not made by me but by the Board of Internal Economy. The hope is that the resources that have been provided will allow you to do an extensive and meaningful engagement process with Canadians. If the resources are not sufficient, if you believe you need more to do more, to be more effective, so that you can arrive at some sort of a consensus by December 1, then I urge you to connect with your chair, who can then connect with the Board of Internal Economy. If you need more funds to do this work, I can assure you that I support your doing so.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

It is even more disturbing, if I may say so, that you are ruling out a public consultation from the outset. You said earlier that this was a voters' reform and that it belonged to them. Here is my interpretation of your comments. This is not a debate of politicians, experts or insiders. These issues have to be resolved by Canadians instead.

You said in your presentation that there was no perfect system.

But in these conditions, to avoid our deliberations being tainted by partisanship, why not show your willingness to change things by making a commitment to letting the Canadian people speak to the advantages and disadvantages of various models?

Is it because you are not sure you will succeed? I think that something needs to be done. It seems that the objective is a new voting system for the next election. That is one of the elements of an electoral reform.

Why not commit to this right now?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you.

We committed to this past election being the last one conducted under first past the post for a reason. It's what we heard Canadians say or request they need during the consultation process that the Prime Minister took upon himself, over several years, to put in place to hear from Canadians. Canadians asked us to reform the way we vote, so we are simply committing and staying committed to a promise that we made.

Where I disagree with the honourable member is on the premise of his question. We do want to hear from Canadians. We do want a debate within communities across this country about what system they'd like us to implement. The difference between how this may have been done by other folks at other times and us, we hope, is that we need to have a debate about values, the particular values that inform us as to which system Canadians find most suitable. We want it to be a legitimate system, we want it to be an inclusive one, we want it to be accessible, and we would like to maintain that connection to local representation.

This guide that you have referred to a few times in your remarks, the work that you will be doing, the work that Mark Holland and I will be doing, and various social media channels, will all be used to inform our decision. And also, you have been asked as a committee, by the motion adopted by the House, to come up with various ways of hearing from Canadians. I look forward to all the ideas you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Madam Minister.

In the time I have I want to start by publicly thanking the government for making the commitment that was in the Liberal platform part of the Speech from the Throne, and for saying more clearly in the Speech from the Throne what wasn't said in the platform, which is this: “To make sure every vote counts...2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.” I'll put on the record that I intend to hold you to the promise. I think this is the one chance in a generation to get fairer voting in Canada—and it isn't that we haven't tried before.

I have a few little historical factoids before I ask you a question. The first parliamentary committee to take up a study of proportional representation to replace first past the post was in 1921, and there was another in 1937. Our system of voting wasn't designed for 19th century Canada; it was invented when people thought the earth was flat. I would also add one more change made by Parliament that I think is even more fundamental to how we voted, which was in 1970 when, for the first time ever, the identity of the candidate became subservient to the name of their party. In the 1970s the first elections were held in which the name of the party was next to the name of the candidate on ballots.

I would note one quick thing. In my own riding, I've already done a survey of every household, and 82.4% of the Saanich-Gulf Islands residents who reported in the survey want proportional representation. That said—and here ends the thank yous—we have a problem, and that is the legitimacy of the process we undertake. There is more in our current media attacking the process to get rid of a perverse voting system than there is on why we need to replace it in the first place. Moreover, the legitimacy of the process is undercut by the very point my friend Mr. Christopherson made, which is that to do the right thing here may mean that a majority government of Liberals choose a voting system that goes against their self-interest. That tends to make people's cynicism rise above their willingness to suspend disbelief. I'm on the side of suspending disbelief. I'm on the side of getting a fair voting system out of this group of 11 MPs who can vote, and our chair.

I'd like you to give us your word—and people may think the word of a politician doesn't mean much, but I have a lot of respect for this minister—that you will fight for whatever this committee recommends when it comes time to take a report to cabinet?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to express my appreciation to the honourable member at this table, who has the ability to participate fully and meaningfully. The fact that we are around this table and that this committee is unlike any other committee in the House of Commons right now, I hope is a reminder that this government is committed to doing things differently. We're open to listening to Canadians and to taking into account the recommendations and the feedback we receive from other parties. The fact that we're here in this room should be a constant living reminder that we are open to ideas and serving the best interests of Canadians.

I am committed to working alongside you, to hear from Canadians about the values they want to see reflected in their electoral system. I am committed to reviewing the report that you thoughtfully put together for our deliberations, and to bring forward to the House of Commons a recommendation that makes sense for all of us.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Can I take it from that, Madam Minister, that our report will be something you will support if you find that we have legitimately consulted with Canadians to the best of our ability?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Please repeat your question, Madam May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Will you support the report's recommendations if you're satisfied that the work we've done reflects a good faith effort to listen to Canadians?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

I am looking forward to reading the report and making an informed decision once I've received it. As eager as we are for this work to arrive at a conclusion, I think it's important to allow this process to unfold.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I think I have two minutes left, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to now ask you questions that have come in through Twitter. Larry Pardy in Amherst, Nova Scotia, wants to know if our committee will be holding hearings in remote northern ridings, those most adversely impacted by proposals that might enlarge riding sizes.

I know this is usually a question for the committee, but since you're here, what is your view on our getting to more remote northern ridings?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

First, Mr. Chair, I would like to commend this committee for opening this conversation to Canadians who do not have the privilege of being in this room. I think it was very progressive and very thoughtful of you to allow for this channel and I thank Larry from Nova Scotia for his question.

Through you, Mr. Chair, Larry, we have asked this committee to focus on groups that will be affected by the reforms that we put forward in a unique way and that includes those living in rural and remote regions. Mark Holland and I will be reaching out to Canadians who belong to these communities specifically and I urge this committee to do the same. There are a lot of creative, thoughtful ways to meaningfully engage Canadians. You've opened the floodgates, which is great, and those ideas will continue to pour in.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

One last question from Twitter for the minister is from Sam Nabi in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario. This is is a really good one. How can we ensure truth in advertising through the consultation process?

I would just say parenthetically that in the campaign referendum on single transferable vote in B.C. in the spring of 2009 a lot of things were said about the single transferable vote that were simply not true and it was hard to confront that. It always favours the status quo. How do we ensure truth in advertising?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Well, thank you, Sam, from Kitchener, for engaging in this process. The awareness campaign that needs to take place so that all Canadians are aware that this engagement process is happening, that they have opportunities to be part of it where the various conversations are happening, needs to be done in a non-partisan way. This is a commitment that was made by our government. It's a commitment that we had delivered upon by outlining various recommendations and guidelines for doing so.

I am counting on the good work of our free and independent press to ensure that as many Canadians as possible know what's going on with this process as it unfolds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We'll go back now to the Liberal Party with Mr. DeCourcey for six and a half minutes.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for joining us today. I also want to thank you for your dedication in addressing this matter and for the work you are doing to ensure that each and every Canadian can have their say in their Parliament and their government.

Also, Eid Mubarak to you, your family, and certainly to the people celebrating in Fredericton, whom I wish I could be with this evening.

While I have the chance, Ms. May, I'll address Larry's question by assuring him that as the Atlantic representative on this committee, I'll be reaching out to my colleague Bill Casey to ensure that he hosts a town hall consultation in that region, which does lead me to my question.

Madam Minister, the town halls that all MPs have been asked to conduct I see as an important part of this process, an important way of ensuring that not just the perspectives of experts but the testimony of all Canadians is heard. In your conversations with parliamentarians, how do you foresee these MP town halls proceeding? Is there a level of interest? In your conversations with Canadians, how have they impressed upon you the importance of these town halls?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

I thank my honourable colleague for committing to spending his summer, along with other colleagues, on this work and for “voluntelling” Mr. Casey to do his own town hall.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

What I've heard from members across parties, as well as senators, is how eager they are to be part of this conversation, to facilitate these conversations. They are looking forward to all of the ways that you will support them in reaching out to their constituents and to hosting these town halls. There are some who find it sufficient to host one. There are some, like one of my honourable colleagues, who's going to hold 17 town halls on various topics, including electoral reform. They see it not just as a means to an end of arriving at a solution to present to government, but also as important community-building opportunities, as I've certainly seen these conversations can be across this nation.

Besides parliamentarians, I've heard from others that they too want to be part of this conversation. I refer to grade 5 students and high school students. I've heard from college and university students. I've heard from church groups. I've heard from various book clubs that they want to host their own town hall type of conversations. They are eager to get started this summer, around kitchen tables, around barbeques, in their own community centres.

I'll take this opportunity to refer back to the dialogue guide. This particular guide has several components: first is a backgrounder. The conversation around electoral reform can be an intimidating conversation. What this guide provides is information that will bring folks up to speed on the opportunity we have.

This particular dialogue guide is meant to provide not just MPs but any Canadian with a step-by-step guide on how to go about promoting an event like this; how to go about formatting it and facilitating it; and most importantly, about how to report to this committee what they're hearing from people in their communities. You'll see on the final page a reference and contact information that allows folks to provide that feedback to you. I'm really looking forward to what MPs come up with. I certainly will extend an invitation to any of you around this table that if you think that having Mark Holland or me in your riding would be helpful in any way, to please reach out to me and we will do our best to make it out to your particular riding. But there are many other ways, beyond MPs' taking the lead, that we have outlined in this guide. I hope that Canadians will take advantage of this opportunity.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I am also looking forward to seeing all Canadians participate in this dialogue.

While these consultations are taking taking, with MPs hosting town halls and Canadians using the tool kit—and I assume it's amenable to being used by different demographics, including the young and old in different areas—what process will you and the parliamentary secretary be undertaking and how will you be keeping attuned of the consultation process taking place across the country?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

This is certainly a guide that's meant to be accessible and inclusive. It's not meant to be prescriptive. It's meant to serve as an invitation into a complex but really important conversation that we know that many Canadians, regardless of age or background, want to be a part of. While this work is happening in communities across the country, what we envision is that each of you will be reaching out to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, in the unique way that you will do so, in a way that encourages engagement from those groups that are traditionally not engaged or included in this process.

Mark Holland and I will be conducting our own tour of the country, making sure that we are staying connected with Canadians, that we're hearing from them on what values and what priorities they have for their electoral reform so that come December 1, when you provide your report to us, we have also heard from Canadians and we can make sure that the most thoughtful recommendations are put on the table in the House of Commons for us to then deliberate upon further.

I just want to outline that the most important aspect of this is being creative and recognizing that in 21st century Canada there are lots of ways we can reach out to communities across the country. Some may be hosting town halls in person. Some may be doing them on the phone. I know that some people will be knocking on doors. That's what we'd like to see. A diverse country deserves a multi-channel conversation on its electoral reform.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Deltell.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Chair, esteemed colleagues, Minister, I'm happy to be joining you on this beautiful July day.

Mr. Chair, the minister made some statements earlier that we feel are questionable.

She said that a referendum is an “incomplete picture”.

In other words, a referendum would not provide an overall picture of the situation.

Through the exercise we are asked to do in our ridings, we will reach 50,000 or 60,000 Canadians, at best. That's a lot of people and it has never been seen before. That said, will those 50,000 or 60,000 Canadians help us paint a comprehensive portrait? Wouldn't the 17,559,353 individuals who voted in the last election rather be able to really help us get an overall picture? For us, it is clear that a referendum, and not consultations such as the ones we will hold, would help paint an overall picture.

The minister is talking about conversations in various jurisdictions. Steps have already been taken in a number of provinces, so she is quite right. I am from Quebec, and I know what I am talking about. Any time a province wanted to make changes, it used the referendum to do so, whether we are talking about British Columbia, Ontario or Prince Edward Island. This brought one of the current government's senior ministers, the Honourable Stéphane Dion, to say the following:

Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.

This was said by Stéphane Dion, one of your government's senior ministers.

The minister concluded with the following:

it's what Canadians said to us in the last campaign.

Really? Canadians told her that?

Maybe she should talk to her colleague from Hamilton-East—Stoney Creek, who said the following:

It's not something I've heard anything about on the campaign trail.... I don't recall one conversation at the door that had to do with that.

The same thing is happening in Quebec City as in Hamilton. No one has talked to me about that either. Coincidentally, I am going to Hamilton on vacation next week. I am sure that people will be as friendly there as they are in Quebec City.

We did not hear about this during the election campaign. The Liberal Party's election platform, which you are familiar with, Mr. Chair, contained 96 pages, but it had only three sentences about the electoral reform. And you are saying that it was an important issue? Come on!

My question for the minister is very simple; it's a referendum question. If there are changes, are you prepared to hold a referendum, yes or no?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to thank the honourable member for the contributions he'll be making on this committee and I'd like to take the opportunity to answer several components of his conversation just now.

It is true that we have seen more than one province explore the possibility of electoral reform. It is true that the provinces' referenda have not changed the status quo. It is also true that half of the population in those provinces did not engage in the referenda. Now it may be okay for some people to not have 50% of the electorate engaged, but that is not good enough for me and that is not good enough for Canada. In 2016, surely there is a way to be more inclusive and to be more engaging with Canadians.

That said, while I have yet to be convinced that a referendum is the best way to go forward, I am counting on your deliberations and your recommendations in your report, which I look forward to reading come December 1 of this year, on the best way to go forward and to determine that broad support. This is not going to be easy work. This is very challenging work. You'll be sacrificing a lot to arrive at that final report. This is a diverse country, too.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mister—