Electoral Reform Committee on July 6th, 2016

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

What works in one province, what we hear in one province, does not dictate what we're going to hear from the rest of the country, which is why there is a committee reaching out to Canadians across this nation. I can assure you that in the 26 debates I participated in in Peterborough—Kawartha, electoral reform came up at every single one of those debates. We were clear in our party platform, which you referred to. I was here in Ottawa. It was June of 2015, and I stood shoulder to shoulder with other hopeful MPs, behind our now-Prime Minister, who made a commitment to deliver upon 32 commitments for a more open and transparent government. That included the idea of reforming the way senators are appointed. That included the ideas that we are exploring here around changing the way we vote. That includes mandatory voting and online voting.

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

Mr. Chair—

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

We are not going to arrive at a conclusion. We're going to count on you to hear from Canadians and bring their voices into this conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Deltell, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, my question was clear, but the least we can say is that the answer was not. I asked the minister to answer with a yes or no, but she answered me with a maybe, and I am even being generous using that term.

Here I am thinking of the answer you gave earlier to my colleague, when you said that you were not definitely excluding the holding of a referendum. If that is the case, Minister, could you tell me what steps you have taken so far in terms of amendments to be made to the Referendum Act and the changes you are making to Elections Canada to ensure that a referendum can be held on this key issue, which consists in changing the voting system?

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to remind all members that this is not a simple conversation. This is not going to boil down to a simple yes or no answer. This is not a black and white issue. To that end, you will not receive a simple black or white answer.

What have I done? I've been in constant communication with Elections Canada to ensure that we're on the right track. I have put forward a motion in the House to strike this committee, and then amended the motion to make sure that it's as inclusive as possible. I'm here today speaking with you about my priorities. I'm really looking forward to the conversation that you will have with Canadians and the recommendations that you provide me with about various aspects, including how to engage, whether or not we have that broad buy-in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Fergus now.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you very much for joining us today. I would like to wish Eid Mubarak to you, as well as to my Hull—Aylmer constituents who were celebrating that event today. I assume you are anxious to return to your riding to celebrate with your family. So I want to thank you once again for being here today.

My question is about principles, but before I ask it, I would like to extend an invitation that may interest our colleagues opposite. We will hold a public debate on the electoral reform in my riding of Hull—Aylmer. That fits well with the member debates I have been organizing since my election. We have already held three of them: one on the environment, another one on immigration and a third one on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Hundreds of people attended those meetings. I assume and hope that you or your parliamentary secretary will be able to attend the one we will be holding next October. I expect hundreds of people from Hull and Aylmer to be there. I hope that one of my constituents, Mr. Deltell, will also be there. He will certainly be welcome.

Minister, my question is more about the five guiding principles you listed in your presentation that were part of the motion adopted by the House of Commons to create this committee. I would like to know why those principles are so important to you. Can you tell us in more detail what you think about the principles?

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

I thank my honourable colleague, and I am proud of him for hosting three town halls, and many more to go. I look forward to the possibility of being part of the conversation that his constituents will have on electoral reform in October—but I hope not too late in October because October 14, of course, is the deadline for MPs to send their reports from their town halls to this committee so that you may include them in your report.

I appreciate the question about why we have a set of guiding principles and why they're so important.

As we have seen over the past few months of this Parliament, and certainly further in the past, there is a diverse range of opinions on electoral reform out there. Certainly I've been connecting with various stakeholders, and current and former parliamentarians. Those groups I spoke of earlier looked at existing data, looked at what's happened in other jurisdictions in our country and around the world, and believe it or not, there are areas where consensus is possible.

One of those areas is that for this conversation to occur effectively, to engage Canadians meaningfully, it needs to be anchored with a set of principles that we can relate to as Canadians and can then match with various existing systems. To do it the other way, to have a very technical conversation about the systems that exist and then try to find our values, as a nation, within them is much harder work and, I'd argue, not effective.

The reason we decided to take a principle-based approach is that this is the consensus in the literature, in other jurisdictions that had done so, and also what we heard from current and former parliamentarians.

I'm going to be talking about them, so I'm going to take a moment to remind folks of these principles, the first one being restoring the effectiveness and the legitimacy of our voting system by reducing the existing distortions, and strengthening the link between voter intention and electoral results; and encouraging greater engagement and participation in the democratic process, including fostering civility and consensus-building and a sense of social cohesion. So far these two, I hope, are principles that we all share.

We want a system that is perceived as and is legitimate. We want a system that encourages greater participation, which brings the voter turnout to a higher number. With the last election being the exception, youth voter turnout has been on a steady decline over the last 20 years. Surely we can do better. Surely we want more people participating, and that's what greater engagement, as a principle, is meant to focus on.

The third principle that the House adopted was supporting accessibility and inclusiveness for all eligible voters, and avoiding undue complexity in the voting process.

We have connected with many groups who have shared their concerns about the lack of accessibility that currently exists in the voting process. Fortunately, the leadership at Elections Canada has had the good sense to bring together a body made up of individuals, advocates with lived experience around accessibility issues, and is actively working to enhance accessibility.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Excuse me, Minister, we have to go to Mr. Boulerice.

Our six and a half minutes for—

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

In conclusion, principles matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes.

Monsieur Boulerice.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to begin by wishing you, as well as to all our Muslim brothers and sisters from Quebec and the rest of Canada, Eid Mubarak—in other words, happy end of Ramadan.

I will take 10 seconds to continue to encourage people to use hashtag #ERRE to send us comments or questions on Twitter while we are in this meeting. We do look at the comments.

Minister, thank you for joining us. This historic opportunity to reform our voting system so as to make it much more reflective of the voters' will is very exciting for me.

As we know, the Conservative Party is in favour of the status quo, which is a system that creates significant distortions. For instance, your government was elected with 39% of the votes, but it accounts for 60% of the members in the House. There have even been times, in past elections, when the party with the most votes would lose the election, as it had obtained fewer seats, and that is completely unacceptable.

In the latest election, people sometimes had the impression that their vote was lost. It was actually more than an impression, as it turned out. The figures were analyzed by the Broadbent Institute. According to the figures, for each Liberal member elected, 40,000 votes were needed, while 70,000 votes were needed for the Conservatives, about 85,000 votes for the New Democrats and approximately 600,000 votes for the Green Party member. So I can understand that people are feeling frustrated, even angry.

At the NDP, we deeply believe that a Parliament should first and foremost reflect the diversity of opinions within society.

Jason Pugh, an individual who lives in Mr. DeCourcey's riding, asked on Twitter a few minutes ago whether we should adopt a system whereby a party with 30% of the votes would be allocated about 30% of the seats in the House.

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

I thank the honourable member, firstly, for his remarks about Eid, and I'd like to point out that my parliamentary secretary, Mark Holland, fasted this Ramadan, so this is not a celebration just for Muslims or a practice shared by just Muslims, and I'm sure he's a stronger man for it.

We have come to this process with an open mind and we recognize that the current system, as much as it has served us well for 140 years, can be done better. Canadians have mandated us to review the alternative systems that are available. It's why we established a committee, it's why we're looking forward to hearing from all Canadians, including those on social media—and thank you, Jason, for your input in that regard—and it's why your work is so important. This is a historic opportunity before us to strengthen the way that we vote, to engage more people in this conversation, to be more inclusive, to be more accessible, to strengthen the connection between Canadians and their democratic institutions, and I'm looking forward to your contributions.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Do you agree with the principle whereby obtaining 30% of votes would translate to getting about 30% of House seats?

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

You are referring to the principle of proportionality?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Yes.

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

I think it's an important one to discuss. The principles that were adopted by the House of Commons in the motion that has brought this committee forward are meant to act as a starting point. They are not the only values that we expect you to explore with Canadians, but merely a beginning, a starting point for a conversation, rather than an inclusion. And under the first principle that we've set forward, we have asked that you consider a system that reduces distortion and strengthens the link between voter intention and the election of representatives.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Minister, you have accepted the NDP's proposal to expand this committee in order to include parties that are not normally represented and make sure that it does not include a majority of Liberal members. The next question is about what happens next.

Can we get a commitment from you that the Liberal Party will not act alone and that, to do so, it will have to get the support of at least another political party in the House of Commons? We would like this electoral reform not to be a purely Liberal one.

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

We changed the membership of this particular committee, not just because we heard from parliamentarians, but because we heard from Canadians. I hope that continues to demonstrate our openness in this process. I'd like to remind you that members from all parties have committed at some point or another to change the way we vote. In 2002, the member for Calgary Midnapore proclaimed his support for a segment of an NDP opposition day motion, declaring that he wholeheartedly agreed with the NDP on developing a policy that supports electoral reform to some more proportionate system of representation and of parliamentary reform. The member—

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I have about 45 seconds left, and I wanted to use this time to ask you a question.

I am worried that we ultimately won't have enough time to implement a serious reform by 2019. You have already said that this reform should receive widespread support.

Can you define that broad consensus you will need? Right now, it is very unclear.

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

Broad support is something that we've asked you to hear from Canadians and to recommend to us the meaning of.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

Mr. Richards, you now have the floor.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair, and, Minister, thank you for being here.

I think, Mr. Chair, that the minister has been pretty clear that her personal opinion is prejudiced against a referendum. She's been, I think, far less clear on the government's position on respecting the will of Canadians in a referendum, if that's being demanded. I certainly would indicate that's what we're hearing out there. However, I'll give the minister a chance to clarify this one more time. I know she's indicated her aversion to a yes or no question, but I can assure you, Minister, this is a question that you can, and I think should, answer with a yes or no. If this committee recommends, after hearing from Canadians, holding a referendum, will you commit to doing so, yes or no?

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

I thank the honourable member for all the opportunities he's provided me to share my insight on this—