Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2016

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

Okay.

On Saturday, two nights ago, I did a town hall on electoral reform and there was a healthy level of political skepticism present. We actually talked about mandatory voting. One of the questions was if we're concerned about declining participation rates, then why not make it mandatory, and that got the group talking.

I like this idea of the mandatory going hand in hand with “none of the above”. At my town hall on Saturday, the question came up and I couldn't answer it. Has “none of the above” ever won? That's one piece of it. The other is, can you change your name to “none of the above”?

What kind of games get played with this and what result can you expect?

[Ruth Dassonville]

The reason is that probably there are no majoritarian systems that actually have compulsory voting right now, so you wouldn't have such a case.

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

Okay. It was a fun one to play with as we talked about it.

You also talked a bit about quantity versus quality. That came up at the town hall as well, and it's about what we are trying to achieve here. I don't want to put you on the spot, but my thought has always been that it would be great if we had 100% voter participation, even if people maybe are misinformed or ill-informed. Again, at the town hall we had a bit of a discussion about people who may be disenfranchised, who are simply not plugged into the process. Are they going to come and either do the donkey vote or vote for “none of the above”?

Does that help our democratic system? Is that a sign of a strong democracy? What's the benefit of having this kind of mandatory voting when people really are not all that interested?

[Ruth Dassonville]

It changes the dynamics and it makes for more equality in who turns out to vote. In terms of the quality of the vote, it's really an arbitrary judgment to judge what is a good vote and what is not a good vote, what is an ill-informed vote. There are lots of reasons that could motivate people to pick a particular candidate or to pick a particular party, and there's no way we could decide what is a correct vote and what isn't.

There might be a bit more noise added to the system if you're requiring everyone to turn out to vote, but then again, it doesn't change the electoral results. In that case, the equality argument's really the more important one.

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

Okay.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

When you say it doesn't change the electoral results, could you elaborate on that? I just want to make sure I have a proper understanding of what that means.

[Ruth Dassonville]

As a matter of fact, the votes of those who are not turning out to vote are.... They would vote for different parties, and if you add up.... There might be a bit of a skew towards some parties, but it's never going to be big enough to really change....

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Right, that's what I thought you mentioned earlier.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for this very interesting testimony. It is different from what we have heard so far, and it makes matters more interesting for the members of this committee. As you know, we are now at the 35th meeting of this committee, and you have managed to surprise us with stimulating testimony. Thank you very much.

Now we will move on to the period of audience remarks.

I will take this opportunity to explain the procedure to those who were not here earlier today. Remarks must run no longer than two minutes. That is feasible. It is what we have done in all the other cities we have visited. That is the way it was this afternoon.

I would also remind people in the room that we are operating in accordance with Parliament Hill rules. Even though we are not in the Centre Block in Ottawa, we must abide by committee rules. It is prohibited to take photographs while the committee is sitting, for various reasons. The rule unfortunately applies here as it does in Ottawa.

I would ask Brenda Linn to step up to microphone No. 1.

It seems Ms. Linn is not here.

Fernand Deschamps and Marc Heckmann, you may take microphones Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

Mr. Deschamps, you have the floor for two minutes.

[Fernand Deschamps, As an Individual]

Good evening, everyone.

First, I will say this: I strongly object to the fact that our speaking time is limited to two minutes. I believe that an issue such as citizen participation in democratic life is so fundamental that it merits more than two minutes. I think everyone here in this room will agree with me on that.

Second, your committee must limit itself to choosing one of the four systems that are presented to it. That is not your fault; that is the mandate you have been given. However, debate and discussion cannot be limited .

As committee members themselves have said, as well as the people who have come to speak, there is a very serious problem of citizen participation in democratic life here in Canada, particularly in elections.

I would like to bring to everyone's attention important issues that are not addressed in this mandate and that merit consideration. If we cannot do that here, we should do it outside. We need this space.

Allow me to cite a few examples.

How is it that, in 2016, we citizens are always limited to marking a ballot. We live in a modern, industrialized society. We are able to say many things. We work in workplaces that have an impact on our country's economic life. How is it that citizens cannot participate more fully than by simply marking a ballot? Let me explain.

There is the matter of candidate selection, for example. As you know, it is traditionally the political parties that make that selection.

Why can we not imagine, in a new Canada, a situation in which Elections Canada partly releases citizens from their work so that they can hold regular meetings in their neighbourhoods or workplaces all year round in order to raise the issues they consider important and to invite experts wishing to take part in the process, as we have seen this evening. In that way, citizens would be politically educated by election day.

There would be no more scenarios like the ones we have previously experienced, such as political parties telling us what the choices are and presenting the issues on which we must take a position. It would be the reverse.

I will submit one final point to you. Why should we citizens not have our say in candidate selection? I think that would open up a big space. We need it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I would like to say that, in the Liberal Party, you are not even required to be a member in order to vote for the party leader.

[Fernand Deschamps]

Yes, I know. I know your new arrangement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You need only join the movement, and I imagine the other parties—

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

In the Bloc, it costs five dollars.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Really? Perhaps it should be free.

[Fernand Deschamps]

However, I would be interested to know who selects candidates in the districts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have exceeded your two minutes, Mr. Deschamps. Thank you.

I would ask Diane Johnston to step up to the microphone No. 1.

I now turn the floor over to Marc Heckmann.

[Marc Heckmann, As an Individual]

I'd like to say that I have been waiting for this all my life, ever since I was of voting age. I am really happy that this is going on. Thank you.

I am in favour of some sort of mixed proportional system, with a strong focus on regional representation, given our geography. I am not going to elaborate on the benefits of such systems, because I think other citizens who spoke today did a pretty good job on that.

However, what I would like to add to the debate is one thing that I didn't really hear much about here today, but perhaps you guys talked about it in other committee meetings. It is the word “coalition”. If some sort of proportional system is used, we are going to have either more minority governments or more formal or informal coalitions. Right now, at least in the past few years in Ottawa, it seems that it has been sort of a dirty word, at least with some of the political parties.

It really shouldn't be. My feeling, just from talking to friends and family around me, is that people want stable governments. Yes, absolutely. Can we have stable governments with minority governments or coalitions? I believe we can. I think countries like Germany show that they can have strong, stable governments. Even if it's just a minority government, I think our government could behave accordingly. I think most Canadians want stable governments.

The other thing I'd like to talk about is the referendum question. I think some sort of compromise will have to be made. I am personally not in favour of a referendum, but I do sympathize with those who are strongly in favour of a referendum on this issue, because I think this process is, unfortunately, in peril. I have spoken to friends, family, and workplace colleagues about this process. While most are aware of the election promise, and many of them support the election promise, unfortunately most, if not all, are not actually aware of this process, and this is the most important piece of the promise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'll just mention something about coalition. You're right that it hasn't come up here, but everywhere else we've been, it's come up at least once or twice. There seems to be a common understanding that with a system of proportional representation, you have a higher probability of minority governments and coalitions. So it has come up, but you're right that it hasn't come up yet today. You're the first to bring it up. Thank you for your comments. We appreciate them.

[Marc Heckmann]

Am I done?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, but I just want to remind everyone that if you have a longer opinion that you would like the committee to consider, you can submit a brief—it could be a letter—in writing to the committee, as long as it doesn't exceed 3,000 words. You just go to the committee website. There's also an electronic questionnaire. If you don't want to do a brief but you want to do a questionnaire, you can do that as well. In addition to being here tonight, there are many, many ways for you to get your views across.

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

What is the deadline?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The deadline for submitting your questionnaires or briefs by mail or email is October 7.

[Marc Heckmann]

I'd briefly add that I do support this process. I don't think it's too late to recuperate it. Use the mainstream media. Get out there. Get the word out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're working on it.

[Marc Heckmann]

I think the committee could do a better job of using the media.