Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2016

[Carolyn Loutfi]

We focus on 18- to 25-year-olds, or 18- to 30-year-olds, so we don't actually occupy the high school space. We let Civix do that. We partner with organizations like CASA, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, which works through different university groups, but our focus isn't actually being on campus; it's being in the spaces were we can reach youth who are not pursuing post-secondary education, through community organizations, creative events, and things like that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Oh, so you don't go into post-secondary per se?

[Carolyn Loutfi]

We do. We don't discriminate against post-secondary, but they're not our priority.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Right, it's not the major focus. Interesting.

Mr. Dobie and Mr. Thompson, to follow up on the line of questioning that Ms. Sansoucy had, obviously your priority is that the voice of English-speaking Quebeckers be heard and that the community have influence over government policy.

Is there one system that you feel would give more influence to the English-speaking community per se? I can't imagine what it would it be.

Right now you have members of the National Assembly of Quebec, and members of Parliament. Whether they be francophone, anglophone, or have other origins, they represent and represent well. I'm not speaking for myself here; I'm just speaking for the colleagues I have in the west island. They speak for the community. I think you alluded to the fact that even in areas where the MLA, the MNA, or the MP may not be from the anglophone community, they have good relationships with the community.

Do you feel that the influence of the community would be stronger under another system? How could it be? I can't see it myself. How would a proportional system change anything, really? How would a proportional system with local representation change the influence of the English-speaking community in Quebec? It would probably have the same representatives.

[Stephen Thompson]

Again, Mr. Scarpaleggia, we have no position on any specific—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, so just sort of guessing at it or thinking out loud.... Okay, that's fair enough.

Thank you so much. That was very interesting, and it was a new angle. We've been all over the country and we've had many meetings and seen many witnesses, but it's a fresh angle and we appreciate your coming here to speak to us.

Thank you very much.

We'll suspend for about five minutes, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We will begin the second part of our meeting and welcome the second panel of witnesses.

First we have Mr. Raphaël Pilon-Robitaille, coordinator in sociopolitical affairs and research with the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec. Then, from the Forum jeunesse de l'Île de Montréal, we welcome Mr. Santiago Risso, president.

Welcome, gentlemen.

Finally, as an individual, we welcome Mr. Rémy Trudel, guest professor, École nationale d'administration publique. Good afternoon and welcome, Mr. Trudel.

I don't know if you were here during the first part of the meeting, but I will repeat what I explained. Each witness has three to five minutes for their presentation, and this is followed by a question period for the members. Each one of them has five minutes to question the witnesses. The five minutes include both the questions and the answers.

Without further ado, we will begin the second part with Mr. Pilon-Robitaille.

[Raphaël Pilon-Robitaille, Coordinator in Sociopolitical Affairs and Research, Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec]

Good morning.

I will begin by briefly describing the organization I represent today. The FECQ represents the students of 22 CEGEPS in the province of Quebec. These have more than 65,000 students throughout the province, from Abitibi to the North Shore, Gaspésie, Joliette, etc. From its inception, the FECQ was built on democratic principles, that is to say that we try to give a voice to everyone and ensure that all opinions are heard and can be expressed to build a consensus. That is the vision that guided our reflection on democracy and the representation of the opinion of all citizens.

We consider that the current voting system does not meet our expectations concerning the representation of everyone's wishes. We are aware of the fact that the first-past-the-post system distorts representation considerably, and that there can be a discrepancy between the votes and the members who are elected to the House. We advocate the adoption of a proportional voting system with compensatory mechanisms.

Also, we would like to see half of the elected representatives elected in ridings, and the other half chosen on the basis of closed lists, which would be tabled before the beginning of the elections by the various political parties.

Moreover, the FECQ is opposed to any affirmative action, whether be to further the representation of women, ethnocultural communities or young people in politics. We are instead in favour of various measures such as popular education, which could change the population's attitude, rather than imposing quotas. We believe that the solution should not come from artificial measures but rather through changing attitudes. We are also open to the idea of lowering the voting age to 16, as has been done in Austria, which saw a quite significant increase in electoral participation among young people.

We think that this would be a good way to improve the participation of young people particularly. We know that it is quite complicated to encourage electoral participation among young people. Although things were different during the last federal election, which made the statistics lie, we believe that there would be avenues to encourage that participation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Have you finished?

[Raphaël Pilon-Robitaille]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Perfect, thank you.

That was succinct and clear, thank you.

Mr. Risso, you have the floor.

[Santiago Risso, President, Forum jeunesse de l'Île de Montréal]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, esteemed members of the committee.

On behalf of the Forum jeunesse de l'Île de Montréal and of Citoyenneté jeunesse, of which I am the vice-president—Citoyenneté jeunesse is the issue table for the Forums jeunesse régionaux du Québec—I would like to thank you. We are very pleased to be taking part today in this exercise that is crucial for our democracy. We also appreciate enormously that the committee reached out to youth, which is entirely normal.

I am not going to go on at length about the proposals we submitted, because you have them in our brief. I will give you a broad outline of our proposal.

To begin, as a young person and as the representative of an umbrella organization that brings together over 250 organizational members and 300 individual members, I can say that we are unanimous. We have already taken part in several consultations regarding changes to the voting system, particularly in Quebec, where the last consultation took place in 2005. The briefs submitted to you were inspired by that consultation. We consulted many young people in the process of drafting these briefs. It seems entirely relevant that after 10 years, the same proposals can be applied to the federal level.

In our opinion, it is urgent that the voting system be changed, and this feeling is prevalent among young people.

We know that young people are very active politically, but in a less classic way, so to speak. Young people are committed in other ways, but the figures are eloquent: they distrust the current system. We thus think that changing the voting system could greatly encourage participation by young people.

We feel it is urgent to take action and change the current voting system which causes an unfortunate break between civil society and political representatives. The current voting system does not reflect the popular support given to the parties, and often creates false majority governments.

For all of these reasons, we propose a greater proportionality between the popular vote and the number of elected representatives from each party. We recommend the adoption of a mixed compensatory voting system where some members would be elected on a territorial basis and others on a basis proportional to the mixed vote.

We think it is essential to maintain the territorial representation of the population through a member of Parliament. However, we also believe that we need provincial lists to achieve the proportional aspect. These changes could lead to the achievement of gender parity. In this regard, we suggest the use of a proportional vote with lists drawn up, as I was saying, with an eye to achieving this parity. It is very rare that we do not agree with the FECQ, but we feel it is essential to seize this opportunity to create a new culture. Eventually, we would like this gender parity to be achieved naturally via popular education.

In conclusion, it seems very important to aim to gradually increase the representation of ethnocultural minorities and young people in the electorate.

We don't want to go into specific details. We don't think it is important at this stage to examine in detail all of the elements of a new voting system. The important thing is to come up with a consensus in the House of Commons so that a change takes place. The current government has given itself that mandate. It was one of its electoral commitments. It cannot back down.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Trudel, you have the floor.

[Rémy Trudel, Guest Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and ladies and gentlemen members of the committee.

Since I spent 14 years at the Quebec National Assembly, I was there during half of the time since the electoral reform. Nothing has moved yet. That gives you some idea of its complexity.

In examining the mandate that was given to you by the House of Commons, I see that one of the fundamental questions involves the representativity of elected representatives, and the opinions that are prevalent in Canadian society.

Regarding the representativity of elected individuals, rather than changing the system, I would be in favour of two-round elections. First, in a two-round system, we all have the opportunity of expressing our choice. We then have the opportunity of expressing a second choice on the opinions that may emerge during an electoral campaign, or speeches to citizens.

That said, I am not very much in favour of proportional systems, because there are a lot of other ways to encourage the participation of citizens and the expression of diverse opinions in democracies. I can point to an extreme example, that of Iceland. The members of the senate, which is a chamber set up pursuant to the power of the state, are chosen at random. Senators chosen at random? Can you imagine?

And yet, in criminal trials, 12 individuals are chosen, as intelligent as all of us gathered here, who will make decisions about someone's life. And so we trust 12 individuals to make decisions about someone's life. What is the underlying premise to that selection? Everyone is intelligent or brilliant enough, sufficiently representative of currents in a society to be able to express them, and there are multiple ways of doing so.

For my part, I hope and dare believe that the committee will make recommendations not only on the voting system, but also on the ways in which citizens participate in Canadian democracy. I created a course at the École nationale d'administration publique entitled “Participatory Management and the Defence of Rights”. I look at what is happening at this time, and I tell my students that I feel I am teaching an archeology course, because citizens are no longer represented in the current voting system. And yet it is a representative system, since it is based on universal suffrage.

As for the representativity of individuals, I would like to see a two-round election. My position on that is very clear. In France for instance, there is a system that functions very well and that allows citizens to express different opinions.

Moreover, all of the methods of consultation and modes of citizen participation have to be reviewed. We must have more than consultations that can be lost in the maze of power, but obligatory consultations as to the advice to be given to the House of Commons, for instance. If it were mandatory for the House of Commons to receive the advice of a group, to take it into account and have it be tabled in the House, the various currents of opinion in Canadian society would be expressed. We have to be very creative.

Some day you are also going to have to—and I understand all of the constitutional difficulties involved—broach the issue of the second Chamber, the Senate. You could make some very strict recommendations regarding the way in which appointments are made, if not the election of senators. The different currents in society have to be expressed in some way, including the one we just heard, the opinion of young people. They have to be represented in this second House, as do many other groups as well. To do all of that, we don't need to change the voting system, unless we opt for the two-round system in the House of Commons. I think that we could in that way bring about considerable changes, and more stakeholders could join Canadian democracy in order to revive it. As for the obligatory vote, it did not work in the Soviet Union. I am not very favourable to it.

Moreover, if we are indeed considering online voting, it is essential that, in 2016, we examine mechanisms that could increase public participation. We all have a bank card to withdraw money or do a banking transaction. If we wake up at 2 a.m. because we have forgotten to make reservations for a university conference in Munich, within half an hour, we can book a flight, a hotel room and a car rental with a credit card. Then we can go back to bed.

It is essential that you consider this and make recommendations about online voting. We live in a modern society and this would get us out of our antiquated ways.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Trudel.

We will begin the question period with Ms. Romanado.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here on this lovely, sunny day in October. Many thanks also those in attendance. I would like to point out that we have devices available for anyone who needs simultaneous interpretation.

We have translation services, if you need to have instant translation. I know there are some new people in the room.

I would like to thank Mr. Pilon-Robitaille and Mr. Risso for their testimony.

I have spent nearly my entire working life in the higher education sector, at the CEGEP and university level, and I do not think young people are apolitical. I think they like politics.

Voting is another matter, though, as is running for office. During the last election, there was a Green Party candidate who turned 18 on voting day. She was the youngest candidate in the history of federal elections. Her name is Casandra Poitras and she was a candidate in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, the riding next to mine. I asked her why she had decided to run. It is true that young people, as a rule, do not seem to be interested in running in municipal, provincial or federal elections.

What must we do to appeal to and get the next generation of young people interested in politics? Do you have any suggestions?

[Santiago Risso]

We have several suggestions.

The core mission of the Forum jeunesse de l'île de Montréal is to increase civic participation and engagement. That is what drives us. Civic education is lacking, especially in Quebec, glaringly so, in fact.

Thirteen years ago, the Forum jeunesse de l'île de Montréal was funded by the Secrétariat à la jeunesse, which was the case until April 2015. We had developed a great program to encourage young people to vote. Essentially, the program provided information about the current voting method. The program was called “Voters in training”. We used it every time there was an election, whether at the school board, municipal, provincial or federal level. We approached high schools, youth centres and teachers who implemented several steps, because there were five different steps in the program.

We showed young people how to look for information, how to recognize the various media, how to find reliable information, how to develop arguments for debate and how to debate.

The fifth step was an election simulation. For provincial elections, we worked with Quebec's Chief Electoral Officer. All the information came from his office. Young people voted on the same day as the actual election, with real material, electoral lists and candidates, depending on the riding.

The last simulation was conducted in April 2014. About 70,000 young people participated across the province. Unfortunately, the program was transferred to Quebec's Chief Electoral Officer. I say unfortunately because, although it was a good decision to transfer it, we lost funding for the program when the provincial government eliminated funding for youth forums. That is one example.

Familiarity with the current voting system is crucial. Civic education is lacking. How can we expect young people to vote or be interested in politics if nothing has been explained to them? Ask a young person what the difference is between a municipal councillor and a borough councillor. That is a tough one even for me, and I work in the field. That is where education is lacking.

Moreover, there are a number of other steps. There could be other proposals. Young people have to be able to identify with political parties. At the Forum jeunesse, we provide a lot of training in this regard. We give presentations at conferences and ask young elected officials to meet other young people to talk about their experience. That is is why the Forum jeunesse de l'île de Montréal and Citoyenneté jeunesse have proposed a provincial compensatory list that would include more young people. If young people can recognize the candidates running, it might encourage them to become politically involved in a party.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Rayes, please go ahead.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the three witnesses for taking the time to come and meet us. I have a question for each of the groups, I mean for the young people and the elders.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Let me start with experience. There is a lot of experience here! I have to find the right term so as not to ruffle any feathers. You know what I mean.

My first question is for you, Mr. Trudel. You have many years of experience in politics. During the election campaign, I never heard any mention of this proposal by the Liberal government. I challenge anyone to find a national debate that clearly referred to changing the voting method. I think it was not really an issue and that people did not vote on that basis.

That said, the government has already announced that it wants to change the current voting method. Surveys show that just 3% of the population is interested in this right now. I get the sense that the goal is to get people to believe that changing the voting method would solve the civic participation issues, and that worries me. When we hear that we will have proportional representation, that there will be proportional governments and so on, it is implied that this is a simple matter. In my view, however, the problem runs much deeper.

My first question is very simple. In your view, Mr. Trudel, if the committee reaches a consensus and the government decides to proceed, should all Canadians be consulted before the voting method is changed?

[Rémy Trudel]

Yes, in my opinion, Canadians have to be consulted because any change would be significant. It would mean turning the page on a system that has been in place for over 200 years. Our democratic institutions will be affected by the change. The population must be consulted, but I really think that a referendum is an outstanding tool for public education.

As was just pointed out by the young people here, this is an excellent opportunity to provide public education and information. Even if the outcome is not what the party in power or the government wants, it would not be a waste of time as regards education and training. People would be better prepared to exercise their civic responsibility. There are so many avenues for civic participation that this would be an opportunity to discuss it with the public. Whether or not a change to the constitution is needed, I will let the specialists give you their opinion on that.

We should leap at the opportunity to engage with the public in order to have more representative institutions. If the public is consulted on the voting method or changing the voting method, regardless, the discussion will turn to the Senate. It is part of the government, of our governance, and people will ask questions. Groups, such as young people and those with various leanings, will raise questions about their ability to express themselves and will want us to consider their opinions.

To answer your question, quite definitely, the public must be consulted. We must take advantage of this opportunity for public education and training.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Trudel.

If you compare proportional representation, whether preferential or some other method, with our current system, there is quite a significant difference in local representation. Everyone who has come to talk to us about proportional representation reminded us of the importance of local representation. There are two possible scenarios.

The first would be the reduce the number of constituency MPs to make room for list MPs. This would necessarily increase the size of ridings and distance MPs from their role as local representative. I often give my own riding as an example. I have 40 municipalities. Tomorrow morning, if half of all riding MPs were eliminated and placed on a list, or if their number were reduced by 30% or 40%, this would necessarily increase riding size. This would weaken my close ties with my constituents.

The second scenario is to increase the number of MPs. This would maintain the status quo as to the number of MPs and would establish a proportional system. In that case, nearly everyone agrees that Canadians are not ready to increase the number of MPs by 150, 200 or 300. That is politically unthinkable.

My next question is for the three of you. If we had the choice between the two scenarios, would you still be in favour of a proportional system? As representatives of the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec and the Forum jeunesse de l'Île de Montréal, you say that is your proposal. I would also like to hear Mr. Trudel's opinion on that. We have a dilemma regarding the two scenarios. Between the two, I am inclined toward local representation, because I think that is the first thing people ask of me. They would like to vote for their MP and at most for the party or the government.

[Raphaël Pilon-Robitaille]

That is a very interesting question. The conclusion you just provided helps me structure my answer.

A proportional system with two types of votes, one for a local MP and one for a list MP, would in a way address that very issue, that is, people could vote for their riding MP and then for a party.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Yes, but let us be clear about something. If you do that, you have to eliminate MPs to free up a hundred or so places on the list, otherwise you have to increase the number of MPs. It is not possible to maintain the current 338 ridings we have in Canada. All the experts have come and clearly presented those scenarios.