Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2016

[Raphaël Pilon-Robitaille]

Of course, we are not in favour of adding new seats. We agree with you that it would be unrealistic in the current context. It would even be unrealistic to add a hundred or so seats all of a sudden.

We are definitely in favour of redrawing the electoral map. We believe that a new electoral map could be drawn that would provide very satisfactory regional representation, while still having proportional representation and a more accurate way of representing the popular vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

The six minutes are nearly up.

Mr. Trudel, you may make a brief comment.

[Rémy Trudel]

I am more in favour of geographical representation, that is, attaching voters to their MP in a familiar space, a community space. You say you have 40 municipalities in your riding. I represented a riding with 43 municipalities, with a radius of at least 285 km. People identify with their MP.

Moreover, do we have to sacrifice the expression of diverse views in society because we insist on geographical representation? The answer is no, but we have to make the effort to find other formula that are used around the world. We have to look at Scandinavia. Stéphane Paquin, one of my colleagues, is doing that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have really gone over the time limit.

Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank everyone here.

I think people would like to talk soon, after our experts.

Hello Mr. Trudel, Mr. Risso and Mr. Pilon-Robitaille.

Many things are said during an election campaign and we know it is hard to determine exactly why voters voted for one party or another. Mr. Rayes, I was not able to rise to your challenge of finding something in the debates, but I found a Radio-Canada article from June 30, 2015, in which Justin Trudeau called for electoral reform. It was part of the public debates and discussions. This also came up at times during canvassing.

Mr. Risso, thank you very much for your presentation. Your comments about the urgent need to change the voting method and about young people's mistrust in the current political system were quite clear.

You made a rather harsh statement that struck me. You said that, right now, there is a rift between civil society and the political parties. As to the mixed member proportional system you propose, I would like to know how it could improve matters or reduce that gap.

[Santiago Risso]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Boulerice.

I think I will answer the question from Mr. Rayes at the same time.

It is unfortunate that we are focusing on just two solutions when there might be many more.

How could our proposal improve matters? A minor change will of course have to be made to the ridings and territories, based on population. How can we restore that trust? I think we must keep territorial representation.

We can enlarge ridings and the compensatory list will fill the gaps. If an MP has a larger constituency with a larger population, the MP elected from the provincial compensatory list will also be assigned to that riding.

We are talking numbers, but as I said in my presentation, this might not be the right time for that. We have to talk about the details, but first of all we have to reach a consensus on changing the voting method. We propose that 60% of MPs be elected based on their territory—as is the case right now—and 40% by the compensatory method. It would not be necessary to add MPs. The issue would be how to distribute the MPs and how to better represent the larger regions.

I will quickly answer Mr. Rayes' question as to whether we are in favour of or opposed to a referendum. Since the current government promised to change the voting method, we think it must do so. There must be a referendum to validate these changes, but we would like to see two or three elections with the new voting method before it is validated by the public.

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

Thank you, Mr. Risso.

We don't buy a car without first taking it for a test drive, which is what most people do at a dealership. Otherwise we are making a choice based on uncertainties, which represents a leap of faith. That of course is problematic.

All three of you have spoken about the need for education, for a better understanding of our electoral system and our political system. You are right. You have probably already observed that many voters believe we have a presidential system and that they vote for the prime minister, when in fact they vote for a local MP, and the party with the most seats forms a majority in Parliament or in the House.

Mr. Pilon-Robitaille, you propose a mixed-member proportional system with 50% of MPs being elected by lists and 50% elected locally. We could discuss the 10% difference between your two proposals.

Yet, you are proposing closed lists, which is essentially the system that Germany has had for several decades. That creates stable, predictable, coalition governments with good public policy in general. You are opposed to positive discrimination measures, although the list system—as far as gender equality is concerned—can in fact be a way of breaking through the glass ceiling as to women's participation in our electoral systems.

In your opinion, would it be possible to use closed lists as a tool to increase the representation of women in Parliament?

[Raphaël Pilon-Robitaille]

The reason we are opposed to positive discrimination measures is that we see them as an artificial solution to a problem that ultimately runs much deeper. We have to do more than simply put MPs in the House for the sake of it.

That is why we strongly support public education, in particular, in order to encourage civic participation among young people. Closed lists could of course be a solution. We have observed, however, that they are more of a short-term solution that does not truly resolve the underlying problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Ste-Marie, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello, gentlemen. Thank you for being here and for the three very interesting and informative presentations you gave.

In discussing ways to improve representation, a type of proportional system is often suggested. It could be a two-round system, a mixed compensatory system or another type. We could also use the upper house as a way to maintain regional legitimacy or regional representation.

You touched on this earlier, Mr. Trudel. To your knowledge, would it take a constitutional amendment to have an elected Senate?

[Rémy Trudel]

Clearly, it would take a constitutional amendment.

Let us first explore the idea of using the upper house, which has a fully-fledged role in state decision-making, to represent the diverse trends in Canadian society, including men and women, minority groups, ideological leanings, and so forth.

I think I can say without insulting anyone, I hope, that the current appointments to the Senate are based more on being well-known than on representing trends in society. We are fortunate to have the Senate. In principle, we should use it to encourage civic participation.

Let us consider as well the extreme example of Iceland, where the 25 members of the senate are randomly chosen, because citizens are considered to be equally intelligent and able to represent others. They are then changed at regular intervals.

I hope your committee will dare to make recommendations that go far beyond the methods currently being suggested. I am not saying it is not a good idea, but we are caught in a discussion whose sole purpose is to determine whether or not we want a proportional system. There are many other aspects of civic participation. We must ensure not only that the public knows that the institutions are listening to them; they must also clearly sense that their opinion is well heard. If it is just a lot of talking, people will be discouraged, as they are now. The institutions must be required to consult MPs who, in my view, represent ridings geographically. Citizens must still feel close to their MP so the MP can in turn represent them. There are many other approaches, and you have to be daring in a sense.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Risso and Mr. Pilon-Robitaille, I would like to hear your views on the possibility of reforming the Senate so senators are elected in order to better represent the population.

[Santiago Risso]

As I said earlier, our brief is based on reforming the provincial voting method. We have been talking about this in Quebec for a long time but nothing has changed. We believe that our brief also applies to the federal system.

I will answer your question, not on behalf of the Forum jeunesse de l'île de Montréal, but from my own point of view. I am very much in favour of Mr. Trudel's proposal. If we can choose members of a jury at random, by chance, why can we not do the same for members of the Senate? That would be a clear message to the public that democracy and its institutions belong to them and that everyone must be part of it.

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

Thank you.

What are your thoughts, Mr. Pilon-Robitaille?

[Raphaël Pilon-Robitaille]

I share Mr. Risso's position. Similarly, the FECQ's argument is really based on the provincial context of Quebec, so the Senate does not come into play of course.

I will also answer from my own point of view. The idea of making the Senate more democratic is indeed a good thing. It would be a way to better represent trends among the population.

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

Thank you.

I have a final question for the three of you.

With regard to representing political opinions, do you think the federal government should examine the financing of political parties in order to give everyone an equal opportunity? We know the previous government made cuts in this regard. Should we consider returning to more public financing in order to better represent ideas?

[Rémy Trudel]

That is what Quebec did by eliminating the financing of political parties by individuals and instead establishing public funding, based on vote share, support, and other indicators.

Democracy does not exist in a vacuum. As a rule, the less fortunate groups are also the ones that have fewest resources to share their opinions, to convey them, especially considering a few elements that cannot be controlled. It was mentioned earlier that people think they are voting in a presidential system and for a president. That is what most people believe. Election campaigns focus almost entirely on party leaders and little on local issues, except when there is a contradiction between a candidate and the leader shown on national television.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Rémy Trudel]

We must revise party financing in order to support different political views in our society.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

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

Answer very quickly, gentlemen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Ste-Marie, but we have run over the time limit.

The witnesses can make further comments later on. That is possible.

Mr. DeCourcey, you have the floor.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I will not go over five minutes, for sure.

I would like to thank the three witnesses for their presentations.

Mr. Risso, in your presentation you mentioned the growing public distrust in our political elite. Many people told the committee that they feel their vote doesn't count. I think what these people really feel is that nothing will change, that the political elite does not really know the issues they face and that their vote does not carry much weight.

Do you think adopting proportional representation will help address the public distrust of the political system and of politicians?

[Santiago Risso]

Yes, but it will not be enough.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Okay.

Why?