Evidence of meeting #35 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was young.
6:35 p.m.
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
Parties do not have to focus energy on mobilizing anymore. They could focus more on convincing people to vote for them based on arguments, based on the contents, and based on policy. That's the way in which it changes the dynamics.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
No, actually, but it's a great conversation. It was so good that I was discussing all of this with the analysts. It was a fruitful conversation, but it's over.
Mr. Rayes.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the two witnesses for being here today.
For starters, if your system was applied today, I wouldn't be here talking to you because I would surely be among the ones who would have been cast aside. I received 33% of the votes in the last two elections, but if someone showed up in my riding today and did a poll on the street, I don't think anyone would find it fair that the candidate who received the highest percentage of votes and a majority of over 4,000 votes would not become the representative of their riding.
So you'll understand that I have many reservations about the model you are proposing. You mentioned that choices need to be made. I think that no matter what voting system is chosen, whether it favours proportional, preferential or any other system, my colleagues from every party will tell you that the vast majority of experts and Canadians who have expressed their perspectives before the committee clearly care about having local representation.
I'm not saying it's unanimous, but I think that even people who are in favour of a proportional voting system face a dilemma because of the list. Did you think about that before proposing your system? I acknowledge that our system isn't perfect, but it's not to the point where we need to go against the popular will that still seems fairly clear, going by what has been said before the committee.
6:40 p.m.
As an Individual
That's not quite the position I had in 2004 when I participated in consultations in Quebec on a reform initiative, or rather a bill. I hadn't thought of the solution I'm proposing today. I heard from the public, municipal associations and people from the UPA who were against losing the local power. People are—
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
6:40 p.m.
As an Individual
—very attached to their member's office, even if the studies show that they don't consult their MP all that often. Except that the citizens know that their member is in the region, that he's attending spaghetti dinners, that he's studying and defending various projects. They know that he's very active. Candidates form a direct link with the population during their election campaigns. I think it's this link that people are attached to.
So, as for representing the people, the party is in a paradoxical position. Basically, the party aggregates interests, meaning that it assembles the interests, creates a platform, seeks votes from people during elections. I'm sorry, but no matter which party is in power, the member who is elected no longer represents only the people who voted for his party. He must represent the interests of the entire population of his riding, not just the part of the population who voted for him.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
However, if we polled the people currently in the room, I think some of them would tell you that they voted for their MP, others would say that they voted for a political party, and still others for the party leader, namely, Justin Trudeau, Stephen Harper or Thomas Mulcair. There is no perfect model. No matter who you ask, the answers may be very different.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
With the model you're proposing, I understand that you are making the concession that it isn't necessarily individuals who win the most votes in their ridings who automatically become the representative for the constituents.
What's your perspective on the legitimacy of the process we are currently using? Do you think our three weeks of consultations in Ottawa are sufficient to legitimize the process of changing the voting system in the House of Commons?
6:40 p.m.
As an Individual
No, not really.
I don't want to criticize the quality of the process, but we can't guarantee the position or constitution of the entire population and all Canadians.
People took part in the process because they followed the debate as citizens. They did it because the issue interests them, because they represent a party or an organization that wants to express its position, but this isn't the case of the population overall. In Quebec, the more informed the population is, the more it is in favour of the proportional system. We know that.
It's important to inform the public. I know how tiring it is to have the same discussions every four years. We start all over again and we put it off until the next election. That's why we mustn't waste any more time. We've been talking about electoral reform in Quebec for 20 years. René Lévesque also spoke about it in another era.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I will move on to my last question since the chair is going to interrupt me soon, as is his duty.
If you had the power to take action as prime minister and you had the flexibility to do it, what would you do to improve our system without changing the voting system?
6:45 p.m.
As an Individual
This is more complex in terms of solutions. However, since I work more with vulnerable people, I would make changes to the process to ensure that Canadians are informed, that the information is universal, that everyone has access to voting, whether they are disabled or—
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
The chair is going to tell me my time is up soon, so if we used one word to summarize this, it would be “education”, wouldn't it?
6:45 p.m.
As an Individual
Education is necessary, but we also need to support the diversity of the platforms that allow Canadians to deliberate, decide and educate themselves.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
October 3rd, 2016 / 6:45 p.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses.
I'd also like to thank the people in the room who came to attend the deliberations and discussions.
Welcome back, Ms. May. We missed you yesterday.
Ms. Dassonville, you mentioned the fact that mandatory voting had an impact on reducing social inequalities. Could you send the committee some studies or documents on that? I find it very interesting. This is the first time I've heard about it. It may seem logical. When we went door to door, we actually noticed that people who had lower incomes and were less educated were less likely to vote. If we have to consider these people, maybe we will have social policies that will speak more to them. If there are documents available, could you please send them to the analysts?
Mrs. Tremblay, your proposal is very interesting. I have the impression that you have tried to find a solution that reconciles two things that are difficult to reconcile: the local affiliation of the MP and the direct link between voters and their MPs, which everyone wants to maintain; and a proportionality that is reached on a wider scale, be it provincial or territorial.
You are seeing the reactions of my colleagues; I think this is how most people would react. If we keep a local vote by riding and then, because of the proportionality model, the candidate who comes first is not elected MP, I don't think the public will accept that.
Did you consider the single transferable vote, which includes multi-member ridings? The model exists in Ireland. They are combining three to five current ridings, so that one riding is represented by three MPs, for example, and the proportionality is done inside that small territory. The three elected members have truly been elected by the locals. It improves the proportionality, as we see with the Irish experience. It also allows for stable and sometimes even majority governments. In Ireland, the Fianna Fáil party has formed six majority governments since the republic was established.
Would this kind of model, with larger ridings that include more MPs, be better accepted by the public?
6:45 p.m.
As an Individual
It depends on how much we want to change the system. If three ridings are combined, it doesn't correct much. I'm suggesting not combining them, but allocating the three seats while keeping the same ridings.
Henry Milner proposed 10 ridings for the Toronto region. Why combine the ridings? Let's keep the 10 ridings and one proportional. This comes back to what I was suggesting, which is to allocate MPs in a riding proportionally. However, your MPs won't have the majority in his or her riding.
There are mathematical ways to solve the problem. There are several solutions, in fact. The idea is to know what responds best to what we're trying to do that will be accepted by the public.
6:45 p.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Our committee's mandate is to find a new voting system. We have a lot of suggestions from people who are bringing us new ideas. I've been interested in the matter for a long time, and I've learned an enormous amount through this parliamentary committee. However, we are torn between different values. We want to keep the connection with the local member and the proportionality to represent the diversity of voices so that a true public opinion is heard in Parliament. We also want to avoid false majorities and distortions. In addition, we need to keep a system that is simple and understandable.
One simple and understandable system is the mixed member proportional system, where people vote first for the local member and then for the political party through MPs from lists.
Based on Germany's experience, we don't see that there are two different categories of MPs. The MP who is elected from the list also has an office in Hamburg, or in another city, and also provides services to citizens. Those members are physically located somewhere and can help their communities and people from organizations.
Why have you rejected this option?
6:50 p.m.
As an Individual
We rejected it because the list is established by the parties. In a case like that, it is likely that MPs would be more accountable to the party than to voters. I think that's a risk.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
As for open lists, like they have in the Netherlands, I think—
6:50 p.m.
As an Individual
This already improves the situation because they are chosen in principle by citizens, but they are still made by the parties. I think it still creates a subgroup of elected people and belong to the party.
Parties currently recruit candidates, invite them to run and support them, but there is a separation between the party's work and what happens when members are elected. They become the rulers.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Your time is up.
Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.
For anyone who would like to listen to the simultaneous interpretation, there are earpieces to listen to the interpreters, who are seated in the booth to my right.
I would also like to make note of the presence of our colleague, Mark Holland, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions.
Welcome to our work, Mr. Holland, and welcome to Montreal.
We'll now go to Mr. Ste-Marie.
