Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2016

[Jean-Claude Noël]

Yes. It's their website.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We're going to have to go to Mr. Fanning now, but thank you.

[Jean-Claude Noël]

Please go to see the video.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much. We thank you for your idea about getting kids exposed early to voting.

I would invite William Gagnon to step up to microphone No. 1.

Mr. Fanning, it is your turn.

[Samuel Fanning, As an Individual]

Good evening, MPs and fellow citizens.

I am a member of the Young Liberals of the University of Montreal and I am responsible for policy. I am here somewhat in that capacity.

We have discussed blank ballots. This is something that young people are very interested in. Many of them are cynical about voting, and a blank ballot is one way for them to say they are not interested in the people on the list. However, the fact that blank ballots are not counted anywhere encourages them even less to vote. If they could express their discontent by casting a blank ballot, it would encourage them to vote, if mandatory voting were not instituted in that case.

We have also discussed voter territoriality. You said it was important for candidates to be declared winners in their own district. However, even though candidates have won, the people in their districts who did not vote for them may feel they are not represented by the MPs in office. This is what often happens in districts that are considered safe seats. A member from the same party is elected every time, and people who do not support that party will never be represented in their district.

That is why proportionality is extremely important, especially among young people. People say that electoral distortion is much too great and even ridiculous, and that the important thing is to have a mixed-member or other type of proportional system, if we are moving away from the majority system at all costs.

There is another very important issue. It would be interesting to establish regional districts in every province, one for Gaspésie, for example, another from Montreal, another for Montérégie, and so on, where the number of seats would be proportional to the population, or there would be provincial districts.

You will say that the problem, in that case, would be that MPs would not have a local base or be representative in their area. We could arrange for MPs to be mobile across the province and their region, or we could establish a mixed system in which an MP would be assigned to a region and another would be—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, we have heard more or less the same idea on the number of occasions during our tour. So you want a certain proportional regional representation.

Now I must turn the floor over to Mr. Gagnon.

I would ask Stephen Scott to step up to microphone No. 2.

Mr. Gagnon, go ahead.

[William Gagnon, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Scarpaleggia.

I want to thank the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.

Thank you very much for your work and devotion on this very important issue.

I'm William Gagnon. I sit on the federal council of the Young Greens of Canada and I represent Concordia University Young Greens.

On September 19, we organized a round table on electoral reform at Concordia University, a partnership between the Young Greens of McGill University and the Fair Vote Canada group of Montreal. The four participants were: Antony Hodgson, from Fair Vote Canada in British Columbia; Krzysztof Majewski, from Fair Vote Canada; Henry Milner, from the Canada Research Chair in Electoral Studies of the University of Montreal; and Daniel Green, deputy leader of the Green Party of Canada.

In addition to the live audience, there were about 1,000 live stream social media viewings. The discussions were very heated. Based on the opinions of the participants present, we drew five conclusions, which I will share with you.

The first is as follows.

Yes to a proportional voting system in which the number of parliamentary seats assigned to each party matches the proportion of popular votes received by each party.

The second conclusion is that a referendum could cause more confusion among the electorate in addition to extending the reform process and constituting a significant taxpayer expense.

Third, a consensus-based decision-making voting system is preferred as it forces everyone to work together as in coalitions rather than single parties.

Fourth, a ranked ballot might be a false solution if not coupled with proportional representation.

There is also the fact that this is a disguised version of the winner takes all system.

Fifth, the mixed-member proportional representation system was supported by the majority of participants and viewers.

Please make effective use of the power that is in your hands to leave a very positive mark on the history of Canada.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gagnon.

I would invite Katie Thomson to step up to microphone No. 1.

Go ahead, Mr. Scott.

[Steven Scott]

I would just like to say first that I was very impressed with Ruth Dassonville's presentation. It was very well done. I was sort of sitting on the fence about that but she convinced me it's a good idea. However, unless we actually change the system as well, I don't think it's going to be much good. The fact is, the current system does depress the vote. I know it's hard. There are no [Inaudible—Editor] studies on this, but I think that's just sort of a veil of obscuration. It's quite clear that if you don't think your vote is going to count, why bother to vote. Why bother doing something if you don't think it's going to have any result? Unless you change the system, you may still go out and vote, but it doesn't give much incentive to convince other people of a position or to do anything.

When I was young, I was very informed on politics. It wasn't a question of whether I was informed. There just wasn't a choice for me. This was 35 years ago. Back then, my group of friends and I were quite well aware of greenhouse gases. This was around 1980. Perhaps we wouldn't be in the mess we are in right now if we had had a different system—just on that one point.

In regards to other systems like ranked balloting, the majority of people are centrist. That's just what defines where the centre is. Clearly, to go towards ranked balloting is going to favour the most centrist party, which in this case is the Liberals. It would be a hard job selling this to anybody else. It's a well-known fact that usually most people who vote NDP would rather have the Liberals than the Conservatives, and most Conservatives would probably rather have the Liberals than the NDP. It's simple. You don't need to go through [Inaudible—Editor]. There would be different strategies.

With regard to a referendum, I'd say there are three problems with it. One is information. I went through the Ontario referendum system. People were not well enough informed in the first place. They had to actually put on the ballot definitions of what the systems were, because most people didn't really understand what they were voting for.

Also, it favours centrist parties because the system right now [Inaudible—Editor] centrist. It favours them because most people are sort of happy with the system because they are centrist.

I think it's very hard to get people to change to another system. It's always an uphill battle.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We've heard that, yes.

Diallo Amara, step up to microphone No. 2, please.

Katie Thomson.

[Katie Thomson, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for coming here. I'm really excited to get to talk to you all.

My name is Katie, as you mentioned. I spent two summers working on Parliament Hill as a tour guide so I have a lot of experience explaining the electoral system to everyone.

I'd like to talk about three things today that are important to me. I want to inform you of something that is near and dear to my heart. The three main points are about engagement, diversity and collaboration.

First of all, in my experience, in speaking with people in an educational setting in general, and specifically in talking to people about the electoral system, people are really engaged if they feel that what they say matters and if they feel that they can participate. I feel that people don't really understand how our electoral system works, which is another matter entirely. People feel that they can make a difference if they see that their vote is reflected in the composition of the House of Commons. Really, the easiest way to do this is with a proportional system. If you can take the popular vote and say, “Look, the popular vote looks like this, and the House of Commons looks like this,” that makes people feel like they are making a difference. That's one reason I believe a proportional system is really important.

Second, I'm sure you've had many witnesses who have given you lots of data about how a proportional system better reflects the diversity of Canadians. I'd just like to reiterate that. I've travelled a lot across Canada. I've lived in a lot of different areas. My parents actually live in Elizabeth May's riding, so that's very exciting. Going back to something that we touched on earlier today, I think the importance of regional representation is not to be underestimated because Canada is so big. It's huge. You know because you've travelled across it. It's really important for people to feel that they have someone who goes to Ottawa and represents them in Ottawa, because Ottawa is really a long way away from a lot of places in Canada.

Finally, I'd like to touch on collaboration. I think, as was mentioned earlier today, that there is a fear of the word “coalition” in government. I'd like to remind everyone that Canada was formed from a coalition between Sir John A. Macdonald and George-Étienne Cartier. The Great Coalition was what brought Canada together, so we really shouldn't be afraid of it. I think, as Dr. Tremblay said, multipartisanship is really crucial, and that's what will allow us to make better decisions for the country.

If we want laws that represent all Canadians, we first need to have a House of Commons that represents all Canadians. I support a mixed member proportional system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I ask Jean-Philippe Fournier to step up to microphone No. 1, please.

Go ahead, Mr. Amara.

[Diallo Amara, As an Individual]

My name is Diallo Amara. I am the Green Party candidate for the district of Outremont.

I was fortunate to take part in the proportional voting citizen awareness campaign. At first I thought it might work, but today I see it is actually working. The groundwork that has been done is working well. I want to thank the citizens who had the courage to take part in the awareness campaign. I hope it works out.

I have no further comments. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Is Jean-Philippe Fournier here? Are you Mr. Fournier?

[Pierre Labrèche, As an Individual]

No, I am Mr. Labrèche.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Then I ask Resham Singh to take microphone No. 1.

Mr. Labrèche, go ahead, please.

[Pierre Labrèche]

Good evening. I am an ordinary citizen and I would like to propose a voting method that would help solve a number of problems in our electoral system.

I am well aware that the two minutes I have are not enough to explain it to you clearly, but I will try my best in the time allotted to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You may submit a brief to us.

[Pierre Labrèche]

Yes, that is what I will do.

In fact, I am going to list the principles I believe in.

I believe that fair representation based on the proportion of ballots cast is very important for all districts and every region.

Furthermore, all citizens must feel that their vote counts, that their ballot can help elect a candidate who reflects their own choices.

The voting system must be easy to implement and must not cause any delays associated with the conduct of a first round, a second round and so on.

The other important factor is that the candidate who carries the district should be elected. I do not think it would be normal for a person who has not carried the district to be elected as a result of the number of votes in a region.

We must prevent the candidate with the largest number of votes from winning where a majority of voters have voted for other candidates. For example, if offered the choice between black and white, some people will vote for white and others for pale grey or black, supposing there are no votes for dark grey. As a result of the distribution of votes, the black candidate wins because he has received the most votes.

I believe the system I am proposing could solve all these problems.

The territory of the districts should be doubled so that we do not double the number of seats in the House of Commons. Half of candidates would aspire to the position of MP and the other half to the position of regional representative. In the election, each party would nominate a pair of candidates in each district, one for the position of MP, the other for the regional vote. At the time of the election, voters would indicate their choice for the party, and both party candidates would receive votes. In fact, voters would cast one vote for their first choice and a second vote for their second. It would be a kind of preferential system, but with only two choices, which would vastly simplify the electoral system. I propose that a quarter of a point be assigned to the second-choice candidate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

With a slight variation, your system resembles systems that have been presented to us and that have undergone our analysis. I suggest you present it to us in writing.

[Pierre Labrèche]

I can leave you a copy of my presentation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

What would be better is for you to email it to us at the committee's address. Your presentation will be translated and posted to the website.

[Pierre Labrèche]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Before turning the floor over to Mr. Singh, I invite Fred Bild to take microphone No. 2.

Mr. Singh, you have the floor.

[Resham Singh, As an Individual]

Members of the committee and members of the public, my name is Resham Singh. Thank you for giving me a chance to speak.

I heard arguments from both sides of the issue this evening, the present system and the PR system that the committee is proposing.

At the end of the day, it's going to be a democracy. In a democracy, if there are 11 members on a committee, they may have to decide on an issue. There may be 10 members on one side of the issue, and one member on the other side, and if those 10 members are wrong and only one member is right, we may have a situation as was the case regarding the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

This happens in all committees and at all levels. I have to admit that. How do we settle this fundamental drawback in democracy?

Suppose there are 11 members on the committee.