Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Trudel.

I'd like to thank all the participants in our panel. We've very much appreciated the views you've shared with us this afternoon. We are now going to move on to the citizen engagement portion. You're welcome to stay if you like or leave if you have other commitments. Once again, I'd like to thank you for your contribution today.

I would now invite Bryan Lee and Marie Claude Bertrand to proceed to a microphone.

Mr. Lee, the floor is yours.

[Bryan Lee, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I'd like to start by saying that Canada's democratic system is one of the most stable and respected in the world today.

Why fix something that isn't broken? This is why I favour the current first-past-the-post system, which is simple and effective.

Let me be very clear that it is a pure display of arrogance for a single political party which has gains in changing the political system to think they know what's best for Canadians. Well, Canadians know what's best for Canadians. These consultations are great for contributing to listening to what some Canadians have to say on our established electoral system, but any changes made by elites that come as a result of this should only be sealed off with a nationwide referendum. Contrary to what the government in power thinks, Canadians are smart enough to say yes or no to changing the way we vote for our representatives.

The Minister of Democratic Institutions believes it's necessary to choose between consultations and a referendum. The reality is both are possible. The majority of Canadians are in favour of a referendum on electoral reform. The electoral system affects all Canadians. It goes without saying, then, that such a major change should not be decided by a single political party, which does not have a mandate to make the change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I would invite Mr. Robert McDonald to go to mike one.

Ms. Bertrand, you may go ahead.

[Marie Claude Bertrand, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon everyone.

As a Canadian citizen, my heart skipped a beat when I heard Mr. Trudeau say, during the last election campaign, that he would change the voting system. That was the most important election issue to me. I hope the committee will arrive at a solution that makes all Quebecers and Canadians feel that their voice has been heard.

To regain the confidence of Canadians, politicians should begin by demonstrating some consistency when it comes to the institutions that reflect our inherent values. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that everyone is entitled to the same protections and benefits under the law, without any discrimination. I want my vote to carry some weight and to matter. That is why I am in favour of a proportional representation system.

Under such a system, the strongest isn't the winner. To my mind, what's important is to ensure that a multitude of diverse values can be expressed within society. That combined set of values guides how we approach legislation, policies, and emerging issues. As I see it, it's fundamental.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Bertrand.

[Marie Claude Bertrand]

My two minutes are already up?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, and you even went over time. Regardless, you expressed yourself succinctly and clearly.

Thank you.

I now invite Jacinthe Villeneuve to proceed to the microphone.

Mr. McDonald, you have the floor.

[Robert McDonald, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For me, the keys are that all our country's diversity, both from one region to another and within those regions, be reflected in our political institutions and that, in our public debates, all points of view be accepted proportionally to the number of people who subscribe to them.

I have always been active in politics but I do not know if I will have sufficient energy and courage to continue to be active if we do not adopt a proportional voting system. I am not the only one to be discouraged. We are fed up with wasting our votes and working as hard as we do during the election campaigns, all in vain. Most of the time, our votes elect no one. That is unacceptable. Without proportionality, there will be no reform.

My heart wavers between the single transferable vote system and the mixed-member proportional system. At the moment, I am leaning towards the mixed-member proportional system, but with certain conditions. First, I would like us to be able to vote for a local member of Parliament using a preferential system. Second, I would like us to vote for the party of our choice, which would allow for the election of regional members to the compensatory seats. It would not be done by province, except in the case of small ones, but by regions inside the provinces. In that way, the representation would be equally regional and national, and it would reflect the proportion of the votes won.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Selim Totah, please come to the microphone.

Ms. Villeneuve, the floor is yours.

[Jacinthe Villeneuve, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

I myself support a reform in the voting system.

Canada has a population of over 36 million. Some people live in cities and others in regions in rural or urban communities. Everyone has different concerns. Farmers do not think in the same way as financial bigwigs. I feel that it is important that everyone's voice be heard.

I support a reform in the voting system so that each vote should count and should affect the result. At the moment, as I see it, too many votes go into the garbage. For example, if I decide to vote for the Green Party, I know full well that, basically, my vote will be worth nothing.

We also have to put an end to false majorities. At the moment, some governments have a majority while winning only a minority of the votes cast. That allows the government to shut things down. For example, the current Liberal government received 39.5% of the vote, but it is able to shut things down. I am not sure if you are aware of this, but 39.5% is only a minority of those who voted.

I also favour reform because it would allow us to have women represented in a greater proportion. At the moment, the rate is 26%. In my opinion, that just does not do because the population is made up of 50% women, after all.

It would also allow certain minorities to be represented. I am not sure whether you know this, but 20.6% of Canadians were born elsewhere. It is important for them to be represented as well.

Finally, we have to be able to vote according to our convictions and not to get rid of a party. In the last elections, in my opinion, a lot of people voted to kick the Conservatives out and did not vote according to their convictions. It is important to vote for what one really believes, and not in order to get rid of a party.

In addition, some incentives would probably succeed in increasing the turnout rate. In 2015, it was 68.5%, but it has previously been as low as 58.8%. It is important for all Canadians to take part in an election.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Ms. Villeneuve.

Mr. Totah, you have the floor.

I invite Mr. Douglas Jack to go to microphone 2, please.

Go ahead, Mr. Totah.

[Selim Totah, As an Individual]

Thank you for allowing us to speak, Mr. Chair.

I would like to bring up something that has not been said. What is the goal of all these changes? If you do not tell us the exact goal of the changes, except to repeat that there will be proportionality, it is not enough. The main goal is to allow the government to make decisions for the good of the community.

First of all, there has been no mention at all of the elderly, despite the fact that statistics show that the number of elderly people will be greatly increasing in the coming years.

In addition, the disparity in salary from one person to another has not been mentioned. The goal of all these decisions is to make changes by establishing a proportional voting system or by some other method that you are aware of.

Far be it for me to take away from your responsibilities, as has already been said. But you have an elephant in front of you, and people are in the process of deciding what the elephant is for and what it means. The blind, or those in the dark, are going to give you different answers. What you most want to do is to reach a goal. Today, despite all the changes that are being suggested, I have not heard what goal you want to reach.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, sir.

I invite Mr. Gerard Talbot to move to microphone 2.

Mr. Jack, you have the floor.

[Douglas Jack, As an Individual]

Hello there.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Here we are about 400 years into the colonization of Canada and we've never looked back and our history books say nothing about the first nation democracy that was here. It was a form of combined economic democracy, and it was a form that I would say was fractal. The reason that people here called this “kanata”, Canada, was that it's the word for “village” in Mohawk. Within the kanata were the multi-homes, des maisons longues, the pueblo, the village itself. All our indigenous ancestors from all around the world, Astérix et Obélix, lived in longhouse villages.

If we were to try to create participation for everyone, we would look at it not as centrally administered from Canada down, but from the bottom up, how it expresses itself. Seventy per cent of Canadians, actually 70% of the people of the world, live in multi-home dwellings. With the amount of damage that we have, unfortunately, in condominiums, in co-operatives, we don't have good investment into our multi-homes, so we have a degrading infrastructure. We're not using the imagination, the collective intelligence of people. In our workshops, in our workplaces, we don't have the participation of workers. We don't have the participation of people in our institutions.

The indigenous history here, the first nation history—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I think what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is that a more participatory kind of democracy that would hearken back maybe to the decision-making process of first nations would be healthy. Am I expressing the view properly?

[Douglas Jack]

Yes, pretty good. But colonialism came with violence—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes.

[Douglas Jack]

—the genocide of 100 million people in the Americas, as well as 100 million people in Africa, 100 million people in the Far East, 100 million people in the Middle East, and about 100 million in the last century.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

But I was correct in what—

[Douglas Jack]

The violence has removed us. We're in a climate of fear. We're in a climate of hierarchy and fear and oligarchical control. Who owns our media—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

But basically you're saying—

[Douglas Jack]

Hold on. Let me finish just one point.

Who owns our media? Who owns our finance? We have very centralized oligarchical control. We do not have a democracy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

But you believe a different electoral system would perhaps provide people with more influence over these institutions.

[Douglas Jack]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We must go now to Mr. Talbot, because we don't want to take away his right to speak.