Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2016

[Mireille Tremblay]

I don't think it would increase strategic voting.

However, the voters' problem is that they have to boil their decision down to a single x, which has to represent the party, the MP and the prime minister. So there is a decrease that means that, obviously, voters wonder what is motivating them to put an x in one box rather than another. It's either because they like the look of the MP for their ridings or because they like the look of the various party candidates nationally.

I find the whole issue of the debate on strategic voting strange because it can't be ruled out from an electoral approach until we have a greater variety of options, meaning a referendum or a 150-question survey.

The electoral process itself is a reduction process, and we can't rule out all strategy. I find the whole debate on strategic voting intriguing because I'm not sure we can rule out strategic voting completely. It seems to me that it's one of the rights of citizens.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much.

I have one last question. Even if we proposed another system, an alternative to the current system, would your proposal on the referendum stand?

[Mireille Tremblay]

Yes, absolutely.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Okay.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. DeCourcey.

Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I want to begin my questions with Dr. Dassonville. You'd mentioned that the differences in voter turnout between obligatory voting and volunteer voting is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 85% and 63%, respectively. Even in compulsory voting, there's still about 15% who don't vote. Do we have any indication on demographics of that 15%? Are they people with disabilities? Are they people with lower incomes? What's the significance of that 15%?

[Ruth Dassonville]

They would have fairly similar characteristics to those who are not turning out now, but you'd just have a smaller number of them demographically.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Is there a risk that we're double penalizing someone? Not only are they feeling disenfranchised with the system, but now we're disenfranchising them financially by levying a fine, even if it is only $20. It's symbolic in nature and it seems like we're doubly punishing someone who not only feels disenfranchised with the system, but who feels doubly disenfranchised now with the monetary fine.

[Ruth Dassonville]

If that would be the case, then we would clearly see that dissatisfaction with democracy, and dissatisfaction with politics would be more pronounced in compulsory voting countries, which is not the case.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I know you do have some connection with Belgium. Do you have any comments on how the Belgian system deals with regional issues and the language issues in Belgium, and the impact the electoral system in Belgium has on regional issues and linguistic issues, as well?

[Ruth Dassonville]

I'm not sure the electoral system.... We have a proportional electoral system, but all ridings are provincial. As a consequence, it's mostly in unilingual districts where you're voting people in. It makes sure that representation is proportional in Parliament, and then there are additional rules that are part of the constitution and help make sure that all linguistic groups are well represented. There are veto powers at different stages in law-making to make sure that a linguistic minority still can have an important impact, even though they're a minority.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you.

Dr. Tremblay, you made an interesting comment in your opening remarks about the concerns with a party list, the concerns with giving that power to political parties. Would you mind elaborating on that? What's your major concern with having political parties draw up a list in different types of systems? Where does your concern rest with that?

[Mireille Tremblay]

It risks creating a system of apparatchiks, power and collusion that ends up favouring friends or the group. The MP becomes accountable to the party. If the MP was designated because he is a list member, his allegiance or accountability will tend to be toward the party.

The parties do extremely important work to develop platforms based on certain values that fracture society between the left and the right. They mobilize people, develop and support dialogue. They train citizens and engage in political socialization. It's their job for civil society. Afterwards, however, they have to separate themselves from the government. They developed the platform, but they must not control the government. That seems dangerous to me.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I know your research background is in citizen democratic engagement. Going forward, this committee will be making a recommendation at some point. On December 1 the report will be tabled. When a proposal is made, what type of engagement with the population do you think will be necessary to go beyond that?

[Mireille Tremblay]

Today we may regret that the social fabric and civil society in both Quebec and Canada have crumbled because Quebec community organizations and many institutions of civil society have lost their ability to support the public participation.

I am trying to determine why people take part in the democratic process. We must help people in the multicultural communities, persons with disabilities, and those living in poverty to get involved in the participatory process. I will not cite the factors that influence involvement in that process, but I will say that men participate in it more than women. Their cohorts, age groups, economic status and level of education are other factors that have an impact. Educated people participate more in the political process in all its forms.

There is another important factor for the communities, and that is political effectiveness. If I feel politically effective, I will participate more. Between elections, we should care about the dialogue in the community and about the strength of civil society to support that dialogue. That is what your committee is doing. Many associations in civil society are taking part in the debate. I think that is important. We have to help people develop their political effectiveness.

There are two types of political effectiveness for a person with disabilities. First of all, there is the way people view their own citizenship skills. They may think they are not effective because they do not have the necessary skills. Persons with disabilities may also doubt that people like them will be heard. Similarly, the voices of people on welfare, people in situations of poverty, and persons with disabilities do not make themselves heard. Consequently, those people will not get up and go vote or take part in the political process.

We must have a policy to support participation by the population, including the most vulnerable, and that includes people from the ethnic communities.

When people come here as immigrants or refugees, the first thing that is important for them is to protect their person from mistreatment and violence. The second thing is to find a job. That is what immigrants say. If I ask them what their rights are, they will tell me that their political rights are not the first thing they think of. As for women, they have other obligations.

We must support the process of developing citizenship skills. That requires a citizen participation and education support policy. The Chief Electoral Officer has previously made some proposals. We have to look at the real problem and understand why people participate or not. If no one hears them, they do not understand why they would get up and go vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Sahota, go ahead, please.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

My question is along those lines, Professor Tremblay. We want to encourage voter participation. We want to encourage immigrant populations and women to engage in politics and to perhaps run for politics. I'm not quite sure how this proposed system does that.

We did have a similar system presented before, and at first glance I was almost sold. I thought it was great, but there's something about the list system that I'm not fully convinced about yet. It seems as if the parties have too much power in that system. Perhaps it could be tweaked. We've seen a lot of proposals around that too.

With this one, the more I'm thinking about it, I like the fact that all the candidates have run in a riding and have run in an election. I like that aspect of it, but at the end of the day, when you have somebody who on the face of it has won, as my colleagues have mentioned, but who then doesn't end up winning, what does this do to the structure as a whole? Are we going to have good government as a result of this?

Being on this committee has been quite humbling. Most experts have told us that it's not about us, that it's not about the MPs, that it's all about the party. It doesn't really matter how good an MP you are or how good the people think you are, because that's not what people are voting for.

It may not be about me, but I can definitely say that I can look at my colleagues and say that not all MPs are alike. Not all MPs are created the same. I think we have a lot of brilliant minds among our government. At the end of the day, a government needs to select ministers, and some of those ministers had really close elections. Does that say they weren't a really great candidate? Also, some MPs ran in really safe ridings but perhaps aren't, let's say, at the level of some of the other MPs. I don't know how to put this—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Put it carefully.

[An hon. member]

Who are you talking about?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

It may be me. I'm just saying that we have to recognize that some people have—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

On this committee, we're all on the same level.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Some MPs are made for this job and maybe can contribute great things to a government. For others, maybe this job isn't made for them, and they realize that after some years.

Through this system, it seems so random. You may end up losing some of those who have really good potential and end up having all the people who were in safe seats winning—those who won by a greater margin—but there could be others who won and who are equally deserving. Explain that to me, because at the end of the day, I think citizens do want to see good potential in their government, as well as proportionality.

[Mireille Tremblay]

I think that pure proportional representation, with various ways of calculating and preserving the connection with a district, if possible, will change the entire dynamic of public participation. The reason is that we will have multipartite governance and all voters will be able to work more closely with elected members or with the people of their party, within the party.

How do we ensure we have competent MPs? Someone talked about political careers this afternoon. This is in effect a political career. It must be a political career, and that is part of the political socialization process.

I have skills as a voter. My party is ultimately what reflects the opinion I have on a particular issue or series of issues. However, my opinion may change as we begin to deliberate. For example, I do not hold the same position on the reform we are discussing here as on the Quebec reform in 2004.

The proportional system encourages us to develop our judgment and skills as citizens. The more candidates there are, the better. It is like in the Olympics. Canada won a considerable number of medals. Why? Because there is an infrastructure that enables people to develop skills. Not everyone is required to be an MP, and not everyone is required to be prime minister, but everyone should engage in politics.

We do not have that culture of politics and political engagement. That is what determines our skills as citizens, first of all. Then we can have a career in politics, join a party, become MPs, or support a campaign. There is a whole chain of citizenship skills that makes the system operate efficiently, and the proportional system contributes to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

We've had this criticism that women oftentimes run in ridings that are not winnable. How does this system address that? I feel that even less women would run. Things are up in the air.