Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2016

[Santiago Risso]

It is one solution among many. We have to start with the basics. How can we claim to be a democracy in 2016 when the government appoints senators, for example? That is a fundamental issue. That is why I stress civics education. Civics education is the foundation.

Even though it is not under federal jurisdiction, I do not understand why civics education is not part of school curricula. I come from Uruguay, which has a population of 3.5 million, and civics are taught in the third year of high school. I had a book that explained Uruguay's constitution. There were only two students out of 30 who were interested in the subject, but at least the whole class was familiar with our electoral system. That is the foundation.

If the government, all the parties, and the House of Commons want to promote democracy, the first step is to implement a voting system in which each person's vote counts.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Trudel, you said you have a prejudice against proportional representation. Can you explain why?

[Rémy Trudel]

I would like to add something. As we just discussed, proportional representation is not the only way to correct the situation. I think we need a process that could lead to proportional representation.

First we need to create institutions that give people the opportunity to express their opinions and to be considered, which is referred to as mandatory opinions. For example, the House of Commons could not begin discussion of a bill without the mandatory tabling of the opinion of a group representing the public or various public opinions.

We must work toward that kind of change rather than simply changing the current format. There are 338 MPs and it would not inherently be a bad thing to eliminate a hundred or so of you and then to use representatives of groups that represent various opinions. Yet this would not solve the problem of civic participation. We have to be innovative. We have to use online voting or online consultation. Online methods can be used to gather the views of our fellow Canadians from the various regions of the country. We have to use these new communication tools that are multiplying very quickly. We have to go much further than the current institutions that are caught in a rut, maintaining that proportional representation will solve matters. Let us make the expression of opinions through various channels mandatory to ensure that they are considered in the decision-making process. That is why I say that proportional representation cannot instantly resolve all the basic issues.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Pilon-Robitaille, you can use the remaining time to comment if you wish.

[Raphaël Pilon-Robitaille]

Of course we do not think that proportional representation is the answer to everything. Believing the opposite, however, would be willful blindness. It is one way to increase voter confidence in their elected officials. That said, proportional representation could increase the importance of more parties, which could motivate the various parties to improve in order to win voter confidence. It would be positive in that sense, but it is far from the only solution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. DeCourcey.

Please go ahead, Mr. Nater.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will start with questions for Mr. Pilon-Robitaille and Mr. Risso.

If I understood correctly, you are in favour of a closed list, Mr. Pilon-Robitaille.

Do you think that a closed list would be problematic, considering that less than 3% of the population belongs to a political party?

In your opinion, would it be problematic to give political parties that power considering that a small minority of the population belongs to a political party?

[Raphaël Pilon-Robitaille]

That is a question worth considering. As you just said about the current system, less than 3% of the population belongs to a political party. Closed lists are not a perfect solution, but they are a way of increasing stability. Moreover, if a candidate withdraws during their mandate, it is easier to call upon new elected officials.

I do not have the figures to back up this statement, but I think a proportional system—or a system with more proportional aspects—would increase the importance of more political parties, which in turn would increase public trust. Over time, one might expect confidence in public parties to increase, which would encourage more people to join political parties.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Risso, I want to follow up on something you said in response to a previous question about large geographic seats under a mixed member proportional system. I think you recommended a sixty-forty split, and Mr. Robitaille recommended a fifty-fifty. The exact percentage doesn't really concern us greatly.

You mentioned something about adding a list member to a geographic area. Do you recognize any challenges with that, of adding a list MP to a geographic area to have multiple representatives for a single geographic area, one being an elected member, in the traditional sense that we know and the other being added as a list MP, a list MLA or a list MNA to a geographic seat? Do you see a challenge with having two different types of MPs for a single geographic district?

[Santiago Risso]

I don't think it would be a challenge if the electoral boundaries were drawn fairly for everyone. It has been proven. Our brief provides the figures. I should say that our findings are based on the 2003 provincial election in Quebec. You can nevertheless see what the effect of similar lists might be. For our part, we do not see it as a challenge but rather as a necessity. I don't know ...

if I answered your question.

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

Yes.

Mr. Trudel, would you like to add anything?

[Rémy Trudel]

It bears repeating that the geographic area and the community area are extremely important to voters. We are in an environment in which the electoral boundaries were drawn on the basis of as many factors as possible and we belong to the same community. If we reduced the number of seats representing a geographic area, for example, that would of course produce some surprising results. If there was one MP for Rouyn-Noranda, Témiscamingue, Ungava, and so forth, they would represent an area about the size of France. Just because there is a problem does not mean we should not consider it. We can find solutions to such situations.

In view of the responsibility conferred on MPs who represent constituents in specific geographic areas, we have to add places for civic participation. We have to do that not just once a year, or once every three or four years. There have to be permanent mechanisms.

People want to participate if it is interesting or if the issues that are important to them are being discussed. Young people, such as those from the group with us here today, are interested in participating if the issues that concern them are being discussed. The same is true for the rest of the population. Would that bring us closer to a solution on proportional representation? It might help us, but I do not believe in that. I believe instead in developing mechanisms that would allow us to consult the wisdom of the people on an ongoing basis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Sahota, you have the floor.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

My first question is for Mr. Risso.

You and your colleague mentioned that your preference would be toward MMP with closed lists and no quotas. Am I correct about that?

[Santiago Risso]

No closed lists for us.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

No closed lists. Okay, sorry.

Mr. Pilon-Robitaille, I guess my question is for you. You had mentioned you wanted closed lists and no quotas, right?

[Raphaël Pilon-Robitaille]

Yes.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

With closed lists and not having quotas, do you think we would end up essentially with a more representative Parliament? Perhaps even moving away from that, we had a previous panel talk about increasing party power. Do you see that as something that would allow parties to have even more of a say as to who gets on the list, in what order they get on the list, and of what background or gender? You may think that the parties will make the right choice, but perhaps one day in the future they may not. It's left to their discretion. How do you feel about that?

[Raphaël Pilon-Robitaille]

If we started imposing quotas, where would we draw the line? That is the main issue. What is an acceptable quota? Having closed lists without quotas would definitely give political parties more power.

It is not a process that could be changed overnight, but if steps were taken to educate the public and increase their interest in politics, we believe that, over time, the lists would become more proportional and more representative of what the public really wants. For example, it is tricky for us to say that there has to be equal representation of men and women, that there have to be young people, and people from ethnocultural communities.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

What makes you think that would happen over time?

Yes, of course, in an ideal world we do feel that parties will tend to go toward what society looks like, if they want to get people out and voting. But there are many people who are saying they are disenfranchised, that they're not being reached out to. There's a large population that doesn't vote.

Do you think a system like that could turn people away perhaps? Then we would have that whole problem all over again of people saying they're not reflected on that list, they don't see themselves on it, so what's the point of going out and voting.

[Raphaël Pilon-Robitaille]

We must not simply change the electoral system and then ignore all the issues surrounding electoral participation. That is why we take a broader view encompassing a range of measure that would promote civic education and engagement. Over time, that would produce results that are more representative. Of course, if we simply adopt a voting method with closed lists, allowing the political parties to choose the names on the lists, that would not solve the problem for you. Rather there needs to be a range of solutions that can lead to change and to a more representative voting method.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

To be clear, would you say that without doing all of the other things that require work, education, and many other things, changing the system alone would not increase turnout and engagement among different populations?

[Raphaël Pilon-Robitaille]

I'm not prepared to say that it wouldn't make a difference, but changing the voting system alone wouldn't be sufficient.

That's why we always recommend adopting other measures, but a proportional system is still a solution that could improve things.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Trudel, my next question is for you. You mentioned a second-round voting system. Is that something that you would propose doing in Canada?

[Rémy Trudel]

Yes.

The reason I proposed it is that, when representativeness is at issue, people will consider whether a member represents the majority of people in his or her riding.

The simplest and most effective way to correct that is the two-round voting system, as can be seen in a number of countries where it's in place. That means that only the two top candidates from the first round go through to the second round and that the eventual winner represents at least 50% plus one of the population. That's the type of representative system I would suggest.