Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2016

[Kathrin Luthi, As an Individual]

Good evening, members of the committee and all the audience members as well. It's a pleasure to be here this evening and to be allowed to exercise our democratic vote to speak freely.

It's clear by the discussion that what I'm going to say is nothing new. I don't know that much about politics, but it's obvious that we need a new electoral system that is more democratic than the first-past-the-post system that we have today and which would translate into some form of proportional representation. I'm not an expert. I've been to some information evenings, and it seems to me that mixed member proportional makes a lot of sense. As well, to me, the STV was very difficult to understand, and I don't consider myself a dumb person. I think it's important that voters understand what's happening, and the vote will be more meaningful that way.

Canadians obviously want to feel that their votes count, so it's unfair under our current voting system that a party that receives less than 50% of the votes can hold 100% of the power in Parliament. Our Parliament should reflect our diversity. Every vote should have equal value. I don't like the fact that votes in swing ridings have more value than votes in so-called safe ridings. I do like the fact that voter turnout is generally higher in countries that have proportional representation. The point was made by many here tonight that it's important to engage the public, inform the public, educate, so that people will be wanting to come out and give their opinion. I like the fact that countries with proportional voting systems have a higher number of female and visible minority legislators.

Finally, countries with proportional representation electoral systems have parties that work together for the good of the country and its citizens. That's the coalition that has been brought up a few times this evening.

I think it could really make Canada more democratic if we adopt some form of proportional representation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Sidney Klein, please go to mike number two.

Go ahead, Ms. Sollazzo.

[Rhoda Sollazzo, As an Individual]

Thank you so much for this opportunity. I just want to say, first of all, that I don't feel we have a voter turnout problem. I think that's an easy measurement for civic engagement, and we have a civic engagement problem, but I don't think it's the best measure. I just want to say that in the past six months I've had more opportunities to engage with the political system, and with my local MP, and with you, than I have had in the previous eight years, so I think that's the place to start.

I want to say just broad things that I know have been said before, but I figure this is my vote, and I will submit a brief with more specifics. I'm a mathematician, so I can't resist getting into the details.

As many people here, I really think that whatever we switch to should be a proportional representation system. I don't think it's a coincidence that's the common view here, but it's probably not the common view out in the world, because it takes some time to wrestle with and to come to that conclusion. It did for me.

I have voted strategically my whole life. I didn't like it, but it's what I felt I had to do. At first blush, a ranked system seems okay, because then at least I can say what I feel, but at the end of the day that's not enough. I want everyone's first choice to matter. Ultimately, what people have to wrestle with, I think, is that's what's more fair, and we all come to the same conclusion. If I live in a society where 60% of the people disagree with me, I want that to be represented, even if it's not my favourite thing. That's what collaboration is. That's what living in a society is. It's understanding differences between people and having that represented fairly. I really think that's the most crucial point. I could get into detail about different systems, but that's not as important as that value.

I also want to say that because it takes some time to think those things through and come to those conclusions, and it seems like everyone who has thought about it in the room has mostly come to that conclusion, that's why I think a referendum is not a great idea. But I do like the idea of changing the system and then having a referendum afterwards on whether or not to keep that system.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

I invite Alain Charbonneau to step up to microphone No. 1.

Mr. Klein, you have the floor.

[Sidney Klein, As an Individual]

At the risk of sounding a bit arrogant, I don't think this is very complex. If you have simply one alternative expressed on the ballot, which is mandatory for it not to be considered a spoiled ballot, the issue would be resolved. My MP said that Justin Trudeau was leaning toward or was sympathetic to having, if there were five people on the ballot, that voters should list their second, third, fourth, and fifth choice, but it was mentioned on election night by someone that this would allow for a fringe party to get involved and have representation that was not intended. In other words, if Albertans had just voted for some guy who's really crazy because they don't want to vote for NDPers or Liberals as even a second choice, that could create something unintended, whereas if it's Elizabeth May or the NDP or Liberals, at least it would be reasonable.

Some of the things I've heard have nothing to do with democracy, such as paying people to vote, or making it mandatory, or anything like that. What is necessary is for the MPs to actually know the issues. Then people vote. But they don't feel that the MPs know the issues.

If I were to say something to Elizabeth May, who has received an 80-page document multiple times, we have a couple of issues that are unfolding right now. Canada has no gold, and Canada is the only country that is not engaged in QE. So we're very close—much closer than people realize—to losing the sovereignty of our currency, and if you lose that, you are no longer sovereign.

You may think that this is not today's issue, but it is, because that's why people won't vote. Here in Quebec, people are aware of the issues, and when they don't show up, it's because they don't feel that people are representing the issues. That's where democracy starts: the MPs actually knowing the issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes. That's why we have these committees, because there are many issues that come across the floor of the House and they're very complex. So we create committees of about 10 or 12 members and we bring in witnesses, and sometimes we hear from the public. That's how all MPs, really, build their knowledge base, and that builds confidence, as you say, if citizens have felt that their elected representatives weren't well-versed on the issues.

[Sidney Klein]

I appreciate that, and I don't mean to be cynical, but they're typically Canadian-sounding flowery words. But I'm talking about something that's happening right now. You consider it—and I saw your reaction—as a fringe issue when I say we have no gold and consider that the rest of the world has. It's powering into it; it's not an accident. It was an intent to merge our currencies. There's a reason that everybody in the world has a ton of quantitative easing and Canada has none. We are basically paying taxes to the Americans, and we don't have anybody in government who is even aware of these issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm sure you're sympathetic to the fact that there are limits to our mandate.

[Sidney Klein]

Fine. It's simple: one alternative party, and then it's gone. Alberta will have 12 to 14 seats go non-Conservative right away.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Proportional or majoritarian?

[Sidney Klein]

What you have right then is, if you don't have plurality in a particular riding—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

But would you prefer proportional? That's what we're trying to gauge.

[Sidney Klein]

Obviously there can still be a minority government, but at least we'll be at 43% or 44%. The idea is, very simply, that if you don't have a plurality, you only maintain the top two—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Fair enough. Mr. Klein, I'm going to have to go to Mr. Charbonneau.

[Sidney Klein]

I'm going to clarify for you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please, if you could do it in writing, we have the—

[Sidney Klein]

I'll do it five seconds. The top two parties remain, and all the other parties, second choices, are split up among them and it's over. It's very simple.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, thank you.

Alain Marois, take microphone No. 2, please.

Mr. Charbonneau, you have the floor.

[Alain Charbonneau, As an Individual]

Good evening.

Thanks to all those who have come here this evening. Citizens are the most important people.

I am in favour of a mixed-member proportional system, as are most people here. Citizens would first vote for a local representative. Then there would be a regional vote that could subsequently be divided. Whether this involves a list established by the parties, an open or closed list, no matter, I do not see a major difference. The election of regional representatives would guarantee gender equality while taking the region's demographics into consideration.

So there would be a local vote and a regional vote, which would reflect regional parity and demographics. I think this is the fairest system.

There was some talk about mandatory voting. Personally, I kind of lean that way. I think if something is left optional, then there's less engagement. If you have to do something, then you kind of have to get involved.

I would also encourage that this be put together with a form of civic education of some kind. We used to have it when I was in elementary school and at the beginning of high school. We don't have it anymore. I think maybe a civic education system, mixed in with mandatory voting, would be a good thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We heard a lot about that, about the need for good civics education. I believe one of Dr. Dassonville's points was that if you had mandatory voting, it would change the dynamic.

[Alain Charbonneau]

Exactly. Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Serafino Fabrizi, please go to mike one.

Mr. Marois, you have the floor.

[Alain Marois, As an Individual]

Good evening, members of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.

I am speaking to you this evening in my capacity as vice-president of the Fédération autonome de l'enseignement, which represents 34,000 teachers from school boards in six regions of Quebec.

Since our federation is currently considering the issue of electoral reform, we have not presented an official opinion to the committee. However, we have adopted some basic positions.

A year and a half ago, we conducted a broad-based consultation of our 34,000 members in which several questions were asked on societal issues, including one on a potential reform of the electoral system and democratic life that generated the highest response rate. Some 63% of our members called for the establishment of a proportional voting system to reflect all votes cast by the population.

Among all the issues, including social programs and the fight against poverty, electoral reform drew the most interest among our members. Less than 5% of them said they opposed it. They also had an opportunity to express their opposition to the choices that were proposed to them.

Mandatory voting did not draw the same amount of interest. It ranked seventh. In fact, 27% of people voted against that choice.

The option to allow Canadians to start voting at the age of 16 ranked even lower, in ninth position.

In other words, the most important thing for our members is really to change the system of representation so that every vote counts.

The second choice among our members is a question I have not heard discussed as part of your proceedings. It is what is called the recall process in the United States. That was very important for our members.

As has often been repeated here—I even heard it this afternoon—it is very important to maintain a relationship with one's MP. If it is so important, perhaps it should be taken into consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We will take note of that, Mr. Marois, although it is not part of our mandate.

Sylvie Boulianne, please step up to microphone No. 2.

Mr. Fabrizi, you have the floor.

[Serafino Fabrizi, As an Individual]

Good evening, members of the committee.

I dare hope that, at the conclusion of these proceedings, two possibilities will be clearly ruled out: the present system and the fully proportional system.

As you may guess from my name, I am of Italian extraction. If you follow Italian politics, you may know that, as a result of that system, there have been more governments than years since the second world war. The situation in Israel is very interesting too.

The mixed system is very interesting. The perfect system does exist, but it dates back a long time, to Greece, Athens and the agora. Everyone assembled and made decisions together. Given the current population, however, it would unfortunately be impossible to apply it.

However, I expect your committee will submit simulations to us to illustrate the various ways of operating the proportional system. We must absolutely be able to see what it looks like.

I have heard people speak out against the idea of a coalition. However, a coalition that represents 60% or 70% of the population is nevertheless preferable to a single party that manages to impose its views even though it represents only 30% of the people. It also prevents excesses. I believe we have managed to avoid them every time we have had coalition governments. The problem is that they do not last long in our present system.

I especially expect that your committee will recommend an obligation of result, not to your parties, but to the population. It is the population that elects you. You therefore have an obligation to establish and present to us a system that will represent the population as a whole, not your parties. This is one opportunity, but there will not be 10 of them. I expect everyone to work together to come up with that result. If we fail in our attempt, this kind of opportunity will probably not arise again for a very long time. There has to be an open discussion. Show us simulations that demonstrate what the various systems can do.

There are a host of ways to do things. There could even be a two-round election for the section in each of the districts, and a proportional election at the regional level. We have to ensure that things work well and basically that people can take part in electoral life.