Evidence of meeting #35 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was young.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Essentially, would people be going back to the poll a second time around in this system?
3:55 p.m.
Guest Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
Yes.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Do you think we'd have a greater turnout if people had to not only vote once but twice? Is there another method by which we could get the majority results without having to ask people to vote twice?
3:55 p.m.
Guest Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
The experience of many countries—France being the most commonly cited—shows that's not a problem. Quite the contrary, voters turn out at the same rate, if not higher, for the second round because the choices are so clear at that point. For that reason, it's the system I prefer.
On the issue of representativeness, what matters is not the representativeness of the opinions expressed but, rather, the representativeness of the person chosen as the member.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the members of the public joining us to participate in this consultation.
I'd also like to thank the three witnesses before us today.
My first question is for Mr. Risso.
One of our committee's objectives is to reach out to as many Canadians as possible in search of as many opinions as possible. You pointed out the democratic process underlying the positions that your organization adopts. When someone representing 500 youth groups tells us that they favour a compensatory mixed member proportional system, that view carries a lot of weight because it represents a great many people who considered the issue. I believe the committee has a duty to look towards the future and to take young people into account, especially since we are talking about 500 youth groups.
You underscored the urgency of the decision we, as elected representatives, have to make. Other witnesses have told us that opportunities for electoral reform are rather rare in our democratic system
You spoke of the importance of seizing this opportunity to achieve parity, discussing gender parity. Your brief also mentions equality for cultural communities. As you said, our voting system is one way to achieve that equality.
You talked about incentives as well. You should be in favour of the bill our colleague Kennedy Stewart just introduced. The bill seeks to introduce incentives widely agreed upon by women's groups. They gave the issue particular consideration, specifically Groupe Femmes, Politique et Démocratie, here in Quebec, which supports the measure.
This is an excellent opportunity to promote gender parity, given that women make up just 26% of MPs in the House of Commons. That puts us in 64th place globally, far from an enviable position. Do you see this as an opportunity for cultural communities as well?
4 p.m.
President, Forum jeunesse de l'Île de Montréal
It's actually similar to what we are proposing in terms of gender parity. Some type of requirement would be necessary in order to achieve that parity. That could involve the introduction of alternating male-female candidates on the compensatory list. Clearly, a requirement based on a similar alternating principle could be established to improve the ethnocultural balance as well.
4 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Pilon-Robitaille, what you're proposing is based on a democratic process. Anyone who's gone to a Quebec CEGEP indeed knows that very long general assemblies can take place leading up to a result like this. You represent the opinion of 65,000 students from 22 associations across the province of Quebec. When you tell us, then, that you support a compensatory mixed member proportional system, we should consider that the opinion of 65,000 students.
Earlier today, we discussed low turnout among youth at election time. One witness told us that the last federal election was the exception that proved the rule. The fact remains that 42% of young people didn't vote. The Institut du Nouveau Monde even referred to generational suicide in describing voter turnout among 18- to 34-year-olds.
A number of factors are to blame for the fact that voter turnout is lower among young people than average Canadians. Regardless, do you think reforming the voting system could encourage more youth to vote?
4 p.m.
Coordinator in Sociopolitical Affairs and Research, Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec
We believe reforming the voting system will encourage elected officials to take all segments of the population into account, including young people. As it stands, political parties don't have to reach out to youth in order to get elected. To some extent, then, young people are disregarded. As we see it, this is really a way to engage young people in politics.
I'd like to take a moment, if I may, to discuss incentives that could encourage more young people to vote. Polling stations could be set up on CEGEP and university campuses. In fact, some were during the last federal election, and the measure met with some success. We believe such measures can really go a long way towards encouraging youth to vote because they make it easier to do so.
Electronic voting is something else we talked about. It's another worthwhile measure, in our view. The development of these measures would require proper consideration, and they would have to fit into a broader reform. In short, however, I do believe that reforming the voting system could improve voter turnout among youth.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I appreciate all of you being here to share your perspective with us.
One thing that has been pretty clear.... Throughout the hearings we've had, whether it be from members of the public, whom we'll have a chance to hear from shortly, or experts and academics such as you, we've heard support for a variety of different systems. We've heard a number of arguments for and against different systems. The one thing that is almost unanimous, if not unanimous, is that there is no perfect system. All systems have their trade-offs. There are arguments for and against, and there are negatives and positives to each of the systems.
I know two of you are advocating for some form of PR. With regard to PR, we've heard about some of the issues, such as unstable governments, fragmented electorates, increases in riding size, and losses of local representation. Mr. Trudel, you talked about that one in particular, that loss of direct accountability. Sometimes the ballots can be more complex, and there are some issues around the transparency of how the votes are counted and therefore how the representative is determined. Those are some of the negatives we hear.
Mr. Risso and Mr. Robitaille, you both laid out well some of the arguments for PR as well.
Mr. Trudel, you talked a fair bit about the concern with the geographic changes that would come with a PR system, because that's one of the choices that have to be made in going to a system where you have some list MPs. You either have to increase the number of seats or you have to increase the size of the ridings.
Although that may not necessarily be an issue here in Montreal, it certainly is an issue when you get to some of your northern ridings. I can speak from my perspective. I represent a central Alberta riding, not even a northern riding, right in the middle of the province, with some suburban area and some rural area. Although it shrank because of population growth in a couple of the larger communities, prior to the last election it was about 28,000 square kilometres in size. That's not even a northern riding. Some of the northern ridings are upwards of 100,000 square kilometres.
It becomes a real issue when you start to shrink the number of seats, because you start to have some very large ridings that can be very difficult to represent. I won't get into that in any more detail.
Mr. Trudel, I would like to talk about two other aspects. One of them is one of the arguments against the PR system, and I would like your thoughts on it. The other one is one of the arguments often made for it, and I would like to get your thoughts on that. One is the idea of the party list. Does that take some of the accountability away from the voter and put it more into the hands of the political party? The other is the idea that it can reduce strategic voting. I would argue that strategic voting would occur under any kind of system. There are just different types of strategic voting.
What would be your thoughts on those two questions?
4:05 p.m.
Guest Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
That's certainly something to consider.
When you reduce the number of seats and elected members per riding, or the number of ridings, the accountability of an individual chosen from a party list really comes into play. Saying that it's totally one side or the other doesn't address the issue. Leaning a particular way or representing a particular group shouldn't exempt a person from having to answer or be accountable to that group.
But the point I'd like to make is that the first responsibility of a member elected by the population, someone who has to deal with multiple opinions, should, in my view, always be to convey that representativeness in informing the decisions made by the House of Commons and the government. We aren't factoring the Senate component into that straightaway. We'll let those in the House handle that aspect.
What matters is making sure the representativeness of members in the local geographic area in which they are elected is preserved as much as possible. It's also essential to identify and develop other elements of the system that will allow for the expression of diverse viewpoints in forums other than the House of Commons, which is made up of 338 members. That's something that exists elsewhere when you look at other countries. That would exist if members and the government had an obligation to listen to the diverse viewpoints expressed.
I'm not saying you should completely reject the proportional voting system. However, the potential complexity of such a system could make it challenging to achieve representativeness and ensure the link with the various segments of the population in a given riding or geographic area, provincially speaking. That would present some major challenges.
A solid foundation exists, and that is universal voting by all Canadians who are able to voice their opinions. Some groups, however, do not see their voice reflected in the positions taken by those elected to the House of Commons. So mechanisms should be developed to ensure those voices are expressed and necessarily taken into account by the House of Commons.
That's really the crux of where I stand on this issue.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Mr. Trudel, I'm intrigued with the idea of the two-vote system that you spoke of. My first question is simply whether you think Canadians would be ready for that kind of change.
4:10 p.m.
Guest Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
I think so, as long as the purpose was made clear. I don't want to generalize, but, in many cases, House of Commons members are elected with 30% or 35% of the votes. The same is true of the National Assembly in Quebec. If the public was told that the reason for the system was to ensure that the votes received by members elected to the House of Commons reflected a representation of 50% plus one of the population, I can't see why they wouldn't be willing to accept that dimension. That is even truer given that, in the second round, parties would end up in a race involving two people who would otherwise be automatically eliminated because the plurality of votes wouldn't give them the freedom of expression required to have elected members or represent a body of opinion.
Frankly, I think Canadians are prepared to accept that. As for everything else, the people should be consulted by way of a referendum. It's a mighty and powerful instrument because the time frame can be as long as it needs to be to reach out to all segments of the population, provided there is a will and a belief in the changes being sought.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
On the idea of the system you're talking about, what do you think the benefits would be of going to the polling station twice to get to the majority system versus having a ranked ballot? That's the other option to get to what you're saying. It maintains the “majority wins” kind of system. What would be the advantages of going to the polling station twice to eliminate the low-hanging ones and to get that majority vote versus simply going once and doing a ranked ballot? Have you any thoughts on that option?
4:10 p.m.
Guest Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
To some degree, you've answered the question. When there is a second round, the outcome necessarily represents 50% plus one of the voting population. Conversely, in a system based on the plurality of votes, it's possible for members representing 25% or 30% of the population to be elected. Someone could slip in between the two majority party candidates, for instance, which would be much more representative of the views expressed by the vote. Someone would still have a week-long period to more strongly and thoroughly assert their positions, since it's possible they would have to represent the majority of the population going forward. As I see it, that member's voice would be even more powerful because it would represent 50% plus one of the voting population.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Okay, I'm going to share my time with Ms. Romanado, who wanted to follow up with her first round of questions.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you, Mr. Aldag.
We discussed youth engagement. We use all the social media. One of my constituents, Danny Tonner, asked me a question on Facebook about changing the voting age to 16.
Mr. Pilon-Robitaille, you said you were in favour of such a change. Mr. Risso and Mr. Trudel, I'd like to hear your thoughts on such a change.
4:10 p.m.
Guest Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
In Quebec, when the government amended the legislation respecting health and social services, it decided that an individual could consent to or refuse any form of treatment at the age of 14. I can't see why the same wouldn't apply when it comes to setting the voting age at 16. I would be in favour of that.
4:10 p.m.
President, Forum jeunesse de l'Île de Montréal
To be honest, we've never examined the issue. If the government decided to change the voting age to 16, some civic education would have to accompany the measure.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Mr. Trudel, you're a professor. If I understood correctly, you said that, rather than holding a referendum, the money could be used to introduce an education program. Such a program is needed, but, of course, it falls under provincial jurisdiction.
How can we work with the provinces to develop high-school civic education programs?
4:15 p.m.
Guest Professor, École nationale d'administration publique, As an Individual
I'm not sure that it should necessarily be for high-school students. Rather, I think it should be aimed at groups interested in civic education. Many such groups can't afford to educate their members or provide training. Not everyone has a master's degree from the École nationale d'administration publique, like Ms. Sansoucy.
I think the program should actually target groups. Quite a few community groups would like to provide civic education and would be in a position to do so were it not for a lack of funding. Whenever society faces a literacy problem, be it financial or otherwise, the proposed solution seems to focus solely on school-based training via the curriculum. Educators will wind up having to cram even more into their already busy weeks.
That said, it's not a problem that can be ignored. If you want some hopeful food for thought, I encourage you to see the film Demain, playing at the Beaubien theatre. You'll all be quite impressed. The theatre is in the Rosemont community.
