Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 20th, 2016

[Ann Decter]

Other strategies have been proposed. One is having funds available for women within a party. These funds are set aside to help women run for office because we know women on average have lower incomes, and they often don't have the same fundraising networks that men do. We've certainly heard elected women talk about how difficult those things are especially when you're starting out, so the party sets aside funds that could be only be drawn on by women candidates.

You could do things that would encourage riding associations to look harder at or for women candidates that aren't necessarily prescriptive in the same sense, but you could say this is the process you need to go to—it's a way of describing what the NDP has done—before you can have your nomination meeting. We need to know you have talked to x number of qualified women candidates or something like that. There are ways.

A party system that is producing the current results needs to change. You're talking about a more natural, slower, education process rather than a forced one. If you want a different result, you have to do things differently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Is that all the time I have? Thank you. I appreciate that. We all share the same goal. I think we're trying to find different ways to get there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Romanado.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Many thanks to the witnesses and to the community members for being with us this evening.

As my colleague mentioned, we're going to stay calm and ERRE on because, as we know, the Prime Minister has reiterated his deep commitment to this process, so rest assured we are soldiering on.

On that note, I would like to talk a little about some of the information we heard. I'll start with Madam Carmichael. You mentioned women, and I know I bring this up often because as a woman who ran in what you would call a non-stronghold, I must have been elected because of the electoral system. Rest assured that my decision to run for office had nothing to do with the electoral system. It had to do with the job itself. I just wanted to mention that.

You asked how voters can know if a party is running candidates. I'm pretty sure if they were to go on the party website they could see who the candidates are. I'm pretty sure people do look into that kind of information.

First of all, I would like to thank you for being with us today, Ms. Lanthier. As Quebeckers, it is very important to us to be able to communicate with citizens in their preferred language. The fact that you are here is very important to me. This is the first time we have had the opportunity to hear from someone about the reality of francophones outside Quebec.

We held a public consultation in the village of St-Pierre-Jolys, Manitoba. We were very proud to be there. I also spoke with someone from the QCGN, which represents the anglophone minority in Quebec. So we heard about that reality.

In any case, thank you for being here this evening.

Now I'd like to go back to the issue that we've been talking a little about. We've heard a lot about the importance of the nomination process. Regardless of the gender, when someone decides to run for office, there are two things. The first is getting the nomination, and the second is then winning the election.

In the testimony we have received, we've heard that women don't have a problem getting elected once they get the nomination. We're really good at winning, which is great, but it's to get the nomination. We've talked a little about fundraising, in that women may not have the means to put forth the required funding for their campaign. There are also issues with respect to day care and being able to take time off work and so on.

I know that some initiatives have been taken. I note, for instance, that in the Liberal Party we have a fund that is available for female candidates to help them. In fact, in our nomination process as well, there is a criteria that the electoral district associations must make every effort and prove they've done everything they can to find a female candidate. I'm quite happy about that as well.

The question of enticing people to run for office, though, is not always as easy because of the actual job itself. For instance, if you happen to live in Calgary, you're thinking of running for office, and you have a young family, the idea of the commute can probably be a barrier for you, the idea of not being near your family, and also, there are the long hours and so on and so forth, as well as the tone in Parliament.

I'd like to get your opinion on this. Do you think there should be more weight put on the nomination process and those barriers rather than the actual electoral system? I'm just talking about getting women elected. I'm not talking about all the other things that we can be doing. I'm just saying that I don't think it's the electoral system alone; I think it's a suite of things that we need to do.

I'd like to get your opinion, Ms. Decter, and then of course yours, Madam Carmichael.

[Ann Decter]

Yes, I would agree that the electoral system alone is not the issue or the solution, but we've come to the conclusion that it is part of the solution.

All of those other things matter. In particular, the travel matters, more so at the federal level. If you think of it traditionally, decades ago, women moved with their husbands to Ottawa and raised their kids there. It's just not the way politics is done now, but all those kinds of things about the other structures that make it easier for women to work also make it easier for women to be elected.

These things are part of it, but we also think that electoral reform is part of the process.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you.

Madam Carmichael.

[Kelly Carmichael]

Thanks.

I think we agree with that. There's a bunch of things that we can do to help women get elected, and I think we are doing a bunch of things already, but we're still not rising in the numbers.

Some of the initiatives are great to see, and I think they're very helpful, but if we're changing our electoral system, and if the government is also looking at issues under a gender parity lens, then I think we have to look at the electoral systems, and proportional representation does better. When you look at the numbers, you see Sweden at 45%, Finland at 43%, Norway at 40%, Denmark at 39%, the Netherlands at 39%, and Germany at 37%. Then you come down to Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom at 26%, 25%, and 23%.

First-past-the-post systems create barriers. If we can't identify them, then maybe we need to do more work on it, but on the results, on the correlation, Arend Lijphart has said that up to 8% more women get elected in proportional systems. It's a correlation.

We need to figure out what those things are, but I think we can be confident that PR elects more women.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I just wanted to say—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We don't have much time. Do you want Madame Lanthier to answer too?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Absolutely.

Ms. Lanthier, would you like to say anything about the recruitment of female candidates?

[Sylviane Lanthier]

The difficulties that women face in being elected to the House of Commons are the same ones that linguistic minorities face. It is the same reality. How can you convince people who are different from you to vote for you, adopt your values or understand life through your particular lens?

The questions relating to the representation of women are about the same as those relating to the representation of minorities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Romanado.

Thank you to the witnesses.

It is over to Ms. Sancoucy now.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all the witnesses for being here this evening.

This is the committee's 44th meeting. It has now heard from close to 100 witnesses and has received thousands of comments.

My first question is for the representatives of Fair Vote Canada. I

was interested to hear that the comments the Prime Minister made earlier this week, to the effect that reform might not be necessary, actually mobilized the 65,000 members you represent, rather than decreasing their motivation.

The same thing might apply to the people you surveyed, Mr. Graves. Who knows? That might be why he said the opposite today, from what I understand.

In any case, as a Quebecer, I must admit that it felt like Groundhog Day this week. We have seen the same thing in Quebec. An opposition party denounces the unfairness of the voting method, since one party can win a majority of seats with a minority of support, and suddenly it is the opposite once it gets into power.

In your presentation, you said that 90 countries around the world, including 85 OECD member countries, have adopted proportional representation. From what you know about their transition to proportional representation, how do you get out of the vicious circle in which a party maintains one thing while in opposition and something else when they are in power, because what is fair in one situation is no longer fair in the other situation? How do you get away from that?

[Réal Lavergne]

I can answer easily. How do you get away from that? In general, you cannot. Unfortunately, that is a fact. Scott Reid wrote an article about this in 2005. There have hardly been any countries that have moved from a system like ours to proportional representation, and it is precisely for the reason you mentioned.

That is why we are now calling on the government to do things differently and not make decisions based on partisan interests. We are asking the same thing of the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, and the Green Party, because that is the only way we can actually achieve change.

You were not here yesterday, Ms. Sansoucy, but Mr. Hughes, who is from New Zealand, said that the decision should not be based on what happened during the last election or what will happen during the next election. A decision must be based on what we want for the next 100 years. That is the perspective we must take.

We are calling on the government and the opposition to work together, to give us what we deserve as citizens, and to keep the promise that every vote counts.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Graves, I understood your presentation, but a few bits escaped me.

You talked about public disillusionment. I understood that adopting a system in which each vote counts could help reduce that disillusionment.

I would like to hear more about that please.

[Francis Graves]

What I think the public is saying in our surveys is that they feel a voting system that produced an equal impact from all votes would be one with which they would feel considerably more comfortable. But I do believe that the research that we've been doing over the years suggests that we should extend the horizon beyond that question, which I think we should do. The public thinks we should look at some other methods for improving the relationship between citizens and their governments.

Even though it's way outside the realm of electoral reform, when we put these things into a forced choice hopper, the public is saying that it's great to make the elections every four years as equal, fair, transparent, and valid and produce the best...That's great.

However, the skepticism and cynicism which characterizes the citizenry today, who are much better educated and have access to a blizzard of other types of information that wasn't available in previous eras, doesn't make them comfortable with the idea that they just get a kick at the can every four years. They want some kind of method between elections where the voice of citizens can be heard.

By the way, we've tested this quite carefully over the years. Even though they heartily approve of consultations where those people who have a point of view can make their views known, they also understand that they need something that is more representative, that would look more like what everybody would look like if they all showed up.

Frankly, when you're doing things like open web consultations or town hall meetings, you're going to give additional emphasis to the voices of those who are most concerned, who are perhaps most knowledgeable, who perhaps have an axe to grind, or to other types of vested interests.

We need to have an approach—and I think the tools are there and available to do this brilliantly, inexpensively, and rapidly—to provide representative, informed, and reflected input from citizens as well.

I don't want to belabour that, but this would be an important ingredient for dealing with some of the skepticism. I can show you all kinds of other indicators about how deep the scepticism is. Only 10% of Canadians trust politicians. That's cartoonishly low. When I ask if they trust people like you, well 75% trust. Well, from where are we recruiting these politicians? They must be coming from Mars because they don't look anything like the good stock of average Canadians. It's really not healthy at all.

I have one final point. Our research suggested that if you were to do routine citizen engagement, there would be an important role for MPs, which would expand the kinds of things they do. This would be a natural combination for MPs to be involved in this process of citizen engagement. It would be a really interesting additional responsibility to give to the MPs in addition to the other duties they have.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Deltell, you have the floor.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr. Lavergne, hello.

Mr. Lavergne is a regular here. I think everyone has seen him often, in the hallways, at the entrance. He always says hello.

I noticed that you were very attentive yesterday. I a previous answer, you were able to quote one of the witnesses from New Zealand word for word. I will come back to you later.

Mr. Graves, my question is for you. You did some polling research about many issues. We welcome that kind of investigation, and that kind of result.

I would like to get back to the specific issue of an electronic voting system. We are ready to make millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, for some business and banking transactions, but we are very afraid to move toward an electronic voting system.

I can speak for myself. I have an open mind, but first of all a sheet of paper can be put in the computer and it's all right. But by computer, by telephone, or something else, even by iPhone, I don't know why, maybe it's because I'm 52 years old, but I am very afraid of that.

Let me give you this example. Two weeks ago there was a huge political event in Quebec politics, the leadership race of the Parti Québécois, the official opposition. Believe it or not, it was by an electronic system and believe it or not, they had some problems.

This is why the call for the new leader was postponed for almost a full hour. Everybody wondered what happened. I got a cue from some friends there, and I still have friends even in the Parti Québécois. I'm not a separatist. Don't get me wrong, even if I do respect their position, I don't really share it.

I was told that the system crashed. Based on your polling, what do you have to say to us?

[Francis Graves]

Our questions asked this: “if the system was secure”. By the way, there are obviously serious questions that many experts have raised. In an era of WikiLeaks and pervasive hacking, we know that this is not a walk in the park, but I would stress that all of these problems are being solved in other complex areas such as fintech. The development of these new blockchain technologies is brilliant. Let's be clear as well, paper systems are not flawless either. We've had hanging chads and other kinds of problems in the past—not we, but others have.

I think we have to build a system that is at least as secure as the current system. I think the technologies are going to make that absolutely possible, if not today, tomorrow or very soon. This will eventually happen, and I think the public are telling us that it's time to do this. You have the expertise to shore up that other problem, and it's not a trivial problem. It's a profound problem, but they think it is solvable and frankly, as a non-expert, I think the evidence is that this could be solved now.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Graves.

Back to you, Mr. Lavergne.

Not to flatter you, but I know you have been very attentive to our proceedings, for some time. You have been very attentive throughout the process to achieve electoral reform. I also had the pleasure of talking with you last summer, when the committee met in July. We held eight meetings, in the middle of the summer.

Mr. Lavergne, I would like to hear your comments in very broad and general terms. How do you see our work so far, since you have been a very attentive witness at the committee's last 43 meetings?

[Réal Lavergne]

I have truly been very impressed by the quality of the witnesses. In fact, I had the honour of summarizing nearly all the meetings for our organization. We also created a table showing how many witnesses supported proportional representation, how many were opposed to it, and so forth. That gave us a very interesting view of things. You invited witnesses from all over the world. This has been a tremendous learning experience for me. I have really enjoyed it.

By the way, regarding the list of witnesses, we calculate that approximately 85% of those who expressed an opinion were in favour of proportional representation. Mr. Mayrand, the Chief Electoral Officer, did not express his preference, of course; it was not his place to do so. There were a handful of people who preferred the current system, the first past the post system, and an even smaller group who preferred a first past the post preferential system.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Over to you, Mr. DeCourcey.