Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 350
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2016-10-25 18:38
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Everyone knows that my party is in favour of changes, but not any changes and not at any cost. My party tends to be in favour of self-determination, both for a people and for voters.
We are here talking about the principle of whether or not to consult the public, allowing them to give their free and informed consent to change the democratic rules. If we discuss the principle from that angle, I think we should be careful not to make assumptions about the voters and their intelligence. Of course, if we do the work within the established timeframe, we see that it's quite absurd. We have held consultations everywhere and it will not happen. However, if we invest the time and resources to get it right by 2019 and if we think of a formula with an additional question on the ballot for the election, I have faith in the people's intelligence to settle the debate.
Mr. Fitch, I imagine you will agree with me. Why make the people settle the debate? Because all the experts who have come to meet with us, be they for or against the change, have told us that each voting system has its advantages and disadvantages. This is not a debate among politicians or among experts. This should not be just for the initiated. This must be a debate that belongs to the people, and it is up to the people to decide and to weigh the disadvantages and advantages that they are willing to accept.
Mr. Fitch, if the people want to keep the current system, I guess you will not be against a referendum in which they can express their opinion. You said that the public should be consulted only if the intent is to make a change. Given that the people's representatives mandated a committee to finally address the issue, we argue that the people must decide on the issue in either case. Realistically, we will not reach a consensus by December 1. As for the voters, they need to be better informed. So let's take the time to do things properly. That was my first point.
Second, the committee has discussed the principle of a change. The majority of people we have met have told us that a proportional system is needed. Being in favour of the principle of proportional representation is one thing, but defining that model is a completely different thing. It's when the model is being developed that the partisan bias may appear. Just think of the new electoral maps that are prepared each year. By the way, if we applied the electoral map of 2012 to the 2011 results, no candidates from my party would have been elected. So the devil is in the details.
If we are able to talk about the principle, I don't understand why we are not able to build on the principle that this debate should belong to the people and be settled by the people through a referendum. I don't understand why, in principle, we are saying that the committee has a duty to decide for the people. That's not my idea of democracy.
Ladies and gentlemen, what do you think about that?
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2016-10-20 9:46
I will think about it and decide whether I accept your apology, Mr. Chair.
Ladies, gentlemen and students, I hope our debates fascinate you.
I will start with you, Ms. Webb.
So you know where I stand when I ask my questions, I'll tell you that our Prime Minister was just a babe when I was an activist in a feminist movement. I am for gender equity in the nominations, but I advocate more for real representation of women in Parliament.
I have a very simple question for you: if you had to choose between keeping our voting system, accompanied by coercive measures to encourage gender equity in the nominations, and a mixed member proportional voting system with incentives, which would you choose?
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2016-10-20 9:47
Between the current voting system, to which we would add coercive measures to encourage equal nominations, and the compensatory mixed member proportional voting system, which would include incentives, which do you prefer?
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2016-10-20 9:49
Okay, I understand the nuance.
Mr. Bozinoff and Mr. Schatten, you said that people who say they know what Canadians want may be speaking carelessly by playing the representation card. I am a duly elected member of Parliament. We have a representative democracy. I do not claim to know what voting system all voters want.
I know what I want and what my party wants. We want the voting system to change and a form of proportionality introduced. We prefer the compensatory mixed member proportional voting system. However, we don't want just any model of this voting system, and we don't want it to be applied haphazardly.
We need to take the time to do things properly. For that, we have to let the Prime Minister out of the straitjacket we have put him in by saying that it would be the last election with the current voting system. I don't think he knew what he was saying and had no knowledge of what was required to transform things.
Suppose our committee moves on to a second step that would involve developing a model and continuing to consult all voters to make them understand the differences between the proposed voting system and the current voting system. People would then be better informed and could settle the debate. In that case, would you be in favour of a referendum on the issue?
People have told us that a referendum wouldn't be necessary because we are the representatives of the people. If a referendum isn't necessary to change the voting system, it isn't necessary either to maintain the status quo. Right now, one is as good as the other.
If we don't want to decide for the people and if we want to rise above partisanship, I think a referendum would be necessary and could be held during the next election.
To interest people in this issue, shouldn't we first have a clear model, rather than keep the status quo and continue the consultations?
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2016-10-19 20:13
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Welcome. Thank you very much for your testimony.
I will continue along the same lines as my colleague.
Ms. Ghose, you said that a structural change in the voting system, such as having members on a list, would be needed to achieve gender parity. I think that's more effective than a coercive measure that may well exploit women in a simple plurality system, in the sense that political parties could assign female candidates to unwinnable ridings in order to achieve the number required for so-called gender-balanced representation. That would not help advance the cause of women. That's why I voted against the idea, even though I'm not in either of the two major parties.
If I'm not mistaken, you are more in favour of a structural change than of measures that would supposedly increase the participation of women in politics in the current system.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2016-10-19 20:15
We're on the same page. In a first past the post system, it is easier to manipulate the participation of women in politics.
As soon as there are several parties, the number of potentially winnable ridings decreases. However, if we shift to a mixed member proportional representation system with a list of members, it is then up to every political party to ensure gender parity on the list. Structurally, parity can be achieved.
It is very easy to say that we will keep the current voting system and that we will vote for either coercive or incentive legislation. However, there may be more female candidates in each party, but if we don't place women in winnable ridings, they will not have seats in the House, especially since the current situation favours the two-party system.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2016-10-19 20:17
I'm not sure whether the interpretation is accurate, but it's not a big deal.
What I'm basically saying is that, if we want to achieve gender parity, it is best to change the voting system.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2016-10-19 20:18
You said that we don't have a lot of time to organize a referendum. What is your point of reference on the issue? Are you referring to the 2019 date for the next election, which is when we could also hold a referendum?
Why would we not be able to engage voters in a process that would lead to a debate and decision at the next election in 2019?
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2016-10-19 20:19
The Chief Electoral Officer told us that he could not hold a referendum separate from the 2019 election, because we wouldn't have enough time.
It's 2016 now. Let's assume that the committee agrees on a mixed member proportional representation system, that it goes in the field to consult all the voters and to explain the difference between the current system and the new system so that the people can decide on the issue in the next election. In that case, would you consider the three-year timeline as adequate?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2016-10-17 14:25
Good afternoon, gentlemen.
An interpreter informed me earlier that there was a funeral at this time for an important leader from your community, or at least that is what I understood. And so I want to extend my sincere condolences, and thank you for being here today.
I want to greet my colleagues, particularly Mr. Hunter Tootoo, as well as the members of the team.
All through the consultations we have held in the provinces and territories, we have mostly heard about the need to increase the proportionality of the electoral system.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2016-10-17 14:26
I could talk and Ms. May could translate.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2016-10-17 14:26
Thank you.
As I was saying, in most of our meetings, people have recommended that we opt for a reform that would allow for increased proportionality. People spoke about a mixed proportional system, and other similar systems. Since we have heard little from you on this topic, I would like to hear your respective points of view.
I will also ask you a question that goes to the heart of the issue: if the reform of the system led to increased proportionality, would you prefer that the current voting system be maintained in the three territories, or that a proportional system be adopted, with three MPs for all of the territories?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2016-10-17 14:29
Thank you.
Mr. Fleming, you have the floor.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2016-10-17 14:31
Thank you.
To conclude, I'd like to ask Mr. Arreak a question.
Mr. Fleming was talking about the Senate, and about electing senators. What are your thoughts on that?
Would it be a good idea to reserve seats in the Senate for first nations and Inuit members?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2016-10-17 14:32
Thank you.
Results: 1 - 15 of 350 | Page: 1 of 24

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data