Electoral Reform Committee on July 27th, 2016

[Prof. André Blais]

I have young children—not that young but not too old. They are students who spend most of their lives online. For them, voting online would be the natural thing. I'm certainly open to the idea. The concern, as Mr. Mayrand has mentioned, is whether we can really make sure that the system cannot be hacked. I think we should move very cautiously in that direction.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Do you see a role in increasing engagement by youth as a specific demographic? There could be other populations that may be disenfranchised—the homebound, the poor, the physically or mentally disabled. Is there a possibility that the benefits might outweigh the drawbacks in certain cases?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, maybe we'll have to get the answer in another round, but we'll go to Mr. Blaikie now.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

If we did decide to go to some kind of mixed member proportional system, for example, it's seems to me that one of the really important questions would be the composition of the lists and how exactly you institute some kind of open list. So maybe you've got the most closed model where it would be the party leadership that decides who's on the list; or you've maybe got a model where voters can interject because they can kind of vote within that list for candidates.

I just wonder, Professor Milner and Mr. Himelfarb, if you want to talk a little more about what you imagine might be a good model for list choice in Canada.

[Prof. Henry Milner]

That's the one area where I have not actually come down on a clear position. I know that people who are in favour of reform toward an MMP style tend to favour open lists, and I can understand why. It basically says this. Why should you be required to do what the party wants you to do? Why not do what you want to do?

On the other hand, we should also know that parties in their choice of whom to place on a list tend to be bringing in certain priorities—for example, under-represented groups, women, and so on—and those are not irrelevant. In addition, we should also not— and I want to say this carefully—assume that voters really want to be given so much choice. In some cases it will probably discourage them.

Many voters have limited choice. They know which party they like and they can probably also either vote for the local candidate who is from that party or perhaps they have some reason to support a different local candidate. But to assume that they are capable of choosing within a list of people who may not be very local, who may be in part of their region, but the region could be somewhat larger, and to expect them to make that choice, I'm not sure that's entirely desirable.

I don't have a problem with what we call closed lists. That's what they do in the countries that use MMP. Remember, the maximum list size we're talking about now is five or six, because I don't think we want any regional districts with greater than a dozen or 13 total seats. So the number of names coming from the list will never be more than five or six, and we have to remember that. That's the secondary part of the system.

People who've gone to these countries, like Germany, say the real emphasis is on the local MP. That's the one the emphasis is on. Typically, people who are elected from the list, if there's a vacancy in their local districts, will try to get elected in the local district. That's where the emphasis should be. So I do not insist that voters should be able to choose from the names of a regional list, but this is a relatively secondary discussion on which there are good arguments on both sides.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Go ahead, Mr. Himelfarb.

[Alex Himelfarb]

I'm strongly inclined to open lists, to making sure voters have the opportunity to determine priorities, rather than parties. If one of our objectives is to increase trust and legitimacy in the system, I think it's going to be very important to say to Canadians that this is about voters and not about parties.

By the way, with some of the challenges of whether a party imposes a candidate on a riding or a riding makes the decision, those decisions have to be made whatever electoral system we have. Those are important decisions, but they are secondary to this issue. What isn't secondary is whether voters get to vote and determine the priority of any list, should it exist, and I think that's hugely important.

It's also important because it says to the candidates that if they don't link to the voter, if they don't make a concerted attempt to win the hearts and minds of voters, they will pay a price. It gets back to a question earlier on, that one of the advantages of PR is that, where candidates have built trust and where candidates have shown they represent all of the constituents, they have an advantage. Even within parties, there's competition in PR; that healthy competition rewards those who care most about their constituents.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

You say in a system where we have open lists, in the sense that voters are able to discriminate between candidates for a particular party in their vote, the law should be silent on how candidates get on that list, or do you think it would be good to prescribe in the law a system so that each party is—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

A brief answer to that.

[Alex Himelfarb]

My own bias is that parties ought to be looking at that, but I wouldn't make a proposal on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Kenney, the floor is yours.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us today.

I have a question about the decisions Canadians made regarding electoral reform. As you know, four provinces put forward electoral reforms. In three of those provinces—British Columbia, Ontario, and Prince Edward Island—voters flatly rejected those changes.

As mentioned yesterday, in 1959 and in 1968, Irish governments proposed changes to the electoral system that would have benefited the parties in power, but the electorate rejected those changes in referendums.

Yesterday, experts from New Zealand told us they held two referendums before adopting their current system. A third was held to give voters an opportunity to reconsider their decision.

A witness also told us yesterday that was a constitutional convention, according to the Jennings test. Peter Russell said we shouldn't talk about constitutional conventions or such abstract notions because of the obligation to ensure democratic legitimacy by giving voters the opportunity to judge their electoral system. That's not up to politicians but, rather, voters.

My question is for all three witnesses.

What is your take on Professor Russell's view and on this convention that exists in Canada?

[Alex Himelfarb]

Nobody wants to answer that.

[André Blais]

Your question clearly surprises me. I wasn't expecting a question like that.

Seriously, though, I would say it's a normative issue. As a researcher, I don't have an answer to that question. The issue is whether it is up to citizens to decide on the voting system at the end of the day. As a researcher, I don't have an answer to that normative question. But, as a citizen, I do have an opinion. It is indeed up to citizens. They should have the final say on an alternative voting system. That said, I'm paying close attention to what's happening in New Brunswick, which is holding a preference-based referendum with five options.

[Prof. Henry Milner]

That's in Prince Edward Island.

[André Blais]

My apologies, I meant Prince Edward Island.

That's one approach I would encourage the committee to consider. Instead of selecting one option, it could select five and propose a preference-based referendum. As a citizen, not as a researcher, that's something I would be in favour of.

[Alex Himelfarb]

I'm not surprised at the question either and haven't decided how I'm going to answer that. I was asked the same question, Mr. Chair, at a conference and I answered a referendum if necessary, but not necessarily a referendum, and the entire crowd groaned at me, but it is more or less my position. Clearly there are reasons for all of us to want public legitimacy and credibility for whatever decision is made. I think the composition and openness of this committee goes a long way toward doing that. The opportunities for people to participate and contribute would go a long way toward doing that. Whether that's enough or not will depend a lot on what kind of consensus the committee's able to develop. I think that matters and that over time one might change one's mind.

Having said that, I understand the democratic impulse of asking constituents. On the question of asking constituents what they would prefer, a system they know well or a system they don't really know anything about and don't get, I'm not sure what the value of the result would be. In New Zealand, for example, where they did hold a referendum, they invested hugely in public education and information. They took it really seriously, because without that, I don't know what you have. I know there are ideas floating about holding a referendum after people have experienced the new system. I must say that has some attractive appeal to me because they are voting then between systems they know something about. I understand the impulse.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much.

We'll go to Ms. Romanado.

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

Thank you to all three witnesses for being here today and giving us their input.

We touched a little bit on the youth vote, which is something near and dear to me that I've asked other witnesses about previously. We had a large youth turnout in the last federal election, which we're delighted about, and it's something that we want to continue. We want to engage the youth not only in terms of voter participation, but also in terms of thinking about a career in public service. So I'd like to get a sense from the three of you what your thoughts are on how we can maintain what we have established or made headway on in getting youth involved in the political process, but also how to increase that. There are some issues that you talked about—online voting perhaps with the youth vote, and in terms of a mandatory voting—but I'd like to get your perspective on what I asked. I then have a second question for another stakeholder group.

[Prof. Henry Milner]

Another area of my research is voting at age 16, on which political scientists have done a pretty good analysis because we have cases of countries, or regions within countries or municipalities, where the voting age has been reduced to 16. What we basically found is that young people, on the whole, if they begin voting at 16, other things being equal, generally are more likely to vote than if they began voting at 18 simply because they're more likely to be in their own family, still living with the rest of their family where their parents are more likely to be voting and they'll join them, or in a community of people who are participating in one way or another. Once they get to be 18—and by their first election, they could by 19 or 20—they are likely to have left their parents' home. They might be in a different city and will certainly be thinking about other things—relationships and so on—and in fact tend to vote less. That is pretty pretty clear in all of the cases we've looked at.

The question is to what extent does that creates a habit that will continue through life. There is some disagreement on how much of an effect it has.

Then other question is, if they vote at 16, are they likely to be less knowledgeable than if they started at 18? Are they actually not voting? Basically, the fact is they're no more knowledgeable necessarily, but they're not less knowledgeable either.

So my basic feeling, to answer your question directly, is that this would be something we should think about seriously, combining it with more serious efforts of political civic education at the ages of 14, 15, 16 particularly. Unfortunately—I shouldn't say unfortunately, as it's in the nature of our federal system—education is a provincial matter and I would like to see provinces take the initiative on something like this, combining greater effort to civic education with voting at 16, and then moving toward doing that federally. That's where I would put the emphasis in answering your question.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Himelfarb.

[Alex Himelfarb]

Yes, I too like the idea of an earlier voting age as a way of promoting youth participation. And I am open, as I said, despite my fogeyness, to online voting if that would make a big difference not only for youth but for others whom we should be targeting.

So I think those are two things.

I would be very curious—I don't know the data on this—as to whether André Blais has any data on whether PR actually increases the turnout for young voters, because my understanding is that young voters actually prefer greater proportionality. But in the end, it's a reminder that electoral reform itself isn't enough for democracy and that a whole lot of what we have to do will be besides electoral reform, including targeting, educating, and civil literacy, and, of course, the substantive elements of our policy options.

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

Mr. Blais.

[Prof. André Blais]

I hate to admit it but I fully agree with my colleagues. This is very rare in my life, but it's unfortunately the case this time.

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

Okay.

Do I have some time?