Evidence of meeting #19 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 politics.
A video is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Green
4 p.m.
Campaigner-Electoral Reform, Leadnow.ca
No worries.
We have been doing some internal surveys of our members, and opinion is really quite divided. A lot of people would say that they don't mind the system as long as the principle is there. We see slightly more people in favour of MMP than STV. I think part of that comes from the fact that the local representation factor seems very familiar and similar to what they know with the current first-past-the-post system. It feels relatively simple and accessible on the ballot. I think a lot of members would also argue that STV is a strong system.
That's something we'll be doing going forward as we see more concrete proposals come forward.
4:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
This may be a question beyond what you have at your fingertips, but I'm curious to know this.
Given that we had a citizens' assembly in Ontario that recommended mixed member proportional and a citizens' assembly in British Columbia that recommended single transferable vote, have you a sense within your Leadnow community of whether there's greater support for MMP in Ontario and greater support for single transferable vote in B.C.? I'm wondering how much the work of those citizens' assemblies continues to inform public opinion in the two different provinces.
4:05 p.m.
Campaigner-Electoral Reform, Leadnow.ca
It's a great question. I could pull that data apart and take a look at it, because we did ask people which province they were from. I could see who answered what. I would not be surprised if MMP were more popular in Ontario for that reason.
I think it just speaks to the importance of having really deliberative processes around these things. The citizens' assemblies are certainly good examples of that. They were a really good way for the provinces to have a good conversation about it and to educate more people in the community about different options for voting systems. As I mentioned earlier, we do not have a lot of experience with other types of voting systems in Canada.
4:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Pursuing that, and I don't know if you've done this, but have you asked the thousands of people you talked to through online communication about any of the questions that are before this committee about online voting and mandatory voting, and one that isn't squarely before us—which I'd be very interested in, because I know you have a lot of youth members—about changing the voting age?
4:05 p.m.
Campaigner-Electoral Reform, Leadnow.ca
Yes, we did ask those questions, and the results are in the brief. The brief is still with translation, but you should have it shortly. We did ask those questions. I wish I could be more helpful on this point, as opinion was quite divided. I think we haven't been talking about these issues as much with our community as we have on other issues, such as PR.
We did see that opinion was quite divided on the question of mandatory voting. People were concerned that it might be a blunt instrument, but they also felt it could increase representation and the voices of people who don't traditionally vote or participate.
With online voting, again there were a lot of concerns about security, but there was also some interest in seeing whether it would help with accessibility.
The youth voting was less popular. However, when we pulled it apart by age and asked only the people who were under 30 on our list, youth voting was very popular. I think that's something you should keep in mind.
4:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I have one last thing that I think I can squeeze in to ask you.
Given that one of your other priorities is climate, do you find there is any relationship between our voting system and Canada's climate action?
4:05 p.m.
Campaigner-Electoral Reform, Leadnow.ca
Yes, we do, and I think it really speaks to the heart of why we care about this issue.
We're a very broad organization. We have members from every political party. People are interested in transcending those boundaries and in addressing the big issues like climate change, which really do require inter-party co-operation in order to be addressed, so yes, I think that's part of where this is coming from. We're tired of seeing this narrow election-to-election policy work that's being done right now under first past the post. We want to see policy that's going to be done collaboratively and that will stand the test of time and not be changed between elections.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much. That's an interesting point.
Ms. Romanado is next.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you so much.
Dr. Thomas, I want to mention that I think you're bang on. I have been listening to testimony for the last couple of weeks on all the reasons that women don't want to pursue politics, and I can guarantee you that my decision had absolutely nothing to do with what voting system was in place.
I think you're right. There are informal barriers, and I don't think there are informal barriers only at the point of deciding to get the nomination or deciding to run and then the actual election campaign; I think there are also barriers post-election, when you actually get elected.
I don't think that's the case only for women; it's for our youth who are contemplating running for office and getting involved. I know this may sound a little off, but that generation that is searching for a work-life balance doesn't want to be living for half the time in Ottawa and half the time in their home province.
I want to let you elaborate a little more on some of those barriers that have nothing to do with an electoral system and that are preventing our youth, women, and visible minorities from getting involved in politics.
4:05 p.m.
Prof. Melanee Thomas
Thank you for the question. This links very closely to a project I have with my co-editor, Amanda Bittner, who's at Memorial University, and an international panel of scholars looking at the impact of gender and parental status in politics. A number of things come through very clearly from that work and from other research.
First, something that will always be an issue in Canada is the commute. That sounds really quite trite, except I'm in Alberta, and a weekly commute to Ottawa is something that I, and I imagine a number of people, simply would not do. It's just not on. The people who are doing it know how difficult it is. For people who are considering it, this is one of these things that become problematic.
The idea that local politics is good for women comes from a lot of research in the United States that shows that women who actually get into politics say something along the lines of “I want to do it at the local level, because I want to be able to drive to where I work as opposed to flying to the state capital or to Capitol Hill.” In other words, there isn't necessarily something about local politics per se that makes it friendly for women; it's because there is a work-life balance and things like commuting are addressed.
The other thing that comes through pretty clearly is the nature of political work and what this means for children. In the province of Alberta, where I reside, we have some interesting things happening. We went from having a legislature that hadn't even addressed maternity leave and pregnancy and small infants to having two major changes, with maternity leave programs not only in the legislature but in cabinet. One thing that's come through very clearly from the last Parliament is that the nature of political work itself doesn't lend itself to maternity or parental leave, which is challenging, especially when care facilities don't exist in that particular workplace or close to that workplace for the care of infants, for example.
When we look at places like Australia and Great Britain as well as historical evidence from British Columbia, we see that it also becomes problematic whether individual members can do such things as job-share on committees or even bring a breastfeeding infant into committee work. In British Columbia, in the British House of Lords, and in Australia individual members have actually been barred because their infants were seen to be strangers. When that gets presented as being ridiculous, my example from the British House of Lords is that they then said that breast milk was a refreshment, and refreshments were not permitted in the committee. That's why the breastfeeding mother couldn't be brought in.
I wish I were joking about that, but I'm not. If you're looking at women who are my age, in their thirties, and thinking about how they want to balance their professional life with other aspects of life in general, these are considerations that definitely kick us out of the pool.
It will be interesting to see how many young fathers are prepared to participate in these sorts of things as well. I want to say that these things certainly do hit women in a particularly gendered kind of way, but I don't think it's helpful to phrase them exclusively as women's issues. It's just that being a parent in politics is very different. What this means in the U.K. is that the majority of members of Parliament who are men are parents, and the majority of women who are members of Parliament are not. My British colleagues have identified that as a problem.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Do you have any research on younger Canadians, female or male, who are contemplating running for office? We want to engage them not only to actually vote but also to contemplate a career in politics. What are some of the barriers?
4:10 p.m.
Prof. Melanee Thomas
The research we have is in progress, so I don't want to make a strong “research says” kind of conclusion. In addition to everything I've already stated, however, one thing that's becoming clear is that the nature of the Internet, and particularly one's online past, has had a chilling effect. We've had candidates in the city of Calgary in the federal election who were dropped because of things that were posted on the Internet when they were children. This would be about the age of 15 or 16 or somewhere along those lines.
This is where there is an interesting intersection between youth voting and standing for office. If somebody is the age of majority at enfranchisement, at 18, does this mean that things we can dig up about them online are onside if they choose to be a candidate at 22? I'm on the record as saying that I think what people do in their private lives—and even in their professional lives, to be honest—decades or years before they choose to seek elected office are maybe things that we ought to consider as.... I'm skeptical that they're good indicators of what kind of representative somebody would be. Other people will feel differently about that.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Ms. Northam, you say your organization encourages public participation and consults people. You said you support proportional representation, in whatever form.
Do you agree that all Canadians should be consulted by referendum once the committee has decided on a voting method in order to legitimize that choice?
4:15 p.m.
Campaigner-Electoral Reform, Leadnow.ca
Our community is really just interested in seeing reforms happen, to be perfectly frank. We believe that a referendum is not the be-all and end-all of democracy. It can be quite divisive, as we've seen in other instances.
It's not a politically neutral process, as other witnesses have pointed out. We're open to other processes that would be deliberative, such as a citizens' assembly, but a referendum is not necessarily a good way to test whether or not there should be a reform. Our community, as I said, wants to see this change go through.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
On your organization's website, it says that your organization pledges to actively defend referendums as a way of increasing public participation and that your organization regularly consults its supporters on various issues. Your organization's own website, which promotes your organization, says that it defends referendums as a consultation method. Now you are telling us that, in your consultations, your members said they were not necessarily in favour of referendums because they consider them to be too dangerous.
Would it be dangerous to consult Canadians?
4:15 p.m.
Campaigner-Electoral Reform, Leadnow.ca
I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with the section of the website you're referring to. I've worked on this issue for a year now, and the position I've given you is our official position on a referendum as it pertains to electoral reform.
We do deliberative processes and engagement and consultative processes with our own community, both online and offline. We use all kinds of methodologies to do that. I'm not aware of being on the record at any point as being in support of a referendum, but I'd be happy to see the passage you're referring to.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I will give you a copy at the end, but it is under the “open democracy” section on your website. What I just said can be found there verbatim.
I would go even further. You said our electoral system is unfair. That is a very strong statement, in my view. Various experts have told us that our system is perhaps not as unfair as some suggest. They are valuable sources, experts who hold doctorates who offered their considered opinions.
You said that 85% of your members want to change the system to a proportional one. You cite a survey you conducted among your members.
Other surveys conducted across Canada have shown that over 70% of Canadians want a referendum.
You say the surveys conducted by your organization would be a valid basis for making a proposal to the committee. In that case, why wouldn't a survey of Canadians also be a credible justification for consulting the entire population to confirm, not whether they want a new voting method, but whether they support the proposed change?
Why are you saying two different things?
4:15 p.m.
Campaigner-Electoral Reform, Leadnow.ca
It's a very different context. Leadnow is not Parliament. We're a community of people with similar sorts of interests in pursuing issues of open democracy and improving our democracy. We do these processes internally in order to give us direction when we come to situations like this.
I believe that's a very different context from asking an entire country about this question, especially when multiple parties with different political interests are involved. We're not in the same situation as this committee. I don't believe those opinions are at odds with each other.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Don't you find that a bit unusual? Organizations like yours or the one represented by the witness here this morning say you are in favour of public participation. That witness said that the voting method should be changed because the current method is not representative enough and that citizens should have more of a voice. Yet your organization does not support the ultimate consultation method, which could be used on such a fundamental issue. It would be a way of validating a proposal put forward by a parliamentary committee.
Do you agree with that approach?
4:15 p.m.
Campaigner-Electoral Reform, Leadnow.ca
The characterization of a referendum as the ultimate way to ask people their opinion is not true. We would encourage many other ways of engaging in this process. We see the referendum process as very open to politics, and it's not a neutral process. That's all that we have to say about it.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Dr. Thomas, I want to pursue this notion of representational equity, which I understand—and correct me if I'm wrong—to be finding a Parliament that represents the ethnocultural diversity of the country. Is that a proper understanding?
4:20 p.m.
Prof. Melanee Thomas
Not quite. I would say the argument that I am picking up on is one from Hanna Pitkin, which is sometimes colloquially referred to as “mirror representation.” This is the idea that every group in a society ought to be as present in its representative institutions as its demographic weight permits.