Evidence of meeting #24 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 saskatchewan.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
That's some of it, yes. I'm just saying that was a comment that was made.
Prof. Charles Smith
Across different countries that use different systems, these are issues. Certainly there are issues that need to be thought through. Not all forms of electoral systems would suggest that we have to move to super-ridings in the rural areas. Fair Vote Canada has put forward an interesting proposal based on the idea of rural-urban PR, whereby urban areas would have proportional representation while rural ones, basically SMPs, would stay the same. If this committee were to find legitimacy in that approach, the size of rural ridings wouldn't change at all.
What I do note, though, is that when we look at how populations are changing in Canada, we see an urbanization of the country. That's been going on for 80 years. The result is that we see increasing sizes of rural ridings. They're getting bigger and bigger because people are moving to the cities in large numbers. We see that there is already a concern about very large geographic ridings in the rural areas, and that's going to continue even if you stay with the status quo.
That's where I think Mr. Boda's ideas around electronic voting or what have you become more important to think through.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Saskatchewan
From an operational standpoint, you asked about costs related to different electoral systems. There are a lot of unknowns related to changing an electoral system, so I can't comment on the cost of changing the electoral system, but ultimately I wouldn't be of the view that one electoral system would cost a great deal more to operate than another one would.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Thanks very much.
Earlier you mentioned what you're doing in Saskatchewan, Mr. Boda, with regard to the system. You said that these changes do not happen quickly and you talked about looking at giving some options for change in 2022. Can you elaborate on what would be involved in the education part of that process? You talked about determining the size of the constituencies and that sort of thing. That's just one of the minor details of making the changes. Can you elaborate on some of the other areas?
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Saskatchewan
Sure.
I mentioned 2022 because that is when our next boundary delimitation is scheduled. In essence, what we do is build a system based on the boundary delimitation and then work backwards from there. When that event occurs and the boundaries for constituencies change, we begin a process of looking at polling divisions, and then we begin a process of establishing where the polling places are. This is Election Administration 101.
At the same time, we're not currently looking at electoral system change in Saskatchewan, but we are looking at modernization in terms of how we conduct the election. There are a lot of ideas out there.
Basically, we're looking at 2022 for the very reason that it's where the boundary delimitation begins, and then we work backwards from there.
Liberal
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you.
My apologies if my voice is cracking. Electoral reform doesn't wait for a cold.
We heard from other witnesses that there is no perfect system that will address all of these boo-boos that we have in our current electoral system. Mr. Boda, you mentioned that as an administrator, your focus is on the experience of the voter—that it be positive, efficient, and so on. Given that perspective, could you elaborate on how we could be doing things a little differently?
You mentioned modernization for Saskatchewan's way of voting. Is there some low-hanging fruit that you could recommend to us that could address some of the issues we're facing, whether it be increasing youth participation, increasing women, indigenous, and minority groups in politics, or just increasing voter engagement in general?
Could you elaborate a little bit on some suggestions for us that don't actually change the voting system, if you know what I mean?
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Saskatchewan
You're asking for suggestions that don't change the electoral system?
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Exactly. If we were to put that aside, is there something we could be doing to address some of the issues we have?
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Saskatchewan
Yes, and I think your question is a question that's being asked across the country. My chief electoral officer colleagues, including Marc Mayrand, are looking at this very issue carefully. How can we improve the voter experience?
You did see, during the last election, that there were questions of lineups. During the federal election there were initially lineups for advance voting in Saskatchewan. We reacted very quickly. The point is that our society is changing, and our needs are changing, and voters' wants are changing. They want to vote in advance more than they ever did before.
Some things we're looking at include looking at the election system—that is, not the electoral system, but how we run the balloting process. There's a lot of discussion right now about what is sometimes called the New Brunswick model or the teller model. It's been used in Australia and in the United States and elsewhere for many years. It makes the voters' experience more efficient for them, in that they're not tied specifically to a ballot box. They come in and we ensure that they're registered, and then it's more like a bank teller model, in the sense that they can go where there's an opening. It speeds the efficiency of the voting process.
There are those things. That's not even around the edges; that's a major improvement in the process. I know many of us are looking at how we could make those recommendations in order to improve the experience at the polls.
There are some other things. We talked about online voting, and there is also the idea of electronic voting. The question is, while balancing those two things of integrity and accessibility, how can you move forward into the 21st century and introduce technology into the process for those who don't have accessibility in order to test some of the technology? I would encourage that very much. How can you use mail ballots? Mail-in ballots are becoming popular in the United States, as many of you will know. Is that an option?
I think there's an opportunity for innovation, but again, going back to “too much, too quickly”, we have to think in terms of two and three electoral cycles instead of just doing it all at once. The Scotland experience has demonstrated for me quite clearly that it proves problematic when you make too many changes too quickly.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Okay.
Professor Smith, do you have any comments?
Prof. Charles Smith
This is a little bit different from the research. In my own personal work in the classroom, one of the things I am experiencing as a professor and educator is that my students are learning differently. My whole job is changing before my eyes. Students are far more interested in online resources. The lecture-based model, research tells us, is not working nearly as well as it did in the past when all of you went to university.
I'm not saying that because I don't know what I'm going to be teaching on Monday. I think our institutions are facing similar pressures. When we look at a demographic model, it's not just young people who are not showing up; it's people who are marginalized, who are on the margins. Looking at the whole system and at why people are not showing up is really important. I don't think online voting is going to solve the problem of youth voter turnout. I'm convinced it won't, because I don't think it speaks to why people are not showing up.
We need to understand that question before we can talk about reforms to the system. Accessibility and the things that Dr. Boda is talking about make perfect sense, but I don't think they're going to solve the problem we are speaking about.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you for that very interesting session and the challenges and the ideas you threw out for members to get hold of and discuss. We really appreciate the fact that you were able to make it today, and we hope you'll be following the work of our committee all through this process until December 1.
We thank you for being here.
We're going to suspend for a couple of minutes before the next witness comes in, and then we'll take it from there.
Yes, Ms. May?
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Just for the interest of people who might be waiting, we are obviously running late. Shall we assume that the open mike session will be pushed back by half an hour? I'm wondering if we can give any guidance to people who are waiting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I think at 20 to 25 minutes, it's going to be manageable. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Colleagues, could you take your seats?
We have an additional witness with one more round of questions, and then we go to the open mike session, which I know so many people have been waiting for.
We have with us Darla Deguire from the Canadian Labour Congress. Thank you for being here. Thank you for joining us today for this 24th meeting of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.
Without further ado, we'll give the floor to you, Ms. Deguire. You have 10 minutes. After that, there will be a round of questions and answers in which each member will be allotted five minutes for both questions and answers.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
No, unfortunately, there's been a change, and Ms. Culbertson cannot be here this afternoon. Sorry; I should have mentioned that at the outset.
Okay, Ms. Deguire, the floor is yours. Thank you.
Darla Deguire Director, Prairie Region, Canadian Labour Congress
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I know you are running a little bit behind, and I hope to be succinct in my comments.
I want first of all to thank the committee for inviting me to speak here today. I want to preface my comments by saying this is the first time I've ever presented in front of a formal parliamentary panel like this, so I'm a little bit nervous, as you can appreciate. I've conversed from time to time with a few people I know around the table, who assure me I can relax and I don't have to be so nervous. Hopefully I'll help you get back a little bit of your time, since there's only one of me and the other speaker wasn't able to be here. With that, I'll get right into my formal remarks and then pass it back to you for whatever questions might follow.
My name's Darla Deguire. I'm the regional director for the Canadian Labour Congress Prairie Region, which encompasses Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. I would like to commend the government and the committee on this consultation process and I thank you for allowing me to present today.
Examining how Canadians elect our politicians is a process that is long overdue. On behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress and our 3.5 million members, I'd like to state for the record that our current system of first past the post is outdated and fails to accurately reflect the voting intention or political desires of Canadians as a whole.
In the 2015 elections alone, nine million votes did not count towards electing a member of Parliament who would express those voters' political opinion. Far too often a party is able to achieve a majority government without even getting 40% of the vote. We have seen these false majorities in the last two general elections. In fact, we haven't had a legitimate majority in the last 30 years, and have had only four since the end of the Second World War.
Our current system can generate regional tensions in Parliament and push voters to vote against what they don't want instead of voting for what they do want. Electing a Parliament that reflects the diversity of our country has proven to be difficult.
In order to build a fairer system, electoral reform must be based on three principles: number one, no party should be able to win a majority of seats in the House of Commons without winning a majority of the votes; number two, any reform should ensure that the number of seats a party receives is proportionate to its share of the popular vote; number three, reform should also take into account the importance of local representation.
These principles can be reflected in several models of proportional representation. Throughout my remarks, I might also be saying PR, by which I'll obviously be referring to proportional representation.
With proportional representation, Canada will have a fair system that eliminates wasted votes and more accurately converts votes into seats in Parliament. In addition to allowing for a fairer and more democratic system, PR often provides other benefits as well.
Countries that have adopted PR have seen increases in electing women and under-represented groups as well as an overall increase in voter turnout, as high as 5% to 7%. Additionally, adopting a system of proportional representation can help address alienation and dissatisfaction, because people feel that their votes count. It can also improve attitudes toward the voting system and governance as a whole.
PR gives voters more power to set the government's agenda. It encourages people to vote for what they want instead of voting for who they think can win.
Furthermore, OECD statistics show that governments with PR are more fiscally responsible. Accountability is shared across party lines, and the risks of mismanagement are more costly. A party that loses support is guaranteed to lose seats and, as a result, political clout. This builds more transparency in governance as well.
While any form of PR would be welcomed, we think MMP, or mixed member proportionality, is the simplest way for Canada to move forward with new rules that we can trust. Canadians would still get to vote for their local representative and at the same would have a more fairly balanced representation in the House of Commons. With MMP, people would use a new ballot that asks them to make two choices: first they would vote for a local member of Parliament, just as they do today, and next they would be asked to vote for the political party that they want to represent them.
The first vote gets used to elect the local representative, of course. The second vote is used to balance each party's number of seats in the House of Commons, and, if necessary, to reflect their share of the vote. It is still possible for one party to win a majority government using MMP, but that only happens when one party actually gets the majority of votes. If no one party can do that, then parties must work together to get things done. The added bonus is co-operation among political parties, resulting in a much fairer approach to government that's less about adversarial politics and more about finding common ground in order to produce results and reflect the priorities of Canadians.
Under MMP, we would recommend an open list of names for voters to choose from. We would also suggest to parties that they create their lists in a fashion similar to the nomination process that they currently use in the ridings. We believe the majority of MPs should be elected locally in ridings, but believe the exact proportion should be examined every few years, similar to the way our current ridings are reviewed today. We would also suggest that the lists of MPs should reflect regionality. This would ensure that the lists of MPs have strong ties to the areas they represent.
Changing our electoral system to proportional representation is long overdue. In fact, public support for change is strong. An Abacus Data report earlier this spring asked Canadians about reforming our election rules, and the results were surprising: just 17% said they were comfortable with the first-past-the-post rules that we use today.
That says to me and to the Canadian Labour Congress that the work of this committee is so vital to ensuring the trust of Canadians in our democracy.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much, Ms. Deguire.
As mentioned, we have a spot because Ms. Culbertson was unable to appear. I'm told that there is a group or representative here in the room who officially requested to appear. They're ready to sit down and deliver some remarks. It's the Qu'Appelle Valley Environmental Association. The co-chair, Jim Harding, is here.
Mr. Harding, would you like to come up and say a few words by way of introduction and then answer any questions members may have?
Jim Harding As an Individual
What a pleasant surprise.
Welcome to Saskatchewan, not only where medicare started, but where the first human rights legislation was passed in 1945, prior to the UN declaration. I'm just reviving a little of the real Saskatchewan history, which often isn't represented through our voting system.
We are a group that brings forward a reality of voters that shows why a move to proportional representation will be good for the country, including the protection of the environment. Our group is on an interprovincial watershed—Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba—which was deregulated by a majority government that received a minority report under the omnibus bills under the past government.
PR, of course, does add representation that raises major regional issues, not simply local constituency issues. In our opinion, that's a good thing, because there are issues facing Canada that because of the fragmentation at present can't get on to the political agenda of governments and become part of intergovernmental policy and co-operation.
Our group has had people at meetings from 15 local communities in this watershed, one of the watersheds under risk in the province and the country. All of them trying to find a way to get some traction in the governance and policy-making systems. While I won't trace it here, I can show you how protection of a watershed falls between the cracks.
If we move to proportional representation, we know from comparative studies that issues around larger environmental systems and protection, as well as diversity and voter turnout, do change. I think in the comparative research there might be cultural and political like Australia. That is true. However, I think that if you look at the comparative stuff across the board, you're going to find that broad issues of interest that don't get fragmented by party and first-past-the-post self-interests are more likely to get on the agenda.
I would argue that charter issues, environmental sustainability issues, and overcoming regional polarization—which is falsified, in my opinion—have become paramount for the country. That's true across the world too, I would argue.
I guess we are saying to look closely at how a move to a more representative proportional system can strengthen the political culture. We're not talking about gimmicks for getting people out to vote, but lowering the voting age to 16 because you create a culture of involvement. If they're taking civics and they can actually vote and there are discussions and a good curriculum, which was the point of the election returning officer.... Our education is a factor in a democratic culture. Do a whole bunch of things at the same time, not to mix people up but to make the involvement clearer.
At present, we are living under a system that in fact does not respect majority rule. In the last three elections, 23%, 24%, and 27% of eligible voters created the government. The relevant figure is “eligible voters”, not those who voted. The ideal of full involvement in democracy is the ideal that your committee and all of us who are trying to strengthen democracy should work for.
The charter, which in my opinion is a strong basis for moving to PR, says that freedom of expression is at the heart of democratic societies. That's well known in democratic theory and human rights theory. If we can't vote by conscience for what we want and we either get disinterested or vote strategically, we're a step removed from freedom of expression.
The equality principle in the charter seems to me to be clear: one person, one vote; one person, one vote that counts. It seems to me the environmental imperative and the charter are both strong principles that move us away from the first-past-the-post system.
There are lots of examples of how environmental and human rights will become more central to governance, to voter turnout, to our political culture. The regional polarization in Canada is particularly serious. I come from a riding where our MP didn't even tell us that this committee was meeting. We found out about your hearings after you had already filled up your witness list, so I'm particularly pleased and grateful that we got in.
In Saskatchewan, if you're in rural Saskatchewan and you're of the 50% who didn't vote for the MP, there are huge barriers to accessing the political culture. Take first nations, for example. There weren't even voting booths in first nations communities in our constituency until the last election, when we had a candidate who insisted on it. It makes a huge difference if first nations don't have to drive to a rural poll. Voting is part of being in a community. That's another critique about online voting, by the way; it's not just the security issue. We vote as social beings, as part of a community that cares about things—local things for sure, regional things for sure, and water. That's why we vote. However, if the voting system is rigged or biased so that those interests can't somehow create a coalition of involvement, they will be invisible in the outcome, in terms of the election.
Those are our main points. We'll finalize our brief after we get more information; we're coming here as part of the learning process. Right now we have 13 points in our brief. We take positions on pretty much all of the things.... It has come out of a process of trying to see what happens when a group that's starting to form regionally around protecting the watershed starts to look at the system of voting, at what happens in terms of governments and the agendas that governments work with.
My guess is that there's not co-operation among Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba MPs—right now, on an all-party basis—to protect our watershed. I would think that would be worth checking. There should be. If a Conservative and an NDP and a Liberal are working to do that, that's fine with us. The political culture should be encouraging that co-operation. We think moving to PR—we're not taking a position on the kind of PR—will help move that political culture along.
Those are the main points. You have a written version, but our final one will come by the October deadline.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much.
We'll start the round with Mr. DeCourcey, for five minutes, please.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you very much, Ms. Deguire and Mr. Harding, for your comments this afternoon, and for joining us here today.
Ms. Deguire, you made a comment to the effect that you believe PR gives voters more power in their ability to shape the government agenda. One of the comments that we've heard iterated a number of different ways from different presenters over the months is that different voting systems effectively provide different timing and place in the way in which the agenda gets set and how the coalition is effectively built. The first past the post, single-member plurality privileges the agenda-setting going into an election. Voters see what is likely to be a government's agenda in the campaign platform should they be elected with a plurality or majority of seats, as opposed to a PR system, where the coalition is built at a different point, potentially out in the open instead of potentially behind closed doors.
I say that just to preface my question. Can you elaborate a little on how you—the congress and your membership—see an electoral system as providing voters with an ability to shape the government's agenda?
Director, Prairie Region, Canadian Labour Congress
I was speaking more to the point that the current system is broken as it is now. By this I mean that what we've seen is, time and time again, majority governments whose agendas we already know. If we elect a certain government that has campaigned on ripping up labour legislation and going to war with unions, for instance, and there are various other egregious things in their platform and commitments they've made publicly, then we know that when that government gets elected, that's what they're going to do.
What we're saying is that in a PR system, at least we have a hope of different viewpoints and, as you said, more of a coalition of people, more interest around the table to create just not one agenda, if that makes sense. It gives people a reason to say they're not going to just sit on their hands on election day because this party is going to get in power regardless of whether they go to the polls or not to vote, because their votes won't count and it's inevitable that they're going to see a government that is going to do the opposite of what they value and want to see a government do.
That's the short answer.
