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.
September 19th, 2016 / 2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I call the meeting to order.
I'd like to start by welcoming everyone this morning. First of all, thank you to everyone sitting in the audience for being here. We have a good turnout. It's a sign of a strong interest in this issue and in our democracy. Thank you, and congratulations for being here.
We apologize for the delay. The flight from Montreal to Ottawa had to turn back because of fog in Ottawa.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
At any rate, we're here now. This is the 24th meeting of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. The format today is that each of the two presenters will present for 10 minutes. We'll see how it goes, but we may go to the second group of presenters right away, for 10 minutes each. Then we'll have a question-and-answer session, the public session, from 4:15 to 5 o'clock. After each set of presentations, there will be one round of questions from members, at five minutes each. That includes the answer. Both fit into the five-minute time slot.
We have with us this afternoon Mr. Michael Boda, the Chief Electoral Officer of Saskatchewan.
Thank you very much for being here, Mr. Boda, and for taking part in the discussion on the important topic of electoral reform.
We also have Professor Charles Smith from St. Thomas More College at the University of Saskatchewan. We thank him as well for being here.
Perhaps we could start with Mr. Boda for 10 minutes, please.
Michael Boda Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Saskatchewan
Thank you.
I would like to thank you for the invitation to appear today before the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.
I would like to reiterate my interest in the topics being addressed here that aim to measure the strength of democracy in Canada and determine how the federal electoral process can contribute.
I am very interested in the discussion you have launched across the country and in the efforts you have made to strengthen and solidify our nation's democratic values for the decades to come.
Not unlike Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, who heads Elections Canada and oversees federal electoral events, I am responsible for overseeing Saskatchewan's provincial electoral events as head of Elections Saskatchewan. The mandate of my office includes managing an ongoing register of voters, regulating political parties and the finances of candidates, ensuring an appropriate level of readiness for conducting both scheduled and on-demand electoral events, and acting as a secretariat to our boundary commission. However, unlike my federal counterparts, I also hold investigatory responsibilities akin to those of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, Yves Côté.
From the outset, I must make it clear to members that while I'm very interested in supporting the work of your committee, I'm also one of 14 chief electoral officers in the country. In my role as a professional election administrator, it would not be appropriate for me to make recommendations on what electoral system should be selected for Canada's federal elections or to offer any assessment on the various electoral systems you have under consideration.
At this point in your deliberations, I expect that you will have already surmised that senior Canadian election professionals are quite serious about neutrality. I know that a number of my colleagues have declined your invitation to appear for that very reason. Within our role, we are intentional about not offering views on matters that sit clearly within the purview of legislators, and that includes offering an answer with respect to questions of what the best electoral system is for Canadians. Our job is instead to advise on making workable whatever system legislators and governments choose and to facilitate an ongoing examination and understanding of how the legal definition of the chosen system can be appropriately modified, as it inevitably needs to evolve within an ever-changing society.
Similarly, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to make recommendations on adopting or rejecting compulsory voting, a question of public policy for legislators to decide, but I do have some views on making such arrangements workable in the Canadian context.
On the topic of online voting, as Chief Electoral Officer it is not for me to advise on whether the time is right to proceed. It would be my role instead to offer insights on how promising new methods of voting may also present new types of challenges to an election system's integrity.
While I was born and raised in the province, prior to my appointment here in Saskatchewan in 2012, I spent two previous decades in the academy, and in conducting and assessing electoral events in both developing democracies such as Pakistan and Ghana and in established democracies such as Scotland and the United States. In light of this, I may be able to offer you some comparative insight with respect to electoral system implementation. I will need to apologize in advance if I'm simply unable to answer your questions. There's a bit of a self-editing process that's a requirement in my role as a senior election administrator, although my caution may be more than compensated for by the freedom of academic expression that my panel colleague, Dr. Charles Smith, enjoys.
Let me turn first to the topic of electoral systems.
In your efforts to evaluate the systems available to you, I encourage you to think about how many changes—and how any changes—may influence the engagement of citizens.
Election administrators tend to focus on service to the voter and on ensuring their experience at each polling place is positive and efficient. As committee members, you have the opportunity to think more broadly about the impact an electoral system can have on public participation. The decline in voter participation, not just in Canada but across western democracies, is well documented, and I share the concerns that have been expressed about the legitimacy of governance being at risk if this trend continues unabated. When looking at the electoral system alternatives available to you, you might consider whether a particular system would serve as a disincentive to voting participation, potentially introducing new barriers to voting as an unintended consequence, or whether it would provide incentives for participation and minimize administrative barriers to accessing the ballot.
Election administrators are universally concerned that all eligible voters have reasonable access to the ballot and that voting integrity provisions are kept efficient and do not have an unduly disenfranchising effect. Making voting easier, not harder, and adopting an electoral system that has an enduring tendency to encourage voting participation might be one of a combination of factors that would help to reverse the decline of Canadian voting participation rates. Across the country, first nations are just one example of a group that has not traditionally been engaged in electoral democracy and could be much better accommodated with improved ballot access.
I'm not here to tell you which electoral system would afford greater or lesser results in this regard, but I do believe that the legitimacy of governance becomes questionable when we see levels of participation drop to 50% of eligible voters or less. Those selecting a new electoral system I hope will keep this in mind.
As you consider making changes to our system, perhaps I can offer some tangible advice based on my experience.
In 2007 I served as deputy reviewer and director of the review of the Scottish parliamentary and local government elections. I believe the review of those elections offers good insights to your committee in what it points out and in what to avoid when implementing change to an electoral system. It also points to certain elements of the nuts and bolts of the election as a system itself.
In a nutshell, the Scottish experience showed that too much legislative change was introduced in too little time to incorporate it well. Roles, relationships, and accountability for coordination were not adequately defined. The combination of local government and parliamentary elections using a different electoral system and ballot design for each led to challenges for the voters. Ballot design was given too little attention and left too late in the process. Public education on a new voting process under two electoral systems was launched too late and was inadequate in scope. Also, voters were overlooked in the reform process, leading to disastrous consequences, with spoiled ballots and a significant erosion in public trust regarding the election process.
In light of this experience, as you consider making recommendations on important innovations to our electoral system, my advice would be to ensure adequate time is available for system change. Don't require too much change too quickly. An election is like a ship, not a speedboat; it can definitely turn, but not quickly. Also, ensure there is a mandate for a good public education process associated with any new system.
As I've noted, I'm deeply concerned about the decline in democratic engagement and voter participation in our country. Despite this and because of my required neutrality on what might be considered a partisan topic, I'm not going to offer a view on mandatory voting, but I do have some administrative design suggestions in the event your committee decides to move in that direction.
I would suggest that mandatory voting needs to be accompanied with mandatory voter registration and that registration should become automatic. This means that anyone who's eligible to vote must register and keep their registration current with regard to the details of their physical address, residence, mailing address, and any change in name.
Automatic registration would involve the state ensuring that a record for every eligible voter would be created through an automated mechanism and would be maintained without the voter needing to be involved. Admittedly, this would be a major administrative undertaking. Recent reports out of Australia have indicated that voluntary registration has been highly ineffective, even though registration has been mandatory there for many decades, and, of course, if a voter isn't registered, they can't be fined for not having voted.
This leads to the tricky aspect of having effective enforcement mechanisms for both mandatory registration and mandatory voting. In Australia the penalty for not registering to vote is $170, but it is discretionary and is waived once the person registers to vote. Failure to vote can result in a $20 penalty, unless a valid and sufficient reason is supplied to the Australian Electoral Commission and they waive that fine. Officially, the turnout rates in Australia are 94%, but this doesn't factor in the absence of more than one million of the 17 million eligible voters from their electoral role. Actual turnout is likely somewhat less than 90%.
The other question that needs to be asked is whether mandatory voting participation enforces meaningful democratic engagement. Australia has resorted to printing rotating ballots, where the choice order changes for each ballot issued to a lineup of voters.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Mr. Boda, would you be able to conclude in about 60 seconds? There will be questions afterward on your testimony.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Saskatchewan
This was a direct response to the fact that studies show that having positions at the top or bottom of the ballot led to a disproportionate amount of support from what is termed “the donkey vote” in Australia. Basically, the donkey vote is those votes cast by citizens who have no interest in the election but do not want to be fined for not having voted.
For my final topic I was going to have a discussion on online voting. I would be happy to answer questions on that topic.
In essence, I raise a lot of questions with respect to online voting. I would point you to the recent report published by Dr. Keith Archer, the Chief Electoral Officer of British Columbia. He offered some excellent insights on the risks that are there, but at the same time he offered some positive comments on how there might be a way forward, and I'm in agreement with those comments. I do have some concerns about authentication, and particularly with vote secrecy as it relates to online voting and auditability.
I'll leave you with this. I often point to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and if you focus on the principles laid out there, especially when it comes to online voting, there isn't a principle of convenience. It focuses on the secrecy of the ballot, and I think that is something we have to focus on initially. This isn't to say that there's not going to be an online system available going forward.
I'm excited about the future. I think there are innovations and processes that we can pursue, but I am very concerned about the secrecy of the ballot.
With that, I'll conclude.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I have a feeling there will be many questions regarding online voting, because as a chief electoral officer you would have particular insight on that, among other things.
We'll go now to Professor Smith for 10 minutes, please.
Professor Charles Smith Associate Professor, St. Thomas More College, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual
Thank you, and thank you for allowing me to come to speak with you today. I really love the button you have that silences the microphone. I'm sure many of my students would like to have a similar button. Thank you again.
I appreciate the leadership of this committee in allowing me to come to speak with you today. I address the question of voting system reform a little differently from some of the presenters who have come before me. I've been following quite closely all of the presenters before your committee. I love the online tool; that's great.
I'm more a political historian than I am a scholar of voting system reform, but I have a vested interest in this issue in the sense that I've been quite active in organizations such as Fair Vote Canada.
In my own research I examine the way groups in Canadian society—often marginalized groups—struggle to influence change or alter governments and government policies. Specifically, the questions I'm interested in are how governments can be held to greater account and, as a common question in contemporary political governance, how governments and legal institutions can be held to a higher level of transparency.
There are two arguments or areas I'd like to cover today. One is the historical question that has been presented to this committee as defence of the status quo, and the other is how I think the current voting system hides or distorts existing social cleavages. I'm going to use the example of Saskatchewan. Since you're in Saskatchewan, I thought that might be relevant for you.
On the historical question, on a normal level I begin with the observation that the current electoral system fails because it does not place voters at the centre of its institutional functioning. In fact, SMP or first past the post as a model very much originates in a pre-democratic era that was constructed by male propertied elites.
Critically examining the origins of the system is important, because opponents of voting system reform make the case, the odd observation—and I've seen some of my learned colleagues on this committee make it—that Canada's 150-year existence owes at least some of its stability and effectiveness as a democracy to the voting system. I'm curious about these arguments and curious about how they come about, as they seem to ignore the many historical injustices that have been done in the name of the Canadian state by elites, who did so largely with little accountability to the masses of Canadian society. Here you can point to the slow opening of suffrage to workers, women, people of colour, and indigenous Canadians.
My point here is not say that SMP leads directly to these historical injustices but to say that if defenders of the status quo want to equate SMP with Canada's 150-year history, they may have to own both the good and the bad of that history. I have yet to hear a clear historical account presented to this committee that effectively links how they see Canada today—as a bilingual, multi-cultural, open, and somewhat transparent government and society—with the voting system. The reason I think you haven't heard that is that such an account does not exist; in fact, it could not exist, because the argument has no basis in historical fact.
If you were to understand how Canada moved from a colonial, constitutional monarchy run by white male propertied elites to what it is today, you would need to look past the voting system and actually see the voting system as an obstacle. We've achieved great things in this country despite our voting system, not because of it. Different groups have fought to be heard despite the barriers placed in the way by our voting system, a system that has suppressed competition and poorly represented our political and demographic diversity.
The historical record shows that our voting system has been kept in place not for any of the loftier quasi-functional reasons offered by some defenders of the status quo but for reasons of power: it has served the two main governing parties well. That, I want to point out, is not an indictment of the modern version of those two parties in 2016, but a reminder that the real history of SMP is one that almost always blocked new ideas and the fair and representative account of the great social, political, and economic questions of our time.
Recognizing that, I would encourage members of the committee to understand the voting system as the product of political struggle. It's not divorced from political struggle; it is part of that struggle. SMP is firmly rooted in the 19th-century understanding of political power, one that is against diversity, pluralism, and, frankly, democracy. I think we can do better.
I believe this committee has a unique opportunity to craft a voting system for our 21st-century understanding of political power, and that such a system should put the voting public at the centre of its reason for being or raison d'être—and that's my one French account, because my French has fallen by the wayside since I lived in Quebec. I agree with Liberal MP Mark Holland, who said that every vote should count and that Canadians' views should be represented more accurately.
We are at a historical turning point, I believe, and I applaud the leadership of this committee for the work that it is doing. It's so rare that a sitting government agrees to examine this key aspect of our democracy. In going forward, I think it is crucial that this committee privilege a reform that will accurately reflect what Canadians say with their votes and will better represent the diversity of this country. Research shows—and this is clear—that when people are not at the table, when they're not present for the discussion, their issues and concerns are not really taken seriously. This is no longer acceptable in 2016.
Here I want to look a little bit at Saskatchewan. I think the current voting system actually distorts existing social cleavages and can lead to a false impression about what a place is actually saying when they vote. We examined how people voted in Saskatchewan over the past few elections, and it became pretty clear that our current voting system consistently does a poor job of reflecting what people have said with their votes.
In 2015 the Conservatives won 48.5% of the popular vote in Saskatchewan and they won 10 seats. Clearly, many people are sympathetic to what the Conservatives stand for in this province, but that 48.5% translated into 71% of the seats. The Liberals won 24.6% during the vote but only one seat—we call that Mr. Goodale's seat—in Saskatchewan. The NDP won 25.1% and three seats, or 21% of the seats. That's actually the best result in over a decade.
We examined elections from 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2011. The results are very lopsided, often giving all or nearly all of the seats to just one party, even though half or more than half of Saskatchewan's voters supported somebody else.
I have a chart in my notes, which I think was given to you. If you look at the numbers, you see a pretty devastating critique of our current voting system. The Liberals won 27.5% of the vote in 2004 and one seat, or 7% of the seats. In 2011 the New Democrats won 32.3% of the popular vote in the province and did not win a single seat.
The Conservatives obviously are a favourite of many voters in this province. In 2011 they won 56.3% of the vote, more than a majority, but 93% of the seats. What does that tell us when commentators look at Saskatchewan? They say, well, it's a very Conservative place, and clearly they want Conservative policies—but do they? These lopsided results misrepresent what's going on in the province and present a false picture to the rest of the country about who we are and what we believe. This can't be good for national unity or inter-regional co-operation. How can our political parties do their job of bridging the differences in this country if they're not represented accurately when they have this support?
The story doesn't end there. As of the 2011 census—I'm eagerly awaiting the next census to update some of these numbers—Saskatchewan has the second-largest indigenous population, as a percentage of the population, of all the provinces. If we assume that the population has not increased since 2011—it has, but let's assume it hasn't—15.6% of Saskatchewan's people are indigenous, but in the past two elections only two indigenous MPs have been elected from this province. In both of those cases, it's in the same riding in the north.
Justin Trudeau has said that we need to reset our relationship with indigenous peoples. Getting more indigenous peoples to the table to speak to their own concerns directly would seem to be a pretty important first step. This is particularly important, I believe, for indigenous people who live in urban areas. Half of the indigenous people in Saskatchewan live in urban centres, we're told by Statistics Canada. That would suggest that indigenous voices from urban centres are not represented in the voting system.
Following the TRC recommendations last year, it seems clear to me that there is a unique opportunity for this committee to expand accessibility and inclusiveness to the federal Parliament. During the questions, we could talk about how other jurisdictions have done that. Specifically, I was reading up on how the Maori were represented in New Zealand after the adoption of proportional representation.
I believe a reform to a more proportional system has the potential to transfer voice and power to indigenous communities, both on reserve and in urban centres, so that these voices can be heard. Saskatchewan is a diverse place, and I think it is time we had a voting system that reflects our diversity.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much, Professor Smith. You touched on some good points that I think will stimulate debate this afternoon.
We'll do a five-minute round of questions now and then go to our second group of witnesses.
We'll start with Mr. DeCourcey for five minutes, please.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank all my colleagues who have returned for this committee's work.
It's great to be here in Regina, all the way from Fredericton, New Brunswick, to meet with witnesses who are here today and with folks from the community who have come out to join us. I agree with the comments made by both our presenters today on the importance of engaging Canadians in this conversation—I thank them very much for that—and of ensuring we can effectively have the voices of Canadians reflected within the electoral system, within their Parliament, and within their system of governance.
Something we've heard about for the last number of months now is the challenge in balancing the different values that we want to see reflected in the system.
Professor Smith, I'll start with you. One thing you mentioned was the value that Canadians place on holding government to account. I think a counterpoint to that is the way that communities hold their local representatives to account. I wonder if you can speak a bit on the importance of local representation as reflected in the electoral system. I know that I feel it acutely in the community that I have the honour of representing. I wonder how people in Regina, Saskatoon, or rural areas of this province understand that value of local representation within their electoral system.
Prof. Charles Smith
We can look at a bunch of different areas. Your question is multi-faceted, so we could go on.
Ridings change. They are often arbitrarily decided. I think the community itself is abstract. Historically, the local riding connection was quite abstract. It depends on how far you want to go back. In the 19th century, Canada had mixed member ridings. There were two members per riding, and they borrowed that from Britain. That changed over time.
What I'm trying to say is that the concept of the evolution of representation has changed over time. When we look at the current model of elections, we see there's no question that Canadians place value on local representation. If I have a problem because my CPP isn't coming through, then I can call you up and ask if you can help me out. There is a connection there, but I don't see how electoral reform of any of the models that are presented to the committee, whether it's a proportional system or an alternative ballot system, would somehow erode the relationship between individuals and their elected representatives. In fact, wouldn't it open it up?
We can see representation as an evolution, and not something that's been fixed over time. We see all the time that parties parachute candidates into ridings who don't have any organic connection to the riding. My point is that it's changing over time. There's no one direct, fixed moment when citizens say, “This is my riding and my representative.” My argument would be that it's fixed, and it doesn't mean it can't be changed.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Do you think there is a manageable size or an outside number of electors that a riding representative can effectively represent, given the demands placed on parliamentarians, in the way they connect with their community? I'd like the thoughts of Mr. Boda, who has worked extensively in an international sphere, and Professor Smith.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Saskatchewan
I wouldn't be able to give you a number; however, I think that each electoral system has its challenges when it comes to local representation.
On the first-past-the-post side, there is discussion of how much local representation there is, but on the proportional representation side, it's the same issue. In South Africa, for their first democratic election, they implemented a proportional system. By the time they were to their second election, they were already questioning whether there was a proper connection between the local citizens and their representatives because of the proportional representation approach. They were wondering whether the proportional representation approach should be reformed.
I can't give you the number you're looking for, but no matter the system, there is the issue of local representation. That is, I understand, one of your five guiding principles in the work that you're doing, so obviously it's very important to this committee.
Prof. Charles Smith
I would agree with that comment. Through Canadian history, the relationship between the local and the federal representative has been paramount. I would argue that there are multiple systems that can perform representation.
In terms of size, geographic size seems to be no boundary in Canadian history, and some of our ridings are bigger than most countries in Europe, but in terms of population, as you know, it's fixed by the Constitution, so it seems that we could work around those numbers to keep representation effective.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Thank you very much.
I have two questions for Dr. Boda. Depending upon how fast I am and how fast he is, we'll possibly have time for a question for Professor Smith.
Dr. Boda, as a starting point, I want to ask you about your experience in Scotland. You mentioned that the implementation was problematic because there was too much change all at once, and that was an issue. Specifically, I know that MMP was being introduced at the level of the Scottish Parliament, and I know that in Scotland they have also introduced a new system of voting at the municipal level. Were they both done at the same time? Is that where the problem lay?
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Saskatchewan
You're referencing the 2007 electoral process in which they brought together the Scottish parliamentary balloting at the same time as local government and they were using two different electoral systems. I was thinking about this earlier, and it's not usual for me to quote pop culture, but I was reminded of Smokey and the Bandit when they said they had a long way to go and a short time to get there. In Scotland, that could pretty much sum it up. There was a lot of change in a very short period of time.
When we went through the process and appeared before a Westminster committee, I think the exact same question was asked of me, which was whether it had to do with the electoral system itself. You could have a look at the report that I wrote it with Ron Gould, who was the lead reviewer. He was the former assistant chief electoral officer of Canada. We identified many changes that had been made, and it was really a matter of lack of focus as to who had the authority to make the changes combined with many changes being made as we went through the process.
To answer your question, I think it's much broader than simply an electoral system change.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I ask that because one of the options that is out there, one of the ones that generates the most interest, is a system that is relatively closely parallel to the one in Scotland.
I was trying to figure out whether you were expressing concerns that this particular system generated too much change or whether you were saying that it was many things all at once. I think it's the latter of those two that you were saying. Am I right about that?
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
It was that several things were going on at once. They were changing to the multi-member proportional system and changing several other things at the same time.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Okay. I just wanted to make sure of that.
I want to ask you another question that relates to your redistribution process. One thing that has been presented as a barrier to achieving the government's stated goal of introducing a new electoral system by 2019 is that it takes about two years at the federal level to go through a redistribution process. This has to be factored in. We now are basically three years from an election, with two years for redistribution. The danger is that it may become impossible to achieve any system that involves redistribution, as may be the case with mixed member plurality and the single transferable vote, in time for the next election.
Is there a way of doing redistribution in a more timely fashion? Are we dragging it out longer at the federal level than you do in Saskatchewan?
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Saskatchewan
I'm going to have to yield to Mr. Mayrand and what he had indicated. The number he put forward—correct me if I'm wrong—was 24 months to conduct that process. They don't take offering those dates lightly, and I don't either. They will have gone through a serious exercise in order to come up with the estimate of 24 months.
I can tell you that it is an extensive process. I can only speak from the point of view of Saskatchewan. Once you go through the process of establishing the boundaries, that is really less than half of the work that has to happen. Then you still have to go through the process of establishing polling divisions, which takes a lot of work.