Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 20th, 2016

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I can't think of any cheeky comeback, Elizabeth.

Thank you very much, Mr. Sosa and Ms. D'Aubin, for your mindful presentation on the things we need to consider in working with your organization and those living with disabilities as we try to enhance the system for all Canadians.

Dr. Thomas, thank you for what I thought was a balanced and insightful presentation on the panoply of issues in front of us that we have to deal with. You spoke in your presentation about this conversation being part of a response to a democratic malaise, but reminded us that we are not in a crisis with our democracy here in Canada and should be mindful not to reduce this conversation into simplicities that allow polarized sides to talk past one another. Can you expand on that, and perhaps remind us of some of the ways in which we can turn this into a conversation of slogans and not the substantive conversation we need to have on enhancing the electoral process for all Canadians?

[Dr. Paul Thomas]

I just want to offer a short intervention—I'll get right to your question—on the disability issue. I am active with a coalition of 72 groups as a volunteer, and these issues are very serious for them. I'm also on the Elections Canada advisory board, and anything I say here tonight has nothing to do with that entity or with Elections Canada.

I know on automation at the polling stations and on online voting, we met last week for a day and those were the two primary topics of the day. Very serious thought is being given to the operational requirements of making those things happen.

Inevitably, there are advocacy groups—I've heard them in action—and they believe strongly and they have certainty in their minds that some systems are better than others. They wanted to bump the existing system and find a replacement, and sometimes I think they go overboard. Political scientists, if they were better at their research and had more evidence to present, might be able to give solid answers, but we're not there, quite frankly.

The main book on electoral reform across different countries tells us that, at the end of day, you tinkered with the electoral system and not a lot changed within the political system. It's rather depressing and discouraging. They may not have measured everything, but I cite that book at some length in the big paper that I mentioned.

We have to say that we can blend these models in some creative way to do a made-in-Canada model that respects the regional fact of life, respects the pluralism that's Canadian society, and reflects the fact that our system of cabinet parliamentary government is among the most centralized in the world. Things are changing under this government compared to the former government, and hopefully the democratic reform agenda that Prime Minister Trudeau ran under, including a lot of things like controlling pre-writ spending, regulating leadership debates, more autonomy for committees.... There's a long, long list of things to be done there. If we get too hung up on electoral reform, I think we may get away from those other crucially important agenda items.

That's not a satisfactory answer to your question. I don't have a definitive answer. I guess I'm saying that, in your report and in communications by the government and the other parties, we should try to find what's in the public interest and how we reach out to those disengaged voters who are paying casual attention to this, if at all, and appeal to them on the level of values. If you begin to talk the technicalities, you're going to lose them. I've been to two town halls now, a church group and a business group. I whipped them into apathy very quickly. I'm that good at this now.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I think what your answer does remind us is that the electoral system is one component of a larger system of parliamentary democracy and governance wrapped up in a larger political culture, all of which are intertwined together and are components of our democracy.

Can you touch quickly on the value of accountability that you see as foundational in the aspect of local representation that is part of our political culture?

[Dr. Paul Thomas]

There's a wonderful survey that comes out of Ryerson University on why people mistrust politicians. The reasons are the failure to deliver on promises—I'm speaking to retired parliamentarians on Thursday on this topic—the avoidance of accountability, refusing to apologize for mistakes that are made, and so on. The system makes it too easy to slough off responsibility. Too many politicians today—and I would probably do this if I were in public life—say, “I apologize, I take responsibility”, but there are no consequences, and Canadians think there should be consequences when policy blunders are made, when bureaucrats screw up, and when the minister dodges the responsibility for it in the House of Commons or beyond.

It's a complicated problem. I've written endlessly about accountability, the big “A” word, and we have to define accountability more strictly and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much.

Monsieur Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Good evening. Thank you all for being here, whether you are a spectator in the room or one of the three witnesses.

Mr. Thomas, a little earlier, my colleague was talking about a study done in Manitoba. According to the study, 50% of people who did not vote said that they would have voted had the voting system been different.

A study by the Institut du nouveau monde in Quebec—which, let me just say right away, is in favour of a proportional voting system—combined a survey with group consultations. The study shows the reasons given by the young and not so young for not voting.

The reasons include people’s lack of interest in politics, people being too busy, problems with registration on the voters list, disillusionment, people not liking the electoral issues, people being out of the riding for the vote, and health issues. So there are all sorts of reasons other than the voting system.

Personally, I have no doubt about that. I rely on the data from Professor André Blais, who is an expert in proportional voting systems in Quebec, at the University of Montreal. I see you nodding. You seem to know him or you may have already read his documents. He clearly stated that there will be no difference in the percentage of people voting if we shift to a proportional voting system. The difference is of 3%, give or take. So there is not really an upward trend.

That said, I am among those who believe that we could take tangible action to have people vote and to have more women. Witnesses have told us that we could change some party rules without necessarily changing the voting system.

Could you name some of the tangible actions that you think could be taken—apart from changing the voting system—and that would ensure that we would have better representation, better accessibility? I would like to hear what you have to say. Are there one or two things you could share with me?

[Dr. Paul Thomas]

On the decline in voter turnout, the biggest part of the explanation for that is the decline in voting by young Canadians, 18- to 25-year-olds. Over time, this is the strongest explanation. They are disconnected from mainstream politics. It's not that they're not political. They find all sorts of causes that they identify with and become very political and very active about, but not the idea of going out to vote.

We don't want to create a political culture in which the norm of non-voting becomes a pattern, a part of the political culture. In countries that have mandatory voting, there's some evidence, not entirely persuasive but pretty good, that mandatory voting does create a behavioural norm, if you like, in favour of voting. As you grow further into adulthood and get into your mature years, there's a greater likelihood, if you start early. Elections Canada is going to have pre-registration of 16- and 17-year-olds on the brink of voting age. That's a good idea. It's working in 15 states. There are other ways. Last time Elections Canada went out and reached out to student associations.

You have to amend the Fair Elections Act. It puts an unduly restrictive condition on the mandate of Elections Canada to do outreach. It shouldn't involve motivation. It shouldn't tell people they have to vote, or something like that, but it should tell people about the importance of voting, how to vote, and things like that. That will help with the margins.

Almost everything you can suggest helps with the margins, but that's not a reason to say you shouldn't try this or try that. You try some things and you try multiple things, and likely you'll get gradual incremental improvement in the health of Canadian democracy, which isn't that sick to start with. We want to help our democracy, but it isn't that sick to start with.

Marginal improvements make a big difference. Mandatory voting in the United States, it's predicted, would bring the turnout rate up 30%. In Canada, André Blais says that it would bring the turnout rate up between 6% and 13%. It depends on a bunch of factors.

Anyway, let's not go for one silver bullet, one institutional fix that will cure all of this. There are a number of things that have to be done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Rayes, you have about 30 seconds left.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

One of the arguments often put forward by those in favour of a proportional voting system is that it promotes better representation of women and minorities. Do you think that, with a rule that could be implemented without changing the voting system, we could improve those statistics and reach 50% of women and a better representation of minorities?

In your view, are there ways to achieve a result like that? Let's go quickly, because there's not a lot of time left.

[Dr. Paul Thomas]

There's some evidence that it works. The countries that have adopted proportional representation were quite often already progressive in their social thinking, so you don't know what's purely cause and effect.

The parties can do lots of things on their own. They can produce more representative slates of candidates and run women, aboriginal, and minority group candidates in ridings where they stand some chance of winning. There are things parties can do without having to change the electoral system in a fundamental way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Chair, I just want to take a second to make a comment and thank the other witnesses.

Let me just congratulate you. I did not have an opportunity to ask you questions. I admire the work that you do for people with disabilities, who don't have access to the same services as everyone else.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Sahota, go ahead.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

This is a very interesting conversation. I am really happy to hear about accessibility issues because we haven't been talking a whole lot about that yet. You've given me and this committee a lot to think about in terms of how we can be accessible.

That's a great segue, I guess, into voter turnout. We probably don't have a lot of disabled people coming out to the polls. A lot of people are isolated in certain areas in terms of coming out to the polls. We need to improve on that.

Again and again, we're hearing, “my vote doesn't count and that's why I don't vote”. When I was going door to door, I did hear that. I'm hearing it, and I'm not saying that it's not true, that sentiment that some people may feel. It's very good to hear that, but I was also hearing a lot of other things. The people who closed the door, saying, “I don't vote”, weren't really interested in any political party. They weren't interested in politics. That seemed to me to be the recurring theme that I heard from people who weren't interested in going out to the polls. They didn't see what was in it for them.

Would anybody from the panel like to comment on that and why the turnout is so low? What are your ideas behind the fact that people are not coming out?

[Carlos Sosa]

I think one of the reasons can be tied to poverty. We see this in any trend. Typically, those who live in more affluent areas tend to vote more than those who are in poverty.

I think what we need to be dealing with here are the issues of poverty. Once we deal with those issues, I think people will get out and vote. The fact of the matter is that we also have to be dealing with—I'll reiterate—the barriers just to get to the voting station. It's about access to Handi-Transit. It's about the cost to get ID. It's about the accessibility of the voting station.

We have to look at this holistically. It's not going to change overnight, but attempts to deal with these issues definitely need to be made.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Professor Thomas.

[Dr. Paul Thomas]

Decline in turnout is a worldwide phenomenon, as is mistrust of politicians, and the causes of declining participation are both historical and contemporary—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

It's interesting to hear you say that, because I was looking at some numbers to see how we can improve and maybe be a great country that has a different voting system and have great voter turnout. No matter what, historically the numbers have been declining in every single country.

Even when New Zealand turned to MMP, their voter turnout didn't go up. It fell. In 2014 their voter turnout was better than ours. It was almost 77%. In 1960 it was 90%. I can even give you the numbers for the nineties and for what it was just before it turned. It was still a lot higher than what it is today.

We see that same trend in the U.S. for the presidential election. Yes, they don't have proportional representation, but they have two candidates running, so your votes basically would count. They've declined over the years too. All the countries seem to have been in the 80th or 90th percentile for turnout in the 1960s and the 1950s. Now they're all in the sixties and the seventies, and some are even lower.

To me, it seems that regardless of what voting system I'm looking at, turnout overall is just extremely low. We need to do something about it. We need to get people engaged again. I'm trying to figure out how we engage them and get that trust back.

[Dr. Paul Thomas]

Again, at the risk of repeating myself, just to go to your point, even a country like Australia, where typically 95% of the people show up to vote because there's a modest fine if you fail to vote.... Less than 1% of people who don't vote ever pay the fine. You get a letter telling you that you failed to vote and asking for a valid reason. Most of them escape paying the $20 fine or whatever it is.

We can do things by way of mandatory voting. Also, at the level of Elections Canada, we can facilitate voting with weekend voting and even Sunday voting. Some people may not like that, but other people might take advantage of it. Also, we could have free registration of young people and automation at the polls. There are all sorts of operational things you can do to make the whole voting experience more convenient, more accessible, and so on.

The bigger problem is within the political system. It would require action from the politicians—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Madam Sansoucy.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses and those in the room.

My first question is for Professor Thomas.

You asked us a lot of very relevant questions. I think we will have to find the answers to a number of them. If I combine your various questions, I come to the conclusion that our committee's mandate must be to reach a non-partisan compromise to better serve the country's needs.

I also agree with you that it is good to study the various voting systems being used in some countries around the world, but that we need to find a system that reflects our geography, our history and our culture. We must find the model that suits us best. We know that the proportional voting system has been in use for 60 years in a number of countries and, in fact, none of the countries that adopted a proportional voting system changed their minds later. I would have liked to hear what you have to say about the considerations at play here in comparison to other models.

You are asking the question, but I would have liked to hear the answer.

[Dr. Paul Thomas]

The country we're most often compared to is Australia, because we're large geographic entities, because of their federal system and cabinet parliamentary system, and because they're a former British colony, and so on.

On the other hand, they have a far more homogeneous society. There's less diversity in Australia. They also have aboriginal populations, indigenous people, and so on. There is more of a unified national political culture in Australia. That's not to say they don't have philosophical and ideological differences among their parties.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I fully understand those considerations. Thank you.

My colleague Nathan Cullen said that we need to find a voting system that helps have more women elected. My colleague Mr. Rayes asked questions about how that can be achieved. Every time we sit in the House of Commons—and I am sure that my colleagues have the same feeling—we, as women, are faced with the fact that we are only 26% of the members present.

That is why I was very happy that my colleague Kennedy Stewart is introducing Bill C-237. For your information, this is a bill on gender equity among candidates. Regardless of whether or not you are familiar with this bill, do you think it is a good idea to adopt measures to encourage political parties to address equity, as Bill C-237 is proposing?

[Dr. Paul Thomas]

I wouldn't start by doing it by law and regulation. I'd start by doing it by incentives to political parties to run balanced slates of candidates. Then, if they failed to respond within a certain period of time, I'd say that maybe we should follow the example of other countries and make it that there has to be fifty-fifty on the roster.

I would go to that reluctantly. On a lot of these things, we're asking ourselves if we trust politicians and political parties to fix some of the malaise and the problems, or do we need a set of laws, regulations, and institutional changes to do things that they wouldn't do if they understood what the country needed, things that are against their self-interest.

I'm saying I still have enough trust in politicians and political parties that I would like to see them do it themselves, rather than give them the institutional quick fix that some people may promote.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Unfortunately, many women's groups no longer have that trust.

I have one last short question.

Mr. Sosa and Ms. D'Aubin, thank you for your comments on accessibility and online voting. You have not said anything about electoral reform. In your view, does one voting system or another hinder accessibility for people with disabilities?