Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 21st, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That ends the round of questioning. I want to thank both of our witnesses for being here. We gained some new and interesting perspectives on the issue.

I just have one question, or more of a comment, I guess. When people say they didn't vote because—I forget what the term or the phrase is—“my vote isn't going to do anything” or “count“, is it possible that they could be saying one of two things? One is that it's not being directly translated into the seat count and that this bugs them; I can see that. But could some people also be saying—and I've heard this from people—that nothing is going to change anyway, that all parties are the same, that they can't solve the big issues, that we're a globalized world, that governments can't do anything?

Could it be that when they are saying it's not worth their time to vote, or whatever it is, they could be saying one or the other of these; that it's not necessarily all one or all the other?

Do you see it that way, either one of you or both?

[Greg Essensa]

I could definitely see that this is a possibility. I think that's why you're seeing campaigns in Ontario and other jurisdictions in which candidates run as “none of the above”. Even here in Ontario, we had a candidate change his name to “ZNoneofthe, Above”, so that we he could run as an alternative candidate. I think there is potentially some legitimacy to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. What do you think, Mr. Di Ciano?

[Justin Di Ciano]

I would agree with you wholeheartedly. A lot of Canadians feel that government cannot do anything for them anymore. I'm not old enough, but I hear stories of when, at one time, politicians were highly respected in their communities. Today, they're not.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

On that note, we'll thank you for being here.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, really, thanks very much. It was very good.

We're going to suspend for a couple of minutes and then we'll get going with our other panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The meeting is now engaged. We have a second panel and we have three presenters who will present for five minutes each, starting with Ms. Laura Stephenson, appearing as an individual. We also have Diane Bergeron, executive director of strategic relations and engagement from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind; finally we have Donna Dasko, a researcher with the School of Public Policy and Governance at the University of Toronto, here in Toronto.

We'll start with Ms. Stephenson, for five minutes please.

[Laura Stephenson, As an Individual]

Thank you. I should say that I'm a political science professor at Western University.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Sorry, I didn't have that information.

[Laura Stephenson]

When I speak about electoral reform at all, certainly to my students, the devil is in the details. Of course, any change is going to involve many small decisions that will affect the trade-off between accountability and representation.

Today I'd like to provide comment on two aspects of representation that I think are really essential to consider when thinking of any kind of change, especially to a PR system.

The first is local representation. This is one of the principles outlined in the committee's mandate, and it's a fundamental feature—many would say a benefit—of our current system. I think it's very important to Canadians. Voters are used to knowing that there's a specific MP they can go to with comments, questions, or concerns, and having a local MP really gives a personal face to the government. The voter-MP link also facilitates accountability, because voters know who to blame in the next election.

Beyond that, having local representation is also very important for the activities of parties. Parties cannot ignore ridings if they want to be competitive in them. Campaigning matters. Furthermore, who the local candidate is can matter. Many voters take who they are electing into account, not just the party that they represent.

If Canadians were to lose that link between voters and local MPs, an important aspect of campaigning could be in jeopardy, and this would be detrimental to how much voters know about politics, how engaged they are, and whether they even care about elections. Political science research shows that personal contact is important and can mobilize. Given that engagement is also a principle of this system, it seems that the issue is quite relevant.

How does local representation factor into electoral systems? If the goal is simply to maintain the single-member districts we currently have, then the options are severely restricted: first past the post, ranked voting, or mixed system.

But it's not true that local representation cannot exist in PR systems. What matters is the magnitude or number of seats per district. Any number greater than one would lead to more proportionate outcomes than our current system, and many systems around the world have districts with low magnitudes. Experts would suggest that between three and seven is an ideal number.

Multi-member constituencies would certainly be a change for Canada, but they have been used in Canada before, and they would not necessarily eliminate all the types of local representation that Canadians are used to. Accountability is certainly clearest in single-member districts, but it can still occur when there's a small number of MPs. Further, constituency ties would be weakened in a multi-member district, but the need for candidates to campaign wouldn't be completely eliminated.

In fact, in multi-member districts, the incentive for candidates to encourage personal voting or to appeal to voters with their own credentials to represent the riding could be stronger. As most parties would put forward more than one candidate, there could be an incentive to distinguish oneself from others, depending on the nature of the ballot. This could actually increase the amount of riding-level campaigning that occurs.

In my estimation, it's very important when choosing an electoral system to be concerned that the incentive to campaign in individual ridings remain very strong, because it's an important aspect of our current system.

The second aspect of representation I want to mention has to do with under-represented groups. Earlier witnesses to this committee have made the point that electoral reform is neither required nor a guarantee that representation of such groups as women and visible minorities will increase. They are absolutely right—I shouldn't disagree with my colleagues, should I?—but there are several steps that could be taken even under our current system to improve representation. It's important to think that if we do move to a new electoral system, the features of those systems that make representation more likely need to be thoroughly considered.

We know that there tend to be more female representatives in PR systems. This outcome can occur usually by virtue of simply greater representation on candidate lists. This means that the identities of the candidates put forward by the parties are extremely important.

The extent to which representation would drive the construction of candidate lists could vary, but in a society such as ours, in which voters and the media pay attention to such issues, I think it's highly unlikely that it would go unnoticed if a party put forward an all-white, all-male set of candidates. Nonetheless, it could happen. The recommendation of supplementary policies to ensure that it didn't is a very important component of electoral systems.

Such policies, or how extreme they need to be, would depend upon any electoral system chosen, including our current system. Any financial incentives to comply with such official policies—or quotas, especially—would be a good idea.

In any system that involves a list of candidates, we have to start thinking about the placement of those names on the list. In a closed system, where the parties have full control over the order in which the candidates would receive seats, it's important that there is some kind of alternation, or that at least the under-represented groups aren't placed in winnable positions. In open list systems this is not as important. In some research I've done with colleagues, we found that letting people vote in an open list system, where they get to choose, increased the representation of women, which is of course good news, right? The disadvantage that women supposedly represent has not been supported with evidence.

An audience distribution of representation is more likely to happen in multi-member districts, but it's important that we be aware of any loopholes that exist. Parties want to win office, they want to govern as they desire, and this would include having their party stalwarts as part of their team. Without policies in place to prioritize representation over possible party interests, the representation benefits of a PR system could be lost.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Ms. Bergeron.

[Diane Bergeron, Executive Director, Strategic Relations and Engagement, Canadian National Institute for the Blind]

Thank you.

As mentioned, I'm here to discuss issues pertaining to people with sight loss in Canada. It is important we remember that every Canadian has a right to vote independently, to be able to check the ballot to make sure that it's been correctly marked, and to be able to do this in secret. This is a right of every single Canadian.

I'd like to tell you, although I'm about to give you my age, that in the 51 years that I have been on this planet, I have never once been able to vote independently and in secret in a federal election. The election process currently as it stands is not accessible to people who are blind in Canada. We have Braille ballots, or at least the names in Braille, but the ballot is still a paper ballot. We have templates that we put the ballot into, but unless you're a Braille reader—and only currently approximately 3% of Canadians who are blind read Braille—you're not able to use the template. Even if you are, like me, a Braille reader and someone who can use the template, I can mark my ballot, but I cannot check it. I still need to have somebody with me in the polling booth in order to check the ballot.

Often what happens is I go to the polling station and the people there say, “Oh, we didn't realize that there was a Braille ballot”, and I now need to ask for assistance to vote. Often that person is provided to me. They're a perfect stranger, I have no idea who they are. I go into the booth, I tell them who I want to vote for, they check my ballot off, and we go and vote. In fact the last time I voted, somebody said to me, “Tell me who you voted for in the last election”, and I said, “Well, I can tell you who I thought I voted for, but I can't tell you who I voted for because I have no idea where the check mark was on the ballot”.

The person helping me, despite the fact that they take an oath..... May I remind everybody that a marriage vow is an oath, and that is not always upheld—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Diane Bergeron]

—and maybe neither is the oath of the people who are voting for me. I don't know, they are perfect strangers, so their oath means little to me.

I think that as we look forward into the electoral process it's important to look at pieces like electronic and online voting. It needs to be accessible. Technology and adaptive technology has made the world open up to people who are blind or partially sighted. This doesn't mean it's going to resolve the problem for everybody, but it is definitely going to give the majority of Canadians who are blind and partially sighted the opportunity to vote independently in secret, check their ballot, and be considered equal citizens within this country, which I believe it's time that we are considered.

The other piece is mandatory voting. Although CNIB does not take a position on mandatory voting, I think it's important to remember that if you are not going to make the system 100% accessible to every Canadian, exceptions need to be put in place. I don't think it's right to tell me that I have to go vote, and then tell me, “Oh, but by the way you're not allowed to do it in secret because we don't have this accessible.”

First, I encourage the committee to consider electronic and online voting, but to please make sure it's accessible to everybody and to make sure that it is tested by people with adaptive equipment to make sure that it does work and it's not just a system that somebody says works. Second, please make sure that there are exceptions, so that we're not being told we need to vote when we're not being given the same rights as everyone else.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much for communicating so clearly the experience that a visually impaired person might have to go through. It's very informative for the committee to have listened to all those steps that you've gone through and have to go through.

We'll go to Ms. Dasco for five minutes, please.

[Donna Dasco, Fellow, School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Toronto]

First, thanks to the committee for inviting me to speak today. I'm honoured to be here.

I am here as an advocate for more women in politics. I'm one of the founders of an organization called Equal Voice, which is a multipartisan organization that promotes more women in politics. I'm past national chair of Equal Voice and I'm also founder of a group called the Campaign for an Equal Senate. We're fighting for a gender-equal Senate for Canada. I'm also a pollster, a former senior vice-president of Environics Research. But I speak here today as an individual, not as a representative of any group.

I am not an expert in electoral systems and I dare not debate the very fine points of electoral systems. I look at our systems through the lens of how they help us advance women in politics. That is my lens for looking at our institutions.

I'm here to remind what the sad facts are of female representation in Parliament. Today only 26% of Parliament is female, and that has gone up only one point since 2011—over four years, only a one-percentage-point improvement. We must do better.

As well, Canada now ranks 64th. I just looked up the ranking in the Inter-Parliamentary Union stats. I can say that in all of my decades of being an advocate, I don't think we've ranked as poorly as we do today. We must do better.

Why do we care? Women's voices have to be there. It's a matter of democratic representation. Decisions are made in our Parliaments. Women have to be there. I also know from my career as a pollster that there are a number of issues on which women and men differ in their opinions, and if women are not there, their opinions, their views on public policy matters are not adequately represented.

How do we solve the situation? Electoral reform is one key to change, and we now have, with a government committed to change, a historic opportunity to put in place a system that would enhance women's representation.

As we know the facts of women's representation, we also know a great deal about the research concerning which systems are better for electing women. We know this from a report that Equal Voice recently did. Fair Vote Canada has done tremendous work. The IPU has conducted research, as well as the Library of Parliament and many other organizations.

The conclusion: majority systems, including first past the post, are poor at electing women. According to the IPU, women won on average only 14% of all seats in these systems in the year 2012. Overall, women hold fewer than 20% of seats in countries using these systems. When it comes to alternatives, preferential voting is no better. PR systems are best for women, and such mixed systems as MMP are somewhere in between.

According to a summary prepared by Equal Voice, women hold more than 25% of seats in countries using various PR systems and about 23% of seats in mixed systems. Of the top 10 countries in the world in terms of women in parliaments, nine use either PR—five of them—or a mixed system, four.

I also think we have to recognize that PR systems, whatever their elements, do not guarantee that more women are elected, and it is a fact that many countries with more women in their parliaments have adopted some form of quotas. According to a new Inter-Parliamentary Union report, more than 120 countries have some form of quotas for electing women, and among the top 10 countries in the world, seven have some form of female quota.

Even on their own, PR systems, I would argue, make it more likely that women will be elected. We can see this, for example, in Finland and Denmark. Research also shows that the act of changing a system is likely to increase the numbers of women elected, as we have seen in New Zealand.

Last but not least, we also have the possibility of creating our own Canadian system.

I'm not sure whether this committee has called former prime minister Kim Campbell to speak, but Ms. Campbell has proposed dual-member ridings with one female and one male representative for each riding and she has put this forward as a simple and effective way to guarantee gender equality. What Ms. Campbell says is that she feels that this system fits very closely our current system, and she speaks passionately and at length about the benefits of a dual-member system. In this system, we all vote for both candidates. It's not that women vote for the women and men vote for the men, but all of us vote for a female and male candidate in a riding. I urge you to speak with Ms. Campbell about her proposal, which I think is very innovative and of course Canadian-made.

In conclusion, we have the opportunity to change the way we elect Canadians, with a federal government that has committed to this. Let's choose wisely, and let's focus on a system that much better represents half of our population.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Dasco.

We'll go now to Mr. DeCourcey to open up the round of questioning.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Ms. Dasco, Ms. Bergeron, and Professor Stephenson for presentations here this afternoon.

Professor Stephenson, let me start with you. I want to pick up on an article that you proffered in Policy Options back at the end of June, talking about the connection between voter behaviour and different electoral systems or electoral reform. Admittedly, I'll pluck a few things out of there, but that I'll ask you to contextualize in more detail.

The general premise that I gathered there was that the consequence of electoral reform will largely depend on how voter behaviour either remains the same or changes to varying degrees. In that article, you talked as well about the arguments for greater or more equal representation under PR relying on specific expectations about citizen behaviour. You also touch on the prevalence of strategic voting in Canada right now.

Can you start from your view on how prevalent or how limited strategic voting is and then elaborate further on expectations of voter behaviour and how they can impact electoral change within Canada?

And Scott Reid's here.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

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

We were really worried.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I couldn't imagine that all the rustling was because of interest in my questioning.

[Laura Stephenson]

I guess I'll start with strategic voting first.

Strategic voting, I would say, is far less prevalent than people might expect. I think the estimate I've heard from the past election is about 10%, but typically it's more like 3%. It's not as high as one might expect.

When we think about electoral systems, what we have to remember is that any change we would make, if we're trying to estimate what's going to happen, is based upon preferences as we know them today. But people's preferences change with the candidates and the parties on offer. If more parties are going to contest an election, we need to take that into account. It is really a big black box, such that we can't perfectly predict what is going to happen. No political scientist would really predict that Canada would have as many parties as it has.

That's, I guess, the biggest point. I can definitely start on that. Was there a specific aspect of the rest of it?

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I think you touched on the fact—and we've heard it from other witnesses as well—that we can't ideally take past voter behaviour as an indication of what it would be under a new system.

The second part is we've heard time and time again that our electoral system is part of a larger system of governance, a system of Parliament wrapped up in a political culture unique to Canada. I guess this clarifies for me a bit, once again, your thoughts there. So thank you for that.

Ms. Bergeron, I wonder whether you could offer us one or two top-of-mind recommendations that we can be mindful of when considering the experience of Canadians living with a visual impairment and how they interact with the voting system.