Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 21st, 2016

[Greg Essensa]

Very briefly, there are other means beyond just a referendum, but I believe that a referendum probably provides the most widespread ability for Canadians to participate in the process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We'll go now to Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I want to thank the witnesses for being with us today and thank all the participants from Toronto who've come here. I hope we'll hear from as many as possible in the open-mike session.

I was pleased before we began this session, in chatting with Greg Essensa, to hear from you, sir, your appreciation for the fact that this committee is doing extraordinary outreach and more than parliamentary committees usually do in terms of open-mike sessions and travelling the country. It's certainly my hope that we'll provide the increased legitimacy in the course of our work.

I also want to thank you publicly, as Ontario's electoral officer, for standing up and offering your views on the Fair Elections Act as it was going through Parliament. It was important, I think, to focus attention on problems, like barriers to voting, and not on fake problems, like extensive voter fraud in Canada.

I wanted to ask a question first of Mr. Di Ciano. In your opening testimony you said that barely 3% of Canadians are engaged on this topic. I wanted to help you out with this. This is, I think, a misunderstanding of evidence that we had from Darrell Bricker, who's a pollster. He broke down a series of questions about how many people knew about the promise that 2015 would be the last election held under first past the post. That was a bigger number, and then it got smaller when he asked how many people are aware that there's going to be a public process on electoral reform. Then the smallest sample was about how many people know this process has started. The concern I have, frankly, is the lack of national media interest, or even local media interest, as we travel the country. It's hard for Canadians to know a process has started if a parliamentary committee travelling the country can't get even a local reporter to come to the hearings. The role of our media is an important part of democracy.

I just wanted to clear that up for you. You don't have any other source of information for the idea that only 3% of people care about this issue?

[Justin Di Ciano]

No, I do not, but I do agree with you that the media should be more in tune with what's going on with this issue, and many more Canadians should be aware of what's happening.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I want to return to the core principles, the five principles that govern our committee. I hope to get in two questions, one for Mr. Di Ciano and one for Mr. Essensa.

First, have you read those five principles, Mr. Di Ciano?

[Justin Di Ciano]

I have not.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Okay, well then you'll be very relieved to know that one of the core principles guiding any recommendations that come from this committee is that we must preserve Canadians' traditional affection for, and familiarity with, the principle of local representation. I want to give you my word right now, as a member of this committee, that from all the evidence we're heard, and knowing my 11 colleagues, I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that we could possibly recommend the systems used in Italy or Israel. They are completely inappropriate for Canada and they don't meet the threshold of the minister's five principles.

I know you're involved in a campaign called Keep Voting Simple. I hope you'll not use Italy and Israel as examples of PR because they are pure list systems with no local representation, so they can't possibly ever be recommended by this committee or the Government of Canada. I want to reassure you and I urge you to read those principles.

Do you feel better now about that? You don't have to worry about those things at all. Okay, good.

Mr. Essensa, one of our other core principles is public trust and integrity in the voting system.

One of our earlier witnesses, the head of the Institute on Governance, Maryantonett Flumian, spoke of democracy and voting and electoral reform as an ecosystem with many variables. You've raised one of them, namely campaign financing.

I know you've also been concerned about the ability of our federal elections officers and the elections commissioner to investigate crimes during an election. You, sir, I understand, have the ability to compel testimony in an investigation.

In the half a minute I have left for my time, could you speak to this issue of what Elections Canada should be able to do to investigate crime?

[Greg Essensa]

You are correct. As chief electoral officer of Elections Ontario, I do have the ability to compel testimony, to compel documentation, to compel the production of any information that I deem necessary in an investigation.

As a chief electoral officer, I would suggest that all my colleagues across the country feel this way. When we are sworn in as chief electoral officers, we take an oath to uphold the core principles of our democracy. I take that very seriously. In fact, I had to give up my right to vote here in Ontario to do so, and I believe strongly in that ability. I am the watchdog. I am the one who is responsible for ensuring that our democratic institution operates and has the legitimacy of force that Ontarians believe it should have. They have great confidence in our process, and I think it's inherent that the legislature provides individuals in this type of role with all the abilities and means necessary to do their jobs appropriately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Sahota now.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

My first question is for Mr. Essensa.

I'd like to know a little bit more about the 2007 referendum that took place here. What was the question that was asked? I know it was in connection with the provincial election at the time. What was the rate of response? What were the results? The rate of participation is what I mean.

[Greg Essensa]

The actual question that was asked was a two-part question: whether or not the electorate should elect members of the provincial legislature either using our current system, or the alternative electoral system proposed by the citizens' assembly, which was a mixed member proportional system. It was a separate referendum ballot. It was in conjunction with the 2007 general election.

To become binding in the next legislature it had to be approved in over 60% of the electoral districts with more than 60% approval in those districts, so the threshold was quite high. We did not meet that. We did not have the turnout to support that. Right away, the turnout numbers did not allow for that to move ahead, and it actually lost in the referendum. First past the post did win. Forgive me, I don't have the exact numbers with me, but I can provide that to you.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Why do you feel we didn't get that turnout for that referendum?

[Greg Essensa]

I was not the chief electoral officer at the time, but in reviewing all the documentation, Elections Ontario was mandated to do public education. I think for any type of system to reform itself there needs to be great interest and engagement from the political sector. In Ontario, we did not see that. The major parties effectively backed off from taking a real position. For the electorate, they didn't have the support from their potential elected representatives advocating for one system or another. It was somewhat left to Elections Ontario to be the purveyor of information, not only of the factual information, but of the benefits of both yes and no. I'm not sure an electoral agency should be put in that position. I believe the political element should purvey the information.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I'm going to put this question out to both of you. In order for whatever proposal we come up with in this committee to have legitimacy, and for us to have validity in our process, what would you suggest take place in terms of outreach and in terms of the committee's work right now? Do you have any advice for us?

[Justin Di Ciano]

I would simply state that a referendum would be the only way to have Canadians engaged in an issue where it would be a discussion point in the mornings and afternoons at work and at the dinner table. Let Canadians educate themselves and figure out what best suits their needs.

[Greg Essensa]

I would suggest strongly, should this committee decide to alter the voting system in Canada, that it mandate Elections Canada specifically to be the provider of factual information on what the new system is. It would afford them enough time and resources to do an extensive outreach program to highlight for all Canadians what the new electoral system entails, the benefits, and the issues.

I would also recommend to Parliament that it provide funding for a yes and no campaign. If there is going to be a referendum on the issue, it should provide equal public financing for both yes and no campaigns so those campaign offices could provide the appropriate information to Canadians.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I was wondering if you could shed some more light on your opinion on the process of citizens' assemblies and why you think Toronto city council chose to present that motion to have ranked ballots. What was the incentive and motive behind that to even change?

[Greg Essensa]

The citizens' assembly was mandated through the Ontario Legislature, and Elections Ontario was mandated to choose the citizens. There was equal representation. There was one citizen selected for each of the 103 ridings. There were 52 females and 51 males, with backups so there was equal representation. There was also the assurance that there was at least one aboriginal member of the citizens' assembly in place.

Having read and understood the challenges, I would strongly suggest that if you are looking toward a citizens' assembly that you provide it ample time to prepare the selection process, as well as allow time for its deliberations. What we saw in Ontario was a little rushed. The citizens' assembly did not report its final recommendations until March or April of 2007, and the final question was not put in place until June of 2007 for an October election, which, quite frankly, was quite late in the process.

[Justin Di Ciano]

I can't speak to why council originally voted to bring ranked choice voting forward. I can say, though, being on council in the latest term, and more to Mr. Essensa's comments, this time around councillors were presented with accurate information, which I think is imperative. That information led, I believe, nine councillors to change their positions on ranked choice voting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Maguire now.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thanks to our witnesses for your presentations today. They were very informative.

Mr. Di Ciano, I want to start with you. I'm of the same opinion as you that Canada is one of the best places in the world to live. You mentioned that in your opening remarks, and whether it's 3%, or 6%, or 10%, any of those numbers is enough of the population to know what's going on out there today in regard to this process. I agree with that.

I was struck by a couple of comments, which I wrote down. You asked, are we searching for a problem that doesn't exist? You also said our voting system works well. For sure, it's simple. You raised a number of concerns about changing it, one of them being “hello to coalition governments“. Could you expand on your experience with that?

[Justin Di Ciano]

Just from seeing minority governments work here in Canada, I'm not a big fan of minority governments. I think we politicians ultimately are forced to govern by popular whim or what the populism of the day is and are restricted from making decisions in the long-term best interests of Canadians. I see it on the council level when we say “we're not going to talk about that just before an election”.

I think that these coalition governments are not stable. Anything can bring them down, and you're not governing with the long-term interests of Canadians in mind.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

You also just commented that the ranked choice is another plural system; it's not a majority system. Can you elaborate on that as well?

[Justin Di Ciano]

Yes. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed it. It is not a majority system; it is a plurality system, just like first past the post. It's not a one-two-three system, and if a voter doesn't correctly pick the final two candidates on their list on the ballot, their vote is exhausted.

In an election of first past the post, if 100,000 people voted, on the television screen, then, among the first, second, third, and fourth people there should be 100,000 people who voted. In first past the post, they're exhausted. You left dinner on the table, you left work early, you got a babysitter for the kids, you did what you had to do to go and vote, and under first past the post, if you didn't guess or select the right people, your vote is discarded; it's put in the garbage.

So it is not a majority system. They changed the denominator of majority. First they say the majority is 50% plus one, and then they say, well, candidates get taken off the ballot until someone gets a majority of the votes.

Well, it's a majority of the continuing ballots; it's not a majority of the total ballots cast. To me, it's just disingenuous to say that it's a majority system.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I don't believe it's fair for me to ask those two kinds of questions to a chief electoral officer, Mr. Essensa, but I was very interested in your comments about process and substance, sir.

I agree with you about the legitimacy of our democracy being based upon the system we have and the clarity with which people understand it and the education process of it. You've indicated that you feel it would be good for Elections Canada to be the distributor of that information, if it were to be done that way.

Could you elaborate more on the amount of time required? Chief Electoral Officer Mayrand has indicated a couple of years, as you indicated here to us as well. But is there more to it than that? How much more time would we need for that opportunity to become very clear concerning how everyone was going to have a say in the next vote?

Should we be rushing to do this? It seems like a long way away, but if it takes two years to do that, from your end or Elections Canada's end, would it be feasible to realistically have this done in the near term, for this election?

One person made the suggestion that we should probably just go ahead and implement something, have two elections, and then have a referendum on it to see whether we like it. Do you have any comments?