Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 21st, 2016

[Greg Essensa]

I think the challenge for Elections Canada, as Mr. Mayrand indicated in his testimony, is the uncertainty around what system is going to be in place. Based on understanding the mandate of this committee, that you look at a variety of alternatives, I would say that many of those alternatives come with some inherent changes that have to happen. Does there have to be a redistribution, which takes a considerable amount of time? Are you going to implement technology? In some of the systems that you're considering, technology is the only way, I believe, that you could actually implement them in a successful manner. Implementing technology, based on my own personal experience, having done it, is a significant underhaul and would be a significant underhaul doing it Canada-wide.

I concur with Mr. Mayrand that not understanding the actual system that this committee is ultimately going to recommend hampers somewhat his ability to give an accurate reflection as to how much time it really will take. I think two years is the absolute minimum, to be perfectly honest. Even at that, I think Elections Canada will be significantly challenged to make those alterations and be ready for 2019.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you

Mr. Aldag.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thank you.

This question is for both of our witnesses.

I don't think I heard an answer to the idea of a referendum after—implementing and then letting people, to use an analogy, test-drive the car for one or two cycles. What would be your thoughts on that, if you could both make a comment?

[Justin Di Ciano]

I don't think that is the road to go to. I think Canadians should be informed today and make their choice today whether they want to move forward or not.

I know that in the United States there have been six municipalities that have repealed rank choice voting. There are definitely those who have repealed it. Why wouldn't we pose the questions to Canadians up front, first, and let them decide how we are going to move forward?

Again, Mr. Essensa said it, that the legitimacy of our elections depends on the buy-in of the Canadian people.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Essensa, do you have a comment?

[Greg Essensa]

I would concur with my earlier comments. I think it is paramount that there be legitimacy in the process up front.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I would like a bit of clarification, Mr. Essensa. I heard you talk about the strong role of Elections Canada if there was a referendum. What I didn't get from you is, would you see limitations on the role of others?

We have heard from some witnesses that a complex issue like this can get clouded and convoluted. There would be roles going into a referendum to perhaps limit some of that. If we are going to go in that direction, would you say Elections Canada would have the exclusive role, or how would we go about ensuring that there is an informed discussion? Would you just throw it out to the free market to do whatever it wants, pony up on this and let it go?

[Greg Essensa]

I would encourage this committee, in its set of recommendations, to mandate that Elections Canada be the provider of factual information, and strictly factual: that they not be asked to comment on the ideological merits of one way or the other.

Parliament should either consider that the political parties themselves be the advocates, or establish a yes and no campaign and provide adequate public funding to allow those campaigns to advocate for the benefits of whichever system they are being measured against.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Would there be spending limits within that, if it was a publicly funded campaign: “That's what goes into it, and that's what we are able to do”? Never having been through a referendum, I don't know what would work in that situation.

[Greg Essensa]

I have seen several in our country, in B.C., where there was a yes and no referendum campaign that was publicly funded by the government. They put limitations on the money for the yes and no campaigns, so there was equal ability for each side to campaign, to politic, and to advertise the merits of each of the systems. I would encourage Parliament to ensure that both sides have adequate resources, as a core principle of levelling the playing field.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

In your opening comments, you talked about online voting and electronic voting, and you made a comment that you see it as being imminent or coming at us.

Are you looking at it in Ontario? I didn't catch it if you said. Is there a timeline? We have heard from other witnesses that there are concerns with cybersecurity and other things. How far out do you think we are going to be looking?

[Greg Essensa]

In 2013, I submitted a report to the assembly. We had spent two years looking at online voting, and I reported that I currently don't see that online voting meets the core democratic principles of our current system. It can't ensure secrecy of the vote, one vote per voter, integrity, and transparency to the same standards that our current model does.

I did, however, say to our assembly that I see the day coming. In the technological realm, there are a number of entities looking at digital authentication and digital ID. Once we get to that point, I do believe there will be the opportunity for online voting. I would also [Inaudible—Editor].

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

[Inaudible—Editor] the elements you have raised that it isn't only a technological piece. There are a lot of other pieces, and we will need to go into that—as you say, the secrecy of the ballots and how we actually do that. There is the technological piece, and then the other packaging that goes around that.

[Greg Essensa]

I think it is important for the other packaging to come from Parliament, and that is direction on the principles that our democracy sits upon and how Parliament would view those. I think it is not possible for a chief electoral officer to determine what the standards are on secrecy of the vote, one vote per voter, or transparency. They should be upheld, and Parliament should give clear direction.

I believe Mr. Mayrand indicated he would be looking for such direction before going any place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Boulerice, welcome to the committee once again. I am pleased to see you.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, everyone; thank you for your very interesting presentations. My thanks also to those who came here to participate in this essential and fundamental discussion on the quality of our democratic life.

Mr. Di Ciano, you may have wanted an electoral reform at one point, but I think you have since lost faith.

I have two comments. First, you said that our system must remain simple. We in the NDP believe that a very simple rule is to give a party that has 30% of the vote about 30% of the seats. It’s simple, it’s called proportional representation.

You have also suggested that the proportional voting system could lead to further political instability and more elections than the majority system we have known for 149 years.

I have some figures in front of me. Sweden, which has a proportional voting system with a distribution of votes called the “Sainte-Laguë method,” has held 21 elections since World War II. Ireland, which uses the single transferable vote system, has had 20 elections since World War II. Germany, which has a mixed member proportional representation voting system, has had 18 elections since World War II. Meanwhile, Canada has had 23.

So there is no correlation between the type of voting system and the number of elections that a country might hold, except perhaps Italy, which is the only example that keeps coming back.

Mr. Essensa, could you tell us about your experience as the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario? What are the reasons generally given by Ontarians for not going to the polls, for not voting?

[Greg Essensa]

After every election, we do a large survey of approximately 5,000 to 7,000 Ontarians, and one of the questions we ask of those who did not vote is, why did you not vote? We see probably 35% to 40% who say that simply they're too busy, they have too many other things on the go, and that they just didn't get around to it. We probably see another 20% to 25% who articulate barriers to voting. Sometimes it's cultural. Sometimes it's that they feel intimidated. They might be new to Ontario, and new to Canada, and they feel that the process doesn't speak to them. We see some who, quite honestly, just don't see any value whatsoever in voting in the province. They feel the outcome has been predetermined and their votes mean very little. That's probably another 10% to 12% of those.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Okay.

The last item you mentioned is interesting. We often hear people wondering why they should bother voting, thinking that their vote will not make a difference and that there is no point. I think, earlier, Mr. Cullen specified the number of votes that we can consider lost in a first past the post voting system, in which a member can win an election in a constituency with 30% to 35% of the votes. This ensures that the voices of 65% of people who voted are not represented in Parliament. That concerns us.

We also know that, in Canada, the voting system and the electoral process are not being taught much in our schools, in our colleges. So when we ask people whether they would like to have a new voting system, we are generally starting from scratch, with the exception of the experts present here.

If we ever had to consult Canadians on a new voting system, do you think it would be important for the federal government to launch an education and awareness campaign to expand people's knowledge about the options available to them, and even about how the current system works?

[Greg Essensa]

I would wholeheartedly agree with anything that parliamentarians do in the public education of our democratic process. Like most electoral agencies across the country, the most difficult demographic group that we try to get out to vote is the 18- to 24-year-olds. Those numbers still are lagging in the 30 to 35 percentile. Statistically, and academia research has shown, if we get someone to vote when they're 18, they're likely voting for life. If we miss them, then we're likely not seeing them until they're 30. That's a challenge for us. Elections Canada and Elections Ontario have a joint program for the grade 5 and grade 10 curriculum that we provide in Ontario that is advocating for democracy. It's a curriculum-based set of lesson plans that we built. Over 3,000 teachers in Ontario use them.

We are also advocating in Ontario—and I would also suggest that my federal counterpart should advocate the same thing—that Parliament consider authorizing the preregistration of 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds so we can begin to engage with them prior to them reaching the voting age so they understand their rights as Canadians, they understand the electoral process, and they can engage right away at 18.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Ms. Romanado, please.

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

Thank you very much, and thank you both for being here today. To our audience, thank you for coming out on a sunny afternoon here in Toronto. It's a delight to be back in the city. I spent a couple of summers here, and it's great to be back.

I have a few questions, and I'll start with Mr. Essensa.

You mentioned the importance of measuring the understanding of the electoral system by citizens prior to making that change. Could you elaborate for us on how you would measure the understanding? The reason I ask this is that we've been going through this process, and some of us have also held our own town hall meetings with constituents, as per the recommendation of the Prime Minister. I've been to other meetings where you could see that it was set up. It was one stakeholder group at the table talking to citizens and only saying the wonderful things about a certain system, and not telling them the full picture about the ramifications, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

My worry is that inaccurate information is always getting out there. I'm a firm believer in getting all the facts from all sides and then making a decision. How can we ensure, first of all, that people are getting the right information, and how would you test it, before going forward?

[Greg Essensa]

I think it's paramount that you provide a vehicle. My recommendation to you is that it be Elections Canada. Give them adequate time and adequate resources to provide a fulsome outreach and factual information package to Canadians at all levels, and in all sectors of our great country, so they have an opportunity to fully understand and test it. I envision that would include online campaigns, advertising campaigns, town hall meetings, and a variety of different outreach initiatives that would touch upon all Canadians so they could fully understand and embrace whichever new voting system is being contemplated by this committee and by Parliament.

Getting that information out, and in a means that is digestible by every segment of our society, is a massive undertaking. I'm not here to say that I have all the answers to that, but it would take considerable thought and some congruence between Parliament and Elections Canada on what those factual elements need to be, how they need to be disseminated, and with what frequency to provide a lot of opportunity for Canadians to engage in that format.

I would also recommend there be some focused measurement tools, whether that be some form of polling, or some form online, or other engagement activities to measure the acceptance of the new voting system you're contemplating.

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

Thank you.

I have a follow-up question about getting out to vote. Mr. Di Ciano, you'll appreciate this, as a politician.

As for the reasons for not voting, I have heard, and we've mentioned today, that 35% to 40% of people say they didn't have time. To me that's something that has nothing to do with the voting system. If you break it down, you didn't have time, okay, why is that? Is it because the election is held on a day when folks are working? Is it because there are long lines at the advance polls? Is it because there are long lines on election day? What motivates people to say, “You know what? It's not worth my time to go”? It's not because of the fact that they don't want to go and vote, but that they don't have time.

I'm just throwing that out there. Is there something we can be doing that will make it worth people's time to go and vote? Can we make it much simpler, much faster, and much more expedient so that people will treat it as a given, know that they're going, and it's not an issue?

Could each of you elaborate?

[Justin Di Ciano]

Yes, I would say that has nothing to do with the electoral system. It has everything to do with being relevant as a government and bringing forward and discussing issues that matter to Canadians. This is obviously a very important issue. Is it top of mind to people's daily issues, whether it's making ends meet or getting the kids into the right opportunities? There are so many pressures put on families today, job security.... Let's try and address those issues that families care about deeply each and every day, and have a meaningful impact on those issues. Then I think we'll get more and more people voting even at an earlier age.

[Greg Essensa]

I would suggest to you that our electoral system is not evolved like the rest of society. Twenty years ago, if I wanted to have a suit, I had to go to a tailor and have it made. Today I can phone a call centre, I can go on the Internet, I can order the suit, and I can get it from a variety of purveyors.

Our electoral system, for the last hundred years, has not relatively changed. We effectively tell you where to go, on what date, between what hours, and then expect you to vote. We haven't provided the convenience that the rest of our society expects today. I think that involves us looking at technological advances, the manner in which we provide the vote to individuals, and the channels through which we provide the vote to individuals. I think it all has to reform as we move forward into the 21st century, so we can engage more Canadians through a variety of means to allow them to exercise their democratic rights.