Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 28th, 2016

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I have a question about the methodology, the way the people were selected. Do you think there was a bias that meant that people who are familiar with the issue of electoral reform were able to respond more in greater numbers, or was it a random sample, in which the man and woman on the street who were not familiar with it also responded?

[Mario Canseco]

The respondents to our surveys are not aware of the topic until the moment they click. Usually the best way to do it, to maintain their engagement and to have them answer on several things, is to mix it with other things. It's not necessarily a stand-alone survey where we invite people to take a survey on electoral reform that will be presented on Tuesday. It's more about the reality of just having the randomness that is required for this type of exercise.

There may have been other questions related to other topics on the same survey. It's the best way to ensure that it is truly random and not only the people who want to take the survey on a specific policy issue or something else.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Very good. Thank you. I am eager to check the data.

You said that 56% of the population supported what, exactly?

[Mario Canseco]

It's the proportional representation system.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

All right, in general.

What were the figures for Ontario and for British Columbia?

[Mario Canseco]

They are lower. I can check them right now, if you will allow me.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

While you are looking for that information, I will ask Mr. Jewell a question.

In the system you recommend, you keep the same ridings and the person who gets the most votes wins the election. However, you use a preferential system to weight everyone's vote. Is that right?

[Patrick Jewell]

No, that's not correct. The alternative vote is such that, as I think you understand the Australian example, all votes are counted, first-place votes. If the leader has 50% plus one, that person is elected. If not, the bottom candidate is eliminated, and those votes for that eliminated candidate revert to their second-place vote.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

All right.

In other words, to elect someone, we are talking about a preferential system. You know that this system tends to reduce third parties and shift votes toward the more centrist parties. So it would widen the gap between the votes cast for each party and the number of members that represent them.

[Patrick Jewell]

That's a possibility, but another possibility is that, because the first-place vote is an honest vote, the third party candidate, as you refer to it, might get many more first-place votes than they do under the existing system. In any case, the first-place vote counts for that party regardless of how many members are elected.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

All right. Thank you.

Mr. Canseco, do you have the data you were looking for earlier?

This is a very dynamic exercise.

[Mario Canseco]

The level of support for adopting proportional representation for future federal elections is 56% in Quebec, as I already said, 53% in Ontario, and 42% in British Columbia.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

What would it be for Canada as a whole?

[Mario Canseco]

The number for Canada as a whole is 49%.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

What do you think the reason is for it being lower in British Columbia, when you had the process about this?

[Mario Canseco]

What's interesting about British Columbia is that the level of support is actually higher for single transferable votes, which is the system that we voted on twice in previous elections. The threshold that was set to actually change the system for our own provincial elections was 60%, which was extremely high and very difficult to reach. In the first one, there were more than 50% of B.C. voters who actually suggested that the system should be changed, and it was lower than the threshold that was set.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie. I would like to thank the witnesses.

Ms. May, you now have the floor.

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

Thank you to all the witnesses who are here today.

I will just pick up on that last point about the B.C. referendum following the Citizens' Assembly. I didn't get a chance to put this to the last panel when we were discussing the threshold.

It wasn't just the 60% of the vote. As you'll recall—you're nodding, Mr. Canseco—it was also a double threshold of the number of ridings. I think it's extraordinary that 92% of the ridings carried for STV as well as 57% of the votes. Even with that double threshold, as you say, the British Columbia government failed its citizens on this.

I am just wondering, in looking at the polling that you've done, how is it that when you move to the question of, “What kind of system do you like?”, you get a high degree of, “I don't have an opinion”. Is this among those people who have an opinion and understand the systems? How many of the people would say, “I don't know what you're talking about between MMP, STV, or some other system”?

[Mario Canseco]

We actually provide a very lengthy explanation of the three systems, which is definitely required.

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

Would you like to come on the road with us?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Mario Canseco]

I would love to. Thank you for the invitation.

It needs to be completely clear to them that they're choosing a specific system.

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

Actually, I'm not kidding on this. Could we get the script that you used in a telephone call to explain the three different systems before asking people the question? I think it would be fascinating to see how you boiled it down.

How long does it take your polling interviewers to explain the systems to the people they are talking to?

[Mario Canseco]

Because we do it online, the time is essentially in the hands of the respondents. They can choose to take a little bit longer to read it. This is one of the topics that is very hard to do in a telephone survey. There have been a lot of discussions in the industry about whether telephone is better than online, certain discussions of that nature.

In my mind, for something like this, it's necessary for the respondents to take their time. It's not that easy to answer the phone and then listen to a lengthy explanation. It's easier to read it, and I think this is one of the reasons the survey worked so well. Even with that, around one in five respondents across Canada cannot choose a system.