Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 28th, 2016

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Nathan says, “Don't blame her”, but you are the one who tipped me over the edge.

Dr. de Rooij, I wanted to ask you some questions that relate to some of the practical, potentially negative implications of a more proportional system. One thing I want to state at the starting point is that nobody is advocating a purely proportional system for Canada for several reasons. We must have our seats allocated within provinces, so we're tied up one way in that respect. For the most part, what is being advocated is either some kind of multi-member districts like single transferable vote in the Irish model, or multi-member proportional in the German model. You probably already knew that, but I just think it's important to set parameters.

When I look at countries that have pure proportionality, I think we have to be careful not to make generalizations. For example, Weimar Germany had pure proportionality, and one looks at them and sees the rise of a profoundly anti-Semitic party. However, when you look at Israel, which also has pure proportionality, there is no similar rise of anti-Semitism, suggesting that there may be something underlying in the culture that would be the basis for all of this. We should be a little bit careful about saying the rise of anti-immigrant and xenophobic parties in Europe is connected to the electoral systems. I suspect that the electoral systems were the same for a long period of time. That these parties started to rise in various countries suggests to me that the political culture and other situational factors are the primary driving factors. I think you'd agree with that statement, but I'll just stop there for now to confirm whether I'm right about that.

[Eline de Rooij]

I do want to say that it's definitely not just the electoral system. The general theory in political science suggests that it's both what we call the social cleavage—the structure of society, the issues, the ideals that are in society—as well as what we call the permissiveness of the electoral system, how tolerant it is of small parties. It is definitely a combination. On top of that, we know that severe economic downturns also enable the rise of such sentiment, so it's definitely not just the electoral system.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Right.

The question to me at the practical level is this: Do we create a situation, number one, in which these smaller parties.... To be clear, there are smaller parties, and then there are parties that we are characterizing here as extreme parties. It's very difficult to make a distinction. You know Elizabeth May, my colleague, represents a party that got about 3.5% of the vote in the last election. They're a small party, but I don't think anybody would want to call them an extreme party. However, these are inherent judgment calls as to what is extreme versus what is merely small and getting a start. You can correct me, again, if you think I'm wrong, but I think we have to be very careful about doing things like setting high floors, for example, percentages of the vote, as a way of keeping out the extremists. We might simply keep out those who are trying to start out and who have ideas that are different, that perhaps, in the long run, would become mainstream, and that are entirely tolerant and reasonable.

Again, am I wrong in expressing that concern?

[Eline de Rooij]

No. For me, it is a way of seeing two sides of the same coin. I'm not advocating for either more or less proportionality. I agree that small parties are not the same as what we classify as radical or extreme parties. I'm just saying that if you want to open up the system to more smaller parties, and there are many good reasons why you might want to do that, the flip side of that coin might be that you might also see parties that you, as a society, are not that enthused about, depending on certain circumstances and on what society looks like. It's two sides of the same coin. It doesn't mean that you have to go one way or the other. I just want people to recognize that trade-off.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I'm out of time to ask more questions, so I'll use my last 15 seconds to make a final comment. The tone of my questions may suggest that I am hostile to your testimony, but that's not the case. I actually think the facts that you are presenting are very good. I was just worried that they might be interpreted as leaving an impression that I don't think was the one that you intended to leave. That's just the nature of the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Romanado, please.

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

I'd like to thank our three panellists for being here this evening.

I would like to thank the people of Vancouver for being here today.

Thank you so much for being here in such large numbers tonight.

Dr. Simons, like my colleagues, I have to say that if we weren't already unsure about Internet voting, your testimony this evening scared some of us. I'll add to this, so please forgive my little sidebar.

In addition to sitting on the committee for electoral reform, I also sit on the Standing Committee on National Defence. We've just completed part of a study on the defence of North America, specifically on aerial readiness. We spent some time at NORAD during this study, where we heard about the emerging threats, conventional and asymmetrical attacks, and specifically, cyber-threats and cyber-attacks here in Canada.

You brought up a point that I hadn't thought of. We heard that there was an increase in the potential for cyber-attacks in Canada, and in fact Canada is now looking at a consultation to upgrade our national cybersecurity policy. You mentioned the actual machines to do the count, and I thought that was interesting, because I had only heard about the e-voting or online voting. You mentioned that whatever system we decide to put into place, if there are requirements for algorithms or calculations coming out of whatever we choose, those are also susceptible to cyber-attack.

For instance, it's simple to count the ballots—and I think most of us have volunteered at elections where you get to count the ballots—but if we actually have a system where we have to run these ballots or votes through a machine for it to then do the calculations, whether it be a proportional system or whatever system we choose, those too are susceptible to attack.

Could you elaborate a bit on that? I hadn't thought of that portion.

[Barbara Simons]

By the way, before I do that, here's one other thing to help make you more paranoid with regard to Internet voting. Think about ransomware and how that could be applied to Internet voting.

Getting back to your question, in terms of being subject to cyber-attack, that would depend on whether or not it has access to the Internet. I'm not saying that introducing computers into the election process necessarily would make them vulnerable to cyber-attack. What I'm saying is that when you bring in the computers, you are dependent on the computers. You're dependent on the algorithm for counting the votes.

In the case of some of these systems, that can be complicated. You have to be careful that the algorithm is correct, that the code was written correctly, and that no bad person has gotten their hands on those machines and changed the software to rig the election in some way. You can't really open up the machine and look at it the way you can pieces of paper. You just have to be more careful. There are risks whenever you introduce computers into the system.

It's kind of funny, because the people who are raising the alarm, by and large, are the computer scientists, and when I first started this, we were being told by people who really didn't know anything about computers that we were Luddites to talk about these issues.

I'm just counselling you that if we move to a very complicated system that can't be tabulated manually, it means that computers will have to come in. That means that in some sense we're going to be outsourcing the election to the vendors. Even if it's homegrown software, you still are dependent on the people who write the software and on the algorithms being correct. You introduce an element of risk, and you also don't have the transparency that our elections currently have, and I think that transparency is really a wonderful thing.

There are other forms of voting that aren't first-past-the-post systems where you can manually count, so I'm not taking a position on first-past-the-post systems or not.

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

I wasn't asking what voting system.... I'm looking at what the possible ramifications are of using that.

Given that, you did mention our military who are serving overseas. I have two sons currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces, so it's something that's important to me. Is there a possibility of leveraging technology, knowing the risks, to reach folks who want to be able to vote?

You mentioned the downloading of the form and filling it out and so on and so forth, but is there a possibility of leveraging technology to increase the efficiencies in how we handle our elections? Is there still something that can be done in terms of improving it?

[Barbara Simons]

In terms of downloading, the example I gave of the United States for the military overseas—the mail is expedited and is paid for by the government—is a way of doing it without looking at more technological fixes. The government could expedite the return of the voter ballots for free. That would certainly help.

I'm reluctant to suggest having a small number of voters vote over the Internet, just because we have seen certainly in the United States and here too that sometimes a small number of voters can change an outcome. I'd hate to see even a small number of ballots being vulnerable. It's better than a large number, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Dr. Simons.

Monsieur Boulerice.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for their presentations.

I would also like to thank all the people who are with us tonight to talk about a subject that we are all passionate about and that is extremely important to our democracy.

I would simply like to clarify something and for it to be said officially. The various voting methods are not always the best way of blocking the path for political opinions we do not like or preventing more extremist parties from gaining power or having an influence on society. The rise of the National Front has nothing to do with the proportional voting method. Since 1945, a two-round first past the post system has been used in France for legislative elections and that has not prevented the rise of the National Front. There was a proportional legislative election, in 1986. That is the only example in France.

The ultranationalist Shiv Sena party in India has 18 members of parliament and that is a one-round first past the post system. The Republican Party primaries in the United States operate with a one-round first past the post system and that produced Donald Trump. I agree with my colleague Scott Reid when he says that it is what is happening in the society that creates these results rather than something else.

Mr. Lang, regarding mandatory voting in Belgium, you said that one of the possible punishments for someone who did not go out to vote was to take away their right to vote.

[Harley Lang]

Yes, that is correct. Doesn't that seem backwards? It's like sending home the student who doesn't want to be at school.

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

Go home.

[Harley Lang]

Exactly. How it works in Belgium is that there are increasing fines for each consecutive year you don't vote, and if you don't vote in four consecutive elections, then you lose your right to vote for 10 years thereafter. To me, that seems a little bit backwards and counterintuitive, but nonetheless, they see high voter turnout.

Again, I would return to my point that that produces people who have to vote rather than people who truly want to vote.

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

Ms. de Rooij, you mentioned something interesting. You said that a more representative Parliament does not necessarily produce more representative public policy. That is an interesting nuance, but I think people can accept that quite well. Opening the door to the diversity of views that exist in society is not necessarily going to put everyone in power or ensure that everyone participates in making public policy, but, even in opposition, some voices that were kept silent before will be heard. Some people may think that is a good thing.

I do not know who put this on our tables, but I have a table in front of me. It shows the 2015 results for the five ridings in the Fraser Valley. Where it is coloured, it shows the political party that won the election. The electors who voted in those ridings but whose candidate was not elected are shown in white. So we see that for a majority of electors—56% of them, on average—their candidate was not elected.

If we had had a five-member multi-member district voting system, and they were divided based on the proportion of votes, then, instead of having three Liberal members and two Conservative members, there would have been two Conservative members, with 100,000 votes, and two Liberal members, with 102,000 votes, and the NDP would have one seat with about 50,000 votes. In that scenario, 96% of the votes cast would have elected a representative to Parliament.

Ms. de Rooij, do you not think that this system represents the will of the electorate better?

[Eline de Rooij]

It comes down to what you mean by the intention of voters and what you mean by representation. Does it increase representation of ideological positions of voters in the legislature? Yes. There's no doubt about that. It does. Does that change policy outcomes? Arguably, you might want to say that what voters ultimately want to see is better representation of a variety of policy outcomes, potentially.

Government makes policy, and if there are no necessarily more representative governments, then it depends what you're after, and again—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Your time is up, unfortunately.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Kelly, you have the floor.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thanks for being here for this important hearing.

To all of the members of the audience, and to those who were also here all afternoon and who have chosen to stay for the evening, thank you for your attendance.

On this business of mandatory voting, which is one of the things the committee has been tasked to examine, we've heard a variety of explanations for people's choices to not vote, and in some cases this may be a choice people make. We've also heard, or it has been said, that some of the vulnerable and marginalized members of Canadian society may be less likely to vote and that there are obstacles to voting.

Does mandatory voting, for example, fining somebody for not voting, perhaps punish people who can least afford to be punished?

[Harley Lang]

Thank you so much for your question. It's an interesting one.

I think we have to point out that what is punishment for one person may not be punishment for another person. For example—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

A fine is punishment.

[Harley Lang]

Yes, a fine is punishment. Some people might find that reinforcing. They might think, “Ha ha, I stuck it to the government. I did not vote, and look at me, I got a $20 fine.” For other people, that could make or break their budget for the week.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

I'll ask Dr. Simons to comment on this. Although much of the panel has been in concurrence over the non-desirability of Internet voting, nevertheless it struck me that, if online voting was merely an enabling tool to address people with mobility problems or those who are in remote areas—although we've heard from other witnesses about the challenges there—then does that take the target off an election? If we are talking about a relatively small number of votes that may be identified in some cases with geographically remote places, then does that take the target off? Is it safer if it is not the default, or is there absolutely no acceptable use or application for online voting?