Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I call to order the first part of the 35th meeting of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.

We are delighted to be in Montreal. This is the beginning of our third week of travel. It's becoming slightly confusing. After this, we will head toward the Atlantic provinces.

In this first group of witnesses, we welcome Ms. Carolyn Loutfi, executive director of the Apathy is Boring organization.

Afterwards we will hear from the representatives of the Quebec Community Groups Network, Stephen Thompson, director, Policy, Research and Public Affairs, as well as Kevin Dobie, director.

Are you the son of...

[Kevin Dobie, Director, Quebec Community Groups Network]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I know your father well. I hope he is well.

I will explain our procedure. This is how we function everywhere. The witnesses will all have five minutes to present the broad outline of their brief. Then there will be a five-minute question period; each member will have five minutes to speak with the witnesses. That time includes questions and answers. If you find that after five minutes you have not had the opportunity to answer a question or have not been able to express your thoughts, do not worry, you can still do so when your turn at the mike comes around again.

We will begin with Ms. Loutfi who has five minutes.

[Carolyn Loutfi, Executive Director, Apathy is Boring]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for inviting me here today.

It is a privilege to be here with you today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Loutfi.

For the information of the people who are in the room, there are earphones that allow you to hear the simultaneous translation of the proceedings.

The earpieces have transmitters that connect to the interpretation booth, so you can listen in either official language.

I apologize, Ms. Loutfi.

You have the floor once again.

[Carolyn Loutfi]

Thank you.

It is a privilege to be with you today and I thank you for all of the work that you do.

You have already spoken to many friends and allies of Apathy is Boring, including the president of our council, Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, as well as Civix, Samara, and INM. I hope to be able to add to what has already been shared and further represent youth voices throughout this process.

I'll start quickly by giving a bit of context to who we are and what we do. Founded in 2004, Apathy is Boring is a youth-led, non-partisan charitable organization with a mission to educate youth about democracy in creative ways. We work to empower our peers to see themselves as active agents of change and equip them with the tools and resources in order to do so, with voting being one of those tools. Specifically our "get out the vote" program sends volunteer-led street teams to concerts and events, places where youth are, to talk to them about upcoming elections and answer their questions about how to vote. Further, we conduct research to test and evaluate mobilization strategies and to continue to find innovative ways to access the hard-to-reach demographic of youth.

Let me start by saying that Apathy is Boring is not an advocate for one particular electoral system over another. I am not an expert on electoral reform. However, this is precisely why I believe it is important that you are consulting with organizations like Apathy is Boring and youth such as me. We all know that the trend in youth voter turnout has been declining over the years, with this past election being an exception, hopefully one that stays. The trend in low voter turnout, however, is quite problematic and of concern particularly because if youth don't vote in the first two elections in which they are eligible, they become less likely to acquire the habit and won't vote later on in life. As Mr. Kingsley mentioned when he came before this committee, “Legitimacy is tied to participation”. As this committee does its work, I urge you to consider the participation rates of youth in our electoral system. Low youth voter turnout is the issue I am bringing to this committee.

We need to do better at reaching and engaging young Canadians. Yes, there are organizations like ours and Civix and others doing good work. Abacus Data released a report after the election indicating that one in three youth who voted was reached by an organization working to get out the youth vote. However, youth voter turnout continues to be a problem. Not only are there abysmal youth voter turnout rates in municipal as well as provincial elections, but federally we are proud that 58% of youth voted. What about the other 42%?

The electoral reform process is a unique opportunity to educate and rebrand democracy for young Canadians. We know what many of the barriers are. We know that many young people don't see how government affects their everyday lives. They don't have a relationship with their local representative. They see the process as bureaucratic and are choosing alternative forums of engagement to have their voices heard, but they are not apathetic with regard to the issues that affect them.

There are global events like Brexit and the U.S. election that are getting a lot of young people talking about whether or not to engage in the democratic process. I think this is an important reminder that giving young Canadians a reason to believe in our system and to engage with their government could change the world. You have an opportunity through the electoral reform process to provide youth with a reason to believe in the system. Apathy is Boring is recommending that first, resources be dedicated to developing non-partisan and accessible information about electoral reform, and second, that this information be brought to the hard-to-reach demographic of youth.

Further, we believe that online voting should begin to be piloted and tested in different electoral environments. We do not believe that online voting on its own will contribute to a significant increase in youth voter turnout. However, if this option is paired with outreach and education initiatives, it could have an important impact.

I'm glad to be with you today; it's quite an honour. While I can share my perspective and the teachings from our work, I unfortunately cannot speak for a non-voter. Using town halls, online platforms, and even social media to generate dialogue about electoral reform will primarily be used by youth who are already engaged.

I understand the time constraints, which have made deeper consultation processes challenging. I do believe if we are hoping to have a meaningful conversation about changing the way we do democracy, we should be actively talking to those who have chosen to stop engaging with it.

Merci.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much for that presentation.

We will now hear Mr. Stephen Thompson.

[Kevin Dobie, Director, Quebec Community Groups Network]

I will be me instead, Mr. Chair.

I'll be speaking for Stephen Thompson.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

[Kevin Dobie]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, honourable members. Thanks for having us and Shanah Tova to any friends who might be celebrating 5777, I think.

My name is Kevin Dobie. I'm a member of the board of directors of the Quebec Community Groups Network, the QCGN. I'm accompanied by Stephen Thompson, the director of policy, research, and public affairs for the organization.

The QCGN is a not-for-profit organization bringing together 50 community sector organizations from across Quebec that serve the needs of Canada's English linguistic minority communities, which we refer to collectively as the English-speaking communities of Quebec. More than one million people, half of all Canadians living in an official language minority community, are English-speaking Quebeckers.

We've distributed copies of our brief. We've submitted a copy to the clerk of the committee for translation and inclusion in the committee's work. These opening remarks will be brief and focused and I hope that we can get into a more detailed conversation in the time allotted after this.

The QCGN is concerned that the Government of Canada has not provided Canadians with a specific electoral system on which to be consulted. What we're going through today is a very important conversation and it's a meaningful step in the process, but it is not, in our opinion, a comprehensive consultation process.

This meaningful conversation has been largely conducted by experts and special interests, which is normal and to be expected. However, from our experience in the organization, it's not a matter that is really resonating with members in our community.

The QCGN is opposed to mandatory voting. Voting is a charter right, not an obligation. The idea of the state forcing a citizen to exercise a right runs counter to our democratic heritage.

The QCGN supports electronic voting if, objectively, the integrity of the vote is equal to or exceeds the current system.

Education is the key to youth engagement and we feel it's a fitting, or a nice coincidence anyway, that we're presenting with Apathy is Boring today on this point. We recommend that the Government of Canada, in partnership with the provinces and territories, develop a compulsory civics course for Canadian students at the secondary four or grade 11 level. Upon completion of this course, students would be registered to vote in the first following election after they reach 18 years of age.

The linchpin to effectiveness, legitimacy, citizen engagement, accessibility, inclusiveness, and system integrity is local representation. The QCGN believes it is essential that elected officials be directly accountable to a geographically defined electorate.

Finally, we are very uncomfortable with the notion of legislated or regulatory opportunities for inclusion of under-represented groups in the political process. Our concerns around this point are many. What does under-represented mean? What groups would be helped to the table and in what numbers?

The committee's mandate mentions a number of under-represented groups, but forgets to mention Canadians living in official language minority community situations.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

So, Mr. Thompson, won't be speaking. Mr. Dobie covered his material. Perfect.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I extend my sincere thanks to all of the witnesses and all of those who are in the room today.

Thank you so much for being here today. Given the fact that you're all speaking about youth engagement and education, it's fitting that we're in Montreal, the home of four universities. I'm delighted to be here back in my home...well, the south shore of Montreal, so it's pretty close.

I'll start with Ms. Loutfi.

You talked a little about youth engagement. As someone having come from the higher education sector prior to my election, I'm very actively engaged with this committee in actually using social media at #ERRE to get questions from Canadians across Canada who are interested in electoral reform. We've been going province to province. We've been using Facebook, our own pages, and so on.

We did see an upswing of youth voters in the last election, which we're delighted with. Do you think that this is a one-off or are we on the cusp of a new era where youth are now going to start coming out in droves?

[Carolyn Loutfi]

I'm not sure. We hope it's not a one-off. I think that what's important between now and the next federal election, and between now and any municipal or provincial elections that are happening for youth in their communities, is that the conversation continue. I think waiting and just running a “get out the vote” campaign once the writ is dropped won't create meaningful and sustainable long-term engagement. That's why having education initiatives, such as bringing the conversation of reform to everyday Canadians, are important.

You mentioned higher education, which I think is important, but I think one of the places we constantly forget to think about is youth who are not pursuing post-secondary education and how to reach them.

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

Perfect. You did mention a bit about giving them a reason to believe in the system. Do you think that it's the method in which we vote—not method, that's not the right word I want to use—the voting system that we're currently using. Do you think changing that is going to, alone, give them a reason to believe in the system, or do you think it's a multitude of factors?

[Carolyn Loutfi]

I think it's a multitude of factors. I think they need to be engaged in the conversation if we're changing the system. Right now, I don't think they are being effectively engaged in the conversation.

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

Okay.

My next question is for QCGN. It's a delight to have you here. My hometown of Greenfield Park is a small community on the south shore of Montreal, but it does have bilingual status in the large city of Longueuil. The English language is definitely top of mind in my riding, so talk to us a bit about language minorities and how we should be engaging them in this conversation about electoral reform, if you could. You did mention that it's one of the under-represented groups that is not on our mandate, so if you could elaborate, I'd love to hear a little more.

[Stephen Thompson, Director, Policy, Research and Public Affairs, Quebec Community Groups Network]

Just as a way of background, before the committee began its work, we'd been following and preparing for this presentation on electoral reform and trying to engage the community. The challenge we found in trying to engage our community is that there just wasn't a lot of pickup. I don't think people in our community, the folks we work with, understand why we're engaged in this conversation, and what's in it for them. Therefore, they're not engaging in it.

Through our newsletters and our web 2.0 products, we've been trying to engage our community in this, and we just haven't got the pick up. Part of the problem here is that it's so vague. You talk to Canadians about electoral reform and to people in our community, and their first question is, “What do you mean by that?” You say, “They're thinking about changing the way you vote at the federal level.” They ask, “What are they proposing?” You say, “There are five or six different systems.” By that time you've lost them.

These are busy people. These are people who are out trying to get scarce resources to provide direct services to their communities. These are small not-for-profit organizations. They're not sophisticated organizations that have expertise on electoral reform. What's in it for them? What does this mean for them? People haven't been able to get that message across, so I think that's why our community hasn't engaged thus far.

What we're asking for is to give us a specific model that we can take to our community, and then we can ask them what they think about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Kevin Dobie]

May I add something?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, go ahead, but briefly, please.

[Kevin Dobie]

In the conversations that we did have with members, partners, and organizations, we did hear regularly—and you're probably familiar with this in Greenfield Park—whether it's Greenfield Park, or the Eastern Townships, or some small communities on the lower north shore, that there's a strong connection to their geographic area. There's a strong connection to their homes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being with us here today. I also thank them for sharing the thoughts they have heard on this matter within their respective organizations.

My first question is for you, Mr. Dobie.

In your statement, you mentioned that experts cannot replace the general public. I felt that was a type of warning on the issue, since we have heard a lot of experts. I can tell you that the opinions of these experts can be diametrically opposed.

We spoke with university professors who told us that proportional voting systems do not have a significant effect on voter turnout in the countries where the systems have been put into effect, and we heard experts from other universities who told us that the reverse was true. So it is not always easy for us to sort out everything that is said on this topic.

You say that we cannot replace the general public—and you can probably guess the question I'm about to ask you. When these consultations have led to a model, if the government goes ahead and decides to change the voting system, should we allow the population to express its opinion on the model in question? At that point, as Mr. Thompson said, we would have a model to present, to explain, and we would set out its pros and cons. Ultimately, the population will decide if we should proceed with it.

[Kevin Dobie]

I think it is normal and healthy in our society, in the context of our committee discussions, that experts present completely divergent views.

I think it is worthwhile to mention that after these conversations with the experts, it will be necessary to hold a dialogue with the general public. Since this is a very technical and somewhat esoteric conversation, if you will, there is a risk that the general public will distance itself from the dialogue if it does not participate in it right from the outset.

That summarizes our position. We are not against the experts, far from it, but we cannot exclude the general public from the debate. At this stage, the discussions are a bit removed from the electorate, in our opinion.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Does Mr. Thompson want to add something?