Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 6th, 2016

[Leonard Russell]

If I were doing it again—if I were now starting this over again—and it came to my attention that this was going on, I would be talking about it publicly.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That issue....

[Leonard Russell]

That issue...because it would need to be drawn to the attention of the folks who are kind of getting information under the table, rather than through the public consultation that we are having. If that's what they are going to base their decision on, then they need to know that the group that's going to write the report indeed is aware that this is happening.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That a process can be undermined....

I'm curious about education. Folks say that we should have a referendum, and we'll just educate people on all the systems. I'm sure Mr. Brown can comment on this. We have systems that are incredibly complicated. Some people have said.... A fellow last night in Newfoundland said, “I have a Ph.D., and I find this very difficult to understand fully.” It's easy to undermine the education process in a referendum. We saw that in the U.K. recently.

It's easier to lie than it is to explain the truth, in a referendum scenario, about something that's complicated, and voting systems are complicated.

How do we get over that, Mr. Brown? Do we have any evidence as to whether the education worked last time around? Were people aware of what it was they were voting on and what the implications were?

[Jordan Brown]

We looked at this in a fairly in-depth way when we started out, and we actually had Mr. Russell in to talk to us at that point in time. It is a very valid.... It's something we spent a lot of our time trying to figure out. I think, to his point, that we at least tried to give the elephants in the room their tea and crumpets, and carry on. There is a question of political will, and there is a question of confidence in your system. If the system is the right system that people want, there shouldn't be any issue in having a discussion about it, and if it's not the right system, you don't have any business trying to defend it either.

That's kind of the position we started out from, and we didn't presume to know the answers. We wanted to consult first and find out what people thought, and then really put people's thoughts back to them and say, “Here is, in a broad way, what we've heard from you. We distilled it into principles, and each of the systems you see there is really tied to a principle.”

To your question about the ability to undermine things and the difficulty in understanding it, it can get very complex. I would argue that things were more complex last time, with one new system on the ballot, because they got so far down into the weeds than they are this time, with four new systems on the ballot, because it's higher level, and the systems are there based upon principles. The discussion is more about—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Interesting, that's a very good point.

We'll go to Ms. May now, please.

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

I have to say what a pleasure it is to be back in Prince Edward Island, being a maritimer myself, but especially to have this panel here. This is extraordinarily good timing for us. I hope our presence in the province doesn't in any way interfere with the decision that Prince Edward Islanders have in front of them.

Of course, it may have been implicit in your remarks, Mr. Brown, but I hope you won't mind my expressing my enormous pride in the fact that the one current MLA who isn't a Conservative or a Liberal is the leader of the Prince Edward Island Green Party, Peter Bevan-Baker. He is someone I admire enormously.

I want to go to you, Mr. Russell, because, number one, I can't begin to imagine why your wife would want you out of the house—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

—but I'm grateful for your candour. The idea that we're going to name the elephants in the room and give them sandwiches and tea has to be the very nicest way I've ever heard anyone put the notion of dealing with problems of human nature and the human nature of people in politics.

As a British Columbian now, I know that the referenda in British Columbia were substantially undermined because both of the major parties—it's sad to say, Nathan—the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Liberals did not want the referendum to pass to bring proportional representation to British Columbia. My colleagues in the New Zealand Green Party say the reason they had so many referenda in New Zealand was that subsequent and successive governments wanted to do everything they could to avoid their election commitments to bring in proportional representation.

This is going to take an act of political courage that we've not seen from people in politics at provincial levels in Canada. I have to say probably the folks in Ontario would say the same of the MMP resolution, that there wasn't strong support from governments for the Ontario Citizens' Assembly's recommendations for mixed member proportional.

I'd be grateful for any further advice, in addition to sandwiches and tea, for how 12 members of Parliament—and I have to say this, the people around this table are great people, and we wear five different political hats. Our friends from the Bloc aren't with us today, but they're great too. How do we find the political courage to do what's right for the country and for the voters and set aside the fact that at the last minute we may experience political pressure that we ought to duck and not deliver on the promise that 2015 will be the last election held under first past the post?

I was hoping Mr. Russell might have some sandwiches and tea advice.

[Leonard Russell]

I'll have to live that down. I hope somebody can give you sandwiches and tea before your day is up.

I think that in the list of options that are put forward for public consideration, the consideration of the voting public, there has to be that clear, unadulterated option that gives clear proportionality to the standing after the election is done. I don't think we should provide options that have a moving vote because that simply clouds the issue again, and it sort of permits a power situation to emerge rather than a good proportional situation to emerge.

If the public rejects that, that's fine, but I think the way that you will get to what the public really wants is to be sure that there is that clear option on the list that would give proportional standing.

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

Mr. Brown, do you have any recommendations for us? You are, as our chair indicated at the opening, in exactly the same position as he was in, but you're in the P.E.I. context. We are following in your footsteps, so to speak. What advice would you give us as a committee to come to a consensus recommendation to deliver on December 1?

[Jordan Brown]

Obviously, it's tough for me to give advice in your context, but I can tell you what we did. The big thing that I think we did was—and I think we did it well, and I'm not saying that we were perfect by any means—early on we turned our minds to the process and to what would likely be, I'm going to say, at least palatable to the people. We listened when they had suggestions as to how we make changes to that so that it would be more palatable to them. Any perceived issues.... I know you guys had an issue right off with the composition of your committee. We had similar issues, but I think we moved very quickly as a committee and, I will say, worked tremendously well together to dispel those issues by building up public trust and by following our process and giving credence to what we heard.

I think that's all you can do. Set your process; stick to your process, and you have to have faith in the process. Once people have faith in that process, and they realize that it's a credible process, you're on your way, and there's less room to doubt. It's never going to be perfect, though. That's the downside to it.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Ms. Romanado, go ahead, please.

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

I'd like to thank both of you for being here today.

To the members of the audience, thank you so much. It's a beautiful sunny day and you're inside with us, but we do have a nice view, so this is good.

Mr. Brown, you've decided to include those who are 16 and 17 in this referendum and you've also decided to open it up to include Internet voting, and voting by phone, in person, or by mail. Also, the dates are a little longer. Could you tell me the rationale for this? I'm assuming I know what it is, but I'd like to hear it from you.

[Jordan Brown]

It's really a simple rationale. It's all about engagement. I could say that and leave it, but I'll add a little context.

The e-voting piece is really in response to, as Mr. Russell indicated, the issues that we had in 2005. It's a far cheaper way to conduct a plebiscite. It's a much more engaging way to do it, which is really to say the issues are not as simple as deciding candidate X or candidate Y. You can sit home in front of your computer and take half an hour to read about them and compare one to the other and do some research and make your decision at the end of your research. We felt that was a crucial piece to the e-voting component of it.

The time frame is expansive enough that there should really be no excuse. It's over 10 days. If people are away, they might be away for a week, but they're probably not going to be away for 10 days. There are all kinds of different reasons for having an extended time frame, but you can do that if you don't have to pay to have a bum in a seat in a poll for 10 days straight.

As far as the 16- and 17-year-olds go, they will vote in the next election. They're in school right now and the hope is—and I think this is kind of paying off—that they will be engaged in a setting where, effectively, there's some structure to how they learn about politics and democracy and they're able to participate in it. Hopefully they'll go home and educate their siblings and parents and grandparents and all the rest of it about the process, and carry that forward through their life in a good, structured, educated way.

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

With regard to e-voting, we've heard a lot of testimony about the security breaches that can happen. We saw it in the United States with the Democratic National Convention and we've seen it in other countries, as examples. How can you make sure that, whatever it is, the security of the vote is there and that there's no coercion, or that if someone's sitting at home in their underwear voting, somebody's not standing over them saying, “That's the person you need to vote for”, or, “That's the yes versus the no”?

[Jordan Brown]

I guess I would flip it on its head and ask whether you can really ensure that in any way, no matter what system you're utilizing. Elections P.E.I. did the research into this and came and made their formal presentations regarding how it can be carried out. My understanding is that although there is some relatively small level of potential for that kind of interference, overall it's not a statistically significant piece of it. Knowing that, I think, we felt that we had the assurance we needed to recommend it on the basis that the pros far outweigh the cons. Much like the systems that are there to be voted on, there's no perfect answer to this, but sometimes you have to put the good side of things ahead of the potential pitfalls and kind of have faith in it working out.

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

I'm going to ask you the million dollar question: Why are you doing it again? In 2005, 36% of people said they didn't want it. That's not a really high number. I'd say if it had been 45%, or close to 50%, I'd say okay, maybe there's still some groundswell there, still some interest, but 10 years later, why again? Is it just based on a campaign promise? Do you have statistical data to support that people overwhelmingly wanted this? I'm just curious as to why you're going through the exercise again.

[Jordan Brown]

I think I already answered that, but I'll say it again. I think it's all about confidence in your democratic system. I will say that there were certainly enough questions about our system that it warranted having the conversation. In any democracy, we can assume that we know the answers, but it's often good to actually go out to the public and find out what they think about it. There are all kinds of different ways of doing that, but this was ultimately the way that was chosen here, and I think there's validity to that.

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

Would you recommend that we do the same thing, that we go back to Canadians through a referendum and ask them?

[Jordan Brown]

There are a number of different ways in which I can answer that question, but I'll say this. We all know that the Prime Minister has been on record as saying that's the last time we'll vote under that existing system. If you truly want change, I will tell you that it would be much easier to effect change without going through a plebiscite, in other words, if you can come to a consensus.

Everybody might want change, but if there are 20 people in the room, they'll probably want 20 different kinds of change. It's hard to come to the one that everybody agrees on. If you want to have a conversation about whether or not you want change and what that might look like, and try to arrive at a consensus after that, a plebiscite is the way to do it. If you want change, the easier way to do it is probably not to have a plebiscite. If you already know the kind of change you want, or have an idea generally, there's a question there of really what the easiest path to it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Richards now.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I want to ask you about a referendum as well, because you've obviously made the decision to give the final say, the ultimate say, to the people in the process you've undertaken. That followed the precedent we saw here in 2005, but also in other provinces that have gone this route.

I wonder if you could tell us why you chose that. Why did you feel it was important to give people the say on the final decision? Once you've come up with a recommendation, you've given them that opportunity. Why did you feel that was important?

[Jordan Brown]

I might first be very careful to say that it wasn't our recommendation or decision to proceed in that way or that direction. It was two things. It was a motion of the legislature, but ultimately it was basically something that stemmed from the white paper and the discussion that ensued in the legislature.

Starting from that point, the context that I think I could probably safely add, as could anybody in the public who witnessed that unfolding, is that our legislators didn't presume to know what the outcome might be of that kind of a consideration. As much as deciding that we wanted to have the conversation, and the importance of that, I think there was a corollary: we had decidedly not decided that we knew the answer to the question.

That's basically the path we took to get there. It's a bit of a different path from running through an election with a mandate to proceed in a set direction.