Evidence of meeting #39 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was women.
3:20 p.m.
J.P. Lewis Assistant Professor, Department of History and Politics, University of New Brunswick Saint John, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to New Brunswick.
Update on the Jays game: they're up 2-0, last I checked.
3:20 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
3:20 p.m.
Assistant Professor, Department of History and Politics, University of New Brunswick Saint John, As an Individual
Having reviewed presentations to the committee from the beginning of the summer, and taking stock that you have heard plenty of empirically supported arguments for and against certain electoral systems and approaches to electoral reform, I thought it would be helpful to focus on one of the committee's four principles that I have done research on, and that's engagement—more specifically, the role of Elections Canada in civic education policy as related to engagement.
My two main points are that in light of impending electoral reform, Elections Canada should have a role in promoting engagement, and that this role should be emboldened by collaboration with non-governmental agencies. My review of testimony to the committee revealed that both these points have been topics addressed by many of the committee witnesses.
Departing Elections Canada Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand discussed the role of Elections Canada in introducing a new electoral system to the Canadian public. Mayrand noted that, “An extensive public education campaign would be needed to ensure that Canadians understand the new system....”
Australian Electoral Commissioner Tom Rogers recounted the Australian Electoral Commission's successful civic education campaign based on principles of comprehensiveness and inclusiveness.
Political scientists Henry Milner and Jonathan Rose both raised the importance of civic education for elections. Professor Milner noted that while education policy is a provincial matter, he would like to see a greater effort in civic education at both the provincial and federal levels of government. Professor Rose reminded the committee of Ontario's experience with electoral reform and the $6 million devoted to educating the voters during the province's 2007 electoral reform referendum.
Representatives from civic participation and education non-governmental agencies were also supportive of more national efforts in civic education policy. Maryantonett Flumian, from the Institute on Governance, argued that Elections Canada “should be institutionally positioned to play a leadership role” in civic education strategy.
Jane Hilderman from Samara noted, “...there are very few resources for nationwide efforts in Canada in civic education, nor is it clear who among government departments or agencies should be responsible for delivering on this goal.”
Today I'll talk about clarifying that role and focus on civic education and elections, with special attention to two points: the role of electoral management bodies, such as Elections Canada, in civic education; and the place of Elections Canada in the civic education policy network in Canada. I will support both points with evidence from research I've published.
My first point concerns the role of electoral management bodies such as Elections Canada in civic education. I argue that based on policy precedent at the provincial level and general institutional support across Canada, there's a case to be made for a civic education role for electoral management bodies, going beyond the responsibility of simply providing answers on “how to vote” and suggesting answers to the question of “Why vote?”
You may remember that in 2014 the federal Conservative government introduced legislation, Bill C-23, that raised questions on the role of electoral management bodies and what type of information they should provide voters. While most Canadians expect electoral management bodies such as Elections Canada or their provincial equivalent to provide information on “how to vote”, in recent years, due to dramatic declining voter turnout, electoral management bodies have expanded their mandates and roles to provide education on the question of “Why vote?”
One of the benefits of a federal state such as Canada is that it provides examples of policies found in the so-called “policy laboratories” at the provincial level of government. Examining the description of CEO duties in provincial elections acts reveals that seven of the 10 provinces have specific mention of an educational, outreach, or awareness role of the CEO. Based on the research I completed for the article, I argue that, yes, electoral management bodies should be engaged in both “how to vote” and “Why vote?” campaigns. My position is based on three central claims: one, the modesty of the current programs; two, the affordability of the current programs; and three, the consistency in policy path followed by electoral management bodies across the country.
While considering the role of electoral management bodies in Canada in civic education, it should be clearly noted that the majority of civic education policies and programs undertaken by electoral management bodies are often in partnership with other policy actors. Groups such as CIVIX, Samara, and Apathy is Boring have all been prominent in spreading the message of combatting voter apathy.
This brings me to my second point and the case for why Elections Canada can take a leading role in the Canadian civic education policy network. For another article I was a co-author of, we found that out of a policy community of 53 civic education policy actors on questions of trust, influence, and reliance, Elections Canada was the highest ranked institution. The group of policy actors included the Library of Parliament, the federal Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, Canadian Heritage, all provincial departments of heritage and culture and all provincial departments of education, all provincial elections agencies, and 10 prominent non-governmental organizations.
To return to comments by previous witnesses to this committee, I would like to draw attention to my colleague from the University of Toronto, Peter Loewen's, point that, “...the functioning of Canadian democracy has not been sufficiently appreciated.” I agree with Professor Loewen, and I believe Elections Canada should continue to play a part in addressing this appreciation gap regardless of the electoral system selected, playing a leading national policy role in answering the questions of “how to vote” and “Why vote?”
Thank you.
3:25 p.m.
Leonid Elbert As an Individual
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I thank you for the opportunity to be here today to provide my input on the subject of electoral reform.
My name is Leonid Elbert, and I am here as an individual and as an author of the proposal for a made-in-Canada proportional voting system, the local transferable vote.
If you wonder about my credentials to design a voting system, my answer is I am a guy who is good with numbers. I also happened to be a concerned citizen whose interest in electoral reform dates back to early 2000. I took the trouble to study different electoral systems, to do the math to check what the results would have been if any of those systems had been used, and to come up with a voting model that I believe is the best option for Canada.
Let me explain what makes it the best option. When it comes to voting reform, the two most seriously suggested alternatives are the mixed member proportional, the MMP, and the single transferable vote, the STV. The MMP supplements existing first-past-the-post voting with original seats to make overall results proportional. It is the easiest alternative to implement, practically a quick fix, and as such, it is very popular. However, just as any quick fix, it comes with many drawbacks. Problems start with a question: how exactly shall we choose the candidates to fill those original seats? They don't stop there. With the overall seat distribution determined by the original ballot, the MMP places greater emphasis on voting for a political party rather than for a local candidate. MMP is also prone to quite frequent clean sweeps or wrong winner situations when a party wins so many local seats that there aren't enough original seats to offset the distortion. The latter could even be noticed in the report released by the Law Commission in 2004.
And that brings us to another major alternative, the STV, a voting system that delivers proportional results without compromising personal accountability. Under STV, individual candidates matter more than their party affiliation and preferential voting allows everyone to vote his conscience without splitting the vote, but STV uses multi-member constituencies. And that is not something most Canadians are comfortable with.
I'm not even talking about the north with the spacious ridings. Even here in New Brunswick, many would not be comfortable with a province only having two or three local constituencies, even if they elect three to five MPs each.
My proposal, the local transferable vote, combines the best of the two worlds. It allows us to retain local constituencies, to have as many of them as we would under a typical mixed member system. On top of that, a local transferable vote also delivers all the advantages the STV has to offer: preferential voting; 100% local nominations; and equal opportunities for all candidates, including the independents.
All the technical details are outlined in a brief that I submitted to the committee on September 7, 2016. This is my proposal, which I offer for your consideration. I strongly encourage you to think outside the MMP-STV dilemma and to choose a system that encompasses the advantages of both. That system again is the local transferable vote, a voting system designed in Canada for Canada.
Thank you.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much, Mr. Elbert. I'm sure there'll be many questions to probe your system.
We'll start the round of questioning with Mr. DeCourcey for five minutes, please.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you, both Professor Lewis and Mr. Elbert, everyone who's joined us since the first panel, and all those who have stayed. I have plenty of questions I want to address to Professor Lewis about voter and citizen engagement.
Mr. Elbert, for the benefit of people here in the room, can you explain what your system would look like within the provincial boundaries of New Brunswick, what would the voter do going to the ballot, and what would the results look like?
3:30 p.m.
As an Individual
The province of New Brunswick has 10 seats right now, and it would be six local constituencies and four regional seats. What would happen is the ballot would list, first of all, the candidates for the local region. Let's say we're in Fredericton, so here are the candidates for Fredericton, and here are all the other candidates who are running in New Brunswick. Then you just rank them in order of preference. It doesn't matter if it is local or regional, just your first choice, number one, your second choice, number two, your third choice, number three.
Then, obviously, they'll do the counting, first of all questioning if there is anyone who won 50% or more in his home constituency. That guy is elected.
3:30 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
3:30 p.m.
As an Individual
Or gal, obviously. That person is elected. Then there will be original counting, just as they do in STV. They determine how many votes one would need to get elected, and then figure out if there was anyone else who had as many. Then, if nobody has that many, the one with the lowest votes is eliminated, and his ballots go to his second choices.
Then, similarly, we check again. If anyone won a quota, if there was a surplus, then we take just the last batch, just the batch that caused the surplus, and we transfer it in accordance with the second choices. Again, that's when we have to use weighted transfers, but that's the only situation, and we only use the last batch.
There are three conditions under which one gets elected. The first is winning of 50% in his or her home constituency. The second condition is to win the STV quota in New Brunswick, which would be 9.1% or so of the New Brunswick vote. The third condition would be the last MP from your local constituency to remain in the count. Basically, let's say there are three people running. If two have already been eliminated, there is one left from that particular constituency, and we elect him because there has to be at least one from every constituency elected.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you. I hope other colleagues will take up the line of questioning to explore that system in further depth.
Professor Lewis, you mentioned the intervention that we had from Maryantonett Flumian, back in July, probably, and I was reminded by Ms. May that she talked about our electoral system as part of larger ecosystem that encompasses our parliamentary tradition and the way that operates located within a larger political culture, and that change to the electoral system is one part of a larger movement to better engage citizens.
I highlighted it in my first line of questioning with Professor Everitt, but western democracies are seeing a decline in voter turnout regardless of electoral system. Can you perhaps, for our benefit and for the benefit of people in the room, talk about what results we can yield from electoral system change and what else we have to consider? This might be changes to the way the civil service works, changes to the way oversight and arm's-length bodies operate, procedure in Parliament, or our political culture in general. What other effective changes do we have to realize to see a larger diversity of voices and greater citizen engagement?
3:35 p.m.
Assistant Professor, Department of History and Politics, University of New Brunswick Saint John, As an Individual
Especially when we focus on the role of education policy and look closer—obviously it's a constitutional responsibility for the provinces—we see it's a really mixed bag across the country. I did research on Ontario, for example, when it instituted a mandatory civics course. The answer to your question should have been that everyone should take civics, like a policy answer. When Ontario instituted the course there were problems with the policy implementation and with the staffing in schools, where you had teachers and they couldn't figure out what they should teach, so they gave them civics.
I think part of that ecosystem you're talking about is about knowledge and awareness. I've been involved in research related to civics and the possibility of young people becoming more active or engaged if we focus on civic education at the high school level. Henry Milner and I published a paper. We could track, through an actual experiment, whether people who had taken that grade 10 civics course voted more. There was a bit of an increase.
I would parlay this to Professor Everitt's answer to one of these questions about engagement. I can't remember if she mentioned it or not, but for people who are disengaged, there is this phrase you may have heard from other witnesses, the idea of being tuned out. It's not even that they're engaged, don't like what they see, and are rejecting it. They aren't even there. They're not even assessing the strengths or weaknesses of a system.
One of the ways we can address what is quite an abstract and pretty major challenge in terms of engagement is through opportunities in education policy, and there are a lot of actors out there. As I mentioned, I used the term “modest” on purpose because even looking at electoral agencies across the country, you see most don't even have a budget line for voter education, so you can't really even track it. The one I did find was from a few years ago, where B.C. had maybe $15,000 out of a $15-million budget.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Thank you. I appreciate your both being here.
I'll start with Mr. Elbert. It's certainly encouraging to see we have someone like you, who is not representing any specific group. You've obviously, as a citizen, taken enough of an interest that you designed this system. I'm sure you would have spent countless hours doing that and putting together a paper for us. It's great to see a citizen who is so engaged, and we really appreciate your taking that time.
I want to ask you a little about your system. I've had a chance to look at the paper you sent to us. There was a guy in Edmonton who said his system was perfect. Having looked at it, I would disagree. I don't think his system was perfect. I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect system. I would assume you probably agree. I'm curious, assuming you do agree with me, there are probably some drawbacks you would see to your system. Could you tell us about some of the challenges or drawbacks that your system might have?
It doesn't mean it's not a good system. Everything has its challenges. What would you see as being the challenges or trade-offs that you'd have to make with your system?
3:40 p.m.
As an Individual
If you looked at the brief, you would have obviously looked at the would-be result. The Green Party would be under-represented. It would not go anywhere outside of B.C. The reason is that, when you have, let's say, 14 MPs elected in a region, there is not much they can do with 2% or 3%. Unlike other systems—
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
To be fair to you on that one, I think a lot of the models we're talking about would present that same challenge for the Green Party. When there are thresholds involved, the Green Party would tend to be disfavoured by a lot of these changes, I would think. To be fair, that's not an unusual challenge with the system.
3:40 p.m.
As an Individual
Unlike other systems, those votes would go to other parties, to the second-choice parties. That explains the extra seats for the Liberals and the NDP. You can see that they're slightly overrepresented there.
Another challenge would be the number of candidates on the ballot. Let's say, we have Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I suggested to have nine local constituencies and five regional seats instead of eight and six. With nine people from the same party, many would just go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. For others, you would have to explain to them not to just put number one, not to just put an X, but to go all the way down, because if you only specify one preference and it doesn't win enough votes, your ballot is exhausted. Obviously, that will require—
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Your vote would allow that, though. Your system would allow that. If someone wanted to vote for just one person, is that acceptable? It's not ideal, obviously, but is it acceptable?
3:40 p.m.
As an Individual
It is acceptable, yes.
In Australia, they actually tried to force people to vote for all the people that were running locally for the house of commons and for at least nine out of 10 on the senate ballot. That created a very complex system where political parties.... They got permission to refine the preferences. They introduced above-the-line voting, below-the-line voting, and in the end, the system came to an absurd...when small parties decided to unite their efforts, and if I'm not mistaken, the Australian Sports Party or the Motoring Enthusiast Party won a seat with 0.05% of the vote, or something like that.
Obviously, we should not go that far.
If someone believes that he only supports one independent, and he believes that all others are not trustworthy for some reason, he should be able to mark just one person.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I have one other question I'd like to ask. There isn't a lot of time left.
I'm a firm believer that any changes need to be put before the Canadian people. The people need to have the final say on this.
I'm wondering what your thoughts are. If your system was put before the Canadian people, do you think it would win the support of the Canadian people in a referendum, and why or why not?
3:40 p.m.
As an Individual
My proposal addresses the concern in Ontario and P.E.I., where people were given an option where they would vote for a political party without being able to distinguish who exactly they were voting for. It would also address the concern in B.C., where people were concerned that they would get huge electoral constituencies; for example, the northern part of Vancouver Island plus a huge chunk of the mainland would become one constituency. That was quite a concern. My system addresses both of those concerns.
If you run a referendum, at least 57% would support it in B.C., and I believe it would win.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
You would be comfortable with a referendum? You think that would be an acceptable course of action?
3:40 p.m.
As an Individual
Actually, my brief includes the argument for the referendum. No matter if it wins or loses, first of all, it's a de facto precedent that changes like that require a referendum.
There is another situation. Let's say the government changes, and I don't care what party forms the government in 2019. Let's say they mention during the campaign that they are opposed. The logic that is being used right now would give them the opportunity to say, “Okay. You guys knew that we were opposed to that. You voted for us, so don't complain now.” They could just arbitrarily redefine the voting system as they pleased using this case as a precedent, so a referendum better be there.
