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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Lise Ouellette  Co-Chair, As an Individual
Joanna Everitt  Professor of Political Science, Dean of Arts, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
J.P. Lewis  Assistant Professor, Department of History and Politics, University of New Brunswick Saint John, As an Individual
Leonid Elbert  As an Individual
John Gagnon  Member of the Executive Council, New Brunswick Federation of Labour
Helen Chenell  As an Individual
David Kersey  As an Individual
James Norfolk  As an Individual
Maurice Harquail  As an Individual
Patrick Lynch  As an Individual
Roch Leblanc  As an Individual
Margaret Connell  As an Individual
Brenda Sansom  As an Individual
J.P. Kirby  As an Individual
Stephanie Coburn  As an Individual
Mat Willman  As an Individual
Renée Davis  As an Individual
Wendy Robbins  As an Individual
Hamish Wright  As an Individual
Margo Sheppard  As an Individual
Joel Howe  As an Individual
Andrew Maclean  As an Individual
Jonathan Richardson  As an Individual
James Wilson  As an Individual
Paul Howe  Professor, Department of Political Science, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
John Filliter  As an Individual
Sue Duguay  President, Fédération des jeunes francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick
Andrea Moody  As an Individual
Romana Sehic  As an Individual
David Amos  As an Individual
Julie Maitland  As an Individual
Daniel Hay  As an Individual
Nicholas Decarie  As an Individual
Rhonda Connell  As an Individual
Gail Campbell  As an Individual
Jason Pugh  As an Individual

October 7th, 2016 / 6:45 p.m.

John Filliter As an Individual

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members.

I understand that I should slow down for the sake of the translators. I had it timed to five minutes, but—

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I wouldn't let the time limit.... We can all be a little bit flexible to spare the interpreters having to run after your words too quickly.

6:45 p.m.

As an Individual

John Filliter

Okay.

When I began investigating this issue, I looked at the original electoral arrangement set forth in the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 40 deals with division of the original member provinces into electoral districts. You would hardly recognize most of them now, needless to say. Section 41 keeps the existing provincial election laws in place, including qualifications and disqualifications of voters and candidates, and proceedings at elections. The right to vote has now been extended well beyond the original 21-year-old male British subject with some property.

Both of those sections begin with “Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides”, so the Fathers of Confederation obviously contemplated that these initial provisions would evolve as decided by Parliament.

Parliament, as you know, consists of the Queen, the Senate, and the House of Commons, of which only one is elected.

Fast-forward to part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, better known as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The first democratic right listed in the charter is that of every Canadian citizen “to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons”. Subsection 15(1) of the charter provides that “[e]very individual...has the right to the...equal benefit of the law without discrimination”. This implies that the votes of all Canadians should carry equal weight, subject to section 51A, the amendment to the 1867 act that guarantees all provinces at least as many MPs as senators.

I don't believe in change for the sake of change, so I did some research on how the existing system, first past the post, has worked. For the first 53 years after Confederation, we had essentially two-party elections, and the system worked fairly well, except in 1896, when Wilfrid Laurier defeated Charles Tupper despite earning 1.2% less of the vote than Tupper. That amounted to 11,134 fewer votes. That was the first of our system's “stolen” elections that passed power to the second-place party.

Since 1921, Canada has had multi-party elections featuring at least three substantial parties. During this 95-year period, we elected 18 majority governments and 11 minorities. Of the 18 majorities, only four were true majorities. Fourteen times first past the post has produced false majorities, where a party that won fewer than half the votes was awarded a majority of the seats. That's one-third of all of our 42 general elections held to date. And there have been four more system-stolen elections since 1921.

As well, first past the post tends to distort regional results. The most glaring example was the 1993 election, when the Bloc Québécois became the official opposition, winning 54 seats with 13.5% of the popular vote. Reform was next with 52 seats but 18.72% of the vote, and the Progressive Conservatives won only two seats but garnered 15.99% of the vote. Go figure.

In my view, an electoral system should translate the votes cast across the country into seats that reflect the share of votes that each party received. A system that repeatedly puts second-place parties into power, regularly converts a minority of votes into a majority of seats, and seriously distorts regional results is fatally flawed and should be replaced.

First past the post is one of the majoritarian, winner-take-all systems with single member ridings, which are designed to produce or have historically produced a majority.

Is there another type of system, which would respect and reflect our votes? Yes. Proportional representation systems allocate seats to the parties based on their shares of the popular vote. There are also mixed systems, which combine features of the other two.

I strongly urge this honourable committee to recommend some form of proportional representation to the House so we voters can enjoy real democracy in the only elected component of Parliament.

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you, Mr. Filliter.

Madame Duguay.

6:50 p.m.

Sue Duguay President, Fédération des jeunes francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, everyone. I would like to thank you for inviting us and for making it possible for the voice of New Brunswick's francophone youth to be heard on an issue that is so important for our country's future democracy.

My name is Sue Duguay and I am the president of the Fédération des jeunes francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick, the FJFNB.

The FJFNB is a not-for-profit organization whose mission is to represent the interests of Acadian and French-speaking youth in the province of New Brunswick. It was founded in 1971, so we are celebrating our 45th anniversary this year. The Fédération operates according to a model designed by young people for young people. We look to a future in which Acadian and French-speaking youth can play a proud role in society in our own language and culture.

This year, the FJFNB has about 8,700 members. In fact, they are all students from the 22 francophone high schools in the province of New Brunswick.

As a socially committed young person and, since last May, the president of the FJFNB, I want to speak to you about a matter dear to our members, a voting age of 16.

At the outset, I want to tell you that I am fully aware that the matter of the voting age is not directly part of the committee's mandate. However, as you will be able to see in our presentation, bringing the voting age down to 16 is an effective way of enhancing the five great principles in your committee's mandate: effectiveness and legitimacy; engagement; accessibility and inclusiveness; integrity; and local representation. I therefore hope that our presentation will be instrumental in convincing your committee to review the voting age.

The FJFNB's 2014 annual general meeting gave us the mandate of working to lower the voting age to 16. The proposal to us from the province's young people was to press for a reduction in the voting age to 16 and for mandatory training on the electoral process in high school.

Our work to that end began in 2014. We have worked tirelessly to bring this proposal before the public. Our research convinces us that lowering the voting age to 16 would be beneficial for the Canadian electoral system.

Voting is a habit. Studies tend to demonstrate that once people vote, they will be inclined to continue to do so all their lives. Because of this, 16-year-olds, still in the school system and mostly living at home, would be in a situation that would encourage them to vote, especially for the first time.

In addition, as you have perhaps noticed, our members' proposal asks not only for a reduction in the voting age, but also for the addition of mandatory civic education courses to the school curriculum. These courses are extremely important in creating generations of voters with a full understanding of the electoral system. It is therefore important that the federal government, with its provincial counterparts, provide adequate civic education in the classroom.

To ensure that young people are properly educated, your committee could take the additional step of returning the mandate for education about the electoral system to the Chief Electoral Officer.

With a course in the schools and some enrichment during the election period, it is not unimaginable that lowering the voting age could help to combat the low turnout rate at elections, which is a reality in every province of Canada.

For those participating in the electoral system for the first time at 18, a large number of obstacles arise. For the most part, they no longer live at home. Often, they are enrolled in post-secondary education programs outside their constituencies. As you know, when you cannot physically get to the constituency of your official residence, you have to take special steps in order to vote. So that is an obstacle for that first-time vote.

In addition, those who study these matters agree that voting is a social act, that is, it is influenced by one's young peers. Here again, if they are no longer at home, no longer potentially in a school where education is more immediate, a new obstacle must be overcome.

Young people are interested, or at least want to be interested, in politics. We see it every day. I remind you that it was our members, the young francophones of this province, who formally asked us to work towards lowering the voting age to 16. They are interested in politics; however, since they cannot participate in the electoral process before they are 18, most of them feel disenchanted with a system that nevertheless affects them directly. Elected officials make decisions that influence and will continue to influence young people all through their lives, yet they have no voice.

A number of countries have already addressed the issue and some have lowered the voting age so that 16- and 17-year-olds can participate in the electoral process as voters. We may think of Austria, Brazil, or a number of other places. This change in mentality and in legislation has resulted in very positive outcomes.

Federally, we know that one bill, Bill C-213, introduced by New Democrat MP Don Davies, is currently on the Order Paper awaiting second reading. We hope that the government will allow this private member's bill to continue along its path.

In addition, let us not forget that, at 16, young people have the right to work, to drive, even to enlist in the army, but not to vote. I therefore feel that the voting age must reflect those other standards.

In closing, I feel that the idea of voting starting at 16 and of promoting mandatory civic education courses in schools would be a useful solution that could also contribute to improving the democratic process in Canada.

Thank you for your time and attention. Of course, I am available to answer your questions.

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you, Ms. Duguay.

We now move to the questions from committee members.

We will start with you, Mr. DeCourcey. You have five minutes.

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB

Thank you once more, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to everyone here in Fredericton this evening for another round table, and to those who came for the first part of the session. My thanks also to all the witnesses.

Ms. Duguay, we have received some good testimony from your counterparts in other provinces. We will have to consider the idea of lowering the voting age.

Mr. Filliter, thanks so much for your intervention. Thank you both, Professor Howe and Mr. Wilson.

Paul, I'd like to start with you. I want to address the idea of strategic voting for a moment. If my memory serves me correctly, it was Laura Stephenson from Western University who suggested that maybe 3% of the population vote strategically, in the way that we would consider strategic voting under the current system.

Do you have any idea, evidence, or gut feeling on what the numbers are around how prevalent strategic voting is under the single-member plurality system?

6:55 p.m.

Paul Howe

That's a good question, and I can't point to specific studies that put a precise number on it. I will have to look up Laura Stephenson's study.

One thing I would say is we can talk about short-term effects, where you encounter a particular electoral context and ask who you should vote for. There's also the question of longer-term effects. It seems as if certain parties, the ones we know, are the ones that realistically have a chance of winning. Therefore, allegiances might start, over time, to erode for the smaller parties that seem to never get much representation and never have a chance of making it to the big ring or gaining power.

I don't know Laura's study. When I hear 3%, that does sound low to me. I would think more people are affected by this issue, this problem. As I say, I would probably draw that distinction between short-term and longer-term influences as well.

7 p.m.

Liberal

Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB

In André Blais' testimony to us, he cited the idea of strategic voting the way we understand it now to not necessarily disappear, but to exemplify itself in a different way under a proportional system. That was reiterated by Peter Loewen. I know you would be well attuned to their work.

Can you talk to us about what the strategy could conceivably be for voters when they walk into a ballot booth in a mixed member proportional system?

7 p.m.

Paul Howe

The logic, to my mind, without being too strategic, would be, on the one hand, choosing the person you like best on the left-hand side of the ballot to represent you for your local riding and voting freely with your heart for that person, and on the same side, on the right-hand side of the ballot, choosing the party that you like best, and again, without strong strategic considerations. Unless we're starting to talk, yes, about maybe larger strategic considerations around government formation and so on that people start to think about, and what representation different parties will have....

I haven't seen their testimony. I think I did look briefly at their briefs, but I would say that, for the most part, my sense would be that under MMP, strategic voting would not be as much a front and centre consideration in most voters' minds.

7 p.m.

Liberal

Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB

In her testimony earlier this evening, Professor Everitt brought up the notion of incremental change being the way that things are achieved in Canada.

What's your take on the notion of incrementalism as a way to introduce modernization to the electoral system, to our style of governance, and to our political culture, which are all part of an ecosystem where this conversation is situated?

7 p.m.

Paul Howe

Coming back to the idea of MMP, I would be comfortable with the idea that you might develop a system where you would have more seats on the first-past-the-post side and fewer that would represent your top-up seats. Depending on the size of the regions you create, that will also have an impact on how proportional the results end up being.

If it's done nationwide for the so-called topping up, you can get very proportional results, but if you use smaller regions, then the proportionality will be somewhat less, and effectively, the smaller parties that get only 4% or 5% of the vote may not get any representation within that region.

I am comfortable with the idea that as part of incrementalism we might have these explicit or implicit thresholds where parties would have to get a decent amount of the vote, let's say 8%, 9%, or 10%, before they start to see representation as a way of bringing in significant proportionality, but also leading to a situation where we would likely not see a huge proliferation of new parties. We also do still have a significant chance of potential majority governments at some point in the future. That could occur if a party can get that kind of support.

7 p.m.

Liberal

Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB

Could you give me a bit more time, Mr. Chair?

7 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Sure.

7 p.m.

Liberal

Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB

Mr. Wilson, in your conversations with people about the idea of weighted voting, has this psychological barrier emerged of the notion that, yes, you elect your local representative, but they go to Parliament and their vote could potentially be worth considerably less than a colleague sitting beside them in the House of Commons?

7 p.m.

As an Individual

James Wilson

Of the dozen or so people I've talked to, I've run into that comment once, and it was more along the lines of MPs being demotivated in doing their jobs by having unequal votes. That is the only thing along your line of thinking that I've run across.

7 p.m.

Liberal

Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB

Thank you very much.

7 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Richards, please.

7 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

We appreciate all of you being here today.

I have a few questions, and we'll get to what we can, I suppose.

Professor Howe, I'm going to follow up on the exchange you just had with Mr. DeCourcey in regard to mixed member proportional. The choice is to increase the number of ridings or to increase the size of ridings in order to be able to accommodate both aspects of the ballot.

I wonder what your thoughts are, and which of those you feel would be appropriate, and why.

7:05 p.m.

Paul Howe

I could see a case being made for doing a bit of both. Let's say, for example, that two-thirds of the ridings were designated as first past the post. Then you could increase them somewhat, but not to the full extent that you would have to if you also increase the size of the House of Commons by, say, 10%. Then you might have 80% as the overall....

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

One of my concerns with anything that looks at increasing the size of the ridings is that we already have some large ridings in this country. I think it's a challenge that's unique to Canada, or nearly unique to Canada. There might be a couple of other exceptions, but it is a challenge that I think we have to seriously consider when we're talking about increasing the size of a riding.

I'm curious about your thoughts on riding size. Let's set aside the territories and maybe some of our most northern ridings, but what would you say would be an acceptable geographic size for a riding if we are going to increase the size, at a maximum?

7:05 p.m.

Paul Howe

The geographic size rather than the demographic size?

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

Yes, the geographic size.

7:05 p.m.

Paul Howe

I don't know. Sorry, in what sense, like square miles, or...?

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

Yes, exactly, because what we have to consider is the area a member of Parliament has to cover. I think about the riding that I represent. It has shrunk considerably with the boundary redistribution. My old riding was significantly larger. I know there are other members—and Mr. Cullen is certainly an example on this committee—who have very large ridings, and it can be a real challenge to ensure that they're getting out to all the communities and making sure they're accessible to all the communities. I think it's important for voters to have that accessibility.

When we talk about increasing the size of ridings, that can take away from that. That's why I ask what the appropriate maximum size for a riding would be.