Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 25th, 2016

[Col Vihar Joshi]

One set of challenges we have is time periods. Our military vote period is from day 14 before the election to day nine. We have to get the material out in time. On deployed operations we have operations going on all around the world, and it's a challenge to ensure that Elections Canada and we can get the elections material to the members in time, and to get the materials back. That's a time period challenge.

On exercises, members are not always near the military polling stations. We have to make sure that we can get the polling station near our members during the time period. Sometimes we have to ask for variances from the time period to allow the vote to happen a little bit before, or a little bit after, the military period. Or on the hours of the polling stations, people work on shifts and different routines, so we have to make sure that the polling stations are open long enough for people to vote.

Other challenges we might have include ships at sea. We almost had this time a submarine under water during the election period. It's hard to get the information to a submarine when it's under water. So to try to plan that, that the exercises or the deployments happen around that election period, is another challenge we have to deal with.

Also, in our SOR process, statement of ordinary residence process, it changes. People might only realize that they wish to change their statement of ordinary residence once the writ is dropped, but of course it can't be effective until 14 days after the election is completed.

Those are very briefly some of the challenges we face.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Sansoucy, you have the floor.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to all the witnesses and to Ms. Morris in particular. This is the second time today that I have had the opportunity to hear from her as a witness before a House of Commons committee.

My first question is for you Ms. Morris and your colleague.

In addition to the fact that you are representing 300,000 members in 50 sections, you are also representing the citizens with the highest rate of participation in elections and who have been voting for the longest time. So we might expect them to want to keep the status quo. However, the majority of your members want the system to be reformed. They are very engaged in the electoral reform process.

You said that the first thing that motivates them is the fact that every vote should count. Beyond that, what compels them to support the electoral reform?

[Wanda Morris]

We'll review some more of the comments we received.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I can ask another question while you are looking for the answer.

I will turn to Dr. Lupia.

You said that, in the event of a referendum, the option of the status quo has an advantage given that it is easier to campaign against change. Campaigning for change means convincing people that the future will be brighter.

In the case before us, we are talking about electoral reform. We could actually conclude that the status quo is not an option in a reform. Does that mean that we can avoid the trap you have identified by giving people the choice between two new electoral systems?

[Dr. Arthur Lupia]

That's a non-traditional referendum. Usually there's one proposal put forward and people vote yes or no. If that wasn't on the table, then the status quo...that dynamic would not be present. Then it would be more like a candidate campaign, where you have ostensibly two new people.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Morris, have you found an answer to my question?

[Wanda Morris]

We've already shared a couple of the comments. I think the other one that's come through is just a concern that a relatively small percentage of electors would be able to vote for and elect a majority government.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you.

My last questions are for Mr. Dias.

It is very interesting that you are sharing the report on the consultations you have held for the study of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. Since those consultations were held with members of your union, it is interesting that you are able to identify the answers that I myself was not able to identify in our own consultation. For instance, you can specify that such and such a comment was made by a young person and that a lot of people who said they felt their vote doesn't matter or count were young workers.

As you pointed out, electoral reforms are not very common in the history of democracies, and it may be a while before the next opportunity to have a reform.

In your report on the consultations, you are saying that the groups that feel excluded from the electoral system are indigenous people, working class people, people of colour, immigrants, young people, homeless people, women, people with disabilities and seniors or folks receiving care. Could you elaborate on the importance of electoral reform for working class people? Why is it important to talk about those excluded from the current electoral system, not just the workers?

[Jerry Dias]

It's because I think working-class people understand that politics affects everything—the economy, decisions made by governments. I think we're at a time when people want more say, or they want to be listened to. I think you will find that in our consultation with our members, we did more than just meet with a national executive board, of whom 19 out of 25 are rank-and-file, shop-floor workplace, and then also have the debate at our convention. We also had numerous public forums internally. In Port Elgin we have an education centre, where we had more than 400 members talking about electoral reform. We have youth committees, we have workers with disabilities committees, we have aboriginal and workers of colour committees.

So we have had broad-based consultations with our members. The dialogue questions were actually drawn from “Your guide to hosting a successful dialogue on Canadian federal electoral reform”, which of course was put out by the government. It really is about a broad-based understanding that politics affects everything, such as the issue of the environment. We could start to walk through a whole host of initiatives. Politics is important, and I think people want to participate in it.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Okay.

So you are saying that the people in those groups themselves reported that they felt excluded from the system. It's not the workers who said that those groups of people felt excluded. The groups themselves confirmed that they felt excluded from the current system. Have I understood correctly?

[Jerry Dias]

Yes.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Okay.

The feeling of not being represented by the current system came up a lot in the comments that you have shared with us. What changes should be made first to ensure that your union members are well represented?

[Jerry Dias]

You know, it's interesting. Our members represent the communities. If I take a look at a breakdown of our membership for the purpose of discussions, I will have many who will come to a monthly union meeting, and many won't participate because of family obligations or whatever; however, we also have other members who will participate on environment committees or who will participate in social events. People have different interests, but we come together as a collective. That's what the labour movement is about, a coming together of collectives.

So people will have different ideas, but people just want to be heard. People want to participate. They might not want to participate by coming to a membership meeting, but boy, they're going to come to a ratification meeting, or they're going to go to a proposal meeting. People want to make sure they're heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Rayes, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for you, Professor Lupia.

Today, a journalist said that the Liberal government had 350 election platform promises. That number in addition to hundreds of electoral promises made by the two other parties that were also in favour of changing the voting system.

Mr. Dias said that 70% of people voted for a change because the previous government had been in power for almost 10 years. He was not entirely wrong, although I wouldn't say 70% myself.

Based on your experience, would you say that the government has a clear mandate to change the voting system without necessarily having to consult the people?

[Dr. Arthur Lupia]

I'll give a blunt answer. The first answer is that I don't know, because to answer that question I would want to get high-quality survey data to try to find out why different people voted for things.

As a technical matter, when we vote for candidates in an election, it's not like going inside the grocery store. It's like going to the front of the grocery store and someone hands you a basketful of fruit, vegetables, cereal, and whatnot and somebody else has a different basket. If you and I were going into the store, we might just pick our favourite types of food. But this would be like going to the supermarket and two people have already prepared a basket and we have to pick one.

In an election, it's very difficult to say that the reason the electorate chose a particular candidate is that they had a strong feeling about a particular issue. Some people may have felt very strongly about change, but other people may have felt strongly about the economy or inequality or social issues or things of that nature. As a general matter, it's hard to find one issue that is the reason a majority cast a vote. For me, it's impossible to do that without data.

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

I think you answered my question indirectly. Thank you.

Mr. Dias, Ms. Morris, Mr. Poziomka, I have not participated in all the meetings, but I think I participated in more than two-thirds of the meetings that witnesses attended. But all the groups that were clearly in favour of changing the voting system and, in almost all cases, of establishing a proportional voting system, were clearly opposed to a referendum. They argued that their members were clearly in favour of a change and that, as a result, a referendum was not necessary. They cited polls to justify their position.

Over the past few months, almost all the polls in which Canadians were asked whether or not they were in favour of a referendum on this issue have shown that many of them were in favour. It was more than 50% in all cases.

Why would all the surveys of the organizations you have cited provide a valid justification, but not those conducted with the general public?

[Wanda Morris]

Our surveys are not statistically significant, and we don't pretend to say that they reflect the views of the entire population. We simply poll all our members and invite them all to poll, and depending on the topic and their level of interest, we'll see somewhere between 2,000 and 10,000 respondents. I'm sharing with you what our members said, not something reflective of the larger electorate.

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

Surveys based on scientific statistics show us that the majority of Canadians are in favour of a referendum.

Under those circumstances, would you be in favour of the idea of polling the public once the government submits a voting system proposal to determine whether or not they want to see that voting system adopted?

As elected officials, why should we not consider those surveys, which are scientific, not solely based on the opinion of a group of people?

[Wanda Morris]

Just to be clear, our poll actually did support a referendum, but it was 53% in favour of a referendum.

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

So, as an organization, would you be in favour of that?

[Wanda Morris]

As an organization, I don't think that's a strong enough consensus to strike a position. We're here really to share the views of our members, not to advocate for a particular position.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dias, I'm sure you will be pleased to answer that question.

[Jerry Dias]

It would be my pleasure.

If we started to do everything by referendum, my guess is that Bill C-51 probably would not have been accepted by Canadians. If we had a referendum on omnibus Bill C-4—about this thick—I can only guess that it probably would have gone down.

The bottom line is that those who talk about referendums today usually are those who never held them when they were in power, so I find it somewhat hypocritical.

Here's how Canadians are looking at it. It depends on the question and how you ask the question. If you asked a Canadian—excuse me, let me finish—