Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 25th, 2016

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank our panellists for being here this evening.

And thank you to the folks in the audience for hanging out for the hottest ticket in town: electoral reform.

Thank you very much for being with us this evening.

First, General Corbould, we're delighted to have you here. It's the first time we have had members of the Canadian Armed Forces in front of us. We thought it was incredibly important that we make make sure that the voices of our serving members are heard. I'd like to thank you and your colleagues, first, for their service to Canada, and also for being here this evening, as a key stakeholder group, to provide us with this information that is incredibly important for us.

As I mentioned to you, I have two sons currently serving, and I had the pleasure of trying to figure out what the statement of residence was during the last election. You touched on that a bit. If you could elaborate to this committee on the steps that serving members would need to take in terms of setting up their address to correspond with their electoral riding, and explain that a little for the benefit of the committee, that would be helpful.

Thank you.

[BGen Gordon Dave Corbould]

Yes, ma'am. I'll speak in broad terms and then allow Colonel Joshi to go into any specifics that I may have skipped over.

In terms of the statement of ordinary residence, primarily, as you get enrolled into the military during your recruitment phase you declare your statement of ordinary residence, which for most of us, as we join, will not be the place where we go to a recruiting centre; rather, it will be the place primarily where our family is from. When I joined I was from Bella Coola, British Columbia. That's where my parents lived. I associated that with my statement of ordinary residence.

Every year we have an opportunity to change our statement of ordinary residence. I believe it's two months of the year in which—my colleague will correct me, I'm sure—you can change your statement of ordinary residence. That is generally as a result of a posting, so if I were posted from St. Albert to Ottawa, I might decide, myself, to change my statement of ordinary residence, or I might, as an individual, choose to maintain it at St. Albert, Alberta, depending on my personal circumstances and ties to my location.

In addition to that, I know that during an election, once a writ is dropped, then we are limited in changing our statement of residence during that time frame, obviously to not affect the election campaign.

I'll hand it over to Colonel Joshi to clarify some things.

[Colonel Vihar Joshi, Deputy Judge Advocate General, Administrative Law, Canadian Forces]

I have just a bit of clarification. On the subject of changing the statement of ordinary residence, it can be changed any time during the year, but it is not effective until 60 days after it's been received by the commanding officer.

During an election period, as General Corbould mentioned, after the writ is dropped, if you move to change your statement of ordinary residence, it is not effective until 14 days after the election period. So during an election period you cannot change a statement of ordinary residence, but during the course of the year, your statement of ordinary residence can be changed to the place where you would live but for your military service, or the location where you are currently serving, or the location that you held immediately prior to enrolment.

So there is some flexibility in aligning your statement of ordinary residence with your connection to the community.

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

Thank you.

In your brief, you mentioned some of the challenges we face. I'm quite happy to see all of the efforts that are made to make sure that our service members, especially those serving abroad, are able to participate in the democratic process.

It was very helpful for you to mention that when we have to advance the voting date for them, it sometimes may prevent members from understanding or learning some things in the last minutes of the campaign and so on. It was very helpful for you to provide us with that information, because that's something we'll need to mindful of, no matter what we decide to do. In that regard, I want to thank you both very much for filling us in.

My next question is for you, Mr. Dias. I just want to get some clarity on some of the statements you made. We have heard from your members throughout the tour. They seem to follow us because, as I said, we're the hottest ticket in town, I think, in terms of electoral reform.

You said that over 60% of the Canadians didn't vote for the governing party, and that on October 19 there was a referendum of change. Then, of course, you talked about making false majorities impossible. I'm a little confused, because on the one hand you're saying that we're a false majority in that 60% of Canadians didn't vote for us—which, I agree, that's in fact correct—but then you're saying that we have the mandate to then change the system. I'm not sure which one it is. Is it the first one or is it the second one?

As well, you said that people voted strategically because they didn't want a party. So if they voted strategically because they didn't want a party—i.e., I'm assuming the last government—that in itself is not then saying that they voted overwhelmingly because the three parties wanted reform. I'm not sure which one it is. Could you could clarify, please?

[Jerry Dias]

Gladly. If you take a look at the last federal election, it's clear: the debate across the country was change, no question about it. If you take a look at one of the issues that was debated, it was electoral reform.

You're right that we suggested to our members to vote strategically. I think if you take a look at the numbers, Canadians, 70% of Canadians, voted strategically. If you take a look at the numbers, 70% went to the ballot box...first of all, went to the box to vote strategically, and then 70% said, “Who am I going to vote for that's best positioned to defeat a Conservative?” That's my opinion, and that is, frankly, what the numbers seem to show.

Now, the mandate is clear, in my opinion. Regardless of the system, the government should do what they ran on. If part of your platform was eliminating first past the post, then you should do that. One of the frustrations with politics today is that people will frequently run from the left and govern from the right, or in fact when they get elected their platform seems to disappear. Even if you take a look at the polling afterwards, it's clear that people are looking to get rid of the first-past-the-post system.

So I'm not giving an inconsistent message. What I'm saying is that the government should do what they said. Too, that's what Canadians are expecting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We have to go to Mr. Reid now.

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions will be for you, Professor Lupia.

I have to tell you, first off, that you hit a raw nerve with your Pokémon GO comments. I am a level 26 Pokémon GO player with a 2200 Combat Power Snorlax in my Pokédex.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[An hon. member]

You shouldn't admit to that, Scott.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I'm just saying.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

However, in other regards you seem to be a well-reasoned individual.

I could see you listening with interest to the previous exchange. There has been a narrative presented, and Mr. Dias has articulated it, that there is no reason to have a referendum on a new electoral system for Canada because the 2015 federal election was a de facto referendum on electoral reform due to the fact that the Liberals, the New Democrats, and the Green Party collectively had positions in favour of changing the electoral system. These, of course, were not their entire platforms; they were part of what they articulated.

Is it reasonable to treat elections as de facto referenda on any particular issue?

[Dr. Arthur Lupia]

It's difficult to treat a candidate-based election or a Parliament-based election as a referendum on a specific issue. Typically, in one of those elections, you're talking about a basket of issues. Some people when they go to the polls are really worried about the economy. Some may be really worried about whether a particular factory in their town will stay open or closed. Others might be worried about children, or the elderly, or things of that nature. It's very difficult to take an election result and narrow it down to a single topic.

Does that answer your question?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Yes, it does. Thank you.

You've written a number of papers that are germane to what we're discussing today. One that you co-authored with John Matsusaka twelve years ago, in 2004, described how voters can be grouped into roughly three categories. I'll quote from it and then ask you for a comment on a concern that occurs to me.

You wrote:

The data showed respondents sorting themselves into three categories. The first category contained voters who knew neither the answers to detailed questions about the propositions nor the insurance industry's preferences.

This is in reference, parenthetically, to a referendum on changes to the insurance industry.

The second category contained “model citizens”—voters who consistently gave correct answers to detailed questions about the initiatives and who knew the insurance industry's preferences. The third category contained respondents who could not answer questions about the propositions' details but, like the model citizens, knew the insurance industry's preferences. This study's central finding is that voters in the second and third categories voted in very similar ways, whereas voters in the first category voted quite differently.

I think the evidence is convincing that well-informed voters vote in accordance with what could be regarded as their true interests, and that those who know to turn to authority figures they know and trust are likely to do likewise. Those are categories two and three.

As for category one, are these people sufficiently subject to being swayed by propaganda, or in some other way manipulated so that they ruin everything for everybody else in a typical referendum?

[Dr. Arthur Lupia]

You know, I'll answer the question, but one of the reasons I'm hesitating right now is that it depends on the relative numbers of these three groups, and that's not constant. In a situation where you have a clearly stated question and you have leaders of political parties or interest groups who are well known, who are arraying themselves for and against in some way that voters see as coherent, you're not going to have as many people in group one. You're not going to have as many people who are confused.

Where group one can cause trouble is when things get hard for them to comprehend. This can be a situation where the question is so complicated that the interest groups, the traffic lights that they're looking for, are not working or are sending inconsistent messages. Group one can't really take these information shortcuts and make the same decisions. That's when things get problematic.

I will say, though, that as a general rule, when voters get concerned or confused, they generally vote “no”. If you want to think about how they're most likely to cause trouble, it would be just by voting no.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

There have been some referenda in Canada on this very issue of electoral reform—for example, one that took place in the province of Ontario in 2007—with quite low voter turnout. In the case of that referendum, it's quite striking that the election, which took place on the same day, with people voting in the same location, had a substantially higher voter turnout.

Two things occurred. One is that the electoral reform model that was proposed only got about 35% of the vote. The second is that voter turnout on that question was only about 35%, despite the fact that the overall voter turnout in the actual election was substantially higher.

How are we to treat that kind of evidence? What does that tell us?

[Dr. Arthur Lupia]

There's a lot of variance worldwide in turnout in referenda. If a referendum is phrased in a way that people see it as vital to their day-to-day life, they can easily imagine what a “yes” vote means to them and their families and what a “no” vote means. They can feel it, right? That's the time when they turn out.

If it seems like an arcane and abstract thing that really isn't connected to their life, perhaps something that just the elites are arguing about, that's when they stay away. Even if they go to the polls to vote for another candidate, there's this idea of drop-off, where if a referendum is just too confusing or too abstract, people just wash their hands of it. That's the main variation.

The other thing that I'll say is that, when that happens, the people who are more likely not to turn out tend to be people who are are lower on the socio-economic scale. If you're worried about people who have less education or less income being part of this process, then if you have a situation where the referendum is confusing and the interest groups aren't telling people what's going on, the folks who are most likely not to participate would be those lower on the SES and of lower education.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

That is one of our concerns.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks.

We'll go to Mr. Cullen now, please.

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

Thank you very much.

I'll also stay with our professor for a moment.

You enlightened me on a couple of things. One is that it sounds like politicians are traffic lights to voters on these things. I hesitate to explore what signal Donald Trump is sending to you and other folks right now, because it confuses me. But you also suggested something regarding a fear of change.

Can you remind me again about the California example and whether this is empirical or anecdotal, the notion that people are reluctant to sign up to campaigns unless they express a 70% or greater favourability of change a year out? I think that's what you told us.

[Dr. Arthur Lupia]

Yes. Here's what's empirical. If you look at referenda around the world, particularly national referenda, and a year out or on the initial date that you announce you're going to put this on the ballot you look at what percentage is voting “yes”, in almost all cases what happens is that support for yes goes down.

When you first launch a referendum, it's always like mom and apple pie, or let's reform elections and make everything great. People say, okay, yes, let's do that. But then the conversation comes and maybe the “no” ads come out and say, oh, but this will ruin your life, and it's very scary. In almost all referendum campaigns around the world, support goes down. That's the empirical fact.

The anecdotal fact is that there are these relatively small professional communities that run campaigns. In California there's a very active one around referenda, and this is a rule of thumb. There are a bunch of people whose reputations and compensation depends on win-loss, so when you're in a room with those guys, when you're at conferences with those guys, if you're 55% or 60% “yes” a year in advance, that's a danger sign. They're pretty sure that one will not win.

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

Thank you. That's...sobering, I suppose is the term I'm looking for.

I'll turn to you, Brigadier-General Corbould. Sorry I had to step out, but I was on the phone with Bella Bella, which I think is a place you perhaps have some familiarity with.

I want to ask a specific question. The military, in our history, has been a place that in a sense by necessity we've innovated. We had women voting, mothers of those serving in the First World War. I believe we had testimony that way. We had the age of voting lowered for servicemen and servicewomen the very first time.

One of the innovations we're contemplating is online voting. I may have missed it in your testimony because I was in and out a bit, but what contemplations would you give to enable a higher participation rate of our men and women serving overseas in particular? Their vote would seem to be as important, if not in some ways a lot more important, to be counted in a general election.

[BGen Gordon Dave Corbould]

Indeed, our common theme and our default is always to make sure that pretty much as many of our soldiers as possible have access to voting within the special voting rules. We go through great effort working with the government to make sure that those votes and that capability to vote is there. Any developments that Canada Elections decides to move forward on, we would assist and take a look at it and see how we could apply it to military.

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

The big downside with online voting, of course, is security, the ability to keep our networks secure. We had testimony at an open-mike session in which somebody who had spent time working for the federal government, including the defence department, said that keeping an Internet-based system secure is near to impossible right now. Would the military offer us any advantages perhaps in testing on a small scale the ability to keep something like that secure and the vote sacred?

[BGen Gordon Dave Corbould]

I'm not in a position to be able to answer specifically. I'm certainly not a computer expert by any means, so I'm not sure how we would approach that.