Go ahead, Monsieur Thériault.
Evidence of meeting #5 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 question.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #5 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 question.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, this morning you didn't tell me when I only had a minute left and I was cut short, so I wasn't able to thank Mr. Mayrand or tell him certain things. However, I will impart them to Mr. Kingsley.
First, I would like to thank you for your immense contribution to maintaining the integrity of our electoral system. Mr. Mayrand said this morning that all voters have great confidence in the integrity of the system. I think that you and Mr. Mayrand have helped to make that happen.
And when I heard my colleague Mr. Boulerice say earlier that we should have much greater means to reach all voters, it was sweet music to my ears. Your response was sweet music to my ears, as well. You are entrusting us with this responsibility, and you said that we, much more than the executive body, are the ones who need to take responsibility for this electoral reform. In your opinion, we should have much greater means, and I agree with you on that.
Given the timeframes we're up against, the responsibility and difficulty we're facing are enormous. We will do our best. You said at the start that no system was perfect, and we agree. I've looked at several. They all have their advantages and disadvantages.
Ultimately, isn't it up to the people to determine what advantages and disadvantages they'd like to take on? Isn't it up to them to settle the debate, given that it isn't a discussion for experts, insiders or politicians? At some point, Canadians need to have their say. While we are trying as much as possible to keep them informed and they are keeping us informed too, we are going to have to present or recommend a model, which will also need to be presented to Canadians to see if they agree and if they are going to accept all the advantages and disadvantages for many years.
In these conditions, wouldn't it be more reasonable to consider holding a referendum at the same time as the next election?
3:35 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
I won't elaborate about the fact that I have run a referendum and know what it involves. I won't repeat the arguments for or against it. However, with a secretariat and solid mechanisms to engage Canadians about what you do, I think you could get their input, which would carry some weight.
We have a representative democracy, and we need to give this system a chance. As strange as it may sound, I see the possibility of a unanimous report from the committee. I also foresee the vast majority of the committee agreeing on a proposal, suggesting it to Canadians and gauging that reaction. That's your task.
But if that doesn't happen and only one party agrees with a given choice, I think other mechanisms need to be considered. However, I don't think it's necessary right now.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
I think you're refreshing and optimistic. We are going to draw on that.
However, my experience is as a Quebecker. We had draft legislation that defined a very specific model. And we visited all the regions in Quebec to find out in the end that there were a number of stumbling blocks related to the mechanics of the voting system. Things weren't successfully completed. I find that we have a long way to go here.
3:35 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Permit me for a moment, Mr. Kingsley, through the chair, to reflect on my own situation.
The Green Party has been used as an example here a number of times. I want to put forward that my reasons for wanting proportional representation are not self-interest. I'm not that interested in seeing how my party does. What worries me is the health of democracy overall, and the risk, which I think is real, of a party with a minority of public support gaining not just 60% of the seats, but in our system 100% of the power. That worries me more. I just want to put that forward.
The other thing I've noticed since I came into politics, which is only in the last 10 years—I was in my 50s before I got involved in a political party, and I'd love your comments on this—is that because of first past the post and because of the risk of strategic voting, we have a system that creates wedge issues and incentives for wedge issues, or what people call dog-whistle politics. It works against working across party lines. It is a force against collaboration.
I wonder if you've observed this or if you think it's just a view of mine that's off base. What's your view of the impact of first past the post on the ability to develop consensus-based politics?
3:40 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
I alluded to this when I said that we need a system whereby people are elected across the land and we have a party of national scope so that we have voices from all regions of Canada. The present system does not lend itself readily to that because of the success of multi-partyism and because our system allows regional parties to come to the fore. As a matter of fact, when some of them come to the fore, they're important because that's the way people in that region feel, but that can almost be viewed as, how come we're in this situation? How come the main parties are not representing those views? That's one observation one could make.
The whole issue of wedge politics has been coming up over time, and I consider it to be a natural temptation under our system. If I'm running for office and I need to get 40% of the votes, why would I not go for 45%, even if I have to start modifying my position on things? I consider that natural.
3:40 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you.
Forgive me if I say that at this point your proposition of some rural seats remaining under first past the post and others being clustered for what is essentially a single transferable vote is a back-of-the-envelope idea that one would love to pursue. I think its benefit here to us—and correct me if I'm wrong—is in suggesting to this committee that hybrid systems are available to Canada and that we can find a system that works uniquely for Canada. We needn't say we must take Germany's system, or New Zealand's system, or the upper house of Australia, or the lower house of Australia. We should look at the specific Canadian needs.
3:40 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
That is precisely the point I was making in my remarks, Mr. Chair. I don't think we're bound by anybody else's system. I don't think there's anything wrong with anybody else's system; I just happen to think that we have peculiarities in this country that are going to be very hard to reconcile if we just try to take somebody else's system and say we think it can fit. It may be possible, but let us not be bound by that thinking.
There is a way of doing something that is entirely Canadian. That's what we've done with our system. We were the first country in the world to have an independent chief electoral officer. We were ahead of the game before anybody else. I think that came afterward in India in 1948, so it took a long time for people to catch on. We've been at the forefront.
Now we're dealing with a historical reality. We have first past the post. Here are some issues and drawbacks that people feel very strongly about. Do we want to do anything else? I think that's fair.
3:40 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
In the time I have left I'm going to put to you a question from Stephen Harrison from Victoria, B.C., who sent this on Twitter: recognizing that you were chief electoral officer in 2004 when the Law Commission made its recommendation on electoral reform, would you care to comment on what you thought of their work at the time?
3:40 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
Elections Canada collaborated very closely with the law reform commission in the provision of information, and not of advice. It was not appropriate for the chief electoral officer, at least in my view, to participate more actively in that aspect.
In terms of their report, I think it needs to be considered a viable option, something to which Canadians have already given thought, because many people were consulted on that process. This is what I meant when I said we've done a lot of work in Canada before. This is not an idea that has just fallen here and we have nowhere to go to find out about it. We have a lot of stuff here that we can look at.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you very much.
Mr. Kingsley, you mentioned that we need to reach our youth where they are and you mentioned they're usually at the bottom of one of these cellular devices. You also talked about how we need to make sure they know the importance of voting and how to vote. You also mentioned a little bit about online voting and that we should start initially with electors with mobility issues, electors not in their ridings, or Canadians abroad.
My thoughts are that if we're trying to reach an audience that had 58% participation in the last election, which was great, and we want to keep them engaged and we want to keep them in the process, would it not make sense to open up potential online voting to them through that channel, because that's where they are? I'd like you to elaborate a little bit on that.
3:45 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
It would make sense in terms of overall objectives of improving the participation of electors. It would be very difficult to say that it makes sense in terms of the numbers that would apply.
We must first of all understand what we're getting into by doing tests that are smaller, more easily controllable, and more easily analyzed. I would not recommend at all that we make it possible for a whole segment of millions of people to apply, because those are the numbers we're talking about.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
We talked a little bit about mandatory voting or mandatory attendance. In that regard, how would we ensure—and maybe you'll know more about the mechanism—that people are in fact registering? How would we reach them? How would the mechanics work in terms of making sure that we could actually implement mandatory attendance? Also, would it be a reward system or would it be a punishment system if a person did not attend?
3:45 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
It can either be reward or penalty. The Australians have decided that they will impose a minimal fine. I think it's equivalent to $40 or $50, which is not tremendous. If you don't have an acceptable reason for not attending, they can invoke that fine.
In terms of controlling it, that's very easy. You have a list of electors, which is 94% or 95% complete, and someday we will have to find a way to relate to Statistics Canada as well and start.... I'm not saying this in light of whatever we want to do about compulsory voting or attendance at the polls. By the way, we're not going to succeed in changing the terminology, so I'll call it compulsory voting.
Someday we'll have to get more intertwined, because we're picking up information that could be very useful on the electoral front in terms of maintenance of the list. We already have other data banks through which we're feeding information that people voluntarily feed to Elections Canada. No one is put on the list unless they want to be on it. Let's remember that.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Okay.
I asked this same question to the Chief Electoral Officer this morning: in terms of our efficiency in leveraging technology to improve our electoral process—for instance, when it comes to a compilation of votes and so on—could you elaborate on how we could at least think about improving the current system or any system we put in place to make it more efficient, more accurate, etc.?
3:45 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
Nothing is free, so I will feel free just to tell you exactly what is possible.
What is possible under our present system is voting machines with a paper copy. That would eliminate a lot of the rejected ballots that we have now or ballots that are not acceptable because they're badly marked. People would have an opportunity to correct their mistakes. They would be told they have made a mistake. If they still want the mistake to go ahead, it goes ahead, and you have a paper copy in order to be able to replicate the results in case there is a recount or a contestation.
As well, it would immensely increase the ease of counting. You press on the button at the end of the day, and the count is there: so many valid votes for this, this, and that. Then the result can be transmitted electronically to the returning office and to other offices as well. It could all be done very rapidly that way. However, that means an investment. That's one thing.
We're going to have to get smarter about allowing people to vote at different places. We can very easily have a list of electors for a riding on this device. We can have the whole of Canada on this little gizmo here if we want to, but at least we could have everything within a riding boundary. There are approaches that technology is opening up for us that I haven't even begun to think about.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before continuing my conversation with Mr. Kingsley, I'd like to speak to something that bothers me a little.
For two days, I've been hearing people say that proportionality is important, that it is important to represent everyone and that it is appalling that the Green Party, which got 600,000 votes, has only one MP in the House of Commons.
I would simply like to remind you of the mathematics of this committee. The Green Party had 600,000 votes and has one representative here. We, the Conservatives, got 5,600,496 votes, which is nine and a half times what the Green Party got. Yet there are three Conservative MPs and one Green Party MP on this committee. With regard to proportionality and respect for opinions, this committee is not equitable mathematically either in terms of the House or the votes of Canadians. Let's keep that in mind.
Mr. Kingsley, let's get back to our earlier conversation.
You said that it was important to put Canadians at the heart of our discussions, that this committee was the first step but that, ultimately, we would need to go and visit Canadians, listen to them and hear what they have to say.
You were the chief electoral officer. You presided over, if I can put it that way, five elections and one referendum. What do you think the best way is to gauge the opinion of Canadians? Through a referendum or through town halls in a riding?
3:50 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
If I may, I will say that, initially, an election is the way to do it. We have a representative democracy, which is the foundation of our democracy. Holding a referendum has been problematic in the past. When it came to holding a referendum in 1992, it was insisted that it could only be held on a constitutional matter. No one wanted this to be instituted in our system and for referendums to be used regularly.
You asked me about this process. I responded as best as I could. Just now, I said what I thought about the consensus that this committee could reach and the impact it could have. How can we assess the impact of what you do with Canadians? There are ways to establish these things. I said that there are firms that specialize in these things. I don't mean firms that conduct surveys, but firms that thoroughly analyze people's answers. It has become an art. That's what I recommend you do. I think your committee should be structured based on that.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
How many Canadians should take part in the consultations in our ridings or within this committee? What do you think would be the ideal number of Canadians to properly represent what they think about a change as radical as changing the electoral process?
3:50 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
I can't answer that question. I don't know. It's a feeling that will be established. There are ways of building a consensus.
With the assisted dying bill, a consensus was established in our society. We saw it in newspaper editorials and articles, as well as in exchanges between people. Our society forms an idea of what is acceptable. Personally, I think parliamentarians respect this most of the time.
That's what I think about our system. Fundamentally, we decided that we wanted a representative democracy.
