Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 26th, 2009

[John Hollins]

That's an interesting question. Let me share a little bit of history with you.

I started in Elections in 1972. I've always run off a list. I did some enumerations. I think there was a reality. The numbers in Ontario were very clear. When you went door to door, knocking on people's doors to get names on the list, we would get somewhere between 76% and 78% of the eligible voters. Fourteen days out, the list would be closed. In other words, we were disenfranchising 22% of the people. They could show up at the poll, but they wouldn't get a ballot. If their name was on the list, they would.

So we moved to an inclusive methodology, which was the national register. In other words, from an administrative perspective, I'm not touching those 22% any more. I'm not going to their doors. Now we go inclusive, whereby I have to try to find all of you and engage you completely through the process. I have to keep you in that process all the way through. I know I'm using databases that are somewhat out of date, but they have to be. People won't stop dying, they won't stop moving, they won't stop selling their houses, or turning 18. So that's the percentage I have to deal with. But do I really have to deal with it directly now, or can I deal with it indirectly?

I know the names I have on my list, and I know the residential addresses out there across the province of Ontario where I don't have a name. I can still communicate with that address. When I'm sending an ad out, I can still communicate. If I can continue to engage them, then it's quite possible for them to show up on election day now and they can still participate.

People say, “Well, okay, but aren't you jeopardizing currency? The currency to a democracy is the ballot, and aren't you jeopardizing that?” I'm not. I'm not because if your name's on the list or not on the list, you're showing me ID that you are who you say you are and that you're qualified to vote. We're still containing democracy really well, but what we've done is, instead of narrowing our numbers we have to deal with over the process, we're keeping it open, aiming at 100% all the time, right up to election day.

It's no different from a party. A party has its money and it spends its money right up to the day before election day. Parties hate advanced voters, because they haven't finished their message yet. They haven't done their final sell. It's the same thing: why would I shut off two weeks? I still have two more weeks to get more names, more people, and they can show up on election day. That's why the national register of electors is good for our democracy. I really believe it.

Managing it, I won't lie to you, is a nightmare. It's very difficult, quite a challenge. But I think if you keep it in perspective, what it's there for and what your real challenge is, you're fine. I think it's good, healthy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you for that.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Am I done?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Very sorry, it was—

[John Hollins]

Sorry for using up your time.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

No, thank you. You were very frank;, and I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Reid, you're up.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You indicated a total amount of spending by the various committees. Do you have a breakdown of those who were on the yes side versus the no side?

[John Hollins]

You know, I don't. But let me tell you, I think they were all on the yes side. There might have been a couple of no's in there, but it seemed like, at the time--

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

That was the impression I got. I saw signs up. I can't remember if there was any electronic advertising, but I remember seeing some print advertising, and it was always on the yes side. It kind of makes an interesting statement. It reinforces the lessons of 1992, when I think there was 10 or 12 times as much spent on the yes side as on the no side, and the no side still won. This shows that spending isn't always a 100% accurate indicator as to how people will vote.

[John Hollins]

I think that's a difficult comparison, based on the volume of dollars spent. It wasn't that much money.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

It was way more. I agree with you. I'm making an observation that the spending on the yes side did not automatically result in a yes victory.

With respect to having the election and the referendum at the same time, there were a couple of things you mentioned. You get a higher participation rate when you have it with an election. You would get universal agreement on that. There is plenty evidence to demonstrate that when a referendum is held as a stand-alone you get a lower participation rate.

Is there any scholarship suggesting that you get a difference in the number of yes responses versus no responses? A referendum held at the time of an election produces a higher number of participants, but it also produces a large number of spoiled ballots. People have presumably said they were not sure they could make an intelligent decision. You might also get people who say they are voting no and generate more no votes than yes votes. Or is that not the case?

[John Hollins]

I've never heard that. The only one I've heard is that it matters where they are on the ballot. Whether yes or no comes first affects the percentage. They relate that to ease of voting. You will hear that everywhere. That's why countries or jurisdictions rotate names on ballots and try to find a balance.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

At the time of the referendum, I spoke to the folks at Fair Vote Ontario and said I thought there was a fundamental problem with the way the question was being put. They were supportive of what I said, but there was no way of incorporating the idea that the issue is not really MMP versus first-past-the-post. There are other alternatives, such as the STV option, which was looked at in British Columbia. I believe it would be helpful to have a preferential ballot in which you could rank your preferences and then assign your rankings as your preferred option drops off the ballot. It's the system used in some Australian elections. It's used to elect the leaders of a number of parties.

I think it's a good idea, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. It might very well be a bad idea. I'd appreciate any thoughts you have on the idea of preferential ballots in a world where there are more than two potential options.

[John Hollins]

You would like my opinion on preferential balloting?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I'd like to hear what you have to say about developing it for this kind of question on electoral reform, where you have more than one plausible option.

[John Hollins]

I don't think the challenge would be the preferential balloting. It would be educating the people on the various choices. On mixed-member proportional, we tried to do our education at a grade 6 level. But as soon as you throw mixed-member proportional in, you are up around grade 12. It's tough. How do you get all of these systems and educate all of these people? Are you going to reduce your turnout by confusing the issues? That would be my question when you have more than just the two choices. I don't know. That's the feedback we received.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I realize that in some ways this is not fair. You were doing what you were asked to do, and you did it, as far as I can see, with a great deal of competence. I'm just interested in your reaction.

One of the complaints by those who had been advocates for the yes side was that one of the reasons they failed was inadequate education. But I can't imagine how I would have done a better job of educating them than you did. That seems to be a difficult task.

[John Hollins]

Thank you. I appreciate that more than you know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Reid. You had four seconds left, and I just used the rest of your time.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

You used it very well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair, since I am running off to another meeting.

Mr. Hollins, I know you didn't use umbrella committees in the Ontario referendum, but what are your thoughts on them? Are they an effective way to approach this?

[John Hollins]

I don't have any experience with them whatsoever. I'm just not sure. If I were to consider them, I think I would have to do my homework on them. I don't know who you want educating the public. Do you want a bias, or do you want a non-biased group? I really don't know the answer because I've never been on the biased group. Having been in an unbiased position to deliver this, I've got to tell you that we got a lot of positive feedback on it—not that it wasn't a very big challenge. We had a lot of positive feedback because of the role.

The agency took a hit. That annoyed me afterwards a little bit, because we always do our polling, as I said, and I think we scored.... And I'm guessing at the numbers now. But in our thing we always ask, well, for Elections Ontario, if people see it as a non-biased organization, or if they see it as party-related, or whatever. In this one where we might have scored 90 before, we were running about 50-50 as a representative of the government, and we're not a representative of the government at all. We're an agency apart, the same as our budget's apart, and the CEO's appointment. It's very apart.

That muddied the waters; that annoyed me. Could it have been prevented? I don't think so. I don't think we went out there, but it was seen as our trying to take a mandate of the government and make it work. I don't know if that actually got people to vote against it or not. It could have; I don't know mindsets. I think it's worth investigating just because of the amount of feedback we got.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Very good, that's very interesting. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair, for your consideration.