Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 5th, 2018

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, thank you, Dr. Milner, for joining us. I really appreciate your commentary.

I want to go back to your opening comments. You mentioned a book you wrote entitled The Internet Generation, referring to young people.

As you know, Mr. Gunn was here prior. One of the last questions he commented on—I don't think you were in the room for it—was about the use of tabulators or online voting. CIVIX has resisted the urge to move to online voting. They use the traditional paper ballot with an x. From your research, do you have a similar view on the traditional paper ballot? Do you have some thoughts on using tabulators or online voting, as we've seen in the past in a variety of voting instances, whether at the municipal level or at party leadership races?

[Prof. Henry Milner]

Yes, and by the way, this relates to that. The question was why are young people voting less. Part of it—that's why I called it The Internet Generation—has to do with sources of information. Civic education becomes more important for the Internet generation because the standard sources of political information that we could count on for previous generations just aren't there. For some people, the Internet is a fantastic source of political information, but for most young people, it's a wonderful way of avoiding political information—not consciously—but that's in fact what happens.

I have written about voting at 16. I have written about compulsory voting. I haven't really done very much on electronic voting. I'm still a bit skeptical as we don't have any real data to show that it improves the turnout. I'm not saying it might not be there, but we don't have enough, and I think the act of physically voting itself has a positive effect. You're voting with your neighbours. I know we have a lot of other ways of avoiding that, in terms of early voting and so on, and we should do that; we should have other ways to vote for people who cannot for one reason or another go out and vote on voting day.

At least at the level of national elections—perhaps I would consider that for municipal elections where turnout is very low and so on—but for national elections, even provincial elections, I think the actual act of voting with your neighbours physically has a value. Maybe it's because I'm an old fogey and new generations would look at me and say, “What do you mean? I live on my screen. Those are my neighbours, the people I see on my screen every day. The people who live around me just happen to....”

I don't know, I'd hope that's not the case, but I can't say. For me, though, I think there's a positive element to that and I would be reluctant to eliminate it until I had a lot better evidence to justify it.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I'm 34, but I guess I'm an old fogey at heart. Even though I have multiple cellphones, iPads, and laptops, I still personally appreciate the excitement of going to the polling station. I voted last weekend at the advance polls provincially. I brought my wife—she voted as well—and our three kids. We had a lot of fun. We were the only ones in the voting station, so my two older kids were running around having fun and giving some entertainment to the poll clerks and—

[Prof. Henry Milner]

I've been present at elections in other countries and I've seen the same thing. There is something about that, but I don't know how representative a member of Parliament is of the other people of your age group.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Yes, I would agree with that. I know from campaigning and going door to door in 2015, there was often that question, especially in my rural communities. They typically vote by mail or online as a lot of the municipalities do, so the question came up, “Well, can I vote online and not by mail?” There is that perception, and not just among younger people either. That's a question from the older people.

Can I have another quick question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

You had talked about the limits on voting abroad, that this bill takes away that—

[Prof. Henry Milner]

—that voting restriction.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

You had mentioned some concern about that.

The other thing was the intention to return to Canada. Currently, there's that intention to want.... Is that something you would have a concern with as well?

[Prof. Henry Milner]

Yes, I don't like that sort of.... Why ask people something where you're giving them an incentive not to tell the truth? I don't see any particular value in that. I think that should be related to coming back. I do think if somebody doesn't come back for x number of years, whatever intention they expressed probably doesn't make all that much difference.

Again, this is not an area I have done research on or am particularly knowledgeable about. I'm giving you a personal opinion, which is no better than anybody else's.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We have time for one question.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you, Professor Milner, for your presence today, and for your passion and all the work you've put into this area, and for sharing your expertise with us.

One of my concerns, and something that I'd really like to see improve, is young people voting and engaging in the democratic process. I'd like to ask you about the research you've done with respect to the finding that if students do not vote as soon as they reach voting age that this will impact their voting pattern as they get older. I think you've indicated that if they don't vote when they reach voting age, they won't vote when they get older, and they're more likely to follow that pattern.

[Prof. Henry Milner]

It's not my research, but there are researchers. The best known is a man named Mark Franklin, an American but a comparative expert. He's made that argument, and I think convincingly, that not voting in the first election or the first couple of elections—not everybody, clearly a minority—but it has an effect on reducing voting later on.

There's a habit aspect to voting, just as there is to many things. Yes, you vote sometimes because of what's happening then. Suddenly there's an issue that really matters to you and so on, or a particular political leader you like or dislike, but there's also the habit aspect. You know an election is coming up, and you vote.

To develop a habit makes a difference. Mark's argument, which I share to some extent, is that the way to do that better is to start voting at 16 because young people are more likely to be around other people who are voting, namely their family, because they're still living at home. I'm not persuaded completely of that. That's why I put a lot of emphasis on civic education at the age of 14, 15, 16, which I would connect with voting at 16.

If you have a good system of civic education—because I think you should vote knowledgeably, not just because your mother is going to the polls, and you're joining her even though you don't know who the parties are.... It's the combination of the two. In Norway, for example, they've done some tests, and they found that it really doesn't seem to make very much difference whether you vote at 16 or whether your first vote is at 18, but that's because they have a very strong civic education program already. That's why I'm a bit more reluctant to say that voting at 16 will get a higher turnout. I'd say voting at 16 and civic education, a good civic education program like in Norway or in other countries will get long-term improvement. That would be my argument.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

That's great. Thank you very much.

My time is up, is it not?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Because I could go on if you want me to. I do have more questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much. You were very helpful.

We'll suspend while we change witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Welcome back to the 110th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I have some business to attend to and then we will have the final panel.

We will be joined by Lori Turnbull, associate professor, Dalhousie University, and Randall Emery, executive director of Canadian Citizens Rights Council.

As you know all PMB votes are on Wednesdays and tomorrow, there will be a bunch of votes right after QP, so I would ask the committee if it's okay—I can't imagine why it wouldn't be—if we move the witnesses from the first hour after question period to later in the evening, because there are enough blanks to fit them in later in the day.

Is that okay with everyone?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

What you're asking is that rather than have six hours, we have five hours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes. There is enough room.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

You just fit all the witnesses into five hours rather than six. That's what you're saying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

There are enough blank spots to do that.

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

What would Wednesday afternoon look like?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We can start at, let's say, 4:30.