Evidence of meeting #110 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was political.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Would you agree that Bill C-76 will result in more voter participation, that the provisions are in there to increase voter participation with things like accessibility, voter information cards, and the like? Would you agree with that?
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
Yes, but I wouldn't say that it will definitely increase participation. I wouldn't even make a prediction about what's going to happen on Thursday in Ontario, let alone what's going to happen a year and a half from now at the federal level, but it lowers barriers, for sure.
Liberal
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Gunn, considering Mr. Conacher's statement about the voter information cards, I know that youth really struggle with identification, particularly youth who are at school and don't have a driver's licence. What do you think of the voter information card? Do you believe that for youth it's an important piece of identification for them to be able to use?
President and Chief Election Officer, CIVIX
Yes. I've never had a problem with the voter information cards being used to vote at the poll. I think it's partly because I don't know if there is strong evidence of its being abused. It was brought up in the Fair Elections Act debate, but I don't know if those were actually credible stories about the cards being misused. The trend among election management bodies is to make it as easy as possible to vote. They don't want to have any accessibility barriers.
Liberal
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
For students in particular, though, I've heard evidence, and I have three post-secondary institutions in my riding, and the voter information card was a huge deal for those post-secondary institutions. I'm wondering if that's your experience and if you see the importance of this as a vehicle in encouraging students to vote.
President and Chief Election Officer, CIVIX
Well, if you're speaking specifically about a kid at a university who maybe hasn't changed his address, he wouldn't get the voter information card anyway. To me, the biggest barrier to someone's turning out is not the accessibility factor, but the motivation. If kids at university want to participate, they'll find a way to participate, especially with some of the recoil from the Fair Elections Act. So I don't think it's the biggest issue in the world.
Liberal
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Would you agree that it is an important issue for students because it allows them greater ability to vote? It's one less barrier that they have to face. When we're doing those other things, like education campaigns and putting polling stations at universities and colleges, this is one more thing that would help to encourage them to vote.
President and Chief Election Officer, CIVIX
It could be, if they have the right addresses.
Liberal
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
The information we are getting from witnesses is that there is recognition, not only among youth and students but particularly among seniors as well as indigenous people, that the voter information card has been very valuable. That's the evidence that we've heard, and that's my experience in serving as an MP.
Going back now, Mr. Conacher, to this notion of money and limits, I want to get back to this premise. I remember that in your previous testimony you spoke about it as well. You suggest a $100 limit for donors, and you suggest that limit because you feel that a limit has to be placed, so you deem $100 as affordable to most people. Is that the idea?
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
Yes. It's based on the principle of one person, one vote. Why should anyone be allowed to use money, just because they have it, as a means to have greater influence? If you look at the stats, all the parties rely for a significant percentage of their funding annually and during an election, 40% of it, usually from a small pool of about 5% of donors. That's fundamentally undemocratic. Loans should be limited as well. To be able to go to a financial institution that is federally regulated and get a huge loan to pay for your election, and then win power based on that loan, they've done you a huge favour. That causes a conflict of interest.
Liberal
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
What about the person who can't afford $100?
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
That's where the per-vote funding should be restored, and it should only be a base. It should not be as high as it was, because some parties were receiving 60%, 70%, 80% of their funds through the per-vote funding. There should still be an incentive for parties to reach out to voters, not just at election time. You can go into an election based on a bunch of false promises, get those votes, and then get their money with per-vote funding right through the next election. It should just provide base funding. It should be no more than a dollar. That's where you would get supplementary money from voters across the country.
Liberal
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
I'm just concerned about the person who can't afford the $100.
Liberal
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
If you set a limit, someone is always compromised—
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
Yes, but much less compromised than now. Quebec has done it.
Liberal
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
It's been proven to work, and it makes it much fairer than it is now. All the parties rely on wealthy donors. Those people I'm sure have more influence. The current donation limit facilitates funnelling, which SNC-Lavalin did. It also facilitates bundling, lobbyists holding big fundraisers in their homes off the record, then saying they just delivered 100 people who donated the max each, and those people I'm sure also have enormous influence on all the parties. We just don't know who they are.
Liberal
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
The last thing I'd like to mention, and you don't have time to answer it now because I'm out of time, but I would be interested in any research you've done specifically with members of Parliament with respect to the influence that money has on them. It's an area of interest for me. I studied ethics at the doctoral level.
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
Thank you. I'll just make one small response to that.
Clinical tests around the world have shown that very small gifts change how people make decisions. For doctors and—
Liberal
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Yes, I understand that, but I'm looking for specifics because I think as members of Parliament, you come in with a knowledge of ensuring that you are not influenced by that, and I don't think it's impossible.
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
If you applied the Access to Information Act to your offices, then I could request your communication logs and see whether you were calling back your big donors and fundraisers more often and more quickly than you are the people who didn't donate and didn't vote for you. The Access to Information Act does not apply to your offices, so the study can't be done.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to both our witnesses for joining us today.
Mr. Conacher, I know you were before the committee to talk about Bill C-50, but I don't recall your joining us to talk about the leadership commission debate, the organizing commission, but I know you mentioned it in your opening comments. We did table a report back in March. During our process of deliberating on that matter, we were informed by Andy Fillmore that the government simply wouldn't have time to introduce legislation to create such a commission, so rather they will likely do that through a grants and contributions scheme.
We have yet to see anything come of that, but I would be interested in your thoughts on the matter. Would a grants and contributions model be supported by Democracy Watch, or would you rather see something with actual legislative backbone to create such an institution?
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
You're saying the grants and contributions to third party groups?
