Thank you very much.

First of all, I want to acknowledge that I am on the traditional unceded territory of the Kwantlen, Katzie, Kwikwetlem and Semiahmoo first nations.

Thank you also for inviting me.

Fair Vote Canada is the largest electoral reform advocacy group in Canada. Our primary mission is not only to promote the adoption of proportional representation, but also more broadly to promote fair and meaningful participation in Canadian politics.

In general, we support this bill, with some reservations and some provisos there.

First of all, in this are the provisions for more voting opportunities, whether those are on campuses, in long-term care or for special ballots. That is what a previous witness was calling the “inclusive voting”. We absolutely support that. Anything that makes it easier for people to vote, whether it boosts turnout or not, I think is worthwhile, just in saving people time.

I'll also mention my personal experience. In 2017, my mother cast a special ballot for the provincial election from a leukemia ward. I know that it gave her a sense of agency and normalcy that she was lacking at the time, so it's worthwhile for people to vote, not only for the sake of government but also for the sake of their own sense of well-being, so I think it's very valuable from that perspective.

On the “vote anywhere” provisions, which are, I know, a work in progress, I can say, as someone who has done get out the vote on a lot of campaigns for a lot of parties, that it would be very appreciated. There's nothing more horrifying than realizing you sent your supporters to the wrong polling station, so just from the standpoint of not having accidents happen, it's quite nice, and it's very convenient. Anyone who voted in B.C. a couple of weeks ago would tell you that. The turnout wasn't great here necessarily, but that was also in the face of a torrential downpour that actually caused a mudslide that killed someone on election day in Vancouver, so take that as you will.

With the provisions around personal information, we are a little more concerned about that, echoing some of the previous comments. We certainly support any efforts to safeguard Canadians' personal information, but we note that the provisions here fall far short of the standards that we're held to as an advocacy group. I think if Canadians understood how much data and information political parties have on them, then a lot of people would not be very happy with that knowledge. Also, we feel that the right to have the knowledge, to know your data, to be forgotten and to have it removed would be quite worthwhile, as well as maybe some more robust standards on which third parties can access that data.

The foreign interference provisions are worthwhile too, but it was noted that they do not apply to nomination contests and leadership contests, and I think that's a major gap. Some of the personal information provisions do apply to those contests, but not including nomination contests, leadership contests and internal party contests in this legislation can actually come across as an invitation to foreign interference. I don't think that is the intention, but it's something I really strongly feel should be addressed.

The election timing seems to be the big elephant in the room. We certainly don't object to shifting the election by a week. The pension provisions and the cynicism associated with that are definitely a concern, but we also have, in case members of the committee aren't aware, some of the lowest incumbency rates in the entire developed world for our Parliament, and there are complex reasons for that. Part of that is first-past-the-post voting and an electorate that's very willing to shift its preferences. The consequence of that is that you tend to not last very long in office. There are a lot of people in swing ridings. You can imagine that if you were an MP from Quebec elected in 2008, most of those MPs were members of the Bloc. In 2011, most of those MPs were members of the NDP. In 2015, most of those MPs were members of the Liberal Party. There was not a lot of continuity across those three elections in who actually survived.

I don't think it's inappropriate that there be some kind of security and pension available. Maybe a solution to this would be to look at the vesting schedule of the pension and to be more gradual about it, instead of a more—I know it's not entirely all or nothing, but it's pretty close—all or nothing at the six-year mark.

In general, we want to note that the process here is one that we're encouraged by, and that most countries reform their democratic processes by multi-party agreements. A minority government means that's a necessity here, but it's something that we think should be followed in majority governments as well.

Thank you.