Report to:

Corporate Services & Economic Development Committee

and Council

March 14, 2005

Submitted by: Greg Geddes, Chief Corporate Services Officer

Corporate Services Department

Contact : P.G. Pagé, City Clerk

City Clerk’s Branch

580-2424 (Ext. 22408) Pierre.Page@ottawa.ca

Ref N° : ACS2005-CRS-SEC-0009

SUBJECT:

AMO Survey - municipal term of office – voting age

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee forward this report to Council for its consideration.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In February 2005, AMO distributed to its members a “Background Paper and Survey on Municipal Council Term and Related Matters” (copy enclosed at Annex “C”). Briefly, the survey contains five, multiple-part questions with respect to amending the term of elected office for municipal councils from three years to four years, as well as a sixth question regarding the possibility of lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 years of age.

The stated deadline for municipal councils to submit their responses to AMO was 01 March 2005, in time for the Association’s Board meeting that month. However, the Association has indicated that it is prepared to accept late submissions up to 01 April 2005. In speaking with representatives from the AMO Board, a submission from the City of Ottawa will be accepted after that date.

It is anticipated that the AMO Board at its September 2005 meeting would consider a final report on the matter. The timeline would provide AMO with an opportunity to propose amendments to the Municipal Act and the Municipal Elections Act during the fall sitting of the Provincial Legislature.

This report provides a detailed and thorough description of the proposed changes to assist Council in their consideration. This report, rising through committee, provides an opportunity to raise public interest on the proposed changes.

BACKGROUND

At the Annual General Meeting and Conference of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (“AMO” or the “Association”) in August 2004, the issue of extending the term of municipal office from three to four years was raised by a Councillor from Toronto. At that time, it was mentioned that the City of Brampton was also in the midst of reviewing this same issue. As a result, AMO distributed a limited survey to about 120 individual Councillors across the Province in order to further gauge the level of interest on this topic.

The Association received only twelve submissions in response to this initial survey. Although the majority of these supported extending the municipal term of office, the AMO Board decided the survey response and base were not large enough to draw any definitive conclusions on this issue.

As a result, at its Board of Directors meeting in November 2004, AMO established a Municipal Term Advisory Committee with a mandate, “to develop a survey, undertake its analysis, prepare and approve documentation as a backgrounder that would accompany the survey and provide the Board with its best advice.”

As well, in December 2004, most municipalities in Ontario received a request from the Municipality of Clarington that Council endorse its motion to “petition the Province of Ontario to amend the Municipal Elections Act to provide for a four-year term of office for municipal council members,” (copy enclosed at Annex “A”). That same month, the City of Pickering passed a resolution which showed its support for Bill C-261, a Private Member’s Bill introduced by the Member of Parliament for Ajax-Pickering, which would lower the voting age in federal elections from 18 to 16 years of age (copy enclosed at Annex “B”). The Pickering Council’s motion also requested that the Province enact a similar amendment with respect to lowering the voting age for provincial and municipal elections.

It is anticipated that a final report on the matter would be considered by the AMO Board at its September 2005 meeting. The timeline would provide AMO with an opportunity to propose amendments to the Municipal Act and the Municipal Elections Act during the fall sitting of the Provincial Legislature.

DISCUSSION

Municipal Term of Office – Extension

Elections are the essential feature of democratic representation and therefore any discussion around the length of term of office of elected representatives and the frequency of elections must necessarily involve two groups: the electors and the representatives they elect. Presently in Ontario municipal terms are three years in length and voting day is the second Monday in November. This was changed from a two-year municipal term (and municipal elections in December) for the 1982 municipal elections. The municipal voting day, as well as the term of council office in Ontario, are matters regulated by the Municipal Elections Act. In AMO’s Background Paper, a review of other municipal jurisdictions across Canada revealed that “five of the 13 Provinces and Territories have a four year term, six have a three year term, rural Saskatchewan has a two year term, while the Northwest Territories and Nunavut have a hybrid system that has three and two year terms, depending on the size of the community.”

In summarizing the recent changes undertaken by Manitoba and Nova Scotia to extend the municipal term of office in those provinces to four years, the AMO paper identified a primary benefit of these amendments as providing a timeframe for municipal councils to engage in more long-range, strategic planning:

Nova Scotia lengthened the term of its municipal councils at the bequest of the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities in 2000 because of projected cost savings and the enhanced ability of municipalities to plan for the future.

Manitoba lengthened its municipal term of office from three to four years in 1998, supported by a resolution from the Association of Manitoba Municipalities (“AMM”). The rationale for this change was it would give municipal councils more time to plan and implement their agenda in a similar fashion as both the provincial and federal governments enjoy. While some AMM members have proposed resolutions to return to a three-year term, the resolutions have not succeeded.

A second, purported advantage of a four-year term, in contrast to the ability described above for councils to engage in longer range planning, is the perceived ineffectiveness of the shorter terms of public office. Some local government observers argue that a three-year term of municipal office can be summarized as follows: the first year is spent by a councillor learning the position; the second year the member is doing the job; and, the third year is dominated by the councillor trying to get re-elected. It is suggested that the addition of a fourth year could benefit not only the member of council, but their ward constituents as well, by allowing an additional year in which a councillor can remain more solidly focused on the municipal business at hand. However, this argument that the learning curve and re-election periods consume two-thirds of a three-year term falters when applied to an experienced member of council. In many instances, incumbent members who are re-elected from time to time do not require that one-year learning curve and may even retain a group of community volunteers prepared to assist in future re-election endeavours.

A third potential benefit in moving to a four-year term of council is with respect to the possible cost savings related to running fewer municipal elections. For example, a municipal election in the City of Ottawa costs an estimated $3 million every three years. Therefore, over a 12-year span in which four municipal elections would take place, the present costs would total approximately $12 million. Conversely, those favouring four-year terms of municipal councils argue that three municipal elections during that same timeframe would cost approximately $9 million, thereby producing an estimated $3 million in savings over that 12-year period.

Despite the potential appearance of savings in the model described above, staff believe there are other cost implications when one looks specifically at the City of Ottawa. At the present time, the City owns 206 voting machines. However, in order to operate our municipal elections, it receives an additional 150 machines through an agreement negotiated with its equipment vendor. Under the terms of that agreement, the vendor must arrange for the supply of this additional equipment, on a three-year cycle. At present, the equipment is sourced from the cities of Vancouver, British Columbia, and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. These two western municipalities have agreements with the same vendor and operate on a three-year term of office, but on “off-years” in comparison to Ontario. This unique timeline ensures that Ottawa does not have a regular election on the same year and, therefore, no difficulty arises with respect to sharing voting machines.

Should the Province of Ontario move to a four-year term of office for municipal councils, the current sharing partnership will eventually break down due to overlap in election cycles and the equipment vendor will be able to terminate its special agreement with Ottawa. The City would then be faced with either searching for other out-of-province municipalities to enter into new, equipment-sharing agreements or acquiring 150 additional voting machines. It is estimated that to purchase the equipment would require a capital expenditure of approximately $975,000 for the election in 2010. This would also result in an increased annual maintenance fee for such equipment.

Although City election staff have not undertaken an extensive review of the implications of an extended term of municipal office (nor have they factored into the equation the possibility of additional ward councillors in the upcoming elections), there remains an additional operational concern which should be identified at this stage. Briefly stated, staff in the elections’ office note that the extension of the municipal term could, in fact, undermine the centre of expertise which currently exists there. An indirect effect of extending the term of council could be an increase in the elections’ office “learning curve”, with associated costs, as contract staff would have been absent from the local election process for an extended period of time between municipal elections.

In light of the above comments, there would be appear to be both staffing and financial difficulties that are specific to the City of Ottawa election matters that may arise as a result of the proposed extension of the municipal term of office to four years. In addition to some of these potentially negative implications are a number of other potential disadvantages. Some proponents of the current term of public office for municipal politicians with elections every 3 years argue that it is more democratic and more responsive to the local electorate. As well, given the proximity of elections every three years, voters are able to maintain a closer control over their municipal representatives, whereby an ineffective municipal council can be voted out of office sooner. In response to this concern, some provincial jurisdictions with four-year terms of municipal office have also established a “recall” mechanism should a municipal official no longer have the support of his or her constituents. Furthermore, it is argued that members of council under a shorter term of public office may be more sensitive to local issues and concerns of the electors they represent since they are required to face the electorate on a more frequent basis.

In addition to the above considerations, there needs to be clarification by AMO with respect to the arrangements contemplated for school board elections. The existing system enables council and school board elections to be conducted concurrently, with attendant administrative efficiencies. If that cycle is not maintained, the costs of running two sets of elections will be considerably greater than with the current system. If this link is to be maintained, it would be important to ensure that the consultation process includes adequate provision for input from school board trustees and their electors on the school board side of the equation.

Voting Age - Lowered

On 04 November 2004, the Member of Parliament for Ajax-Pickering introduced Bill C-261 to amend the Canada Elections Act. If enacted, this Bill would have the effect of lowering the voting age for federal elections from 18 years of age to 16, while maintaining the minimum age for candidates at 18. As previously noted, the Council for the City of Pickering passed a resolution on 06 December 2004 in support of Bill C-261 and also requested that the Legislature of the Province of Ontario amend the Elections Act, which governs provincial elections, and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, which governs municipal elections, to lower the voting age from 18 years of age to 16. Although subsequently forwarded to most Ontario municipalities, few have formally expressed either their support or opposition to this resolution.

Proponents in favour of Bill C-261 argue that lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 years of age will have the advantage of reinforcing a pattern of voter participation. In effect, by establishing voting habits early, it is suggested that citizens are more likely to continue to vote throughout their lives. In addition, it is argued that young people are currently disillusioned with the political system and feel disengaged from the democratic process. Therefore, by lowering the voting age, it is expected that youth will become more engaged in the political process at an earlier age and will have a greater collective influence on it.

Although the debate to lower the voting age in Canada from 18 to 16 years of age would appear to be in the initial stages, it has been addressed elsewhere. A review of the relevant literature shows that, in April 2004, the Electoral Commission for the United Kingdom issued its report “Age of Electoral Majority”, which examined the issue of lowering the voting age to 16 (copy on file in the City Clerk’s Office). The Commission had undertaken a 12-month review on this matter in response to increasing concerns in the United Kingdom about declining electoral participation, as well as engagement amongst younger people, but also as a result of a specific request by young people themselves. However, in the end the UK Commission recommended against lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 years of age.

Some of the arguments that influenced the decision of the UK Commission to recommend maintaining the minimum voting at 18 included the following:

§ International comparisons – most countries have a minimum voting age of 18 and a pattern of harmonized voting and candidacy ages prevails across Europe and commonwealth countries;

§ Minimum age limits and maturity – there is no single definition of “maturity”. Other age-related rights vary widely and none are directly comparable with the right to vote or stand at elections;

§ Research carried out among the public on behalf of the UK Commission suggested strong support for keeping the current minimum voting age and young people, themselves, were divided on whether they were ready to be given voting rights at 16; and

§ Voter turnout – evidence suggests that lowering the voting age would decrease the overall percentage in the short term due to the additional number of eligible but disengaged voters. Longer-term effects are also disputed.

Despite the fact that the UK Commission did not endorse lowering the voting age to 16, it did recommend a further review within five to seven years, by which time it anticipated that it will have undertaken further research on both the social and political awareness of those persons at or near the current minimum voting age.

As noted above, the dilemma to encourage younger voters to participate more in elections is presently being studied by the Democratic Renewal Secretariat of the Province of Ontario. On 19 November 2004, the Minister Responsible for Democratic Renewal, Michael Bryant, launched the “Democracy Challenge”, an initiative in three phases aimed at youth aged 13-29. In the first part, youth across Ontario have been invited to submit ideas for “activities that will engage them…and have a real impact on the issues that matter.” Next, the Province will “report back to youth about the ideas submitted and invite input on which ones to adopt.” Finally, “these ideas and activities will be implemented in communities” across Ontario. Although the specific issue of lowering the voting age is not mentioned, it remains possible that it will arise and be considered by the Democratic Renewal Secretariat during the course of this initiative.

Finally, it is worth noting that, on 06 January 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appellants’ application to appeal a decision in the election case of Fitzgerald v. Alberta. In that case, two Alberta students, both under the age of 18, challenged the denial of their voting rights in the 2001 Edmonton municipal election and the provincial election, on the basis that the voting age limit violated their democratic rights. Although the trial judge found that the applicants’ rights to vote and to equality under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were infringed by the Elections Act, as well as the local authority’s Elections Act, he ultimately ruled that these violations were justified under Section 1 of the Charter. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

CONSULTATION

While the topics of extending the term of office for municipal councils and the possibility of lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 years of age would seem obvious topics for broad public consultation, staff concede that that has not occurred in this instance due primarily to the timelines established by AMO. As noted earlier in this report, the Association issued its “Background Paper and Survey on Municipal Council Term and Related Matters” and Survey in February 2005 with a stated deadline of 01 March 2005. In subsequent discussions with AMO staff, it was learned that they were prepared to accept late submissions until 01 April 2005. In attempting to meet this timeline, it would appear that, of those municipalities that have considered this particular report, most have done so by moving a motion on the floor of Council - in the absence of any staff report or public consultation. Although City staff have attempted, in the short time given, to poll members of the City’s various Advisory Committees in an effort to engage some level of public interest in this matter, it is conceded that this approach may be insufficient for the reasons given above.

In an effort to canvas the responses of other large municipalities in Ontario, all single and upper tier municipalities were contacted. However, the only comments received back to date were from the Cities of London and Windsor, as well as the Region of Durham.

Briefly, London City Council did not support a move to a four-year term, the notion that single and upper tier municipalities should be able to determine their own length of term, nor that municipal and provincial elections should be held at the same time of year. It did, however, support changing the time of year in which elections are held from November to October, that school board elections should be held at the same time as municipal elections but not that the voting age should be lowered to 16 years of age. The Durham Regional Council only considered two issues: it endorsed the extension of the term of year from three to four years but only “received” lowering the voting age to sixteen. Regrettably, neither of these council reviews was accompanied by a staff report. Furthermore, the City of Windsor Council considered the AMO survey on 07 March 2005, after polling individual councillors. However, instead of passing a resolution on the material before them, Windsor City Council voted simply to “receive” the item for information.

More locally, Professor Caroline Andrews, Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa, was asked by staff for her professional opinion on the AMO survey and she provided the following comments:

§ On the whole, I think a standard four years across Ontario would be clearer. I am [also] in favour of four years as giving more time, not only to plan, but to implement policies. Having enough time to see the results of a policy decision should provide an incentive for municipal elected representatives to think in terms of policies.

§ However, I don’t think that the elections should be the same year as provincial elections because I think that this will make municipal elections more invisible and more dominated by provincial issues.

§ I think that municipal and school board elections should be at the same time and separate from provincial elections. One could argue for having them at the same time thinking that this would facilitate the entry of political parties at the municipal level but I feel that more likely would be simply the even lower attention to municipal politics.

§ I don’t have any strong views about the best month for elections. November has always seemed okay to me, but I could be convinced of another time.

§ I am sort of intrigued by the idea of lowering the voting age to 16 – it might provoke a good debate about the link between rights and responsibilities. But I also think that it would not be a very popular idea and I suspect that the public debate might not be all that enlightening. My view that it might not be popular is based on my first-year University class who was about two-thirds opposed to the idea of 16 year olds voting (perhaps the result of the snobbism of 19 year olds).

Finally, in an effort to provide Members of Council with additional public input, the members of all 15 advisory committees were given the survey questionnaire. The results of the responses received are summarized in the chart found at Document “D”. An overview of these responses seems to indicate the following:

§ Majority do not support a four-year term;

§ Of those respondents who did not support a four-year term, the majority did support Councils being able to determine their own term of office;

§ Majority oppose holding provincial and municipal elections in the same year;

§ Majority did not support changing time of year in which elections are held; of those who did support a change from November – the most favoured time of year was anytime between early spring to late summer;

§ Majority agreed that municipal and school board elections should be held simultaneously; and

§ Majority did not support lowering the voting age to 16 years old.

The City of Ottawa’s Elections Office and the Legal Services Branch have reviewed and provided input on this report.

Given the significant implications of these issues to the electorate, Council may wish to provide the opportunity for additional public consultation, particularly as these proposals may alter “who” and for “how long” the electorate chooses their representatives on City Council. Therefore, an option for a further opportunity to obtain the electorate’s views before Council considers this matter is to table the report at Corporate Services & Economic Development Committee, circulate it to ratepayer groups in the City inviting their comments, and re-schedule its consideration at the 03 May 2005 Committee meeting (thereby providing the opportunity for public delegations to speak on the matter), prior to rising to Council on 11 May 2005. While this approach will not meet AMO’s stated deadlines, it will ensure that the electorate in Ottawa have sufficient opportunity to express their views on these important matters before City Council makes its recommendations to AMO.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no direct financial implications to Council considering this report. However, should any legislative changes be enacted by the Province, this may have subsequent cost consequences for the City of Ottawa.

As noted earlier, should the Province of Ontario move to a four-year term of office for municipal councils, the current partnership regarding the supply of voting machines will break down due to overlap in election cycles, and the equipment vendor will then be able to terminate its special agreement with Ottawa. The City would then be faced with searching for other out-of-province municipalities to share with, or acquiring 150 voting machines. It is estimated that to purchase the equipment would require a capital expenditure of approximately $975,000 and also result in an increased annual maintenance fee.

As well, the extension of the municipal term could undermine the centre of expertise position which currently exists at the City’s elections office. An indirect effect of extending the term of council would be an increase in the elections “learning curve”, with associated costs, as contract staff would have been away from the municipal election process for an extended period of time between elections.

ATTACHMENTS

A. Resolution from the Municipality of Clarington to Amend the Municipal Elections Act to provide for a four-year term of office for municipal council members [Available in English only.];

B. Resolution of the City of Pickering showing its support for Bill C-261 and a Private Member’s Bill introduced by a Member of Parliament for Ajax-Pickering, which would lower the voting age in federal elections from 18 to 16 years of age [Available in English only.];

C. Background Paper and Survey on Municipal Council Term and Related Matters (AMO) and Survey; and

D. Advisory Committee Survey Results (Chart).