Evidence of meeting #22 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vote.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Neufeld, this will be a little more general.
People see the taxes, EI claims, insurance claims... Does it not make sense that there will always be people who will try to game a system such as elections no matter what, just based on human nature? You've all seen it.
11:45 a.m.
Electoral Management Consultant, As an Individual
There are several kinds of fraud. I've worked around parts of the world where election fraud is a real problem. I've seen vote buying; I've seen ghost voting, double counting, electoral manipulation such as the misuse of absentee ballots, misinformation to voters, intimidation, invalidation or destruction of ballots—
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I'm not asking for your experience; I'm asking for your judgment on human nature.
11:45 a.m.
Electoral Management Consultant, As an Individual
—mis-recording of voting results. Those are all election fraud.
Voting fraud, where voters actually show up and impersonate someone else or vote more than once, in my experience, is very rare.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Because voter information cards were not allowed as a singular form of ID in 2006—and I'm representing 2006 and I'll have more to say about that when I'm in your seat next week—and multiple vouching was not allowed in 2006—
11:50 a.m.
Electoral Management Consultant, As an Individual
You didn't require ID in 2006.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
You could go in, in fact, with a voter ID card. It wasn't allowed; that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Because something is not allowed, does that automatically mean it's not attempted and couldn't be successful?
11:50 a.m.
Electoral Management Consultant, As an Individual
No, let's distinguish what we're talking about here.
Before 2007, if you were on the voters list, and you showed up at your polling station and announced who you were, you were given a ballot.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Correct. So the comments that I made that, not that colleague, but his partner across the floor tried to impugn just now in the House of Commons saying that what I said was clearly not true, voter information cards were allowed and used in 2006.
11:50 a.m.
Electoral Management Consultant, As an Individual
Voter information cards were a piece of information to tell voters when they could vote and where they could vote.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
And they were used as ID. That changed in 2007, partly because of the complaint that we filed officially with the Commissioner of Elections and things changed after that, which was a good thing.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. Hawn, thank you. I know we'll get back to that.
Mr. Christopherson, two minutes, please.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Neufeld, for being here today. You're the third of the trilogy of giants that Canadians have needed to hear from on this—Mr. Mayrand and Mr. Kingsley were before you. Like yourself, my words, they've all but shredded the idea that eliminating vouching strengthens our election process any way.
I want to just return to some of your comments and then ask a question at the end of it and I'm very mindful of my time. This is you,
Having listened carefully to what the minister has said, it is my opinion that he has not interpreted my report correctly. But voters were not the problem. The problem was with the system. My report concludes that this is a systemic problem related to our antiquated voting model. At no point in the report do I link vouching with fraudulent voting.
I've heard the minister articulate that the absence of evidence of voter fraud doesn't mean it hasn't been happening. I heard him further suggest Elections Canada simply isn't aware of the level of voter fraud...because the agency hasn't investigated....
However, over the course of my study I heard of no candidate scrutineers, voters, or media representatives ever raising an issue with respect to vouching fraud. I am not aware of any formal complaints in this regard.
A large number of irregularities did occur, but there's no evidence whatsoever that any voters fraudulently misrepresented themselves in the vouching process.
It looks to me like your words have just left a smouldering mass of discredit and rhetoric in terms of the minister's words. Is there anything about eliminating vouching that would strengthen our electoral system or is it clear that if we eliminate it, we weaken our system?
11:50 a.m.
Electoral Management Consultant, As an Individual
I don't think that eliminating vouching will improve the integrity of elections in Canada at all and I am fearful that it will considerably reduce accessibility to the ballot for people who are guaranteed the right to vote.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you Mr. Neufeld.
Thank you Mr. Christopherson. Good timing on that, by the way.
Mr. Reid for two minutes to finish this off.
March 27th, 2014 / 11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you for being here, Mr. Neufeld.
You referred to something you called tendered voting, which sounds a lot like a version of what we do if we cast a postal ballot. You put a ballot inside an anonymity envelope which goes inside an envelope and has some kind of signature, I gather, and other information on it.
I have two questions for you; you can answer both of them and fill up the remaining time.
Number one, I assume this is used in several jurisdictions. I wonder if you could just mention what some of those are.
Number two, if that system were in place, but vouching were removed, would it resolve the issues you've raised with regard to vouching and the ability of every Canadian to cast a ballot?
11:50 a.m.
Electoral Management Consultant, As an Individual
It could be engineered in a way that allowed that.
Vouching is undoubtedly a complex process. It is resisted in many jurisdictions because it delays your official voting result. It has been a feature in British Columbia for many decades. It is the way in which the provinces enacted the ability for any registered voter or any eligible voter in British Columbia to vote at any voting location, and this is right from the days the writs are issued until election day. If voters for some reason cannot get to their assigned voting place, they can vote at any other voting place in the province, but because they're not on the list for whatever place they're attending at, their ballots go into what's called a tendered ballot envelope, and those all get shipped back and forth across the province in the 10 days that follow the election, and then on that 10th day they're all reviewed and scrutinized and counted. If a person has voted before, that person's vote is not allowed. If a person is not registered and claims to be, that vote is not allowed.
It allows that scrutiny, which may be something that could be engineered for the vouching process.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you, Mr. Neufeld.
We have run out of time for this hour of our study today, so I will suspend for just a minute.
Mr. Neufeld, we thank you for your testimony today.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Friends and colleagues, we have a busy hour. Let's get started, please.
We have four different witnesses in this hour. It's always a bit fun when we try to do that, so let's do our best to get down to work, please.
We have Alison Loat, the executive director of Samara; from the Institute for Research on Public Policy, Graham Fox; Nathalie Des Rosiers, a member of the board from the Faculty of Law, civil law, at the University of Ottawa; and Taylor Gunn from Civix.
I'll start from my right and work left. If you have an opening statement, please try to make it as short as you can. I'll likely flag you down somewhere near the five-minute mark if you haven't stopped by then.
Ms. Loat, would you like to go first, please?
Noon
Alison Loat Executive Director and Co-Founder, Samara
Certainly. Thank you.
My name is Alison Loat. As the chair said, I am the co-founder and executive director of Samara, which is an independent non-partisan charity that works to improve political participation through research and education.
Today I'd like to suggest changes to Bill C-23 that our research suggests would help realize the ambition Monsieur Poilievre set out in the bill's introduction, to “ensure everyday citizens are in charge of democracy”.
Our concern at Samara is with the declining participation of Canadians, both at elections and in between elections. In 2011, as this committee I'm sure well knows, only 38.8% of young people voted. Should these trends continue, this will further drive down turnout in Canada, already one of the lowest among western democracies. It's fair to assume that if only 38.8% graduated from high school, we might consider this a national emergency. We should be similarly concerned with our dismal turnout.
Apart from voting, Samara's research indicates that Canadians' political activity between elections, which includes such things as joining or donating to political parties or campaigns, is at or below 10%, and much lower for youth. This low participation is the largest problem facing Canadian democracy. Addressing it should be a paramount concern of every parliamentarian and a stronger focus of the bill.
Samara's focus group research confirms that people don't vote for two main reasons: access and motivation. Access includes things like not knowing where to vote or not having a registration card. Motivation includes things like believing that one's vote doesn't make a difference or that politics doesn't matter.
First, and in general terms, we recommend several changes to increase access. These are detailed in our submission, and include support for provisions to oversee telephone calls to voters and suggestions for improving efficiencies at polling stations.
Second, we have three specific suggestions to address the deeper problem of motivation and that seek to further citizens' participation through both multi-partisan and non-partisan means.
First, enhance the role of the Chief Electoral Officer to provide and support non-partisan public education on Canadian democracy. Elections Canada should be encouraged to do a much better job here. Given the severity of the turnout problem in Canada, a well-funded independent organization focused on engagement should be strengthened rather than eliminated, particularly given its support of programs—like Student Vote—that have proven results.
Second, we recommend that working with and through non-partisan civil society organizations, Elections Canada administer an innovative funding and research program based on current understanding of what is actually effective in increasing participation, and then measure and report on those results. This would be a valuable resource for political parties, teachers, academics, community groups, and others who seek to address Canada's declining political participation.
Third, in order to ensure that political parties fulfill the spirit of Mr. Poilievre's appeal in the House that parties “reach Canadians where they are in their communities”, we propose that parties allocate a portion of the increased funds, proposed in this bill, toward voter education and engagement in between elections. Mr. Poilievre is correct in highlighting that parties and candidates play a critical role in encouraging participation, and no doubt that is part of why they are so generously supported with tax dollars.
However, declining voter turnout, together with Samara's research, suggests there is room for parties to improve. In a recent survey, we asked Canadians to clarify what they expect from political parties and grade their performance. Over half of Canadians agreed that parties' most important job is “reaching out so Canadians’ views can be represented”, but they gave parties a failing mark of 43% in that role.
Dedicated expenditures could be used to facilitate visits of candidates and party members to classrooms, or provide funding to organizations performing engagement work. That's to cite just two examples. This investment in citizen engagement could help improve Canadians’ perceptions of parties and bolster their involvement in them.
These three recommendations, coupled with further enhancements to voter access, will substantially improve Bill C-23 and Canada’s ability to tackle the most pressing problem facing our democracy—Canadians’ increasing disengagement from our very own political process.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I look forward to answering any questions.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Super. We will get to that very shortly.
Madame Des Rosiers, you are next. You have five minutes or less, please.
12:05 p.m.
Nathalie Des Rosiers Member of the Board, Dean, Faculty of Law, Civil Law, University of Ottawa, Fair Vote Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be speaking French and English.
My name is Nathalie Des Rosiers and I am here as a member of the Board of Fair Vote Canada, Représentation équitable au Canada. I am also currently with the Law Faculty, Common Law Section, and not the Civil Law Section, at the University of Ottawa.
Fair Vote Canada is a civil society group that aims to improve Canadian democracy, particularly through improvements to the Canadian electoral system.
Fair Vote is a grassroots organization and multi-partisan platform for electoral reform, and has been so since its beginning. My involvement with Fair Vote Canada came from a report that the Law Commission of Canada did, Un vote qui compte, which recommended some addition of an element of proportionality to avoid some of the problems of our current first-past-the-post system.
These proposals to reform our electoral system are on the table and must seriously be considered. I will be presenting certain concerns that Fair Vote Canada has with regards to the bill, as well as what it would like to see in a bill that would aim to improve Canadian democracy.
In the course of its work on improving democracy, Fair Vote Canada examined two aspects that are raised by the bill. First of all, the powers and autonomy of Elections Canada, as well as the system to control election expenses.
We have a more general concern with the integrity of the electoral system. The second part I'm going to talk about is as we said,
the effects of restrictions on voting, that is to say shrinking the pool of electors. That concerns us also.
Fair Vote Canada has always been concerned that the first-past-the-post system, the winner-takes-all aspect, undermines voter confidence and voter participation. It does undermine the motivation because your vote doesn't count the same. In a sense, I think we are concerned that some of the depositions in this bill may further erode voter confidence.
Certainly I think we support the recommendations for the increased power of Elections Canada to engage voters and do public education. We should encourage Elections Canada to have the power to communicate with the public widely. In that context I think the restrictions that Bill C-23 put on the power of Elections Canada to engage in public discussions and do research seem unwarranted at this time.
I think it is very important as well that we ensure the integrity of the system in a way in which appearances may make the difference here. Elections officers should be appointed by Elections Canada so they can be trained early and the appearance of neutrality be maintained. Central poll supervisors particularly are very important to maintain appearances here.
In our view the fundraising exceptions could lead to some difficulty in enforcement and to further scandals that undermine voter confidence at this point. I think it's well known that given that trends in voter participation are quite low, it seems to us to be the wrong time to do this.
Let's talk about the effects of restricting voting, that is to say shrinking the pool of electors. The purpose of any electoral reform should be to facilitate and encourage the exercise of one's right to vote. This is the very essence of our democracy, not only for the legitimacy of decisions taken by our Parliament, but also for the sense of civic belonging.
People who are encouraged to vote feel they belong. I am just going to end on this.
A lot of studies have established that political disengagement often leads to economic and social disengagement. It is very important that we not place obstacles or limit the exercise of people's right to vote in any way whatsoever.
In conclusion, in addition to the bill I think we should continue to pay attention to the possibility and encouragement of electoral reform. The mandate should continue to include doing research on why people vote or not, and what could improve voter participation in Canada.
Merci beaucoup.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you very much.
Mr. Fox, you have five minutes or less, please.
12:10 p.m.
Graham Fox President and Chief Executive Officer, Institute for Research on Public Policy
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I also thank the members of the committee for giving me this opportunity to comment on Bill C-23.
The Institute for Research on Public Policy is a national independent, non-partisan think tank headquartered in Montreal. Our mission is to conduct research on issues of importance to Canadians and their governments, and bring academics and senior decision-makers together for discussion and debate based on that research.
As some of you will know, the IRPP has had a long-standing research interest in strengthening Canadian democracy and its institutions. Our most recent initiative, directly related to today's hearing, consisted of a consultation process with Canadian and international experts that led to our March 2013 report entitled Issues Arising from Improper Communications with Electors.
The report was distributed to committee members, so I'll dispense with a description of the process and focus my remarks on the recommendations coming out of our work as they relate to Bill C-23.
First, let me note that there are portions of Bill C-23 that are supported by our work and echo our own recommendations regarding improper communications with electors. The provisions related to increasing penalties for existing offences, and creating new offences, received strong support from our experts. The report also calls for requiring parties to document their use of voter contact services and preserve those records. Creating a voter contact registry, as is proposed, would be a positive step forward in regulating communications with voters.
However, other provisions proposed in Bill C-23 stand in sharp contrast to the conclusions drawn by our experts. For instance, our group felt strongly that the public education role of Elections Canada needed to be enhanced and considered a crucial element of its mandate. To see it curtailed in the way that is proposed seems to be a step in the wrong direction. Enumeration used to play a vital role in informing citizens about elections, but with enumeration gone, the public awareness campaign takes on renewed importance and should be preserved.
Some have raised some good and important questions about the success of past efforts in increasing voter turnouts. I think that's an important point and should be studied further, but if the ad campaign is ineffective, I'd suggest that means get a new ad agency, not stop advertising.
I raise a similar concern regarding the elimination of vouching. To be clear, our experts did not examine the issue directly. It was beyond the scope of our initiative. That said, we did stress that a primary goal of the system should be to make voting as easy as possible for as many citizens as possible.
Be vigilant about fraud, absolutely, but when in doubt, err on the side of the voter. The elimination of vouching seems to run counter to that principle and may further marginalize groups who are already marginalized by the elimination of enumeration and its replacement by the permanent voters list. I would add quickly that I think the discussion you were having in your last session about alternatives to vouching was an important step forward. My point is simply that we don't know enough about the consequences of eliminating it outright to simply proceed without due consideration.
With regard to what's not in the bill, our group also noted that even with legitimate communications with electors there are significant policy gaps that need to be addressed regarding personal information held by party databases. As parties become more sophisticated at collecting information about voters, we need a privacy protection regime to regulate how that information is stored, used, and protected. Voters would be surprised to learn how much parties know about them, and probably shocked to know that the information is not protected. If there is still scope to add to the bill, I would urge the committee to consider seriously a regulatory regime to frame how parties manage and protect our personal information.
Finally, our experts felt strongly that when making any changes to the Elections Act, Parliament should do its utmost to seek as broad a consensus as possible before it proceeds. Given how fundamental the act is to the conduct of our politics, we should avoid making changes on division, and aim for all-party support to the extent that is possible.
In light of what I think is a strong consensus on some issues covered in Bill C-23 and the great divisions that remain on others, I would suggest that the committee consider splitting the bill in two. Move quickly to enact the provisions that address improper communications with electors and perhaps other sections of the bill, and hold back on the public education role of Elections Canada, vouching, and perhaps other issues that would benefit from further debate and reflection.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you. That’s perfect timing.
Mr. Gunn, you're up. It's good to see you again, by the way.