Evidence of meeting #23 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 elections.
A video is available from Parliament.
8:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Yes. You had four minutes, though, and we're there.
Thank you, Mr. Richards.
We'll go now to Madame Latendresse, for four minutes, please.
8:45 p.m.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to our three witnesses for being here with us. I will speak in French. You can listen to the simultaneous interpretation.
Mr. Thomas, I am interested in what you had to say when you answered questions because I think that issue is one of the most important aspects.
Identification in itself is not a problem. However, proving one's address can be a problem. In fact, you can go to the polling station with 20 different identity cards, but if you have no proof of address and you don't have a driver's licence, you cannot vote.
Could you expand a little on that issue, please?
8:45 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Well, academics tend to comment on both the motivation to vote and the propensity to vote. Some groups are not as likely to turn out. If you arrive at a voting station and someone says to you that you have two forms of identification but that neither of them contains an address and that they need to know that you live within that polling division, your choices are either that you go home and try to find a document that qualifies under the list of 38 or 39, and if you're weakly motivated you may not come back. This may happen with groups that historically have been politically marginal. The other choice for you is to find somebody who knows you and can vouch for you, and that's not always possible in the moment.
I like the Manitoba example, which has not been talked about in this forum. We have used it for two elections. It just means that you sign an oath, and there is a penalty attached if you misrepresent yourself. In another part of the legislation, there is an opportunity, if someone shows up to vote and somebody has already voted under his or her name ahead of him, that the person can still vote, if they have the right ID requirements with address, but would have to sign an oath that they're the real person.
The principle of having voters sign something at the polling booth seems to be part of the thinking behind this bill.
8:45 p.m.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
I completely agree with you.
I also have a question or comment for Mr. McLaughlin.
In the article you wrote for The Globe and Mail, you raised an extremely important point, in my view. In that article, you said that young people who are starting to exercise their right to vote at the first election when they have the right to do so are often those who become systematic voters, meaning that they go back to vote at subsequent elections. In connecting the dots between the two, you also mentioned in your article that research shows that turnout decline is mostly driven by young voters not participating.
With specific reference to clause 18 of the bill and the power of Elections Canada to encourage youth voter turnout, do you think that other provisions in Bill C-23—such as the one about the use of voter identification cards, which were accessible only to students in the last election—could also undermine the participation of young people in the electoral process if this possibility was removed?
8:45 p.m.
Strategic Advisor to the Dean, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, As an Individual
I think the evidence will show that people who are less attached or committed or motivated to vote, the more they perceive a barrier in front of them, which could be simply their lifestyle at the moment. They're too busy, have kids to take care of, or schoolwork or other things. This is just normal. Then, if you add a barrier about identification that is beyond what is considered reasonable, the danger, of course, is that people will simply self-select themselves out of the process.
A way to get around this, of course, is what you are studying, and it seems to me you're looking at it in quite good detail: the impacts of vouching versus other measures. I encourage you to continue to look at this question to see what kind of solution you can come up with.
The broader issue is that we have to work harder as a country to try to raise the motivation, raise the civic literacy, and raise the civic knowledge of young people. The danger isn't just at that one moment. Research shows there's a danger of habitual non-voting as people move through their life cycle, if you will. Your voting interests and your political interests change as you grow older, as you get a job, as you have kids, as you worry about different things. The danger will be that this youth downward trend that we've had will continue into other age cohorts as we move along, and then you're going to have a generational effect.
The ongoing motivational piece is important as much as—this is really my point—the identification issues that you are studying so assiduously.
8:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you very much, Madame Latendresse.
Mr. O'Toole, you have four minutes, please, to finish this.
8:50 p.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
I have a few questions for Ms. Dawood.
Thank you very much for appearing. I appreciate your expertise as a law professor. I'm going to talk about the Supreme Court case relating to Etobicoke Centre. There are two specific elements.
The majority took the view—and I'd love to have you comment on my assessment of their decision—that if fraud or irregularity or serious error can overturn the result of an election, that can undermine confidence in our system.
Is that a fair characterization of one element of the decision?
8:50 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
What the majority decision says, which is asserted by four of the seven justices, is that if there's an irregularity that affects the result of the election, those votes will not be counted. However, the important part of their decision is that not every error counts as an irregularity. That's something that is often missed when people try to summarize what happened in that case.
For example, concerning the vouching errors, whereby the vouchers' names were not listed, in that particular case the Supreme Court majority said that those kinds of errors do not amount to an irregularity. Likewise, the registration certificates were lost; 16 of them went missing. Once again the Supreme Court—
8:50 p.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
One second. Mr. Neufeld, in his assessment of vouching errors, characterizes 46% as serious errors. In fact, with the high error rate with vouching, a final number cannot be put. As I said to Professor Thomas, between 46% and 80%, but because of multiple errors per transaction, an exact figure from the audit can't be determined.
Would you not say that in accordance with the Supreme Court decision on irregularities which they use associated words to connect fraud to errors in the administration of the election, if they can overturn a result, they undermine the faith in our system?
8:50 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
That's not what the Supreme Court said in the majority opinion. They said that only certain kinds of irregularities count and the kinds of errors that occurred in the Etobicoke Centre case did not arise to the level of an irregularity.
You'll see this, for example, in paragraph 39 of their decision and also in paragraph 43. They said that the word “irregularity” does not count toward every single administrative mistake that was made. The mistakes that were made with respect to vouching in that case and with respect to the registration certificates did not, in their minds, arise to a level of an irregularity. These were just record-keeping mistakes. They said that under section 524.1 of the Canada Elections Act, those mistakes do not count as irregularities.
8:50 p.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
I'm quoting from paragraph 43:
In associating the word “irregularity” with those words, Parliament must have contemplated mistakes and administrative errors that are serious and capable of undermining the integrity of the electoral process.
Mr. Neufeld identified 46% of vouching transactions that he said were serious, serious errors.
Is your position that—
8:50 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
The Supreme Court would not agree with that, though. The Supreme Court said that certain errors with respect to vouching do not arise to a level of an irregularity. Mr. Neufeld, in his report, lumped together a lot of different vouching problems that the Supreme Court, in its decision, did not consider to be an irregularity.
8:50 p.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
The Supreme Court also said at paragraph 65, and they used an example of applying proper procedure to a situation:
However, unlike the rejection of a valid vote, turning away a voter on election day is not fatal to that person’s right to vote.
Then they do the flip side of that, which is if a vote cast by an entitled voter were to be rejected, they would be permanently disenfranchised. The court seems to recognize that reasonable compliance procedures, like asking for identification, are acceptable.
8:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I'll allow a quick answer on it. Mr. O'Toole's time is finishing.
8:55 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Actually, what they do say is that administrative mistakes are not a reason to deny someone the right to vote. They say that it cannot be a perfect system and that small errors like record-keeping errors, such as in the vouching and registration certificates, are not reason enough to deny someone the right to vote. That was the majority holding, which is why the member for Etobicoke Centre kept his seat.
8:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you, Professor.
Professor Thomas, Mr. McLaughlin, and Professor Dawood, thank you for coming tonight. It's been great to have you here and great to get information.
Professor Dawood, I have a very smart nephew who's at U of T, and please don't hold Uncle Joe against him.
We will excuse you and we'll bring in our next panel.
We'll suspend for a couple of minutes.
9 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We're back in session again for the third panel of this evening. We're doing very well, committee. I'm very happy with your timing and your questions.
We have Bob Brown from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. We have David Shannon from the Canadian Disability Policy Alliance.
Welcome to both gentlemen.
We have Corey Willard, from Forum for Young Canadians. Thank you, Corey, for coming tonight. We love attending your stuff, too. Fantastic.
I didn't pick who's going to go first so, Bob, I'm going to start with you. For your opening statement, gentlemen, you have five minutes or less, and then we'll get to rounds of questions for you.
9 p.m.
Bob Brown Member, Transportation Committee, Council of Canadians with Disabilities
Thank you very much for hearing me. I'm not as fast a reader as some of the others, so I'm just going to highlight some of our points. I understand that you have the full presentation.
Council of Canadians with Disabilities, CCD, is a national cross-disability organization with nine provincial, one territorial, and seven national disability member groups. Through CCD, Canadians with disabilities have been speaking out and taking their rightful place in Canadian society by causing the removal of barriers to participation. Approximately 3.8 million, or 13.7% of Canadians—we'll talk about that—15 years of age and older report a disability.
Thank you for hearing from the CCD on the barriers regarding Bill C-23. We want to talk about four points that we feel are of great concern.
On the public education campaigns, unfortunately Bill C-23 ends the Chief Electoral Officer's power to implement information programs about the electoral process. Barriers, such as the lack of plain language information, Braille, large print, ALS-LSQ information for the hearing impaired and deaf, have prevented some persons with disabilities from being knowledgeable about the electoral process. Accessibility and inclusive public education campaigns enable people with disabilities to overcome information barriers and to promote participation. CCD recommends that the Chief Electoral Officer continue to have the authority to implement information programs.
The next is alternative voting process. The printed ballot is inaccessible to some voters. For example, voters with vision impairments cannot independently verify if a printed ballot is correctly marked. Adoption of electronic and telephone voting processes will overcome this barrier, hopefully, but will require testing. Bill C-23 proposes House and Senate approval of future tests of electronic processes. Currently, committee approval is sufficient. As additional approval requirements could hinder barrier removal, CCD recommends that only committee approval be required for the test of electronic voting systems.
Next is voter identification rules. We've heard quite a bit about that tonight. Bill C-23's proposal to eliminate vouching and prohibit the use of voter information cards, VIC, for verifying a voter's residence will disenfranchise voters who do not have full identification of their address. Persons with disabilities living in long-term care facilities and homeless people with disabilities will be among the disenfranchised because they experience barriers to obtaining necessary ID, not because it's not available, but they just can't get it. CCD recommends we retain the current safety net provided by the VIC and vouching.
On campaign contributions, more people with disabilities are seeking public office. People with disabilities experience a disproportionate level of poverty. CCD disagrees with the Bill C-23 exemptions that allow increased contribution from a candidate's personal funds because it will place less affluent Canadians at a disadvantage.
Finally, on enforcement, the Commissioner of Canada Elections should not work for the government of the day. To protect the fairness of the electoral process, CCD recommends that the Commissioner of Canada Elections report directly to Parliament.
Thank you for your time.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. Brown, thank you. You're well within the time.
Mr. Shannon, you're next.
9:05 p.m.
David Shannon Lawyer, Hagi Community Services, Canadian Disability Policy Alliance
Mr. Chair, I'm glad you chose Mr. Brown first; therefore, there's always brilliance to my right.
9:05 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
9:05 p.m.
Lawyer, Hagi Community Services, Canadian Disability Policy Alliance
Thank you very much for the invitation this evening.
My name is David Shannon. I live in Thunder Bay, Ontario. I had a spinal cord injury 32 years ago. That means I have had the benefit of experiencing many elections using a wheelchair. I'm also the executive director of a non-governmental organization that serves people with disabilities in Thunder Bay, Ontario. I'm here on behalf of the Canadian Disability Policy Alliance, which is a national collaboration of disability researchers, community organizations, and federal and provincial policy-makers aimed at creating and mobilizing knowledge to enhance disability policy in Canada.
Of course today I'm here to talk about disability policy and in particular some recommendations. I would submit that this is an opportunity for all of us to enhance the inclusion of persons with a disability.
When I talk about persons with a disability in Canada, I'm not talking in a vacuum. I'm not talking about an ideal or an idea. I'm talking about four million Canadians who are of an age to vote. In fact 4.4 million Canadians have a disability, and according to the latest statistic, four million are of voting age. It's a critically important bloc to access for any politically minded individual, and indeed to open the doors to greater democracy, which I believe is the purpose of this bill.
We have found, however, that obstacles to electoral involvement for persons with a disability are not limited to just inaccessible polling sites. The Elections Act has tried to address that. The Hughes decision at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal tried to address that. But it goes beyond polling sites. It goes to meeting venues, campaign offices, and constituency offices. They are all central to the effective functioning of Canadian democracy. I want to talk about that. At the very fundamental level of our democracy, every party, every politician has to open the doors to meetings and campaign offices to guarantee that they have inclusive design.
Our research has shown that people with disabilities are 20% less likely to vote than those with a disability. That's ironic, however, that they're less likely to vote, because if you ask them, as our research also indicates, there is a greater urgency and desire among the disability community to vote than the rest of Canada. This leads to, within these 4.4 million Canadians, what is termed absent citizens. Therefore, meeting venues, campaign offices, and information materials are central to accessing these absent citizens.
A recent study conducted under the auspices of the Canadian Disability Policy Alliance surveyed candidates from the Ontario election campaign of 2011 to discover the extent to which campaign offices, meeting venues, party platforms, and official websites were accessible and inclusive toward their disabled constituency. Party leaders were polled to seek their position on disability issues and accessibility in their campaign and their platform.
The findings from this survey indicate there is a general lack of understanding of the imperative to achieve accessibility standards, not only of polling stations and booths, but also of political campaigns, if representative democracy in Canada is to include people with disabilities.
Of course that was a provincial election. I would not imagine that same error would visit itself upon any federal campaign.
The survey found that accessibility practices tended to be reactive instead of proactive, exceptional instead of inclusive. Electoral practices do not appear to have kept pace with the shift in policy and attitudes towards disability that has occurred. We've seen a shift in the past generation from 1981 to 2014 in the way in which the public views inclusiveness and includes persons with a disability, but political campaigns and politicians have not kept pace.
Mr. Chair, we therefore ask for your consideration to add a section under the general provisions of the bill known as the fair elections act.
We recommend: one, that the standing committee mandate campaign office accessibility in the legislation; two, that the fair elections act adopt and implement an accessibility standard for all campaign websites, offices, and meeting spaces during the federal election; three, that Elections Canada communicate with the individual candidates about the expectations of accessibility. We do have, by the way, a tool kit, which is a survey of how to make one's campaign offices accessible. Finally, Mr. Chair, we recommend that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs recommend enhanced and broadened funding through the enabling accessibility fund to help achieve greater accessibility during a federal election. In other words, this section can be implemented.
We believe this would help us lead to a much broader constituency and a voice for all Canadians.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you, Mr. Shannon.
Mr. Willard, for up to five minutes, please.
March 31st, 2014 / 9:10 p.m.
Corey Willard Board Member, Forum for Young Canadians
Absolutely.
Good evening, and thank you for inviting us to join this discussion tonight. My name is Corey Willard, and I'm a volunteer board member with the foundation that the forum is part of.
I'm going to touch on two things. I'm going to give you a brief overview of the program. I know many of you know Forum for Young Canadians; I see some familiar faces in the room. I'll also touch on two aspects of the proposed legislation that might affect our program and the youth who participate in it.
Forum for Young Canadians is a non-partisan program that offers Canadian youth a chance to learn about Canada's political system, and sit side by side with today's leaders, preparing themselves to become leaders tomorrow. Throughout their week in Ottawa, these youths participate in mock elections, learn about the pillars of Canada's democratic system, and most importantly, how to use their voice.
They represent the issues in their communities and provinces and learn from each other what the fabric of Canadian society is all about.
Their experiences begin months before they arrive and continue for months after they return home. We support them in continuing their engagement as active citizens. As young leaders, one of their roles is to return to their schools and community groups and inspire their peers to become active and engaged citizens.
Funded in part through the Department of Canadian Heritage's exchanges Canada program, the forum program also receives support from sponsors that include Elections Canada, the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians, the Churchill Society, the Canadian Club of Ottawa, and a host of other companies and organizations.
For the last 38 years, forum has been the flagship program for the Foundation for the Study of Processes of Government in Canada, a not-for-profit organization whose volunteer board of directors is comprised of notable Canadians from across the country.
We are proud of the outcome that a significant number of students who participate in forum return to Ottawa to complete their post-secondary education. They already know what they want to do. Some of them end up working on or around Parliament Hill. Many of the other students who participate in the program end up choosing to pursue their post-secondary education in another city or province, in part because of the impact forum has had on their interest to explore the different regions of our country.
The elimination of vouching would have a negative impact on these youths. Many of them are turning 18 and are eager to vote. Most of them are attending post-secondary education institutions away from their home town, and unfortunately, the reality is a lot of them don't end up changing their addresses for the time they are in school. I was a victim of that one.
Elections Canada plays a supporting role in our program. At every session, Elections Canada officials come and deliver the module of the program that relates to voting.
In addition to the presentation, Elections Canada supplies us with all the materials required to host a mock election. Throughout the year, Elections Canada plays a significant role in strengthening our ability to support our participants in motivating their peers to vote.
As a non-partisan organization, we are part of a network of other organizations whose role is to prepare the next generation of Canadian leaders and active citizens by providing them with the tools and information they need to remain true to the democratic process.
I'm sure it was not the intent of proposed section 18 of this legislation that organizations such as ours would no longer have access to support from Elections Canada to educate and inspire Canada's youth from a non-partisan perspective. However, we believe that would indeed be one of the unintended consequences.
On Friday when we received this invitation, we were in the process of saying goodbye to 146 youths from across Canada who gathered here in Ottawa last week for forum. We heard over and over and over again comments from students about how forum has made them realize the importance of becoming active and engaged citizens. I will share a few comments that were submitted to us last week prior to these students departing.
Danielle, from Manitoba, noted, “Before I came to Ottawa I thought I would never vote, now I will go home and count the days till I turn 18 and can vote and I’ll get all my friends to vote.”
Roya, from Ontario, said: “Voting is very important because people have the ability to choose who they believe is the right person to lead their country. Citizens must vote in order for their political leaders to reflect the interests of the population.”
Michael, from Ontario, said, “One of the most valuable and interesting parts of forum is the chance to debate political issues in a non-partisan environment. The election simulation and Elections Canada presentation both have the effect of showing students how these debates are decided in 'the real world'. The excitement generated by the elections at forum is incomparable and certainly makes the youth who participate passionate about exercising their democratic right.”
Katie, from Quebec, said: “I felt the information I heard during the election session provided me with what I need to know not only about how to go about voting but also why it's so important for me to vote so I could make a good decision on who to vote for and be able to do it.”
Megan, from Nova Scotia, said, “That won't be the last time I put my X to say who I think should run this country.”
On behalf of the Foundation for the Study of Processes of Government in Canada, please accept our thanks for the opportunity to present this evening.
I will conclude with the words of another participant of our program. “Visiting Parliament Hill means more than just witnessing history. It means looking at the future and knowing that this is potentially a place where some of us may create history. It goes beyond the magnificent carvings and walls and makes me most grateful to be part of such a beautiful nation.” That was from Dunja, from British Columbia.
We wish the committee every success in the task it has undertaken. We are now ready to provide you with any other information you may need.
Thank you.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you, Mr. Willard.
Thank you, all, for your opening statements.
We'll now go to questions. We have a seven-minute round, starting with Mr. Lukiwski.