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.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
My question is for Professor Lee.
Professor Lee, correct me if I'm wrong, because I certainly don't want to mischaracterize what you were saying, but my strong impression of your testimony is you were saying that basically everyone, in your opinion, has the ability to have identification.
Are you saying, sir, that there should be no impediment to people voting because of whatever identification requirements are contained in this bill? Would you say, sir, that people should be able to comply with the provisions contained in this bill regarding the need for identification? Would that be an accurate statement?
7:50 p.m.
Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
Yes. I'm saying there are multiple digital identity systems in Canada. Think of them as intersecting Venn diagrams. There are these multiple circles. One is called a bank account, one is called a credit card, and one is called a health card, and they intersect. When you add them up and look at the part in the middle where they all meet, I suggest and propose to you that there are zero Canadians with zero digital identity.
First off, you can't get health care in this country without a health care card. I know, because I have actually been to my doctor's, but I forgot my card and I was sent home. I have arthritis, so I go to a doctor fairly frequently, and I was refused health care. Now, it was no big deal. I went home, got the card, and went back. But I believe that you cannot get health care without your health care card, every last one of us.
Aboriginal identity cards; I didn't even mention that, by the way. A new aboriginal identity card is being rolled out for 800,000 aboriginals. Ninety-six per cent of Canadians have bank accounts. I can go on and on. I've only scratched the surface of institutions that issue identity cards.
Every university issues a photo ID faculty card. I've been in many government buildings—I've lived here all my life—and for every government building, including Elections Canada in Hull, by the way, you cannot get into the building without a government photo identity card. Every employee of the Government of Canada has a photo ID card. That applies provincially, municipally, and so on. It just goes on and on.
There are dozens of digital identity cards, so anybody can get an identity card if they choose to.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Yes. The opposition and the critics of this bill are suggesting that why vouching must be maintained is there are literally millions of Canadians who do not have the ability to produce proper identification. You're—
7:50 p.m.
Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
My answer would be, then, they're not using health care, and I just cannot imagine not being able to use health care in this country. You must have a photo ID health care card. We don't have private health care in this country because we don't have two tier, so the only way you can access health care is to use your health care card. If somebody is saying there are millions of people without ID, they're saying that they're never, ever, ever using the health care system. I do not believe it.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Quickly, Dr. Lee, I believe that you have done some studies on the bifurcation between the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections. We've heard Mr. Seidle's views on that, and I'd like to hear yours.
7:50 p.m.
Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
I haven't done research. That's why I said at the beginning that I was going to talk about vouching. I have a personal view, but it isn't backed up by evidence. I just know that in our country we do separate.... The crown is separate from the police; I have worked with the police in the past and I've published on that. We do separate the crown from the police from the courts. It's one of the principles of the Westminster system that we separate the three.
In fact in many administrations, including my own administration.... I cannot sit at an appeal. If a student appeals my grade, I cannot sit on the appeal committee. It's kind of obvious. That's a principle in every system. That's the extent to which I could comment.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Yes, and right now, the current system has it that the Commissioner of Canada Elections actually reports to the Chief Electoral Officer. Regardless of what Mr. Seidle is saying, there should be complete independence of the office.
Do you believe it's appropriate that the investigatory powers report to the person who is actually administering elections, or should there be a complete separation, which is the intent of this bill, by the way?
7:50 p.m.
Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
I want to qualify: I haven't looked at this, but I am working on a paper arguing that the model should be like the Competition Bureau and the Competition Tribunal. They should be completely separate: the one side that investigates and the other side that determines or adjudicates.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
I can't get another round in.
I'll say thank you very much to our witnesses.
We'll suspend for two minutes while we change the panels.
Mr. Seidle, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Mycoff, thanks to all of you for your information today. It was great to have you here.
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We'll call the meeting to order.
Professor Thomas, it's great to have you with us.
Can you hear me all right?
7:55 p.m.
Dr. Paul Thomas Professor Emeritus, Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Yes, I can, Mr. Preston.
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
Mr. McLaughlin, Madam Dawood, it's great to have you here today.
For opening statements, Professor Thomas, we're going to go first with you, if that's all right, for up to five minutes.
7:55 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Thank you very much for the privilege of coming before the committee.
I submitted a brief earlier. Tonight, I'll just touch upon several points that were contained within that presentation, and then I'd be pleased to answer any questions that might arise.
I start with the observation that there has been considerable decline of public trust and confidence in politics and democracy in Canada. A similar trend has been happening in established democracies. There are many long-term causes and short-term factors that have contributed to public disillusionment with the political process. I fear that both the process by which Bill C-23 was formulated and is being passed in Parliament and the substance of the bill will further weaken public trust and confidence in the integrity of the election process, the one democratic activity in which a majority of Canadians participate.
Sound electoral governance arrangements based on as much consensus as possible contribute in important ways to public trust and confidence in the election process and to democratic legitimacy.
Turning to the process of electoral law, on process I would observe that the Canada Elections Act is not ordinary legislation. It provides a foundation and framework for fair and free elections. Other countries have recognized that such fundamental laws should not be changed hastily and unilaterally by the governing party.
In the U.K., most election laws require advanced consultation with the national electoral commission. Usually this involves a review of draft bills with the commission officials to ensure that the proposed legislation is workable.
In New Zealand, the Electoral Act 1993 requires a supermajority of members of the House of Representatives to repeal or modify a list of eight key features of the election law framework. This provision ensures that there is some measure of cross-party support for those changes. This leads me to recommend that the bill be amended to provide for mandatory consultation with Elections Canada concerning future changes to the Canada Elections Act.
I also recommend that before the fixed-date election scheduled for 2019 that a comprehensive evaluation of the framework of election law and administration put in place by Bill C-23 be conducted by an all-party committee of the House of Commons.
Turning next to the mandate of Elections Canada, the proposal to restrict communications by Elections Canada to the mechanics of voting is wrong. Of the five other national election bodies that I have studied, none has such a narrow restriction on its communications activities. Informing Canadians on when, where, and how to vote is a core role of Elections Canada that the agency has always taken seriously. The agency did not unilaterally assume broader educational and outreach roles. On February 17, 2004, a unanimous motion was passed in the House of Commons calling on Elections Canada to expand its activities to ensure accessibility for disabled voters and to encourage younger Canadians to participate in the electoral process.
Politicians, political parties, and Parliament have the primary responsibility to promote a more vibrant democracy. Other groups and organizations within society also have responsibility to inform and engage Canadians. Elections Canada is one of those organizations that should be involved. Therefore, I recommend that if Parliament decides to reinforce the core task of Elections Canada by passing the new section 18, it should add a parallel provision that recognizes the right of the agency to study, report, and comment on the conditions within the domain of electoral democracy.
Moving the Commissioner of Canada Elections to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is the next topic. I've not heard compelling arguments nor seen strong evidence to justify this relocation. My understanding is that the commissioner acts independently of Elections Canada when conducting investigations and recommending prosecutions. The current location within the administrative framework of an officer of Parliament provides more assurance of independence from political pressures than the proposed location within a department headed by a minister. As part of a department, the commissioner will be restricted in his freedom to report on investigations and prosecutions.
There are other issues associated with the proposed relocation that are discussed in my brief. I recommend that the relocation of the commissioner function be dropped from the bill. If there is a perception that the commissioner needs more autonomy, this could be provided through amendments requiring structural and procedural separations inside Elections Canada.
My next topic is on adding to the tool kit of enforcement. Changing political practices and new technologies of campaigning require that a broader range of enforcement tools be provided to Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections. Whether the commissioner is housed in Elections Canada or in the DPP, the commissioner needs the authority to compel testimony subject to judicial supervision.
In five provinces the CEO or an election commissioner has such power to compel testimony. Currently, most violations of the Canada Elections Act must be treated as criminal matters and processed through the courts. To achieve greater flexibility and fairness in the enforcement process, a broader array of tools should be included in the law.
The U.K. example is instructive. Back in 2009, the election law was amended to provide a range of civil penalties such as monetary penalties, stop notices, enforcement undertakings, and forfeiture orders.
Therefore, I recommend that Bill C-23 be amended to provide authority to the Commissioner of Canada Elections to compel testimony. Also, a non-legislative recommendation is that the procedure and House affairs committee develop, in consultation with Elections Canada, procedures to ensure due process to guide the use of compelled testimony and to develop a plan for a wider range of enforcement mechanisms for the 2019 election.
Turning to the control of election spending, Bill C-23 makes a couple of improvements to the rules on the raising and spending of political money. It imposes sensible restrictions on the use of loans to skirt the limits on donations. It imposes higher fines for overspending.
However, the bill also creates a loophole by exempting from ceilings on spending the costs of electronic communications with past donors for fundraising purposes. It is difficult to imagine that communications for fundraising purposes would not involve appeals for votes and other types of support, and could even include attacks on political opponents.
There is no conceivable way that Elections Canada, with its present authority, could monitor and enforce compliance with this provision. I recommend that the exemption for the cost of fundraising communications be dropped from the bill.
Turning to voter information cards and vouching, the proposal to eliminate VICs and vouching is wrong. No hard evidence of voter fraud has been presented. There are already controls on the use of these devices and more safeguards could be introduced if this were deemed to be necessary. Elimination, however, does not strike the right balance between upholding the constitutional right of Canadians to vote and the highly remote risk of voter impersonation.
Already, more and more election administration activities and campaign finance reporting takes place online. The legislation should anticipate a continuation of this trend, working toward a day when online voting becomes an option. Therefore, I recommend that instead of eliminating VIC and vouching, Bill C-23 should grant authority to Elections Canada to conduct pilot projects with online voter registration and authentication of voter identity with the findings and recommendations being presented to Parliament.
I'll depart a bit from my script, and briefly say that if this committee was looking for a principled compromise to ensure the right balance between accessibility and integrity in the electoral process, they might look to Manitoba. In that province, over the last two elections, a voter who appears at the voting booth with two types of identification, neither of which has an address on it, can still vote, if they sign an oath to the effect that they live within the constituency. It has worked well and there have been no problems. This might be a compromise the minister might consider.
There are two areas where, I think, the bill fails to move election law forward.
Political parties now collect a large amount of personal information about individuals. It's past time that the provisions of privacy laws were extended to political parties. It is also time that political parties developed, with the support of Elections Canada, codes of conduct that will guide the behaviour of their candidates, paid staff, and volunteers. This is more than a symbolic gesture. Codes can help political parties to comply with not just the letter but also the spirit of the election law.
Changes to the Canada Elections Act should not lead to real or perceived advantages for one political party, nor should they put the convenience of political parties ahead of the voting rights of all eligible Canadians. Research in other countries indicates that political attacks on election agencies and partisan involvement with election administration weaken public trust and integrity in the election process.
We have an enviable reputation in this country. Elections Canada is the longest standing independent and impartial election administration body in the world and we want to ensure that we have fair and free elections and they're perceived to be such.
Thank you very much.
8:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you, Professor Thomas.
Next is Ms. Dawood. Please try to stay as close to five minutes as you can.
8:10 p.m.
Dr. Yasmin Dawood Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good evening.
My name is Yasmin Dawood and I'm an assistant professor of law at the University of Toronto. My areas of specialty are election law and constitutional law.
Two weeks ago my colleagues and I wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Harper and the members of Parliament to express our profound concern that the fair elections act, Bill C-23 , if passed, would damage the institution at the heart of our country's democracy voting and federal elections. The open letter has been signed by over 170 professors at Canadian universities who study the principles and institutions of constitutional democracy, including 16 past presidents of the Canadian Political Science Association. This overwhelming and unprecedented level of support from democracy experts across the country is a measure of how damaging we think this legislation would be for the future of our democracy.
Our primary concern is that Bill C-23 would seriously undermine the integrity and fairness of the electoral process. Although we have multiple concerns, I'm going to focus briefly on four issues.
The first issue is on vouching. As Mr. Neufeld has testified to this committee, there is simply no evidence of a link between vouching and fraudulent voting. Although there are record-keeping errors associated with vouching, such errors do not justify the disenfranchisement of thousands of eligible voters. I would like to emphasize that the Supreme Court has made clear that incorrect record keeping of vouching does not amount to an irregularity that would overturn an election result. The charter protected right to vote is fundamental and may not be abridged on account of administrative mistakes.
The second issue is on the role of Elections Canada. Bill C-23 prevents the Chief Electoral Officer from engaging in citizenship education campaigns aimed at increasing voter turnout. While political parties undoubtedly play an important role in motivating citizens to vote, we think that Elections Canada, a non-partisan agency, plays a special role in reaching out to voters that political parties are less likely to target. Historically, political parties have not focused on younger citizens because of low turnout among youth, nor do they reach out to citizens who are unlikely to support them. We need a non-partisan agency like Elections Canada to reach out to all voters.
The third issue is on ensuring a level playing field. We are concerned that certain aspects of Bill C-23 create the actuality and appearance of a partisan bias in the electoral process. For example, Bill C-23 would exempt fundraising expenses from the spending limits for political parties. This loophole would increase the influence of money on politics, and it would be particularly beneficial for the party with the longest list of donors, which in this case happens to be the governing Conservative Party. Bill C-23 also provides that central poll supervisors would be selected from lists provided by the candidate of the party that won the district in the last election. This provision violates the norm that the administration of the electoral process should be strictly neutral.
Fourth is the issue of effective compliance. Bill C-23 fails to provide the commissioner with the power to compel witness testimony, an essential power that is required by the commissioner to effectively investigate electoral infractions. Bill C-23 also fails to require political parties to provide Elections Canada and the commissioner with receipts and supporting documentation about their election expenses. In addition, we are concerned that Bill C-23 would remove the commissioner's ability to speak with the public. Under the new confidentiality requirements of Bill C-23 , members of the public and members of Parliament would have no access to information about the commissioner's investigations into electoral infractions, such as the robocalls affair, unless charges are laid.
Finally, the process by which Bill C-23 was drafted departs from a long-standing political practice in Canada whereby electoral reforms were undertaken through widespread consultation with all the political parties and close collaboration with Elections Canada. We are deeply concerned that the unilateral process by which Bill C-23 was drafted will establish a new precedent in our country's political practices. Rather than providing a neutral structure for political competition, the rules of democracy will themselves become the battleground for partisan control. This political precedent will be deeply damaging to democracy as successive majorities in Parliament rewrite the electoral rules in an effort to gain a partisan advantage. We urge the governing party to consider the long-term consequences of its approach. It will hurt all the political parties and will diminish the strength, fairness, and vitality of our democracy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
8:15 p.m.
Conservative
8:15 p.m.
David McLaughlin Strategic Advisor to the Dean, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to all of you for the invitation to appear before you tonight. It truly is a privilege for me to be doing this, so thank you.
I want to begin by congratulating you on both your openness to listening to the many diverse views you're hearing before you in this process and your willingness, I hope, to consider how to incorporate improvements meant to strengthen our democratic system and reflect our shared democratic values. Doing so will reinforce the value of the parliamentary process as well to Canadians.
The perspective I offer tonight is my own, based on personal engagement in elections, federal and provincial, as a partisan but also as a former deputy minister to the New Brunswick Commission on Legislative Democracy established by Premier Lord to examine and make recommendations on how to strengthen and modernize that province's democratic institutions and practices. The key focus of our work was how to bring about civic engagement and participation of New Brunswickers, particularly young voters, in the political and governmental processes. That's what I wish to focus on tonight.
Few issues are so critical to Canada's democracy as the conduct of elections. The passionate interest shown by many Canadians in the proposed fair elections act reinforces this notion. Beyond the fine print of what's in this bill, it is equally important that parliamentarians consider the core democratic values and principles of Canadians and determine whether and to what extent they are reflected in the fair elections act.
When it comes to how elections are run, these values include fairness, transparency, accountability, accessibility, and inclusiveness. While political parties and their candidates are the main practitioners of electoral democracy in our parliamentary system, they do not own it. We do as citizens and voters. These are not, I hope, idle words. There's a world of difference between a party-based view of elections and a citizen-based view of elections and how either would be reflected in an elections act.
Political parties are absolutely necessary features of our system. In many ways, they are the gatekeepers for the political process. They give voters a choice of views and candidates. They proactively engage with voters. They provide the basis for electoral legitimacy, necessary when forming a government. Strong parties are good for democracy. But political parties are, legitimately, self-interested organizations. They compete for the most votes, not for others but for themselves. A turnout for your party is paramount, not for the country overall.
A citizen-based view of elections takes the view that voter participation independent of party is an important democratic goal in itself, that our democracy is healthier and stronger if more citizens exercise their right to vote habitually. Only one player in the electoral process has this interest at its core, and that is the independent, non-partisan Chief Electoral Officer.
Strengthening, or at least maintaining, the role of Elections Canada in fostering voter knowledge and participation in elections is as basic as it gets when it comes to a responsible democracy such as ours. Subsection 18(1) of the current Canada Elections Act allows this to occur. The fair elections act amends this section, and would remove this public education and information role, replacing it with a much more minimal role on communicating just the basics of voting. This is a move away from the principles of a citizen-based voting system.
Accessibility to voting is a critical feature of turnout and participation in every election. Elections Canada needs to keep doing this, and will of course be able to do so under this bill, but the knowledge about elections and motivation in voting is equally important for the long-term health of our democracy. The steady decline in youth turnout over many elections is an alarming signal that our democracy is not reaching all those it should.
Recent elections have seen only about 40% of eligible youth ages 18 to 24 turn out to vote. There are several reasons for this, less interest and attachment to conventional politics, lack of knowledge of democratic institutions and processes, a general decline perhaps in political deference over many years, but the result is the same. A one-time non-voter is more likely to become a habitual non-voter. That is something that all of us, citizens and parties, have a shared stake in preventing, and it is something that this bill should worry about too.
Improving civic literacy, the knowledge that young Canadians have about political issues in our voting system, is central to fostering more inclusiveness and hence participation within it. Elections Canada has done this in the past by supporting, for example, Student Vote Canada, but it won't be able to in the future. By removing the ability of Elections Canada to engage with Canadians, especially young Canadians, not just on the mechanics of voting but on the importance of voting, we lose a key preventative tool and risk undermining the future health of our democracy.
I honestly do not believe any MPs on this committee or in the House of Commons want this. I urge you to consider how you might positively incorporate such a role into this bill as a continued long-term investment in our democratic system.
Thank you.
8:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you very much, Mr. McLaughlin.
We'll go to a seven-minute round of questions.
Guests, if you can keep your answers succinct to what you've been asked, it would help get more questions in. But I know we all like to talk, too.
Mr. O'Toole, you're up for seven minutes today.
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
8:20 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
