Evidence of meeting #26 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 vouching.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you very much, Professor.
We will go to questions of our witnesses now.
Mr. Reid, you're starting off with seven minutes, please.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses.
I wonder if I could start with Professor Marland. Professor, you raised a series of questions with relation to very specific sections of the bill, including a number that have not been addressed by other witnesses before the committee. The nature of any bill that is designed to amend another complex piece of legislation is that reference to a section of this bill normally involves some other section that's out of context; so it was hard to follow some of your questions. I would like to be able to pursue them.
I was just asking some colleagues. I don't remember seeing a written submission from you, and neither did they.
Was there, in fact, a written submission? Did we receive anything?
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Professor Marland has suggested he will be sending us his comments and some questions.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
That's what I was going to ask.
It would be very helpful to have that just so that we can piece together and look over the suggestions you've made. If you're doing that, then that would be wonderful. I would appreciate that.
Let me turn to the other thing I wanted to talk about, because it's come up here. That's the Chief Electoral Officer's advertising. I lobbied the minister pretty hard to include some instructions to the Chief Electoral Officer about some things he had to advertise. The list I had in mind more or less reflects the list that is now in the reworded subsection 18(1) of the act.
I think it's essential that these things are advertised. This is not advertising about what you “ought” to do, that you “ought” to get out and vote. He's put a lot of emphasis in the past...and I'm sure you can find his ads online showing people who stand up to speak and nothing comes out of their mouth because they haven't voted.
These are all about why you should vote. I have no idea how effective they are, because I've never seen any post facto research on them. But there is nothing about the basics of how to become a candidate. He should be telling people, advertising, how to become a candidate; how an elector may have their name added to the list of electors, or may have corrections put in if their name is put in incorrectly. Both are things that happen a lot. People aren't on the list, or there is some sort of error as to their information on the list. He should be telling people how an elector may vote, and all the different ways of doing it—advance polls, mail-in ballots, and so on—which is really not advertised very much. It is on the voter information card, but you have to get the information card in order to vote. You should also know how to establish your identity in order to vote; the kinds of pieces of identification that will be necessary in order to cast your ballot; measures that are available for assisting you if you have a disability to cast your ballot, if you have a visual impairment or a mobility impairment, etc. Then there is a provision in there saying that he has to provide all that information in a way where that information is accessible to people who have disabilities.
All of that was put in there largely at my request. I think it's necessary. This isn't in the bill, but I think he should have to report on what he did, how successful it was or wasn't, and what he will do to improve it in the future, because these are fundamental to voting.
I'm giving a long diatribe here rather than asking you a question. There will be a question, but I just want to point out that in his report tabled just recently, the 2011 general election national youth survey report, he points out that youth have the lowest participation rate of any group in Canadian society. In terms of the reasons they didn't vote, when he looked at them, he came to the conclusion that not receiving a voter information card—largely, I think, because of mobility, as they move around a lot—was a key component in why they wouldn't vote. There was a low level of awareness of the different ways to vote; that's for unemployed youth not in school. He cites that as being one of the key reasons. There's also not knowing when to vote; that's for ethnocultural youth.
It seems to me that this kind of basic informational, unsexy advertising, which he has really neglected in the past, is one of the absolute keys to boosting voter participation. That is one of the things this legislation tries to do. I don't know, isn't that a good thing?
Having said that, I was directing this to Professor Marland before, but I have no particular concern about who answers this first.
Professor Pammett.
9:25 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, Carleton University, As an Individual
Oh, if you're asking me, I'm certainly not disagreeing in any way with the benefits of bringing that information forward. I don't think that necessarily means you can't combine that with encouragement to take advantage of these opportunities.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
That's fair enough. All right.
Are there any other thoughts on this?
9:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, Political Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, As an Individual
If I could chime in, I suppose I would say that I think anything you can do to generate awareness among youth, probably especially before they turn the age of 18, about politics and the voting process is important.
I think what you mentioned about how to become a candidate is bang on. When I did some research, I interviewed people who were candidates for Canadian Idol. I was talking to Canadian Idol contestants, and all these people were trying to get votes. When I asked them about politics, they all just looked at me and said, “I don't know anything about politics. I don't know how to vote. I don't know how to get any information.”
To me, this is exactly the kind of thing that should be happening. As well, obviously you need to do other advertising that encourages people to vote during election campaigns. But the general idea about how to get involved in politics is a broader narrative that needs to occur.
9:25 p.m.
Professor, John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, As an Individual
If I could just chime in, again I'd very much welcome all those activities. There are standards for electoral management bodies, which are now put forward in the ACE project. It's an international thing for people who haven't run elections before in many countries, and again, providing civic education, which this is: basic information about how to get to the polls, what your rights are, and how to appeal. Such things are always being given out as one of the fundamental duties of any election commission.
I know that young people often forget how to vote, but at an anecdotal level, I remember one of the recent mid-term elections in the United States when I asked my colleagues in the political science department at Harvard if they had voted, and some of my colleagues, my professors, had forgotten that an election was going on that day. More information is better. It encourages mobilization.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
You have three seconds left, Mr. Reid, so I'm going to stop you there.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
That gives me a chance to say thank you.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
9:25 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair. I appreciate that. Thank you to our witnesses. That's fantastic. I just wish we were getting a lot more input.
Professor Norris, given your standing in the world and your reputation, I'd be interested in hearing you expand a bit on your earlier remarks about how the way Canada conducts elections is viewed around the world.
9:25 p.m.
Professor, John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, As an Individual
Yes, Mr. Christopherson.
Essentially, Canada has a leading role in this. Through international development, Canada has always been promoting training, capacity-building, and democratization in many countries, whether it's Afghanistan or countries like Nigeria or Ghana. Many other countries don't have the experience Canada has and therefore they want to learn. It's about cooperation and capacity-building. If Canada in any way restricts voters' rights, for example, by making it more difficult for some categories to register or for the election body to provide information, then this is a cue that is going to be seen in places around the world that don't have the experience and don't have the commitment or the willpower to push forward on democratization. So I think it would be harmful in many regards to a lot of the other activities Canada wants to do.
When I first heard about this bill from colleagues in Canada, I was pretty shocked. For me it was a little like, for example, Norway coming out and saying they're not in favour of gender equality, or Sweden saying they don't want to have democracy. Canada is really up there and to damage the trust that the Canadian elections have in the process, which this potentially could do, to make the whole process more partisan and polarized, which is very much the experience of the United States in the last decade, and to restrict the ability to provide information, seems to me to be going in exactly the wrong path, as an international example.
April 2nd, 2014 / 9:30 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
You had mentioned the issue of consultation and buy-in being a part of a successful electoral regime. You've just described Canada's reputation on the international stage, the way we're viewed, and I loved your references to Norway and Sweden, because that's the way we like to think of ourselves. That's what we take national pride in. It's not the size of our economy or our army or the population. Much like Australia, it's our reputation that is our currency on the international stage.
Professor, you have stated Canada's usual position in the world, but we now face an electoral reform bill that had no consultation with the Chief Electoral Officer, no consultation with the commissioner of elections, no consultation with civil society, not even consultations with the opposition parties. It was nice to hear Mr. Reid taking some credit for some things in the bill that he likes because it underscores the fact that the only people who had input into this bill are Conservatives. Nobody else got a say. I'd like you to put that kind of approach to electoral reform in a context as it stands beside Canada's reputation as we now enjoy it.
9:30 p.m.
Professor, John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, As an Individual
Again, I welcome that comment. I think it's absolutely right. There are two dangers. One is about public trust. If there's no consultation, if parties oppose the provisions, if the legislation doesn't work, then this is going to be a real problem for how far Canadians feel trust in the electoral process, and I have evidence for that.
For example, one can look at the Gallup World Poll, which has looked at many countries, about 120, on confidence and trust in the honesty of their elections. In 2011 in the Gallup World Poll, three-quarters of Canadians had high trust. So that's a very positive testament to the way these elections have worked.
In contrast, if you look, for example, at the United States, despite having a democracy for centuries, only about half of the population, 48%, had trust in the honesty of their elections. Part of the reason that the United States has gone down is quite simply the polarization that has occurred, and all I need to do to tell you is just say the one word, which is “Florida”. Ever since Florida in 2000, and all the problems that were encountered in that particular presidential election, things have become bitterly polarized in the United States.
Right now there are about 30 states that have looked at certain forms of new regulations, new laws on voter registration, on voter facilities. Some have been pushing forward, expanding the days at which you can vote, like Massachusetts; others have been restricting some of the voting provisions and requiring stricter issues.
The problem with polarization is that not only are laws going to change more frequently as soon as there's a change of government or change of parties in government, but also again the public feels that the elections aren't in the public interest and that narrow partisanship is behind this.
I think that Canada really needs to take a breath in a way and basically say, let's have a more conciliatory role, just like you would for any other sort of constitutional reform. Elections have to be above the fray. It shouldn't be the same sort of public politicking that you get with other things because they're the rules of the game.
Just on a last note, I think it's quite easy to destroy public trust and confidence, and cynicism. It's very difficult to rebuild it, as we all know. So many countries around the world again have a crisis of confidence in their elected authorities. If you destroy confidence in elections, then I'm afraid all parliamentarians are going to face more problems in the authority of Parliament and in trust in elected officials as well.
So for all those reasons, I very much agree with your comments.
9:35 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
We have less than a minute. Perhaps I might just try to get a little bit of an answer from you. You just mentioned you were concerned about the expanded role of dollars in elections. Of course, the closer you put dollars to politicians, the more democracy is at risk.
Your thoughts on this bill in regard to that, please....
9:35 p.m.
Professor, John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, As an Individual
Every country needs to have money for campaigning, and campaign costs are really going up. So money itself I don't think is a problem. The problem is if it's not a level playing field. We know that as soon as you bring in private money, those established parties who already have the donors can increase, and those who don't have the contacts and networks don't do that.
So instead of reducing some of the limits on the use of private money and fundraising expenses, in particular, think about more public subsidies, either by providing services in kind, for example, through expanding party political broadcasts and advertising and those sorts of things, or mailing; or by providing public subsidies that every party can have access to on a fair and equitable basis. Again, this is what many other countries in Europe have done, and so again, it's something that Canada can do to get over the issue of money in politics.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.
We'll go to Mr. Simms for seven minutes.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Thank you.
I'm going to start very quickly with Professor Norris, and follow up with Professor Marland and Professor Pammett.
When we talk about voter vouching, Professor Norris, earlier guests and many in testimony lead to...and there's been quite a contentious argument about the fact that a lot of regularities have been, we'll say, presumed fraud. So the presumption of fraud seems to be the case here for the government to do this, because otherwise they would go for an alternate system as opposed to the current system of vouching.
In your experience internationally, and by international I guess I'm talking about the United States because I've heard through many talk shows and through many publications about the term “voter suppression” being caught up in the rhetoric.... But there are a lot of people in the United States who do feel disenfranchised. It seems to happen in a very short period of time, at least in my understanding. You may tell me differently. But was the genesis of that to do with the presumption of fraud in many cases, which led to the elimination of the right to vote, which to me is a basic inalienable right that is enshrined in our charter?
9:35 p.m.
Professor, John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, As an Individual
Yes, that's right. Again, in the United States, a lot of the initiatives at state level have been taking place because of the assumption of voter impersonation. It's not all types of fraud, but the idea is that somehow voters are going to vote twice, or somebody is going to come along and claim to be a voter who isn't a voter.
Essentially, the best research done by Lorraine Minnite and others in the United States has found that this is a very minor problem. The number of prosecutions, police cases, and individuals who are caught up in this is very small. Normally when voter impersonation happens it's an accident. People might have registered, for example, in two places, because they might have two homes, or there were other issues.
If there is a problem of fraud, I think we can all agree across parties that there has to be security and honesty in any election. Everybody should be able to be inclusive in having voting rights, but you clearly do not want any citizen or any problem that can be counted twice.
There are many more effective ways if you think there is a problem of fraud. One is, quite simply, increase the punishment. We have fines to make sure people don't transgress, so you just increase that. Or, you can have other forms of checks. For example, you can have provisional ballot boxes. If somebody comes to the polling station, and they don't have the right ID or they don't have the official card, then you can say, okay, all of those ballots go into a special ballot box that are counted and verified after the election day finishes.
So there are mechanisms that are used in many places, which allow that kind of flexibility when people turn up and don't have quite the right ID.
The third thing, of course, is that the government itself, the state or the federal government, produces no-cost voter identification cards, laminated, with a photo and fingerprint. In countries like India, which have had large-scale fraud and where it's a real problem, the election management body has a responsibility to produce these. They're used in India, by the way, not just for voting but for many other things, like the land rights, because they're an official government card. But the voter doesn't pay for this. The voter has no cost. They're given to every single voter, whether they're illiterate, rural, or whatever.
There are many ways you can deal with voter fraud if it's a problem. I don't think it's a fundamental issue. But again, you don't need to go down the route of prohibiting vouching or the use of voter information cards, both of which would do the opposite and actually suppress young people, mobile populations, seniors who don't have a driving licence with an address on it, or other groups who might be mobile and don't have those particular forms of ID.
9:40 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Professor Norris, thank you for that.
I'm going to go now from 30 degrees Celsius to 30 centimetres of snow, and counting. Mr. Marland, I noticed you probably were shoveling today, so thanks for doing this late at night.
I want you to comment on what I asked Professor Norris, because in Newfoundland and Labrador I think the poll clerks and the officials with Elections Newfoundland and Labrador have a role to play in vouching, if I'm not mistaken. You can comment on that.
Also, you said that when it comes to the role of communicating to the public through an independent elections body, there is, yes, the where, when, and how to vote, and the details. But you also talked about a broader narrative. Can you expand on the role of a broader narrative put out there by an elections agency?
9:40 p.m.
Associate Professor, Political Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, As an Individual
Thank you for the question, and yes, 30 centimetres of snow it is.
Regarding vouching here in Newfoundland and Labrador, when I worked on polling day, probably the one thing that stands out for me in a personal experience is that I distinctly remember somebody showing up who I believed was homeless, who was clearly illiterate and in need of assistance to be able to vote. That's the type of example that I would raise as causing me some concern.
I personally don't have a type of alarmism that a lot of people have about vouching, because I do think there is a need to make sure you can demonstrate who you are. Quite frankly, a lot of people I know say the whole thing is a bit of joke sometimes. You just go in, and somebody crosses your name off with a ruler and that's it. But my concern would be people, as I just mentioned, who are really disadvantaged in society, who would have a very difficult time being able to produce documentation. That's different to me from someone who ought to be able to understand the difference.
As far as communication goes, for me it's a bit of a challenge that this is a situation where we have the federal government wanting to be able to promote something, but schools and education are clearly provincial jurisdiction. To me there's a civic education function here, and I wish there could be more partnering with the provinces to be able to figure out a way to make sure that a lot of this is going on in schools. I do realize it happens, but I think a lot more could be done.
With respect to the broader narrative, I would tend to agree we need to have a broader conversation occurring that extends beyond voting. It needs to be how do you get involved with politics, how do you get involved with the system? Even if somebody doesn't choose to get involved, the point is that you're making them aware that they can be involved should they wish. From my perspective, by communicating this before an election, you're conditioning people to realize that when an election comes along, it's about them, that they can be included, and hey, here's the chance to vote. So I would argue that, yes, there is a broader role.
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you, Professor Marland.
Mr. Simms, I'm sorry but your time is completed.
Mr. Richards you have four minutes, please.