Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 3rd, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Certainly, Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I think that we have to be somewhat careful. We have wonderful organizations that come before the committee. Someone should not be held in a disrespectful way because they were involved in a political party—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Absolutely, Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

It doesn't mean that organization is partisan. I think that's important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Absolutely, Mr. Lamoureux, but certainly our witnesses are able to answer or not answer, and your Chair is here to help protect if we go beyond that.

Madam Latendresse, you're up for four minutes, please.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to go back to the questions my colleague, David Christopherson, asked earlier about the power of Elections Canada to ask for receipts from political parties.

Mr. Howe, I know that you have a lot of experience in the areas of money and politics. And so, I would like to obtain your opinion on this topic.

Currently, at the federal level, political parties, with Elections Canada, are the only bodies that do not have to produce receipts after an election report and who do not have to prove that the expenditures they made respect Canada's Elections Act. I would like your opinion on that.

[Prof. Paul Howe]

Well, I should say, actually, my research has focused much more on political participation of young people, less so on political finance. I did that one study with my students to touch on that one particular issue. But as an interested and engaged citizen, I would just respond that I do find that problematic and that, in fact, it is a provision that should be addressed. So I'd really just answer it in that fashion.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Dinsdale, my question will be for you. I would like us to continue to discuss the voters' cards.

We have been given a lot of information up till now and certain aspects were really not sufficiently clear. I think that we have to send people a very clear message.

We were told that in 5,600 polls, people were able to use the voter's card in order to be able to vote. According to Mr. Neufeld and Mr. Mayrand, this was a pilot project that worked very well. Both of them recommended that the use of the voter information card be broadened.

By itself, the voter's information card is not sufficient to prove one's identity when voting. If the voter's card was incorrect, this does not mean that this could lead to fraud because when it is time to vote, you have to present another ID card and the information on that second piece of ID has to correspond to the information on the voter's card.

According to the data I have here, approximately 72,000 aboriginal people used the voter's card to vote in 2011. According to you, was that positive, with regard to the exercise of their franchise by first nations?

[Peter Dinsdale]

Yes, absolutely, we did view the ability to use the voter information card as being a positive experience. In the last election, we contacted directly 313 first nations to inform them of the various ways to vote, and that was an important tool that was utilized.

In preparation for testimony before this committee, we did review previous testimony, including by the Chief Electoral Officer, where he flagged this section as well to indicate some groups of electors, including seniors and seniors' residence, etc., and first nation electors on reserve.... This was used as one way to address the list of authorized pieces of identification that were important. As you identified, there are two that are required. This could be one of them.

He summarizes in his testimony to this committee that, “The initiative was successful and well received by electors, institutions and reserve administrators. Allowing voters to use a [voter information card] to prove their residence will reduce reliance on vouching.”

So, on all accounts, it appears to have been successful and something that should continue.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

The Chief Electoral Officer also explained that the aboriginal identification card does not have an address on it. That was one of the big problems. Aboriginal persons had a card that did not prove their address. The voter's information card fills that gap and allows more aboriginal persons to go and vote.

Do you agree with that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

A very quick answer....

[Peter Dinsdale]

My status card does not have an address on it. If that's the only photo ID I have, I wouldn't be able to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. O'Toole for four minutes to finish this round, please.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you both for appearing. My questions are going to be entirely based on some facts and some important issues that I want to get out on vouching. I'm going to talk about a few of those statistics and then focus my attention on Mr. Dinsdale's response.

Many witnesses, including you, Mr. Thorsteinson, have wrongly connect two issues facing us. Voter identification requirements are one, and voter participation issues are the other. Several people have mixed this up...Professor Thomas the other day. Here is what the Neufeld report said, and that's the report commissioned by Elections Canada.

Their audit showed there were 120,000 vouching transactions through an audit. They don't know that for sure, but it's a statistically significant audit, and 95,000 errors were made in that process. How was the audit done? One thousand randomized polls, then 10 polls from Etobicoke Centre, and then 50 from the three byelections in 2012, including my riding of Durham. So 1,160 polls were randomized. There is no connection between those 120,000 vouching cases, and who vouched. So the suggestion that most vouching, as you said today, Mr. Thorsteinson, were young people, aboriginal people, or disabled people is not supported by the evidence.

Now we know there are turnout and participation challenges with those groups, and we should address those, but to suggest that they're the primary vouchers is actually not supported by anything before this committee. In fact, I appreciate Professor Howe's testimony here because he clearly said that participation, his area of study, is not really impacted by administrative barriers. In fact, my colleague, Mr. Reid, said that as well. The Elections Canada report from the 2011 general election showed that participation, particularly amongst aboriginal youth, was not the result of administrative barriers or vouching not being available. There are deeper issues that we have to address on that issue because I think all members of Parliament on all sides would like to see participation go up, particularly amongst our first nations. My colleagues heckle but they have no facts on any of the questions they've asked.

My question for you, Mr. Dinsdale, because I appreciate your time here, is this. You said in your experience both at the friendship centres level and at AFN, you found that for Elections Canada and particularly DROs the level of knowledge, experience, work on the ground to train and supervise varies dramatically across the country. Is there not more we can do directly, particularly within this act where we're trying to get back to first principles on access to voting, to get more first nations voting?

[Peter Dinsdale]

I certainly appreciate the question. I don't disagree with you. I don't think it's an either/or option, though. For me, it's not clear why we can't work on the other social exclusion issues that result in first nations not participating, and at the same time not put up new barriers to voting such as the voter identification card and other tools.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Voter information card.... See my friends have confused you.

[Peter Dinsdale]

The information card.... Thank you very much.

I don't know why we can't do both, sir. It's not clear to me that we can't do both.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Most vulnerable groups aren't getting VIC cards. This is the interesting thing because VIC information cards are created by an assembly of information that the government has to create its permanent list of electors. The irony that my friends don't seem to realize is that some of these groups that have low participation rates wouldn't have those sources of information to have a VIC. So the VIC is not the solution I'd suggest to you for aboriginal peoples.

[Peter Dinsdale]

With respect to the vouching as linked, I'm not sure of the nature of the areas you're referring to. I simply know that on first nation communities, similar with the vouching as it is with the voter information cards, that they are useful tools. They're useful tools given the housing situation, given the socio-economic status, given the lack of ID, the primary ID being a status card, which does not have the home address on it. They're useful tools to ensure that those who want to vote can vote. It's not clear to me why we shouldn't do both.

Why we shouldn't do what you're talking about to address the broader kinds of socio-economic issues and encourage people to vote so the social exclusion doesn't grow, and not put up new barriers, which potentially in the first nation context—I can't speak to the rest of them that you're describing—that they can continue as well....

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. O'Toole.

We will stop there.

Professor Howe, thank you for your input and your help today.

Mr. Dinsdale and Mr. Thorsteinson, thank you both for coming today.

We'll suspend for a couple of minutes while we change our panels.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Committee, we'll come back to order, please.

Again, we're in meeting 27 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. For our second round of witnesses today, we have Gladys Christiansen and Teresa Edwards. They are going to give us some opening statements and tell us about who they are and what they think.

Ms. Christiansen, we're going to go first with you for five minutes or less if we can, please.

[Gladys Christiansen, Director of Human Resources, Lac La Ronge Indian Band]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon.

I want to begin by thanking the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for inviting aboriginal and first nations people to appear as witnesses on this panel.

My name is Gladys Christiansen. I'm a band member and a first nations member of the Lac La Ronge Indian Band, which is still our legal name. It is the largest first nation in northern Saskatchewan with 9,935 members, 6,399 who live on reserve and 3,536 who live off reserve. Of these, 6,136 are of voting age, and 3,778 of those live on reserve and 2,358 of those who are able to vote live off reserve.

We don't know how many La Ronge band members voted in the last election, but we do know that voters were denied because they did not have voter information cards or any of the required forms of identification. We also know that vouching was used to vote in the last election.

I am not an expert, and that's not the reason I was invited here. You've heard many experts already, but I can speak to the concerns we have of Bill C-23 and how it will impact the future participation of first nations in the federal elections.

I am a status Indian who has lived on an Indian reserve for most of my life. Bill C-23 proposes to eliminate vouching and the use of voter information cards. As we heard from the Chief Electoral Officer here on March 6, Bill C-23 will further reduce the number of first nations members who are able to vote in federal elections.

Harry Neufeld, a former B.C electoral officer, on the TV program The West Block just this past weekend indicated that in 2011, 400,000 Canadians used voter information cards, and 120,000 used vouching in order to vote. The majority of these were aboriginals on reserves—this is what he said—students in residences, and seniors in old folks homes. Bill C-23 will eliminate all of these voters.

The majority of Canadians are able to vote with just their driver's licence, as long as it includes their address. However, as the Chief Electoral Officer indicated in his presentation to this committee on March 6, there are approximately four million Canadians who do not have a driver's licence. Furthermore, I have a valid Saskatchewan driver's licence, and it does not include an address. This means that in addition to the four million Canadians who do not have a driver's licence, there are many more who cannot use a driver's licence that meets the identification requirements.

The other option for voter identification at the polls is to produce two forms of authorized identification, one of which must have an address. There is a list of 38. Of these, only 13 may include an address. I have reviewed that list, and unlike the Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre, who has numerous pieces of identification in his wallet, most first nations people do not have any of those pieces of authorized identification and documents, much less one that contains an address such as a utility bill, a bank or a credit card statement, vehicle ownership, a residential lease, or an insurance policy.

The reality on the reserve is that many first nations people living on reserve are unemployed and live in crowded housing, often with three and four generations within one household. This is the way that I grew up on my first nation. This means that only one person in that household receives a utility bill. When a person is living on $320 a month, how can that person be expected to have credit cards, bank accounts, vehicles, mortgages, residential leases, and insurance policies? Many do not have a driver's licence and they do not have any other forms of identification.

Even obtaining a treaty card has been difficult for the last several years. First nations are still waiting for new cards to come from Ottawa because the cards can no longer be issued at the first nation's or even the regional Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada's offices. Applicants have been waiting for up to two years to receive their treaty cards.

If the government is issuing new cards, we hope that they have given some consideration to accepting the treaty status membership card as the acceptable form of identification. It is a government issued picture ID. Why can't it be just as acceptable as a driver's licence?

We support the past initiatives of Elections Canada in their attempt to increase voter participation for disadvantaged Canadians, such as the voter information cards and vouching. This was a relatively new process and can be improved, but it should not be eliminated.

How can the Canadian government continue to monitor the voting procedures and processes in other countries when they are excluding the most disadvantaged voters in Canadian federal elections?

The government continually stresses the accountability of first nations. What about the government's accountability to Canadians? The Chief Electoral Officer has numerous experts and these experts have been calling for amendments to Bill C-23 and the government and Minister Pierre Poilievre continue to ignore these experts. First nations hope that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will be able to influence the minister and the government to make the required amendments to Bill C-23.

If Bill C-23 is not amended, the number of first nations people that will be able to vote in the next and future federal elections will be significantly reduced. It will be eliminated for many of them.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you. You did great.

Ms. Edwards, your opening statement, please....

[Teresa Edwards, In-House Legal Counsel, Director, International Affairs and Human Rights, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Thanks so much, Gladys. I feel like I don't need to speak after that. It was very thorough and says it all.

Wela'lin. [Witness speaks in Mi'kmaq]

My name is Teresa Edwards and I am a Mi'kmaq of the Listuguj band. I am here today in the capacity as the legal counsel and director of human rights for the Native Women's Association of Canada.

I want to acknowledge the territory of the Algonquin people, where we are gathered today.

The Native Women's Association of Canada, otherwise known as NWAC, has worked for the last 40 years to advance the well-being of aboriginal women and girls, as well as their families and communities through activism, policy, trying to change legislation, making presentations such as these, and all forms of advocacy.

NWAC was incorporated in 1974 and is one of the five nationally recognized aboriginal organizations whose purpose is to represent and speak at the national level, on behalf of aboriginal women, primarily first nations and Métis. We do have some Inuit members, but defer to Pauktuutit to speak for them.

NWAC has identified a number of very specific concerns with Bill C-23 and the changes it makes to the Canada Elections Act. As you may or may not know, prior to 1960, registered Indians were not able to vote in Canadian elections or they would no longer be considered Indians under the law and would not be able to live within their territory, community, the reserves. The fact that some aboriginal peoples only fairly recently acquired the right to vote explains, in part, the low number of aboriginal women and men elected to the House of Commons. Since 1867, approximately only 18 people who have self-identified as aboriginal have been members of the House.

The relationship between first nations and the government has not always been positive, particularly as it relates to voting and elections. This has had an impact on first nations participating in elections for all levels of government, federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal, outside of their own communities. It's quite the reverse when you talk about participation in their communities. It's not a question of apathy or being ill-informed. It's a choice they are making, generally speaking, from what we've learned at NWAC, from what the women have shared with us and what our research has shown.

These first nations are extremely active in running as chief and/or council within their own communities and in voter participation. It's not a question of their not knowing about the process. They are very well-informed and do partake in the process within their own communities.

In the work that we've done on elections, aboriginal women have listed numerous reasons why they don't participate in federal elections. A few are: they don't see themselves as being represented by the government, particularly with this government; they don't recognize the federal government as their form of governance and leadership; and/or they don't believe the federal system will positively impact their lives. That's some of the reasons.

I would never want to speak for Six Nations, but for example they have their own passports. They have their own position on why they would never participate, from what we've heard from our women, in elections. It would be seen as complying or going out of their sovereignty, if you will.

Although there may be many reasons to explain why aboriginal women do not participate in federal elections, such as the ones I've listed, there should not be barriers put in place, as Gladys so eloquently listed, by this government to further limit their ability to vote, if they so choose.

Aboriginal young women are often single mothers. They live in poverty and have high rates of mobility, and are often forced to move several times a year, possibly. They could be moving on and off reserve or from different provinces to be with other family members. Sometimes it's due to housing crises, poverty or they're going after jobs, going away to school, or perhaps they are fleeing violence.

NWAC has been working this last year on a project for Elections Canada, and we hope to continue to do similar work in the future, to increase voter turnout among Aboriginal women and youth. We are targeting this group because statistics show that if you vote when you are young, you will continue to vote when you are older.

In 2007, in advance of the general election, a number of changes were made to the Canada Elections Act with respect to ID requirements. These changes required voters to have two pieces of ID, one photo ID and the other had to show a home residence.

Many aboriginal women do not use home addresses and are serviced by post office boxes. In fact today I was just filling out a form to be submitted to Canada Revenue, and two of our board members have post office boxes. There was a criteria that said “not allowed: post office boxes”. Well, that is their address, that is where they live. I'll have to go reconcile that problem when I get home, before I can file those papers for our board.

There's another form that is commonly used, as there are also many aboriginal women who live in urban areas, including students, or who have moved multiple times throughout the year, who may not have ID that corresponds with their current address at the time of voting. So that was mentioned by Gladys, and I mentioned that earlier.

A major problem is the form of ID that is used as the Indian status card. Right now there is no standard for service with the Indian status card within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. NWAC deals with cases of women who have been waiting three years, five years, twelve years, for their status card. Or in a case like mine, I'm an expired Indian. Just out of sheer rebelliousness, I refuse to go and get my card renewed, because what other race would expire at a certain date. Sorry, I just had to add that.

That would be an acceptable ID. I've tried to use that. I expired last year in July, at my birthday, and I've tried to use it on numerous occasions. Although it's supposed to never be refused for services, if you can show other ID such as a passport, driver's licence, which I have, I'm constantly refused service because I'm expired.

As Gladys mentioned, that's the case for many aboriginal women. In the case of Bill C-3, the law that just came into effect a couple of years ago, where aboriginal women want to register their children they have to have birth certificates for each of their children. Perhaps she is a single mother with five children and she needs birth certificates for each child. The cost of that birth certificate could be up to $90, depending on the province or territory that you have to pay, for each child. Then you have to have pictures taken, and that could be $25 at your Shoppers Drug Mart to get passport-size pictures. Then you send the forms into the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

I know, for example, my daughter sent hers in three years ago. They have sent it back three times. The process took so long. They said everything she sent was accurate; however, the picture had expired. After a year, it was no longer any good. They hadn't finished processing it and it was sent to a new department, so she had to pay for the pictures to be done again. They also needed a new copy of the original birth certificate, and the first one hadn't been returned to her. So there she had two charges of $90 for birth certificates and two charges for.... This is all just to get an Indian status card, which is a primary card that is used in this process.

Bands were aware of the ID requirements and options available to resident voters, including the option to have authorized band officials using an attestation of residence; the use of voter information cards to establish current residency; or the option of vouching, as Gladys mentioned, where someone who is already a registered voter at the same polling division is able to confirm a person's residence and identity.

AFN's efforts in 2012—and they did this with Elections Canada—included phoning bands and using a series of scripts developed jointly with Elections Canada, basically, to inform eligible voters of what they needed for ID. What we found at NWAC, in the work that we've been doing with Elections Canada, is that there's a clear role for independent organizations such as NWAC or AFN to work with our populations, in collaboration with Elections Canada, to give information or workshops or help inform our people regarding election processes, and so on and so forth.

There are so many other things that can be done to enhance first nations participation in federal elections, such as the ones that we're doing and AFN's done in the past, in relation to Elections Canada, to build on past campaigns. Or we could even learn from the U.S. in this one instance with the Indian vote campaign.

It's in this context that we have specific concerns with the changes proposed under Bill C-23: the restrictive ID requirements and disallowance of vouching. So the provision of Bill C-23 that disallows the use of voter information cards as proof of residency will create a whole new barrier for us, and for women, in particular, especially for those residing in first nation communities that don't use their home address or have PO boxes.

Further, with the removal of vouching as an option, it's possible that some of these aboriginal women and elders, in particular, will have no other options available to them to enable them to vote in the next election. For example, you have students who are living away from home, a single mom, as I mentioned, who moves multiple times throughout the year, or an elder who is living with the family.

I know I'm running out of time. I also want to talk quickly about NWAC's working with Elections Canada. Basically, the changes we see happening to the current section 18 of the Canada Elections Act, which provides a broad mandate for Elections Canada with respect to public information and engaging with electors, would limit the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to communicate with electors to provide information through unsolicited calls. We had hoped in the future to deliver the guidebook we're developing for aboriginal women and girls about voting and to work with our provincial and territorial member associations in a way that could be described as similar to this. This would prevent us from doing that work.

The role of Elections Canada has included providing impartial support for fair and accessible elections that enable all eligible voters to exercise their right to vote if they so choose. The changes noted above will limit or prevent this role from being fulfilled.

Therefore, NWAC recommends removing from Bill C-23 any amendment to section 18, so as to retain the current mandate for the Chief Electoral Officer to implement public education information programs to make the electoral process better known to the public.

Additionally and finally, NWAC recommends that provisions that remove the ability to use the voter information card as proof of residency and that disallow vouching be struck from this bill.

Thanks very much. I'm sorry for going over.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to questioning now, in a seven-minute round.

Mr. Lukiwski, you're starting off today.