Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 7th, 2014

[Danis Prud'homme, Chief Executive Officer, Réseau FADOQ]

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, let me begin by thanking you for inviting the Réseau FADOQ to participate in this consultation on Bill C-23.

The Réseau FADOQ is Canada's largest volunteer-based organization representing people in the 50-plus age group. With more than 300,000 members, it is active throughout the province of Quebec. Its mission is to safeguard and enhance the quality of life of seniors.

The Réseau FADOQ has submitted a brief to the committee concerning Bill C-23. Allow me to present the main conclusions of that brief.

The Réseau FADOQ is shocked by the implications of several of the provisions in this proposed reform by the government. In our opinion, several key elements of this bill will have serious implications for Canadian democracy. Since we are fervent defenders of the “one citizen, one vote” principle, we are asking the House of Commons to reject Bill C-23.

Firstly, we find the provisions that would no longer allow certain pieces of identification or voter information cards to be used as proof of residence particularly upsetting. This would have a major impact on seniors and would systematically restrict their right to vote, since many seniors no longer have a driver's licence, have not renewed their passport, do not have a lease in their name, and so on. There are 45,000 seniors in nursing homes, and 110,000 individuals in seniors' residences in Quebec. Consider the case of those seniors. Or consider the case of seniors living with peer caregivers, who are mostly women aged 60 and over.

How can their right to vote be fully protected under these provisions? This fundamental right would be taken away from thousands of Canadians by the changes in this bill. The government must adopt mechanisms to facilitate access to ballot boxes for these people, not make such access more complicated.

Secondly, we feel the government must obtain a consensus on political fundraising rules so as to guarantee a fair and level playing field for the various political parties and eliminate the possibility of financial fraud in politics. It seems entirely logical, in our view, that such rules should not be unilaterally decided by the party in power without a consensus from the other players in the political arena.

Lastly, we wish to emphasize how incongruent it is to want to limit so-called election fraud and to increase election spending and political fundraising, while at the same time limiting the authority of the only body with the power of oversight in these areas—Elections Canada. What brand of logic is the government applying to justify such a reform? We have to wonder.

The Réseau FADOQ is strongly opposed to limiting the disclosure, communication and oversight powers of the referee charged with safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process. Elections Canada must absolutely be able to encourage people to participate in the voting process so as to guarantee a representative election. It must also be able to disclose the details of investigations that are in the public's interest. And it must be able to oversee the democratic character of our elections, and by the same token, of the elected government.

How can such a reduction in Elections Canada's powers of oversight be justified?

In short, we want a democratic system that is transparent, unbiased and consistent; an electoral reform that takes into account public consultations; enhanced protection of Canadians' right to vote; and an equal voice for everyone. Those aspects do not seem to be a priority in this government's bill.

To summarize, we are asking that the government conduct an adequate consultation of Canadians before adopting amendments to the Canada Elections Act that will affect the rights of Canadians. We are asking that the government amend the relevant provisions to continue to allow the use of previously accepted forms of identification and the use of oaths in order to vote. We are also asking that, as is the tradition, the government obtain a consensus from the parties in opposition as to what amendments should be made to legislation governing political fundraising. Finally, we are asking that the government amend the provisions that reduce the powers of Elections Canada.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Merci.

We'll go to a seven-minute round, starting with Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you all three witnesses for being here this evening with us.

I appreciate your testimony. I have some questions. Hopefully, we'll get a chance to question all of you, but we'll do the best we can. There is a limited amount of time, obviously.

I'll start with you, Ms. Eng.

I see that your organization undertook a bit of a survey of some of your members. I'd like to ask some questions in relation to that survey.

The first one I'd like to ask because I noticed that among the results, one was that when you asked about the different ways people had voted, 62% reported they had used official photo ID, and you indicated that 34% had used a voter information card—I guess this must have been in the last election, in some of the pilot projects that took place—and that 10% had at some point used someone to vouch for them in the past.

Some people will choose to be vouched for, for various reasons. It may not be that there was no other way they could have voted. They may just have forgotten their ID and didn't want to go out to the car to get it, for example, or it may have been at home and they may not have wanted to run back for it. There are various reasons to explain why someone may have chosen to be vouched for rather than use the 39 pieces of ID. In many cases it's because they weren't aware of what ID they could have brought and so took that option. The same applies in the case of the voter information card. It may have just been something they had with them, so they used it.

I'm curious as to whether you asked your members a couple of questions. Would you have asked whether they actually had the ID available to them to vote, if they couldn't have used one of these methods? The second one is, were they aware of what types of ID they needed to bring to the polls?

[Susan Eng]

We did not ask that specific question, because we were concerned with the people who needed the extraordinary measure of either using the vouching.... And frankly, they don't look at the voter identification card as extraordinary. They just thought, “The government sent this to me, and they have my name and address correct, so I'm going to bring it to the polling office.” I'm sure they didn't have any greater concern about it, other than that it was convenient and was enough to prove their right to vote.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

That's fine. I should clarify that it is actually a voter information card, not an identification card; it really isn't ID. But I understand what you're saying. You're saying that they chose that. What you're saying is that it was there and it was handy, so they used it. But it doesn't mean there weren't other options that they could have used.

That's one of the concerns I have. I think it would be an interesting question for you to ask your members whether they were in fact aware of the various forms of ID they could use.

I noticed in one of the other questions you had in your survey, you asked what the best way is to promote voter turnout. One of the most significant responses was advertising and awareness raising by Elections Canada. I think that probably one of the best things Elections Canada could do, which, if they are doing it at all now, they are not doing very well, certainly, is inform people of the where, the when, and the how and, the most significant part, what ID they need to bring.

Looking at some of the research Elections Canada themselves have done, we've had indications that particularly with young people one of the biggest barriers was not knowing some of the logistics. Also, we've had witnesses before this committee who have very clearly indicated that they didn't know, in fact, what ID they could have used to vote.

Given that fact, I wonder whether you would find it useful if Elections Canada were to do a better job of informing people of what IDs they could use, because there are 39 of them.

I listened to all three of you give examples. Some of them may have been hypothetical, but others were specific examples of people you were aware of. I listened to all three, and immediately there were several options that popped into my mind that could have been available to those people, but they probably just weren't aware of them.

Would it be helpful if Elections Canada were to better inform people of what pieces of ID they could bring? That might be able to alleviate some of these concerns.

[Susan Eng]

First of all, one of the reviews that Elections Canada did looked at voter turnout. They looked at it by demographic. Indeed, people over the age of 60 vote all the time, approximately matching their age as a percentage turnout. Our members are even more engaged than that and they practically all vote. So when it comes to voting, they've had no difficulty doing it. If they use the voter identification card, it could be simply that the people there accepted it and didn't ask for something else.

In any event, they are not going to be the people who specifically have difficulty voting. If something else was required of them, they probably would have gotten it and used it. The key here is that they're worried about other people, friends they know who are in homes. They know very well that they don't have these second pieces of ID.

By the way, when it comes to many of those items on the list, including things like utility bills, bank statements, and so on, which are sent to your home, all of these companies, utility companies in particular, are starting the process of using e-mail notifications of your bill. So there's going to come a time when you're not going to have easy access to something with your address on it.

They are concerned about it. They see that as a problem. But I would say that our members would jump over any number of hurdles to vote, because they are that avid.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Right.

That's why I would submit that, given the 39 pieces—and there are a lot of pieces on there. In fact, I will even point out that if someone has had a driver's licence but it has expired because they're no longer able to drive, they can still use that as a piece of ID as well. There are also, of course, the government benefits. Many seniors receive their OAS or other types of government benefits, so that's another option. Of course, there's an attestation from a residence, if they're living in a seniors residence.

I'd like to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I know what you'd like to do, but you're out of time.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I'd like to do something, but I guess I'm out of time, and I will not be able to.

Thank you very much for your answers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll move to Mr. Scott.

You're starting off, and then—

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I'm just thinking about expired IDs being used as identity, but I guess if that's the case, that's the case. I'd love to hear the proof for that.

I'm going to take about four minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Great. I'll let you know when we get there.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Great.

Thank you, everybody.

I want to probe a bit more.

When Mr. Neufeld, who testified here, spoke to the press, he estimated that between 100,000 and 400,000 people might well have used VICs and/or vouched. I didn't know where these figures came from, so I contacted Elections Canada, and asked if there was a combination of reports that they could look at, because I don't recall this being in the Chief Electoral Officer's testimony.

My understanding is that the numbers I'm about to present are ready and are being translated, so in the next day or two this will be on their website in both English and French. We do know that 805,000 people—this is in all their reports—were eligible to use VICs, voter information cards, in seniors homes and care facilities. We can estimate that the voter turnout was around 65%, because for lower age bracket seniors, it's about 75%, and for higher age bracket seniors, it is about 60% or 65%. According to data in the 2011 report, after the 2011 election, 73% of that group of 800,000 eligibles, the 65% who voted, actually used the VICs.

The bottom line is that out of the 805,000 who could use VICs, the estimated figure is that around 380,000, which is close to 50%, did use the VICs. Does it surprise you at all that in seniors residences and long-term facilities such use would have been made? Would you suggest that this is a good reason we would want to use VICs in general across the country in future elections?

[Susan Eng]

I'm happy to answer that question.

The example of the woman who told us about her 97-year-old mother is actually replicated across the country in nursing homes and seniors residences. I think we have a stereotype of people in nursing homes as being pretty incompetent. While that might be true for a few of the residents, in fact the vast majority are quite able to vote. Elections Canada has facilitated their ability to vote by putting polling stations right in the building, with the home's administrators facilitating it and wheeling people down to the polling stations, etc. There is a good effort made to make sure that people are able to vote if they have mobility challenges.

The issue of identity was covered by the issue of vouching. That made it easier for a lot of people who, while they're well and capable of voting, you're dealing with a difficult group to move around, and so it's a lot easier if they can be vouched for. That makes sure that they're not going to be prevented from voting.

I must say that I know very well that the on-the-ground voting exercise is very unpleasant sometimes, with some campaigns actively trying to suppress the seniors vote by making it difficult. I'm aware of situations where people stand outside the polling stations and interfere with the process thinking that people in such circumstances are easily distracted from their purpose. It's important that the easier we make it for this population, the better.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Four minutes.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

I'll pass it over to my colleague.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Madam Latendresse, for the other part of this round.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will continue in the same vein as my colleague. I have a question for Mr. Prud'homme.

Earlier, you brought up a figure I was not familiar with. Unless I'm mistaken, there are currently 45,000 individuals in nursing homes, in Quebec alone.

According to our understanding so far, one of the main issues affecting seniors in particular is not identification per se as much as the ability to prove where they live. It's not hard for me to imagine that, with 45,000 people in nursing homes and 110,000 people in seniors' residences, those individuals in particular will have more difficulty than others to prove their address on election day.

Is that right?

[Danis Prud'homme]

Yes, absolutely.

If we look at Quebec, 22% of the population is aged 65 and over, while the Canadian average is around 14%. So these are two different perspectives when it comes to aging. Canada will eventually reach that percentage. For the time being, we are second in the world, behind Japan, in terms of population aging.

It goes without saying that we may have to deal with these issues more than other provinces. Indeed, there are 45,000 people in nursing homes and 110,000 in private residences. In Quebec, most of the informal caregivers are women aged 60 and over. They're often over 70 and live with the individual they are caring for. So they don't have an address, as the home is not theirs.

So oaths are used—as in the case of passports—or voter cards.

Today is an election day in Quebec. I voted this morning. They accepted my voter identification card. I tested it myself. I don't see why the card could not be used in Canada if it can be used in a province.

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

Can you elaborate on the types of problems seniors living in nursing homes or residences have with proving their identity? Our colleagues like to talk about the 39 IDs. However, the reality is that someone could go to the polls with 20 pieces of identification and still not be able to vote if they are unable to prove their address.

What's the reality of the people you represent when it comes to their ability to prove their identity and their address?

[Danis Prud'homme]

Every time the way to identify ourselves or to prove our address is complicated further, additional stress is created. We know that, when people age, they experience more stress over things that may have seemed insignificant when they were younger. That's how we are made. So, any time difficulties and stressful periods are added, an individual will be more uncomfortable. As a result, they will often not vote because the process is complicated or stressful.

We want citizens to participate in society, regardless of their age. We want them to live and die in dignity across the country. Of course, access to voting has to be facilitated for them, so that they can remain full members of society. If there is a lack of information, if information changes and if certain things are no longer being done on the federal level, but are done in a province, problems arise.

As I was saying this morning, in Quebec, the identity card can be used at the polls. If the situation is not the same in Canada, a senior becomes confused. They no longer understand why the government is changing the rules. So there are some issues when it comes to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Simms, please, for seven minutes.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Thank you to our witnesses today.

There are several aspects of this bill you've addressed that are equally as important, each and every one, but vouching seems to be the issue here. I agree, because the average age in my riding is well over 50, and I have a lot of seniors residences, so this is a big thing.

If I can start with this one question, and before I am cut off, it's actually related, but Canada Post is now eliminating door-to-door delivery. It's a big issue for you three, isn't it?

[Voices]

Yes.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

And you're hearing a lot about it. This is going to have a mass migration of people from street addresses to post office boxes. Is that correct?