Bill C-31 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to improve the integrity of the electoral process by reducing the opportunity for electoral fraud or error. It requires that electors, before voting, provide one piece of government-issued photo identification showing their name and address or two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer showing their name and address, or take an oath and be vouched for by another elector.
It also amends the Canada Elections Act to, among other things, make operational changes to improve the accuracy of the National Register of Electors, facilitate voting and enhance communications with the electorate.
It amends the Public Service Employment Act to permit the Public Service Commission to make regulations to extend the maximum term of employment of casual workers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, that ends the discussion on Bill C-31. I do thank you very much for your diligence and efforts.

Is there any other business? No?

Merry Christmas to everybody, and thank you very much. Have a great and safe holiday season.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I would like to introduce the amendment on page 12, noted as NDP-1. Simply stated, Chair, it is that Bill C-31 be amended in clause 9 by replacing line 41 on page 3 with the following:

Subsections 55(1) and (2) of the Act are

This is a bit like a puzzle, Chair. To explain to members why I want to make this amendment in the way it is being done, it's important to explain how the bill is written and what it does to the act.

If you look at the bottom of the page as we have it in the bill, it says:

Subsections 55(1) to (3) of the Act are replaced by the following:

Then it scopes out subsections 55(1) and 55(2). What it does is eliminate subsection 55(3) of the Elections Act. I think that's important to note, because upon first glance one might look at it and say, this is fine; they're just making some changes to that particular section. What in fact it does is delete a subsection of the act, and that's what I want to bring to members' attention.

What we're doing by this amendment is in effect not adding, but preserving. That's very important to understand. What we're doing here is making sure that where it says that subsections 55(1) to 55(3) are replaced, we actually preserve 55(3).

If you don't have the act in front of you, it's important to note, particularly after the discussion we just had, that the act says, under subsection 55(3):

A body to whom information is given under an agreement mentioned in subsection (1) may use the information only for the purpose of establishing lists of electors for an election or a referendum held under a provincial law.

What it does is retain conditions on how information is shared. I think what we need to do, if we're concerned about how information is shared, is preserve this piece.

That's what this amendment does. It is to make sure that subsection 55(3) is preserved and not jettisoned. The reason is to make sure that we're not allowing, as is proposed under the bill, information to be handed over without conditions. The more conditions around how information is shared the better, in my opinion. So that's what this does; it retains what is already in the bill. It doesn't delete it; it keeps it in place.

[Natasha Kim]

Clause 18 of Bill C-31 does provide for that right now. It makes a distinction between the lists that are used at the polls--the advance polls and the regular polls--and the lists that are distributed.

So it makes that fine distinction, reflecting the committee's recommendation on that point.

[Dan McDougall]

At the time of voting, the issue would be exactly the same: if there were privacy concerns with respect to both date of birth and address at the time of voting, they would apply equally. The issue here is that we were talking about the distribution of a list. That's one step removed from the time of voting. It's less clear that the intention is exclusively to prevent fraud at that particular time. The structure, as currently within Bill C-31, is to have the list with the date of birth available at the official register, so at the time of voting it could be used for verification. But for more general distribution prior to the actual voting, having that list distributed is potentially cause for concern.

[Natasha Kim]

The revised and official list will have the date of birth on it, which is provided for in Bill C-31. It amends section 107 for that purpose, so that polling officials can identify and confirm someone's date of birth for the purposes of dealing with voter fraud. The address is something that almost must be used for that purpose. But the point of this amendment, and a number of these other amendments, would be to add that date of birth to lists that are distributed to candidates and parties and MPs as well.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada]

I would like to thank the Committee for inviting me here today to discuss Bill C-31, An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

I am accompanied by Rennie Molnar, Senior Director, Operations, Register and Geography, and Michèle René de Cotret, Director, Legislative Policy and Analysis.

My presentation today will focus on a significant change proposed by Bill C-31—that is, the requirement for registered voters to provide proof of their identity and residence before being allowed to vote on polling day.

However, I would first like to inform the committee about the initiatives that my office launched in recent by-elections held on November 27 in London North Centre and Repentigny that are tied to the objectives sought by Bill C-31, and that are most relevant.

First, to reduce the risk that poll officials would accept voter information cards as proof of identity, my office instructed election workers to collect them at the entrance to the polling station. That suggestion was made here, at the committee.

Second, we modified the notice posted at the polls informing electors about the qualifications for voting to include a warning that it was an offence to vote unlawfully and to indicate the maximum punishment for doing so—up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. I have brought copies of the notice in both official languages, and they will be distributed to committee members following my presentation.

Third, Canada Post agreed to have letter carriers collect the VICs found discarded in apartment building mail rooms in the days following the distribution of the cards. In fact, there were very few: 182 out of the some 90,000 VICs mailed in London North Centre and 22 of the some 85,000 mailed in Repentigny. But we did want to go through this exercise.

The President and CEO of Canada Post, Ms. Moya Greene, has indicated to me in writing that her office is prepared to continue this practice in future elections across the country and that they are currently determining how to do this.

Our preliminary analysis indicates that these initiatives were successful in further enhancing the existing statutory and administrative controls on the voting and registration processes.

Bill C-31 proposes to change the rules respecting voting by electors. It will require that every elector, whether on the list of electors or not, will have to prove two things before being allowed to vote. The elector will have to prove his or her identity, and the elector will have to prove his or her residential address. In order to do so, the bill proposes that the elector present one piece of identification issued by a Canadian government—whether federal, provincial or local, or an agency of that government—that shows a photograph of the elector and his or her name and residential address.

If the elector does not have this first piece of ID, he or she will have to present two pieces of identification, each of which must itself set out the name and residential address of the individual and be on the authorized list established by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Otherwise, the elector must take an oath and be vouched for by another elector whose name appears on the list of electors for the same polling division, together with proof of identification and proof of residential address.

The requirement to prove residence presents a significant challenge. It is worth noting that in Quebec, which is the only province requiring ID at the polls, electors only need to prove their identity, not their residence.

When I last appeared before you, you requested that I look at which card issued by the federal, provincial and municipal governments would satisfy the first requirement for government ID. While this research continues, I can report that there is no such card issued by the federal government.

At the provincial and municipal levels, the only cards identified up to now that likely meet the legislation's requirements are the driver's licence in all provinces and territories, the non-driver's licence or identity cards in a number of provinces and the Ontario health cards issued since 1995, which only 60% of Ontarians have.

Even the driver's licence, the most prevalent government-issued card and one that meets all the legislative requirements and is available in all provinces and territories, has its own limitations. Based on an analysis of the driver's licence that we have received, we estimate that some 15% of electors, or some 3.3 million people, do not have a driver's licence. As well, the chief electoral officers of other Canadian jurisdictions have pointed out that in many rural and northern areas of the country, especially west of Ontario, the address on the driver's licence is not the residential address but the postal address.

Once again, we estimate that in addition to the 15% of electors who do not have driver's licences, the licence of up to 10% of those who do have one will not satisfy the requirement for government ID because a required element will be missing.

This may be more of an issue for some provinces and territories, such as Saskatchewan and Nunavut.

In addition, as the committee has heard, some groups of electors are much less likely to have a driver's licence--in other words, they are targeted by this absence. This includes the homeless, the disadvantaged, seniors, and youth. This means, in effect, that some 4.5 million electors, one in five, will be required to prove their identity and their residence by bringing and presenting two pieces of alternative documents, as proposed by the bill.

In this regard, we have found only five identification cards that show both name and address: the federal fishing licences issued by Fisheries and Oceans Canada; cards issued by the Centre local de services communautaires, CLSC, in Quebec; trades cards in Quebec; some hospital cards anywhere in Canada; and the card issued by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind to its members. That is what we have found so far.

It is important to note that proof of residence is missing from a number of better known pieces of identification, including the Canadian passport, the Canadian Forces ID card, the certificate of Indian status, and the Canadian citizenship card.

We have been informed that the reason there are very few cards that show a person's residential address is because addresses obviously change frequently--16% of time, according to our statistics--and it is expensive and complicated to keep them current.

It is for this reason that in interpreting the bill, I assume that electors who do not have two cards each showing their name and address would be able to use documents such as utility bills, tax assessments, insurance documents, and personalized cheques as proof of identity and residence. I'd like to know whether I'm mistaken in this respect or whether I'm right.

By the way, while I appreciate the confidence of the committee in authorizing the Chief Electoral Officer to prescribe the list of alternative documents, I would wish to advise you that before approving such a list I would be submitting it to this committee for its review and comment. I consider this essential in light of the political import of this bill.

In light of the foregoing, however, and the testimonies before the committee, you may wish to consider whether other alternatives would better serve the same purpose as the current proposal for proof of ID and proof of residence. For instance, the committee may wish to consider whether it may be sufficient to require that a registered elector prove his or her identity, rather than his or her identity and his or her address in order to vote--in other words, as they do in Quebec, only the identity.

Furthermore, when it comes to proving identity, the committee may wish to consider the type of identification that should be sufficient to accomplish this. For example, this could be done by requiring that electors show, one, an identity card from a list approved by the committee on the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer that shows their name and photo; alternatively, two documents, again following the same approval process that both show their name. This would allow the prescription of forms of ID that will serve those groups with special needs, the same ones I mentioned earlier. Or thirdly, one document with their name and requiring them to state their date of birth that could then be compared to the one printed on the list of electors, as is proposed in this very bill. Otherwise, in accordance with the bill, the elector could take an oath and be vouched for by an elector who is already on the list of electors for that polling division and who has the necessary documents to identify himself or herself. That is in accordance with the bill, if everything else fails.

We've been talking about voting for people who are already on the list, whose name is already on the list. With respect to registration at the polls, people who are not on the list, the committee may wish to consider whether it would be sufficient to require that an elector establish both his or her identity and residence through one or two types of documents, from a list approved by the committee on the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer, that together would establish the elector's name and residential address. Photo ID would also satisfy this requirement.

I also wish to advise the committee that the changes concerning identification at the polls could be implemented within six months of royal assent, but changes relating to the list of electors will require more time, as we need to make changes to our software systems, followed by extensive testing process. Also, by July 2007 we have to change all of our computers and all of our computer systems. They have reached the end of their useful life.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. With your permission, I would like to table the chart summarizing the results to date of our research on identity cards—we've provided this to the clerk in both official languages, of course—as well as the poster that was put up in every polling station during the two by-elections recently.

My colleagues and I would be more than happy to answer any question that you may wish to raise regarding Bill C-31.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Ladies and gentlemen, let's begin the meeting this morning. Thank you all, members, for coming.

We do have a quorum, representatives from all parties, so we're going to begin. I just want to remind members that this meeting is being held in public, and as is the usual routine, we are going to need a few minutes at the end of the meeting. There are some motions before us. We'll get to those in one second, but we do want to discuss those as well.

Ladies and gentlemen, today's meeting is the continuation of the discussions of Bill C-31. We are again privileged to have expert witnesses before the committee this morning to help us with our understanding of this bill and our forward movement on the bill.

Mr. Kingsley is with us again this morning. We all know Mr. Kingsley, but I'm going to ask Mr. Kingsley to introduce himself and his colleagues. I just want to remind members that following that introduction we will move to our standard round of questioning. The first round will be seven minutes.

Mr. Kingsley, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar, it is duly noted. We will deal with that under future business.

Witnesses, it's not often that I have my work done for me, but you have been thanked. I want to echo on behalf of all the committee members the great work that you do outside of this room, and in particular the great work that you've done today by providing this committee with clear and concise answers and some great and valuable information.

I appreciate very much you coming down on short notice. Mr. Nothing, I know you were called in at the last minute. We thank you for compromising and cancelling and whatever else you had to do to get here. We certainly appreciate that.

I also don't like handing out homework, so I would like to thank my other colleagues for handing out homework. Mr. Preston and some committee members have made requests for some very easy to obtain, I hope, information. As chair, I would simply wish that you could get that to our clerk at your very earliest convenience so we can try to get it into both official languages and distribute it to folks.

Thank you very much, witnesses. Again, we certainly appreciate you coming. I hope you enjoyed your lunch. You are actually at this moment dismissed, with our gratitude.

Colleagues, while the witnesses are excusing themselves, I would like to carry on with some business that we don't need to go in camera for, so we will stay in public at this moment.

You have before you a copy of the committee's budget. I was informed by the clerk that the budget for the next few months, or the next session, needs to be looked at and approved by the committee. As all committee members are aware, this budget is to deal with the expenses of witnesses, for the most part, specifically Bill C-31.

We don't often have lunches. I believe this might be the second time this committee has worked through lunch. Again, I appreciate the indulgence of all members, who work extremely hard on this committee. We may have the need for another lunch next week. We'll see how that goes. Ultimately, that is what the budget in front of you is for.

Are there any questions regarding the budget? I will allow my clerk to answer the tough ones and I will answer the easiest.

No questions? It's a standing procedure, of course.

May I have committee approval for this budget?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

As we've been talking about today, the job of this committee with Bill C-31 is to establish how we do it.

Mr. Dewar has brought it forward a couple of times, and I'll say it again, there are two pieces to this. There's an accurate list of electors, who people are and where they live. That process needs to be refined. We recognize that where we currently stand is not what it needs to be. So some motions have been put forward by my friend to help in areas where we see it being the absolute worst--the homeless, students, and some other areas. We think, across the country, the electors list needs to be brought to a higher standard.

Once the electors list is brought to that standard, then we still need to identify who is showing up at the polls. That's where the identification shows up. You've hit us today with some very good ideas as to how we might do it.

Ms. Carroll, you're right: your professional credentials are on the line if you are vouching for people and doing this for some fraudulent reason. We have heard, as a committee, about alleged fraud, serial vouching, in past elections, where someone shows up at the poll with 40 people and says that these are people from my street. They get to vote. Under the current election laws, that is absolutely accurate. They can.

I'm not saying that it was fraudulent, because the electors list was in such a bad way. It may certainly have been somebody vouching for everybody on their street, or somebody from their student residence vouching for everybody on their floor.

You mentioned a way to do it, but how do we not get to the point I just mentioned? I recognize, in your personal case, you're saying your credentials would be on the line. But we're trying to prevent fraud. If someone was out there intentionally trying to do it, your way still wouldn't do it for me.

[William Nothing, As an Individual]

Thank you, Chair and honourable members. I am here representing the Grand Chief of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation. “Nishnawbe Aski” means “people and the land”. The Grand Chief sends his regrets. He could not be here. He wanted to be here.

The Nishnawbe Aski Nation is comprised of 50 first nations, located in the far north. On behalf of these people, I thank you for taking the time to listen to our concerns with regard to the proposed amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

Most of our communities are remote, with access only by air. Access to urban centres is limited and very expensive. Access to government services is also limited, and when personal attendance is necessary it can be very expensive.

Our interest in Bill C-31, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act, arises from the measures suggested to achieve improved integrity of the electoral process by reducing the opportunity of electoral fraud or error.

Among other requirements, these amendments would require that the electors, before voting, provide one piece of government-issued photo identification showing their name and address, or two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer showing their name and address, or take an oath and be vouched for by another elector.

I would like to inform the standing committee that measures that are simple enough in an urban centre such as here in Ottawa or Toronto impose considerable personal and community hardship in remote first nation communities. At best, these changes will impose considerable inconvenience; at worst, they could cause eligible voters to be disenfranchised.

In addressing the proposed amendments, we have made the following observations.

Few of our communities have street names, and none that I am aware of have local mail delivery based on street address. Consequently, identification based on civic or mailing address is not possible. Most people share a common mailing address, which is the name of their community and the community postal code. With regard to listing the names alphabetically, many share similar names in communities. Individuals with the same name are identified by their family affiliation and their personal history known to the people of the community. We wonder how the list of electors will be approached for residents of remote reserves with no street addresses and one common mailing address.

It seems there is an intention to gather electoral information through income tax returns. I advise the committee that first nations people in the remote north generally do not file income tax returns. If the only issue here is identification of the person filing taxes as a Canadian citizen, I suggest that you take it for granted that we are all Canadian citizens.

Our greatest concerns are related to proposed sections 143 to 145, which refer to requirements for government-issued photo identification. The acquisition of photo identification is made difficult because we have limited or no access to government issuing agencies. Acquiring a birth certificate, driver's licence, health card, or other identification is difficult because we do not have the agencies in our communities to issue these documents.

The attempt to accommodate lack of documentation raises two issues. First, the requirement to take an oath would necessitate that the returning officer or other agent administering the oath should be able to understand our languages. Has the oath been translated? Will you provide interpreters to administer and hear oaths after the content and the intent have been explained to our people who do not understand English?

Secondly, the opportunity to take the oath may be qualified by having an elector with approved documentation vouch for the person who does not have documents. However, the qualified elector may only vouch for one other person. It seems we would have to find separate, qualified electors to vouch for each person who does not have approved identification. In communities where we are generally known to each other from birth, this seems unnecessary.

We are also concerned that these amendments to the act could affect our elders. Most of these people do not have birth certificates; few of them have a driver's licence. Leaving their communities to acquire photo identification is a severe hardship and in some instances it will be neither feasible nor affordable.

In conclusion, we suggest that the proposed amendments have failed to take into consideration the realities of the people in our remote communities. They are based on the assumption that the majority of Canadian electors live in urban centres. Until government services are made available in an equitable manner to our people living in remote communities and the amendments to the act reflect the realities of the lives of our people.... I suggest that the committee, if possible, visit some of our communities to better understand the challenges we face in our role as Canadian citizens.

I am from one of these northern communities, from a little community called Bearskin Lake, which is just a little west of Big Trout Lake.

If you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer. Thank you.

[Barbara Carroll, Executive Director, Debra Dynes Family House, and Chair of the Coalition of Community Houses Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members, for inviting me here today.

As the executive director of the Debra Dynes Family House, which is a multi-service resource in a low-income social housing area in Ottawa, and chair of the Coalition of Community Houses, which provides similar services in thirteen other identified areas of poverty across the city of Ottawa, I would like to draw your attention to some concerns about the amendments in Bill C-31, particularly those to section 143.

Increasing people's awareness of their voting rights and responsibilities is a function that community houses take very seriously. Our communities have the largest populations of multiculturally diverse people who live in poverty in the city of Ottawa. We have three times the number of people under the age of 25 years, in comparison to other neighbourhoods in Ottawa. This figure, a unique feature of our communities, remains consistent over time. Single-parent families make up 68% of our families. These are all critical factors, and I think all of the people who are speaking today will have had some reflection and some contact with groups that are very similar to the ones I'm talking about.

Lack of knowledge of voting rights and responsibilities and the Canadian voting system, parenting responsibilities, mobility, and, in some cases, fear and trauma from experiences in other countries around voting procedures, form considerable barriers for many of our eligible voters. Bill C-31, proposed section 143, creates additional barriers that are, in my opinion, unnecessary and poorly thought out in setting up a system for voters that is accessible and allows them to exercise their fundamental democratic right to vote.

Proposed section 143 makes several assumptions that will further disenfranchise eligible voters who find themselves too often marginalized socially, politically, and economically in Canadian society. The requirement to provide photo ID as an option of eligibility to vote cannot be met by many of my residents and people living in poverty in Canada. They don't have a driver's licence. They don't have passports. It's an offence for someone to request a health ID card in Ontario, which puts elections staff in a difficult position and leaves voters feeling uncertain of whether they will be accepted or not.

Proposed paragraph 143(2)(b), “two pieces of identification establishing the elector’s name and address that are authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer”, can present difficulties for youths of eligible voting age in our community who are living in poverty, when it comes to providing documentation. They also do not have cars. They may be living with parents. They may not have bills that they can easily provide as ID.

I would also add that low-income families and people living in poverty in Canada move more often. Providing a current address is a very real problem for some people. That doesn't mean they aren't living legitimately where they are. They may have just been in the process of moving, and it shouldn't disenfranchise them from exercising their right to vote as Canadian citizens.

It is also not clear what would be authorized as acceptable by the Chief Electoral Officer in Bill C-31 as it sits presently, and if that would be consistent over time. You may be putting people or professionals in the field in a position where we're trying to inform, educate, assist, and make that voting process as accessible as possible, and if we're scrambling to find out what the new document is this year, or what the flavour of the month is around documentation, that is just going to decrease our ability to help people. It will stop it or it will be a hindrance.

There is a piece in the bill, proposed subsections 143(3) and (5) combined, that may create a barrier for professionals in the field to assist persons with limited ability to provide ID to vote. If you can vouch for only one person at one time, then I really think that is going to limit people's ability to vote, and it's also going to limit the ability of professionals who may be in a very good position to give authentic reference for people to be able to to do that. I'm certain we can come up with something better than what is in the bill at the moment.

I would just say that voting is a fundamental right of all Canadian citizens and it's important that any amendments to the way in which Canadians vote reflect and facilitate the ability of those whose voices are often not heard in the democratic process. The issues mentioned with regard to section 143 of the act set up a mechanism that will make it difficult, and in some cases impossible, for an eligible Canadian voter to exercise their voting rights.

It was very simple for me to walk into this building today. I was asked for photo ID. I could provide a driver's licence. If I had brought residents from my community, they would have had great difficulty in having access to the very foundation of the Canadian parliamentary system to be part of this process today. That's what I'm trying to get at when we are saying that some of the things in the amendments are not well thought out enough to accommodate the families and the people I come in contact with every day.

Thank you very much.

[Mary-Martha Hale, Chair, Alliance to End Homelessness in Ottawa and Executive Director of the Anglican Social Services - Centre 454, As an Individual]

Good morning, honourable chair, committee members, and guests.

I am the chair of the Alliance to End Homelessness in Ottawa, a coalition of seventy-plus organizations and individuals working together since 1995 to develop strategies to end homelessness. I am also the executive director of Anglican Social Services – Centre 454, a day program and counselling centre that has served the homeless population and those at risk of homelessness since 1954.

The Canadian government, through Elections Canada, has been working very hard to include all electors in the election process. We have worked with Elections Canada to address the extremely low voting rate amongst homeless and/or marginalized Canadians. We are concerned that proposed changes exclude homeless and temporarily housed citizens.

Currently, the emergency shelters in Ottawa have staff who have been able to vouch for the identity of shelter residents they know. At Centre 454, where we serve over 300 different people a day, we have held enumeration blitzes, meetings to introduce the candidates to our participants, and, in the most recent federal election, an advance poll in our centre for the homeless community. The other day programs in Ottawa have also done similar activities. In fact, Elections Canada has already contacted my staff to prepare for the next election. Elections at the federal level have become more inclusive of homeless people in the nine years since I have been involved.

In Ottawa, 1% of its population, or 8,853 people, were homeless and used shelters in 2005. Our research shows that 82% of these people are of voting age. These include parents, single women and men, and increasing numbers of people from the first nation, Inuit, and Métis communities. The 1% does not include the many people not living in shelters. It does not include the many who couch surf, moving from the homes of family, friends, or strangers. And it does not include those living in places not fit for human habitation, such as parks and cars.

Bill C-31 will unintentionally reverse much of the groundwork of Elections Canada and its many partners like the Alliance to End Homelessness and Centre 454. We have two points to make.

Proposed section 143 refers to the declaration of identity and the identification required to vote. People who are homeless do not have identification that reflects their stay in a shelter. For those who are homeless and living in a shelter, the average length of stay in Ottawa is between 23 and 45 days. It is essential that shelter staff, no matter where they personally live, are able to continue to vouch for more than one person when the individual shelter residents are well known to them.

Those people who are couch-surfing or temporarily housed often do not have identification that reflects their current address. What happens if an election is called and a person finds themselves in between permanent addresses? This person would not have any ID for their current address and they usually would not have had time to make friends with any neighbours who could vouch for them.

The Alliance to End Homelessness has used its communication mechanisms to raise awareness of the right of Canadians to vote, and the process they must go through to make their vote count by connecting Elections Canada with its members. I have given to the clerk a copy of the report card on homelessness that we produced last winter, and they will be made available to you. They're in both official languages, and they're also available on our website.

Centre 454 has worked with Elections Canada to enumerate people and we have provided a long-time employee on election day in the polling station, to encourage people in our community who may never have voted before and for whom it is an intimidating process. It is essential that my staff and others serving the homeless community, no matter where they personally live, are able to continue to vouch for more than one person when the individual agency clients are well known to them. I believe the government needs to think of the challenges faced by all citizens, including the homeless population, when reviewing Bill C-31. Clause 21 must be amended to ensure that the homeless or temporarily housed are not disenfranchised in this process of amending the Canada Elections Act.

The second point is that clause 9 of Bill C-31 proposes to remove subsection 55(3) from the current Canada Elections Act. This clause very clearly states that a body may use the information only for the purposes of establishing lists of electors for an election or a referendum.

Many in the homeless population are new Canadians who may have come from war-torn homelands. Many others who are homeless have been abused in the past by systems and institutions that professed a mandate to help them. Trust in the state to use personal information justly, legally, and wisely may not be as strong for this group as it is for those of us with more resources at hand to protect our information. At the same time, many Canadians have expressed their grave concerns about the improper use of their personal information. We therefore ask that subsection 55(3) of the current Canada Elections Act remain.

Thank you. I look forward to questions.

[Rob Hepburn, National Communications Officer, Canadian Federation of Students]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Good day, and thank you for inviting the Canadian Federation of Students to speak to Bill C-31.

By way of introduction, the Canadian Federation of Students is composed of more than half a million students from over 80 college and university student unions across the country. My name is Rob Hepburn, and I am the national communications officer for the federation.

The subject matter I'll be addressing before the committee today is that most visible element of our representational democracy—voting.

Of course, with most post-secondary students in Canada falling between the ages of 18 and 26, the constituency I represent has the dubious distinction of having one of the lowest voter turnouts of any group in Canadian society. For that reason, it's critically important that the Government of Canada pay particular attention to the impact on the ability of students to access their right to vote when considering any changes to the regulations and procedures that shape election policy.

The specific amendments to the Canada Elections Act under Bill C-31 that would most affect students are those that introduce the requirement wherein all eligible electors must show either one piece of government-issued photo ID, with a current address, or two pieces of non-photo and presumably non-government-issued ID. This would apply whether or not one is on the list of electors prior to election day.

In the spirit of minimizing electoral fraud and improving the integrity of Canada's electoral process, these requirements make a good deal of sense. However, they stand to impose greater impediments to the right of perfectly honest and legitimate electors to vote, particularly those electors who tend to be transient, including students, the homeless, and lower-income Canadians.

These groups understandably tend to have a harder time maintaining the same address, let alone keeping the address on their photo identification up to date. Many students attend school away from a permanent residence for eight months of the year and often change that place of residence on an annual basis while at school. Keeping the addresses listed on their drivers' licences or health cards up to date at all times, as an example, is a burden that could potentially inhibit them from democratic participation under Bill C-31.

Because of the high degree of discretion that the Chief Electoral Officer is assigned through this bill, the negative impact that these new identity regulations could have on students' access to their right to vote will come to depend largely on the unelected electoral officer.

Proposed paragraph 143(2)(b), which allows for two alternative pieces of identification to qualify an individual as an elector, as long as those forms are authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer, I believe is too vague in its current form for anyone to say with certainty that students, among others, will not be unfairly disenfranchised by this bill.

It is the position of the Canadian Federation of Students that Bill C-31 should more clearly specify the forms and sources of identification that would satisfy the requirement of proper ID of eligible voters, and that the greatest consideration should be afforded to the types of identification that are easily accessible to those who do not have a static and permanent address.

Rather than leaving the authorization of proper forms of ID up to a single unelected individual, who may not have the ability to undertake broad public consultations such as the one here today, accepted forms of ID should be determined by the elected members of Parliament and authorized by statute. It will make a tremendous difference whether or not the two alternative pieces of identification can include college or university residence registration forms.

After carefully reading the bill, I haven't the slightest clue whether or not these would be acceptable proof of a person's right to vote under Bill C-31. For that reason, I think the bill can and should be improved from its current form.

Short of remaking the Federal Accountability Act in order to send the Auditor General's powers of review to the Chief Electoral Officer's democratic balance sheets, I would find it a bit surprising if this bill is enacted in its current form. The government would give such discretionary powers over the franchise to one unelected individual.

I sincerely hope the honourable members on this committee consider at length that this bill could have the effect of limiting the franchise for some of our citizens whose likelihood of participating in an election are already slim at best.

I thank you again for the invitation to speak here today. I look forward to any questions you might have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Good morning members, ladies and gentlemen. I want to welcome you all today and thank you very much. This is a very busy time of year for everybody, and it's great to see folks are coming out this morning.

I want to advise members and witnesses that this meeting today is being held in public. I would also like to advise members, as is the usual case, that I'm going to need five to ten minutes, or perhaps even fifteen minutes, at the end of this meeting—I will watch the clock—to discuss future business.

Members, today's subject is still Bill C-31. Today we have four witnesses with us from four different groups. We will allow the witnesses to open with a brief statement before we start our round of questions.

Ladies and gentlemen and colleagues, today at the witness table we have Barbara Carroll, executive director of Debra Dynes Family House and chair of the Coalition of Community Houses Ottawa; Mary-Martha Hale, chair of the Alliance to End Homelessness in Ottawa and executive director of the Anglican Social Services--Centre 454. Thank you.

We also have Mr. Bill Nothing with us and Mr. Robert Hepburn, the national communications officer with the Canadian Federation of Students.

We will offer the witnesses an opportunity for opening statements. We tend to try to keep them to five minutes, but we're not that formal, and if you don't need the five then that's perfect as well. Take a moment to introduce yourself, where you're from. I have done so, but feel free to do that for the record, as well.

We'll start with you, Mr. Hepburn. Thank you very much for coming.

[Murray Mollard]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Murray Mollard. I am the executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. I would like to thank the committee for the invitation to speak.

The association, as some of you may know, is over 43 years old and works on a large range of civil liberties issues, but the right to vote and political rights are at the heart, I would suggest, of the work we do. Democracy and making effective people's freedoms within a democracy are core principles and values, which the association strives to protect.

We see this issue with respect to Bill C-31. The impact it will have in terms of preventing eligible voters from exercising their fundamental right to vote is a top priority for the association.

I wanted to do something for the committee besides just sitting here and asserting that there will be people who are disenfranchised. I made an effort to contact a variety of social service agencies within the area that Tina Marie has referred to--the downtown eastside--that provide direct services for clientele and for marginalized people, homeless people, drug-addicted people, transient people, and people with mental health difficulties. I want to read into the record some of those letters. They have been sent to the committee, but I just want to quickly read some of those.

The first letter is from, Ethel Whitty, the director of the Carnegie Community Centre.

Dear Mr. Goodyear,

I am writing to express my concern regarding Bill C-31.

Thousands of individuals in the city of Vancouver are without proper identification due to poverty, illness or disability or having no access to a stable address. Many of them are known to their neighbours and the present system of verification of identity during election registration allows them to exercise their right to vote.

Changes to this system that would demand two pieces of identification for registration to vote would effectively disenfranchise them. I urge you to seriously consider the consequences of enacting Bill C-31.

This is a letter from Karen O' Shannacery,the executive director of the Lookout Emergency Aid Society:

I read with concern that the Act may change to require either proof of identification or require someone to take his or her oath as well as be vouched for by someone with id. This will place an unreasonable hardship on our residents and clientele, and will almost certainly eliminate the opportunity for the vast majority of them to vote.

I won't read all of this letter, but I'll read the concluding paragraph:

We believe that our residents and clientele should have as much right to vote as anyone else, and that means we have a responsibility to make voting accessible to them. People should be able to attest to their identity and eligibility to vote through a statutory declaration. We urge you to not implement the contemplated amendments, and use this alternative process.

This letter is from the executive director of the Motivation, Power & Achievement Society, Roberta Chapman:

MPA wishes to go on record as opposing Bill C-31.

This bill will make it extremely difficult if not impossible for those who are homeless to vote. The homeless are one of the most vulnerable populations with regards to social service funding reductions and should be able to exhibit that by voting.

MPA believes that “statutory declarations” are the appropriate path for those who are transient or homeless. We need to be encouraging everyone to vote and that includes homeless people. Many of the homeless are stricken with mental illness as a part of their difficult lives. This Bill only serves to remove them even farther from the voting process, giving them less say rather than more. Who is more compromised than the homeless population, and if not them, who will speak on their behalf in the vote?

Again, I won't read from the whole letter. This letter is from Jean Swanson, the co-coordinator of the Carnegie Community Action Project:

I am writing on behalf of the Carnegie Community Action Project to inform you that the requirements of Bill C-31 for 2 pieces of ID for voting eligibility will completely disenfranchise thousands of people in our neighbourhood....

This provision must be stopped if we are to call Canada a democracy.

I think there are considerable concerns by those who actually work directly with and will, as Tina Marie has also attested, know the very significant problems that marginalized people have in obtaining ID and retaining ID.

Our association believes that there should be amendments to the bill. We would urge you to consider carefully and implement provisions. For example, there could be amendment to proposed subsection 43.1(2) of the bill that would allow a sworn statutory declaration to establish the elector's name, eligibility, and residency. The act could also be changed. There would need to be another amendment in paragraph 161(1)(a) that would recognize that the statutory declaration could be used.

We note that the statutory declaration at this moment is reliant upon voluntary lawyers to come forward and provide their services. So it's not necessarily a holistic solution to this problem. We would urge you, for example, to consider permitting your deputy returning officers to take an oath, but not with the vouching system. I know Tina Marie maybe in the questions can speak of her experience of how the vouching system is ineffective because of the problems of these individuals not necessarily knowing others who would have to be on the registered voters list and have the requisite ID as well. Although we understand the reason why you put it in there was as a safeguard, we see the vouching as really a barrier to providing and ensuring people who are eligible to vote actually vote.