Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

[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.

[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]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hepburn.

Mary-Martha, would you be kind enough to continue?

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

Barbara, would you care to continue, please?

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Nothing, you are from the Nishnawbe Aski Nation. I didn't introduce you properly earlier.

Please, take your time and present yourself.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much, Mr. Nothing.

Colleagues, we will open our first round of questioning. It will be seven minutes on the first round, as we usually do, going down to five minutes on the second round. We'll worry about the third round when we're finished that; we'll see how much time we have and how we're doing.

Monsieur Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to our guests, our witnesses. Thank you for coming to the Hill to see us and to give us your explanations.

Mrs. Hale, I'd like to start with you. You were explaining that the question of ID would be a problem and that you would want shelter staff to be allowed to identify more than one voter. Are all shelter staff clearly identified by either an association of workers or a union of workers? How would electoral staff know that they're dealing with shelter staff?

Let me go back a little. The idea behind not allowing somebody to vouch for umpteen people is to make sure that we don't fall into a network of fraudulent voting. I think you know exactly what the committee is aiming for.

[Mary-Martha Hale]

Absolutely.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

So how would you suggest that shelter staff be recognized as shelter staff?

[Mary-Martha Hale]

For example, what has happened between Centre 454 and Elections Canada over the last number of elections is the returning officer has appointed one of my staff—I don't know what the official term would be—as a representative in the polling station. If people who were coming in from the shelter or from the centre didn't have all the ID required, and in most cases they didn't, he could vouch for them, and he would vouch for them.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Excuse me. Am I to understand that this particular person had been hired by Elections Canada?

[Mary-Martha Hale]

No, he wasn't hired by Elections Canada.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

It was an unofficial appointment to say “Help us out here and help out with these voters if you can identify them”.

[Mary-Martha Hale]

Yes, it was an effort to facilitate, to reduce some barriers that had been identified over the years for homeless people engaging in the election process.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Am I right, Mrs. Hale, in thinking--and correct me if I'm wrong--that a homeless person can easily go into one voting station--let's call it---introduce himself or herself, vote, and walk out of there and go to another polling station, whether it be in Ottawa or in my city across the bridge in Gatineau? You and I both know that they do this for meals. Could they not do the same thing?

If they're not on a list of electors ahead of time, and if they don't have photo ID and identification so that they can be tracked down after the fact if something is done wrong, is it not a possibility that they could be doing this?

[Mary-Martha Hale]

I imagine it's a possibility that any Canadian could be doing that. I would think it would be a very small proportion who might possibly do that. And if they didn't have the ID, they would need to have someone in that other polling station who could vouch for them. They wouldn't necessarily have that if they were living here, living in a shelter. What we're trying to do is encourage people to vote, and that's a difficult process.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

We're trying to encourage people to vote within certain limits.

So if I hear you right, your recommendation, what you would like to see, is that at least shelter staff--if we're not going to say everybody--should be clearly identified to Elections Canada as being shelter staff, and that would give them the right to vouch for more than one person?

[Mary-Martha Hale]

Yes, but it wouldn't have to be all shelter staff. It could be an appointed shelter staff person who works within the shelter.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

How many shelters might there be in Ottawa?

[Mary-Martha Hale]

There are about seven homeless shelters. There are other shelters, such as shelters for abused women, that expand that number.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Okay.

Ms. Carroll, you're saying that photo ID and the two pieces of identification are creating barriers. How would you suggest we overcome the problem of the barriers we're creating with those?

[Barbara Carroll]

Well, adding on to what Mary-Martha has been able to say, is it not possible for organizations, say like mine, to have someone make an application prior to an election to ask for some kind of standing at an election? I have a community that goes across two wards or two ridings. I know where people have to go to vote. I know where to increase their education and awareness so that they can possibly go there.

Could there not be a process so that I could make an application with a designated person, and I would say that person will be there for the purpose of identification in the event that somebody can't produce the necessary identification? You would have a process that goes ahead of the election. You would know clearly who is going to be there.

I think for most agencies that want to perform that function, that is something we could go the extra mile on, maybe.