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

[Mary-Martha Hale]

Yes, only it's not all together.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

It's not all together.

[Mary-Martha Hale]

What we do is bring them in one at a time and give them an opportunity to make a presentation and engage in discussion, which provides people with an opportunity to learn about the different candidates.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Yes, I hear you, and I understand what you mean, and I think it's inappropriate.

Let me go on. One of the things to which the homeless are often subject is losing their possessions, etc. Even if you had some sort of a way to provide proper identification, chances are it might not survive very long. It means that you can't get there from here, using a straight ID system.

Do you have any thoughts on what alternatives might be available, other than the only one really on the table, so that they would somehow get the necessary identification and have it at the time when an election might occur? Are there any other options?

[Rob Hepburn]

If I could just make a suggestion, there are two clauses here dealing with forms of legitimate identification. One is about the government-issued photo ID and then one is about two other pieces of authorized ID. I would suggest that we perhaps consider a third clause in there whereby there could be a combination of those two in addition to signature identification. I'm still of an age at which I get asked for identification when I go to the LCBO or the beer store, and if they question whether I'm the actual person in the photo on the identification, they ask me to write out my signature. If it's legitimate for buying alcohol at an LCBO, why could it not be to vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you. That round is up.

I have to sympathize: I have exactly the same problem, Mr. Hepburn.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Lukiwski, go ahead, please. You have five minutes.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

First I have a comment to all of you. As I think has been expressed by members of this committee, the challenge that we have is to try to ensure that there's voter integrity so we don't have instances of voter fraud, and that's why many of the provisions and clauses in this bill were entertained.

On the other hand, I believe we all want to ensure that every eligible voter has the opportunity to exercise his or her franchise, and that's the great challenge: to try to combine both of them. I'm not sure, frankly, if we're ever going to find a process or a system that is ultimately perfect, but we're trying to work towards getting the best system possible.

While I can certainly appreciate the problems of the homeless who don't have identification and who are prone to losing whatever proof of identification they may have or having it stolen, or whatever, you have to counter that with the potential for fraud. So I guess one of my questions would be--this would be to Ms. Hale--would you have any idea how many of the individuals who frequent the homeless shelters are non-citizens? We know now, statistically speaking, there are millions of non-citizens--illegal immigrants, in other words--in this country. I don't know how many would be homeless. I don't know how many might be in your shelter. If you could verify that you knew this person, could you verify or guarantee that this person is a Canadian citizen?

[Mary-Martha Hale]

I'm not sure. I don't work in a shelter. I know that there is a standardized intake form that is put into a database called HIFIS, which was developed through CMHC and is used across the country. I'm not sure if that is one of the questions on that database. So I can't really answer that question about percentages.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Obviously my point is that potentially there could be individuals who are allowed to vote because they've been identified by an official at a homeless shelter, but we have no way of knowing whether they're eligible to vote as per their Canadian citizenship. However, that's again something I'm not sure how to come to grips with.

My other point is, and I would just ask you to comment on it, about a motion that is before this committee. It hasn't been entertained yet, but it is a motion to encourage the Chief Electoral Officer to have targeted enumerations in places such as homeless shelters and particularly with students as well, because the committee recognizes that these are two areas where there are a lot of instances when people are disenfranchised, and that's why of course you're both here today.

When the Chief Electoral Officer appears before this committee on Thursday, we'll be encouraging him to target enumeration efforts similar to the old method where they go into areas of high homelessness and go into areas where there are student activities and do specific enumerations to try to ensure that we can get as many of those individuals as possible to exercise their franchise. I'd just like a comment from both Mr. Hepburn and you, Ms. Hale, on whether you think that would be an appropriate motion to pass.

[Rob Hepburn]

Most certainly I support the motion. I think the Chief Electoral Officer should be given the greatest encouragement to make these efforts, because when we have fewer than 30% of any given constituency turning out to vote, it's a bit of a crisis there.

At the same time as that step forward, we're taking almost a baby step back here, because at the same time as we're encouraging them to register people in advance, if those people don't have the ID that's necessary for when they actually arrive at the polling station, then they could be self-defeating.

[Mary-Martha Hale]

I would agree. I would support such a motion. I would not just refer to homeless and students. There are other populations that may have similar challenges and barriers to being enumerated, and you would need to consider the breadth of those communities, such as the aboriginal communities and low-income communities.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Chair, if we have any time left I'll cede that to my colleague.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

You have six seconds left, but there will be time for another round, I assure you. Sorry, my mistake, there's no time left.

Monsieur Guimond, please. Five minutes.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is a very delicate matter since we may have to take some positions that might exclude them. I'm talking about homeless persons in particular.

Mrs. Hall, could you answer the following question?

My party and I would certainly no want to marginalize people or to exclude them from society since they are already far too marginalized. As far as the right to vote is concerned, I want to understand the process in detail.

Those people may not have any identification. They may be addicted to drugs or alcohol. Some homeless people may be mentally ill. When they are institutionalized or hospitalized, their health card is kept at the registration desk of the hospital. There is a file about them at the hospital.

I repeat, I am not an expert about homelessness. One sees these people in the streets but I wonder how they could be identified at the polling booth. How could we do that? My question follows somewhat from Mr. Lukiwski's. How can we make sure that they really are canadian citizens?

Take the matter of their name. In my neighborhood, all the homeless persons I meet when I go and get my soup call me Ti-Bob or Bill. Nobody knows my real name. It may also happen that, because of my illness, I don't even remember my own name. I'm just Bill or Ti-Bob.

What can we do to integrate them and to allow them to exercise their right to vote? I don't want my questions to be seen as biased or as being in favor of exclusion. On the contrary, we should try to ensure their integration but I would like to know how it could be done.

[Mary-Martha Hale]

I understand the difficulty the committee is facing in trying to ensure that all citizens can vote but at the same time ensuring that people aren't voting more than once, and that people who are not supposed to be voting don't vote. I totally understand that. I don't entirely have an answer to your question. I can tell you what we have done, and what I've said in my presentation: we have participated in enumerations. I really support the motion to have targeted enumerations so that there is a process whereby people can come forward and present what identification they do have. There are people working in agencies, as Ms. Carroll said, who are not prepared to put their professional life or the existence of their agency on the line to vouch for someone in an inappropriate manner. But there are people who can vouch for some people in this community because they are well known to them.

That is what we have done: we have vouched for people who have been well known to us, and we have helped people be enumerated. We have helped people get ID as much as possible, but that process is quite lengthy. So in terms of having the ability to vouch for someone, a professional within an agency I think would facilitate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Before we move on, I promise not to take anybody's time up, I would just like a clarification on the answer to Monsieur Guimond. You mentioned that you know these people and therefore feel comfortable in vouching for them because you know them, and that certainly makes sense. But in that knowledge, do you know that they are Canadian citizens or not, or just that you know them?

[Mary-Martha Hale]

We're vouching for them, saying that they are Canadian citizens. We may have seen their identification in previous times. As the gentleman said earlier, they have ID, and it gets lost or it gets stolen, or they move and it gets lost in the process. So we have seen ID before, but in the moment of an election they don't happen to have it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you. My apologies. I just didn't understand that.

Mr. Dewar, five minutes, please.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll just follow up with Ms. Carroll. In your presentation you mentioned that 68% of the people you deal with in your community are single parents. I'm assuming the majority of those are women.

[Barbara Carroll]

Yes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

In terms of language, and I'm going to talk to Mr. Nothing about this as well, are all of them fluent in either of the official languages? Are a majority of them fluent in either official language, be it English or French, or are many of them fluent only in their native tongue?

[Barbara Carroll]

It would be a mix.

In regard to some of the comments earlier about the lines being a little bit fudged, and the government is in the business of putting in a good election process, I agree with that, but I think it is very much our job and it is expected of us to get the word out. I'm a new Canadian. I got to vote only a few years ago. It was a great thrill for me to be able to do that here in Canada. It's confusing, you have three levels of government. The questions I get asked are very simple. What's this one about? This is the big one, this is the government. Oh, this is Canada. So we have to talk to people in many different ways. We may talk to community leaders who will ask questions. They will then go talk to their own community members.

Language can be a significant barrier. It should not necessarily mean that somebody who is a Canadian citizen should therefore not have the right to vote. If they have the opportunity to have explanations, if they take counsel from people around them who they trust--not necessarily us, it may be third party information after us--if we are posting information and we are trying to be able to make it so people can get there to vote, then I think that you're going to get a much better system instead of getting government by default because you have certain sectors and certain populations that simply can't make that process work for them.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Just an observation from all our witnesses.... It seems to me, Mr. Chair, that people are picking up the slack from where we might have failed, not us personally, but institutionally speaking.

I would suggest again, Mr. Chair, that we go beyond targeted enumeration. We should have universal enumeration. That will be easy in some areas, but it's the concept of universality, that we should have universal suffrage, and the way to do that is to make sure we have universal enumeration first.

I wanted to question Mr. Nothing. You mentioned concerns around language. For someone to swear an oath, I'm assuming you would have to have someone able to interpret. You suggested this would be problematic if you have to have someone vouching, a different person vouching for every individual swearing an oath. Is that a concern of yours?