Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[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.

[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]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kingsley. That was an excellent introductory report, and certainly we will be handing out the documents you spoke of at this moment.

Colleagues, we will begin our round of questioning for the witnesses this morning.

There is just a little bit of noise in the background, and I think that's okay. I think we can continue.

Are you okay with that, Mr. Owen? You are up first.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I just want to make sure you're comfortable with the activities. Then we will start with seven-minute rounds.

Mr. Owen, please.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Kingsley and your colleagues, thank you for being here and for your presentation.

In our previous discussions with you and other witnesses, we identified two particularly critical issues in terms of the proposed bill and the identification of people. One is the low registration of voters in particularly remote aboriginal communities. It was suggested, I think, at one time that we look for your assistance in designing a process to better target areas of clear under-representation on the voters list, the enumeration list, and whether there was some triage or other approach that could deal with them. It may be people in inner cities, in shelters. It may be people in remote communities. That seemed to be an area where there is a large degree of under-representation. Is there something remedial, some steps that we can take to target those areas?

The second issue was with respect to photo ID and government photo ID, as to whether the status cards could be acceptable. They're not listed here by you as approved government cards. Is there some way that those status cards can be standardized, and perhaps enhanced across the country, so that people living in reserve communities could actually have a photo card with status and showing their residence, at least connected to that reserve?

My final point is on the numbers you give in your report with respect to the 4.5 million electors, or one in five, who will be required to prove their identity and the way that those numbers have been accumulated. I guess I'm looking for a general impression from you, or any specific evidence you have through your experience, of whether a consequence of those figures has led to a suspicion of fraud, or actual fraud detected, or to what extent those figures contribute to declining voter turnout in federal elections.

What's the size of the pie here? What are we missing? What should we be focusing on, and what are those tools?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Mr. Chairman, I don't quite get the second part of the question, because I don't see the relationship between the one-in-five electors who would have to produce two pieces of documentation and perceived instances of fraud under the present system. That has me confused, quite frankly.

Perhaps I could start to answer the first question with respect to lower registration rates for persons in aboriginal communities. This is a fact of life in Canada, as it exists now. We saw at the last election that some of the measures that we have put in place are beginning to bear fruit--the Assembly of First Nations, Elections Canada, and other aboriginal communities in Elections Canada--and there was greater registration at the polls by these persons. This was discussed at this committee before.

What we do at every election, through targeted revision, is target 10% or more of the 10,500,000 residences in Canada and actually send revising agents to their door. We visited at the last election 1,400,000 residences and did what we used to call door-to-door enumeration by sending two revising agents. We identified apartment buildings with high mobility. We identified sections of cities with high mobility. We identified new developments. We identified residences where there's high turnover because people are older. We identified student residences. That's where we sent 1,400,000 visits.

We only got 232,000 persons who registered through that door-to-door visit, where we visited twice or three times. That may be an answer, by the way, about door-to-door enumeration, how successful that is now, but that is what we do. People are not answering or people are not willing to register. Now, it must be remembered that you've turned down a recommendation here. People have to produce ID at their homes to register. People have to produce the ID of a relative they wish to register. If the person is absent, gone driving, has his driver's licence, has left no ID at home, that person cannot register his spouse or her spouse. You've turned down a recommendation to make that. We would have picked up 0.6 or 0.8 more for each person we pick up through that means. With aboriginal communities, with the efforts we're deploying, I think we will have more success.

As well, I've answered the question before, and I'm sorry for taking so long, but the discussion you're having is so important. With a fixed-date election, the thought was raised here that we could do targeted enumeration or revision before the electoral process. In other words, do it even more thoroughly than we do now and have a little bit more time and have preliminary lists that have these changes in them, so that when you go door to door you will have up-to-date lists with those door-to-door visits having been completed.

You may wish to consider or reconsider whether it's necessary to have two people visit each door, whether it's necessary to have ID at the door—which was never required before when we did door-to-door enumeration in this country—whether it's necessary to have ID for people who are not there when their spouse is trying to register them. These are recommendations I made before.

With respect to your second question, perhaps I could just elaborate a little bit, and maybe that will trigger the question you had in mind.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Maybe I could just attempt to clarify it, if that would be more helpful to you.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Okay. Please do, sir.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

You approximated 4.5 million electors who would have to produce the two pieces of identification. I understand that's an extrapolation from a smaller experience. With that 4.5 million people, because they're going to have to produce two pieces of identification, does that leave you to assume or suspect that either those people aren't bothering, that they're in that pocket of voters who don't vote and go into that statistic--which is, but for the reason of difficulty, a barrier, rather than simply not caring enough to vote, or complacency--or does the use of those two pieces of identification, without photo identification, lead you to suspect that there may be, or do you know that there is, some segment of fraud in people identifying themselves in that way?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I definitely do not know that there is any kind of fraud of that kind going on. What we were alluding to in our comments was based on our extrapolation of statistics--it's not based on experience--that 3.3 million electors do not have drivers' licences, and of the other 1.2 million, 10% have postal addresses instead of residential addresses on their drivers' licences.

What we're saying is we must anticipate that it will be difficult to get people to understand that they have to bring two pieces of ID to the polls, with their ID and their address on both. It's going to be difficult for Canadians to understand this. This is what I'm trying to underline to the committee here, which is why I proposed an alternative.

What I'm saying to you is the bill as it is drafted will create this situation, and what I've proposed is an alternative that in my view would obviate most of those difficulties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much. We went well over on that round, but I think it was necessary.

Mr. Reid, please, seven minutes.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Kingsley. I can't remember how many times you've been before the committee as witness when I've been on the committee. I must say this is, in my opinion, your best presentation yet. It's very thorough and it's raised so many issues I want to raise that I know I won't get done in seven minutes.

Let me just start by trying to run through some issues that have occurred to me as a result of the presentation. You got a preliminary list of identification cards and documents, and this raised a question with me. I took the trouble of looking up what people are allowed to use as documents to support their identity when they apply for a passport, just as a guide to what the government tends to expect if we want to have some security.

One of the things they list in here is they talk about the use of photocopies in some cases and they have restrictions on it. What would your position be on people providing a photocopy of some piece of ID, as opposed to the real thing?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Certainly, on the surface of it, it would not create an undue problem for me as Chief Electoral Officer. I'm just trying to think of why would they bring a photocopy of what they already have. That is another question.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I can answer that question, because I thought about it after I saw this. I'm not actually recommending you be for or against this; I'm just throwing it out. I don't carry my driver's licence with me. When I'm driving, I have a photocopy of it and my insurance for the vehicle, which the Province of Ontario allows you to have. So if I arrived at the poll, I wouldn't have this stuff, but I'd trot out to the glove compartment and bring it back in. I could imagine that you are going to encounter voters who will do some version of that.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

That could well be. As I've indicated, on the surface of it, without having examined it, it would not seem to be problematic to me, but perhaps it requires a little more study.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I don't really have a position myself. I guess what I would like is if the legislation is passed in the current form for you to have a position either for or against ahead of time so all your returning officers will know how to act and they'll all act in a consistent manner.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Then, assuming we would want to look at that, it would be part of what we would be proposing to this committee as acceptable or not acceptable by leaving it out. But we'll look at that in more detail, sir.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Okay, thank you.

There was an issue that was raised by a witness at our last meeting on Tuesday, and I don't think you've had a chance to examine the transcripts of that meeting, so I'll just describe it. A man named Mr. Nothing, who comes from a very small fly-in aboriginal community in northern Ontario, described a situation with which I'm not personally familiar, but you've administered elections for a long time, so I know you will be familiar with it. Effectively, the address for everybody on reserve is general delivery at the post office. But clearly there's some method you must have for differentiating people. He was expressing concerns about the address component in identification. When he said it, what I thought of was that in rural areas a lot of people do have an actual address, a concession number and a lot number, but in practice it's John Smith at RR 1, Smiths Falls, that kind of thing.

I'm relating this back to the requirement that some demonstration of address be given in the bill. How would you deal with this, or in fact do you have the capacity to deal with this? Is this is a problem?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I view it as less of a problem, because I think we tend to forget that in those communities people actually know one another and they know where they reside. They actually do. They all live on a reserve or in a particular area and they know one another. They belong to the same community. I think somewhere along the way we tend to forget this, because we tend to think of urbanized Canada, but there's more to it than that.

In effect, when that address shows up, the people know what this means. That's Joe who lives down the road and they know that the person belongs there and is entitled to vote at that polling station, and this is what is happening.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

It's within the power of those doing the vouching, essentially.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

In a sense, and the people who are actually running the polls are from those communities as well, and they know the people who come up. I think somehow we've lost track of that. There is that element that still persists. It's much more difficult in urban Canada, and I think we have to recognize that. In many parts of rural Canada it still remains a fact of life, and I think we can use that to satisfy the requirements of this statute. If they show up with a card that says this reserve or this particular concession, people will know what that means and will accept it as proof of ID, of residence.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

There was another thing that came up from another witness at that meeting. I apologize, I can't remember his name, but he was the representative of the Canadian Students Union.

[A voice]

Mr. Hepburn.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Hepburn raised the issue of some of the concerns students have. Many of them don't have a driver's licence. I looked at the way the legislation is proposed and promised to raise the following question with you.

I remember being a student and having a student card. Virtually all colleges and universities have student cards with photo ID. The impression I have, although I stand to be corrected, is that for the most part they'd be fairly hard to forge and therefore unlikely to be useful as a means of engaging in a fraudulent vote. In other words, they're not bad ID. Universities and colleges are not, strictly speaking, government institutions, but they are created by government, either federal or provincial statute.

Similarly, bus passes or public transit passes are issued by government authorities, and I think they tend to have photos on them. The thought occurred to me that it could, under a certain interpretation of the law, be permissible to have a piece of ID that establishes your name and address and then a second piece of ID that establishes your name and your photo. This would be the bus pass or the student ID. It occurred to me that this combination might serve to allow a person to identify themselves to vote.

When I raised that with him, he said he thought that would largely solve the problem of students who don't have a driver's licence and therefore might have a problem identifying themselves, but neither of us was sure what interpretation you would take of the law and whether you think the law, as it's currently proposed, would permit someone with this particular combination of identification to vote. That's the question.