I'd like to start with Mr. Brock. Obviously you're both free to comment on the things I ask, but I am a little bit worried that if you both comment on my first question, I won't get around to the second one, which is intended for Professor Archer. I alert you to that.
On the issue of advertising, there was formerly very little in the way of restrictions on what the CEO could do. I was very frustrated with the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer spent a lot time advertising why you should vote and very little on how you can vote. I personally found some of the advertising ineffective, or so it seemed to me. The ads, for example, showed people with tape over their mouths start speaking and no sound comes out. I didn't think that was a very effective way of getting people out to vote. Also, it starts with the assumption that there's something wrong with the system, with you as a voter, if you aren't getting out and voting, and there's maybe something wrong with the people who are presenting themselves as candidates, as opposed to there being something wrong with the way the system itself is administered. There's a lot of evidence showing that actually is where the problem lies.
With regard to the problem of lack of youth participation, the CEO conducted a study and published it on his website. It broke down young people into five subcategories, as I recall, and then explained why they weren't participating. Lack of an accurate voter information card was ranked as one of the reasons for three of the subgroups, a majority of the subgroups. Clearly, there is a problem there. That is the reason it says, in the list of things the CEO's advertising can do, how electors may establish their identity and residence in order to vote, including the pieces of ID they may use to that end. I know this because I lobbied the minister to put this in. People don't vote in some cases because they aren't sure where to vote. They're new to the community and they're not sure where the voting takes place. They don't get a voter information card. Sometimes they're given information cards that give the wrong location. That can happen too. This is a significant problem, and it is not going to be resolved by an advertising campaign about why you should vote. It's about the bread and butter; here's how you vote.
Likewise, we had a group that came to my constituency office. We arranged a meeting with the minister. They were disabled people wanting to have it explained how people can vote if they're disabled: voting at home, voting if they're shut in. Anybody who's gone out canvassing knows there are many people who can't get out of their houses for a variety of reasons. They're disabled and they have to wait for their son or grandson to carry them down the stairs; that happens. They're in the middle of changing a diaper when you knock on their door to ask them to vote for you. There's a variety of reasons that make it difficult. How you can vote at an advanced poll; how you can vote at the returning office; how you can vote by mail; these are all things that are not advertised as well as they should be.
If I could make a change to section 18 of the act from what it says now, it wouldn't say that the Chief Electoral Officer may provide the public with these things; it would say that the Chief Electoral Officer must provide the public with these things, and must report afterwards as to how effective they were and how they could be improved.
I throw all these things out, and I understand what you're saying regarding advertising. I hope you can appreciate the frustrations I have with regard to the efficacy of our advertising, given some of the problems that exist.