Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 27th, 2014

[Taylor Gunn, President, Civix]

Thanks. That's the fastest 15 minutes that's ever gone by.

My name is Taylor Gunn, and I'm the founding president of Civix. I have spent the last 12 years working with students, teachers, schools, governments, and election agencies to encourage youth democratic participation.

My organization, Civix, primarily provides experiential civic education programming for elementary and secondary school students. Our rationale is that the best way for a young person to learn about their democracy is to experience it rather than to read about it in a textbook.

Our farthest-reaching and longest-running program is called Student Vote. It's a parallel election for students under the voting age. Many of you have participated in it. Basically, it helps schools put democracy on the curriculum throughout the course of an election campaign. Kids go home and they engage their parents in the election. They meet the official election candidates. They run the vote in the school for their peers, and they vote on the official election candidates.

In the last federal election, for the second time, we had over 500,000 students from just under 4,000 schools across the country. The cost of the program, in partnership with Elections Canada, was approximately $750,000. That equates to about $1.32 per student.

We now offer other programs between elections, because we know that being a citizen means more than just casting a ballot at election time.

You might have heard about the student budget consultation that we coordinated with Finance Minister Flaherty and the opposition party leaders, including Ms. May, thank you. It was all about getting kids to understand the federal budget.

We launched something this school year called Rep Day, which many of you have taken part in as well. Through that we're trying to help you get face time with your local high school students to break down their occasionally negative stereotypes of politicians and the political process.

I'm here with you today because I want to work with you on this act. We've enjoyed the privilege of working with Elections Canada over the past four federal elections through section 18.

This draft of the fair elections act would disempower Elections Canada from supporting us working in schools across the country. This is very important to me, because we think that in 2015 it will be possible to be in half of all schools in this country and to increase our numbers significantly. I don't feel that I can do that without the support of Elections Canada.

We have two short recommendations for you, but I first wanted to touch on something that's very important to us.

For us to be welcomed into schools, being in partnership with Elections Canada, along with the authenticity and credibility that creates, is critical. It is an irreplaceable badge of honour. Everyone knows that Elections Canada is our electoral agency and it can't be replaced with support from say, a Fraser Institute, or a Tides Canada foundation, or another group, for example. It's critical that we maintain that relationship.

The two recommendations we have are as follows. The first one may be obvious. We've enjoyed working under section 18. It's allowed us to come to them with new ideas. Obviously it's up to interpretation what they decide to support or get involved in, and maybe you'd like to narrow that. So our first recommendation would be to keep section 18 as it is and reserve the time of the committee to focus on some of the other major issues like vouching, etc.

Our second one—and you can look at the last page of the little booklet we gave you—deals with the new section 18, where the sidebar says “communication with electors”. What we do is teach the when, where, and how of voting. It's not even really in the bill; it's just describing what the new section is. If that could be changed to “communication with Canadians” I think that would allow us to have permission to teach the when, where, and how of voting, with the support of Elections Canada, to non-electors—those under the voting age.

Outside of that—I can't believe I did that in four minutes. I'm so sorry. That must have been too fast—I'd like to say thanks for having the opportunity to have four and a half minutes. I'd just like to point out that in our opinion, the most significant and important actors in our democracy right now are teachers and our schools. Schools play such an important and integral role in civic education. They don't need a whole curriculum around social studies or around how to be a citizen. They just need great teachers who care about this. They can bring these opportunities into the curriculum. I hope that you'll help us continue to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

If I ever need a speed-speaking team, you're it.

I apologize, without looking at the translators, for how fast some of you were speaking.

We're going to go to a seven-minute round starting with Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thank you very much.

And thank you all for being here today.

Before I begin with my questions, I just want to for the record perhaps set something straight. There was commentary that was provided by Mr. Lamoureux's mirror image, Mr. Simms, who was with us during the presentation by Mr. Neufeld, and that is that Mr. Simms brought the example forward of a woman in a care facility in his home province, in his riding actually, who he stated would not have been able to vote without the voter information card, because he said it was the only possible piece of identification that showed where she lived.

I point out that's absolutely false, because contained in the act is the ability for seniors who live in care facilities to merely get an attestation from the head of the facility, saying, “This woman lives here.” That's all they need. So she would have been able to vote, despite the protestations of Mr. Simms. I want to have that on the record.

For my question I think I'll first start with Mr. Fox. I think most Canadians who were paying any attention know, after the last election, the biggest controversy surrounded the robocall situation and Pierre Poutine, the still-unknown Pierre Poutine, who apparently had a fairly widespread and fairly orchestrated attempt of voter suppression. Now, the fair elections act, Bill C-23, deals with that very situation in that it uses the CRTC as the central repository for all voter contact services to register, and in fact without going into all of the details....

I know, Mr. Fox, your organization did fairly extensive studies on voter contact services, but when I asked former chief electoral officer Kingsley, who testified before this committee on Tuesday, if he believed the provisions contained in the fair elections act would prevent that very situation from occurring in the future, he said an unequivocal yes. I would like your opinion, since your organization did so much work on this very issue, about the government's proposal on regulating voter contact services and the role of the CRTC that is contained in Bill C-23.

[Graham Fox]

Thanks very much.

I'm not sure we can answer that question in absolutes in the sense that there will always be an exception. What I would say is, I think the provisions that are contained in the act, which echo a lot of the recommendations that we put forward in our report, would add a deterrent by raising the bar on what happens to you if you get caught. But I think in a response to 2011, the forced creation of a paper trail and the keeping of records all the way to who authorized the communication, who was communicated to, and what the script was that was used in those communications, I think, will really help after the fact if there needs to be an investigation, which in itself would be a deterrent.

The last thing I would say is, I also appreciate that the provisions aren't technology-specific, and that you didn't fall into the trap of going too far down into the specifics of was it a cellphone versus something else, was it a recorded message versus a text, which will allow you to keep up with technological advancement.

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

I guess on behalf of our Chair, I can say that now we do have seven-minute rounds, you can probably take a little bit more time in the delivery of your answers. I would like to get a fulsome response to this.

Let's concentrate on the CRTC. In effect the act will make the CRTC almost like a one-stop-shop of sorts. Do you agree with the approach of using the CRTC as a central repository to try to record all of these calls that are being made and have an accurate record of who is making the calls, what they are saying, and to whom they're directed? Is this something that your organization approves of?

[Graham Fox]

Absolutely, and I think the addition of requiring the service provider to register, I think again, is an added safeguard if we ever need to go back to things that have happened in the past, and will share some responsibility and make it more explicit.

So I think that's positive, and you will have seen in our document that actually the CRTC, current and former, had representatives in our group at our round table. I would never pretend to speak for them, but I would say that there was a lot of support for the idea of the two organizations—Elections Canada and the CRTC—working together to help regulate this. I think there will be a lot of support even from them in acting in that way going forward.

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

Thank you for that. I think your comments echo what Mr. Kingsley was saying.

Mr. Kingsley did go a little further. You mentioned you were not here to give any absolutes. He did, in effect. He said his examination of the bill, with the provisions contained regarding what we commonly know now as robocalls, would prevent that orchestrated voter suppression attempt by whoever Pierre Poutine is from occurring in the future.

However, I guess one thing still is up for discussion, and that is how long records should be kept. Bill C-23, the fair elections act, recommends that all records be kept for one year so there is a record of what's happened and what occurred, in terms of script, calls made, calls received, and that type of thing.

Some of the opposition has been criticizing that. We feel that one year is a good balance because right now there's no requirement to keep records for any period of time.

One of the reasons that we are suggesting one year would be adequate is that if there is to be another situation—hopefully, there will not—where something like voter suppression through a robocall system is alerted, in all probability the investigation would commence almost immediately. With the trail that we propose to now regulate, we feel one year would be adequate.

Does your organization have any thoughts on whether keeping records for one year is adequate or too little?

[Graham Fox]

That time period is beyond the scope of our report. However, I would say that one year is definitely better than what we have now, which is nothing. I completely agree with you.

Given that the marginal additional costs of keeping that record once it has been put together for perhaps a longer period may not be too onerous on parties and service providers, and may give more time for issues and events to come to the surface after an election. I'd be open-minded about it being longer than one year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have about four seconds.

Madame Des Rosiers, you wanted to add something very quickly.

[Nathalie Des Rosiers]

Very quickly, at U of T last week, there was a big debate, and one of the recommendations was that it be expanded to five years, and someone went as far as to say ten years. Certainly I think there was the idea that a bit longer would make the appearance all clear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Scott, seven minutes from you today.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to give the last two minutes to Ms. May, if that's possible, and could you call me at five minutes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'll stop you at five minutes and give the last two to Ms. May.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

I appreciate the line of questioning between Tom and Mr. Fox, and I think it's fair. The registry system is going to be better than nothing. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Mr. Kingsley said unequivocally that it would prevent...in an absolute way. He had criticisms that numbers won't be kept and that one year was too short; that's the minimum.

We also talked about “off the books”. Anybody who is going to engage in a concerted effort these days knows that the system will be in place and will use sophisticated technology, perhaps proxy servers, off-the-book servers, burner phones, etc. The problem is that the registry system doesn't really account for that.

Mr. Fox, I'm wondering whether you would agree that the failure to include things to do with enhancing the investigative powers.... The other end of deterrence is that people will know that it will be properly investigated. With regard to the lack of compulsion of witness, I don't know whether you agree it should be there, but it's a fact that it will make it more difficult to investigate.

Is that true?

[Graham Fox]

Again, that goes beyond the scope of the work we conducted. There was certainly a lot of discussion in our group of experts about whether we should consider enhancing the investigative powers of the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

Generally speaking, I think our group would have said that there is room for improvement. We didn't get into the specifics of what those proposals might be.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

That's great. Thank you.

I also do want to thank you and note the fact that Professor Des Rosiers pointed out the problems of restrictions on research. Under the current proposed subsection 20(1), the Treasury Board's approval will be required for the hiring of temporary specialists. The hiring of you to do that robocall research in the future would require the Treasury Board to approve that. I just want everybody to know that kind of work is precisely the kind of work that the Chief Electoral Officer should not be second-guessed on. So I thank you for the work.

I also wanted to quickly ask Ms. Loat a question. The minister has a propensity to take praise and blow it up. When you say that Mr. Poilievre is correct in highlighting that parties and candidates play a critical role in encouraging participation, I don't disagree. The fact of the matter is we do. We do that primarily to try to encourage people to vote for us for the substantive reasons. I think that's a very valid way to try to increase participation. My problem is with his “all or nothing” vision, that that's the only way citizens should be motivated.

I just wanted to make sure that everybody realizes that you're also recommending keeping the general public education function of Elections Canada, and that parties themselves should continue to do a better job motivating as well. Is that correct?

[Alison Loat]

That's correct.

In our submission, and also in my remarks, we had three recommendations on increasing citizen engagement and education, both during and in between elections. That would be done in non-partisan as well as multi-partisan ways. We do believe that political parties and candidates have an extremely important role to play in engaging electorate.

Our research suggests that there's a big bridge between where they could be and where they are, at least in the eyes of citizens. I do have concern about the low credibility that political parties have in the eyes of the public, and as I said, particularly given the quite generous public subsidies they receive.

I mentioned two points about Elections Canada: one, strengthening the role and encouraging them to do a better job; two, having an innovative funding and research program that's based on what we know works, whether Elections Canada is asked to measure results and share those and communicate those so that there's a broader understanding of what we can do to encourage greater voter participation. And third, I do suggest that some of the additional funds provided for political parties in this bill be allocated to voter education so that political parties are sending a message that they are serious about the very severe decline in participation, particularly among young people in this country.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Great. Thank you for amplifying your presentation.

Now I think I'm just out of time and Ms. May can go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Very convenient.

Ms. May, two minutes, please.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by thanking Craig Scott for being so generous with his time.

I don't think we ever hear enough from witnesses when they're on panels and forced to speak so quickly, so I want to ask one question, which I will ask each of you to speak to, and I hope you can get as much as you can into your time and still breathe.

All of you represent non-partisan, non-profit organizations, with expertise on the issues currently plaguing Canada in terms of voter turnout and fair elections. I appreciate your evidence today. I want to know from each of you, do you believe Bill C-23, the so-called fair elections act, will help or hurt the health of Canadian democracy?

[Taylor Gunn]

I'll give you the answer you don't want to hear, which is it's not passed yet, which means there's lots of room for all the changes that I think we've suggested. That's my answer.

[Graham Fox]

I would agree with Taylor. I think there's a lot of room for important changes to the bill, but I think if those changes come through it will help.

[Nathalie Des Rosiers]

It's very important that some attention be paid to the robocall issue, but if it can be split off and the rest of it be engaged in a more fruitful debate, I think that's what we're suggesting. Improvement is needed.

[Alison Loat]

I think I'd probably agree with everybody. There are some good aspects, but lots of opportunity for improvement.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

From my point of view, and having had a chance to speak to the bill at second reading, I made it clear I also support the regulation of robocalls, and the way that's being handled. I think the key significant pieces that need to be reformed before the bill passes relate to getting rid of the vouching provisions, getting rid of the voter ID cards, and getting rid of Elections Canada's role in public education. If those pieces aren't improved before passage, would you believe this bill does more to hurt or help Canadian democracy?