Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Congress of Union Retirees of Canada, whose affiliate membership represents a half a million retirees and their spouses, welcomes the opportunity to present our views to the committee tonight.
Voting is an important right and indeed a duty to seniors, as they see it. It is therefore not surprising that retired people have the best rate of turnout to vote of all age groups. We do not want to lose that right. We are concerned that changes proposed in Bill C-23 will mean that some seniors will lose that right. If we, as Canadians, really believe in encouraging and enabling people to vote, we should make it easier for people to exercise their franchise. Instead Bill C-23 will make it harder for some seniors to vote, specifically those who have moved since the last election.
There was a time when the government actually did enumeration when elections were called. I’m old enough to remember that. This didn’t produce a perfect list, but it did always get seniors on the voters list because they would be there when people came around. The governments, though, decided they would save money and they’d do it by having people do something on their tax form. The problem there is that not everyone will check that spot off. Also, those tax forms are probably filled out in February, and if the election comes in October, someone may well have moved in between those two dates. This is especially true as people grow older. They often have to move out of their homes at very short notice when health issues come upon them. They often move in with their family, their son or their daughter, or into, as Susan talked about, a residence of assisted living.
A senior in his or her late eighties is not likely to have a driver's licence, probably doesn't have a passport anymore, and a health card in some jurisdictions has your picture on it, but in Ontario at least doesn't have your address. The bills that they would get for gas, electricity, or whatever go to the son or daughter—that's who has their statement—or the residence they're living in, so they're not going to be able to produce these other sorts of identification.
Our basic question to members of the committee is: why should not a daughter or son be able to vouch for their parents to vote if that's who they're living with? I think it just doesn't make sense. The rationale offered by the minister for this change is the need to eliminate serious voter fraud. From what I read—in the press and that—about the study he quoted to prove it, the author says that's not true.
There are also these stories about the bogus collection of vote-at cards that are being used incorrectly. That also appears not to be true. In fact, under the current act, Elections Canada doesn't allow me or you to go in and vouch for 50 people. You have to be in the riding and you're limited to one person. It's not as though somebody can go around doing this with vote-at cards without limit.
To us retirees, the removal of the right to vouch is a solution looking for a problem that has not been found. If concern of future fraud was the real issue, we would think you would increase the powers of Elections Canada to deal with this. Instead, unfortunately, Bill C-23 seeks to lessen the role of Elections Canada down to the point—it's already been mentioned—that they can no longer run programs to encourage people to vote. In every democracy it's important that the rules be set fairly and with due consultation. Indeed, Canadians are often found around the world trying to ensure that elections are fair.
It may have taken radicals to get the vote for everybody in Canada, but the thing that's interesting today is that frequently the criticism of this bill is coming from sources that would normally support the Conservative Party. The Globe and Mail hasn't supported the Liberal Party since George Brown left, but they've been very adamant about how they see this bill as being the wrong way to go. On the fraud argument, they said:
As for fraud, Canadians are more likely to think about political insiders misdirecting voters with robocalls than about voters trying to cast ineligible ballots.
They talked about a number of issues, but the really important one was about Elections Canada. This is what they wrote:
The legislation seems to be trying to make it harder for him—
—the Chief Electoral Officer—
—and his agency, Elections Canada, to do their jobs – a non-partisan job that is essential for the health of our democracy.
It just baffles my mind why the government's so intransigent to everyone coming forward saying that there are problems here. Frankly, it doesn't even make sense for you as a Conservative. Seniors tend to vote more for the Conservative Party than any other ones, yet you're going to limit them in voting. It betrays common sense and even political sense to me.
I'll conclude with one last quote from what The Globe and Mail said about the bill:
On a matter of democratic principles, which should be above partisanship, the government feels no need to work with the other parties, to consider proof or to provide it, to consult experts or, god forbid, to listen to them. It is government disconnected from the rules of evidence, and it points the way to government disconnected from the rules.
I would hope this committee would take the opportunity to amend this bill and not leave it to an unelected chamber to do it.
