Evidence of meeting #32 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was voting.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I'm not sure which specific power. Are you talking about the power to compel, or are you talking about the.... Again, from my understanding of the law, and I'm not a lawyer, the authority is there that other prosecutorial or law enforcement agencies have.
Former Member of Parliament, As an Individual
I very strongly believe that he should report to Parliament. Period.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
That will end this panel for today. We thank you both for coming.
It's great to see you again, Mr. Casey.
Mr. Hawn, I know I see you all the time.
Conservative
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I was watching the clock and hoping there might be one question possible with unanimous consent.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
You know that that takes unanimous consent, but I'm trying to go a little quicker today because I've added committee business to the end of the second panel.
Conservative
Green
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
It's nice to plead, but let's.... I'm going to suspend while we change the panels please.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Let's bring ourselves back to order for the next session.
We have three guests with us now. We have, from my left to right, from Apathy is Boring, Youri Cormier. From the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec—I'll do my best folks—Éliane Laberge, thank you. As well, Adam Shedletzky, who we know has visited us before, is a witness today. We're happy to have you here, too, Adam.
We're going to start with you for opening statements, Adam, and we'll work across that way. Five minutes or less, please, then we'll go to questions after all of the opening statements.
Adam Shedletzky Co-Founder, Leadnow.ca
Thank you for inviting the Leadnow community to testify before this committee.
My name is Adam Shedletzky and I'm a co-founder of Leadnow.ca.
Our mission is to help people across Canada deepen our democracy to create a more open, just, and sustainable society.
Canadians from all walks of life have expressed overwhelming opposition to the proposed changes to our elections law. From the 60,000-plus Canadians who have signed our petition, to current and past Chief Electoral Officers, to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, to the 160 Canadian and 19 international political science scholars, to journalists and editorial boards across the country, the response has been clear: the Fair Elections Act is fundamentally unfair. It stacks the deck in favour of the Conservative party and it cannot be fixed. The Leadnow community therefore calls on you to recommend that the House of Commons kill the bill and start over from scratch.
Unfortunately, this committee was unwilling to travel outside the Ottawa bubble to hear from Canadians across the country. I am grateful that through the Leadnow community, I am able to directly convey to this committee the wisdom and concerns of everyday Canadians who shared their perspective with us on Facebook and over email.
To start, we’re glad that the prohibition on vouching has received so much critical attention both in the media and here in committee, and that reports indicate that Minister Poilievre may be open to changing course. Yet, unfortunately, the issue of vouching is only one of numerous significant concerns Canadians have with this bill. In fact, Liane Tanguay expressed fear that the debate surrounding vouching is a red herring, that Mr. Poilievre will eventually concede to give the appearance that the final bill is a reasonable compromise.
Liane outlined several of our community’s other major concerns, stating that:
There is no good policy reason for the incumbent in a riding to appoint the polling supervisor, who among other things will have custody of advance ballots.... There is no reason to muzzle [Elections Canada] or to exempt fundraising costs from financing limits.
Also, “There is no reason for investigations and their outcomes to be kept from the public.”
Gail Silva was specifically concerned that because of this new law, Canadians will never find out what happened in the robocall fraud of 2011. This fear appears to be well founded, as Elections Canada recently decided to postpone their report on the robocall scandal until after the next election.
It is completely outrageous that three years after the robocall fraud of 2011, Canadians still do not know which political operatives played dirty tricks during the last election. In response to this attack on our democracy, Elections Canada requested that Parliament provide our elections watchdog with the power to compel witness testimony, just like the Competition Bureau can. This was partially because political operatives have refused to testify, significantly hampering the ability of Elections Canada to restore Canadians’ faith in the integrity of our democracy.
The robocall registry and new penalties for impersonating elections officials do not adequately empower Elections Canada to catch political operatives orchestrating election fraud. Mary Kolz wants to know why our elections watchdog was not given the specifically requested power to compel testimony.
One of Pattie Whitehouse's concerns is that “Removing the ability of Elections Canada to educate Canadians about voting and to encourage us is counterproductive to the goal of increasing voter engagement”.
While Minister Poilievre is correct that political parties are generally effective at encouraging Canadians to vote, that is only true insofar as in their interest to do so. Political parties have finite resources. They target those resources at those demographic groups most likely to vote. Youth are by far the least likely to vote, so they are largely ignored.
In fact, only 40% of youth said that political parties reached out to them, versus 75% of Canadians over 65 years old. Elections Canada has found that young people who take courses in government or democracy are 14% more likely to vote than those who do not.
The simple truth is that self-interested political parties are not adequately incentivized to conduct outreach to reverse the alarming trend of declining youth voter turnout. As Katie Omstead and Matthew Olewski state, the crisis in Canadian democracy is one of low voter turnout, especially amongst our youth. In this context, we need to be giving Elections Canada more power and capacity, not less.
Many Canadians have also sent in comments expressing outrage over the lack of consultation with experts, opposition parties, or Canadians before the introduction of a bill that is so fundamental to our democracy. One party ramming through such changes without widespread buy-in would cause Tim Thiessen, for example, to lose faith in our democratic process.
Lastly, people like Meghan Marentette and Holly Pender-Love wish that instead of fighting to protect our rights, we could be having a conversation around bold steps that could revitalize our democracy, such as moving towards online voting or making voting mandatory.
From The Globe and Mail editorial board to non-partisan chief electoral officers, to respected academics, to everyday Canadians, the message is clear. This bill is fundamentally flawed. It needs to be killed. Let’s start from scratch, together, to collaboratively draft a truly fair elections law that all Canadians can support.
Thank you. I look forward to hearing your questions.
Conservative
Éliane Laberge President, Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec, or FECQ, represents 21 college-level student associations across Quebec, with a total of 70,000 members.
Since its creation, the federation's first priority has been to advocate on behalf of CEGEP students. The federation also works to increase student involvement in public debate and government.
Our remarks today are based on the efforts of independent and government organizations working towards a common goal: increasing voter turnout among young people and educating the public.
Also underlying our remarks are observations we've made with the help of our members, especially over the past few weeks, in the lead-up to the provincial election. The federation worked actively to get CEGEP students out to the polls and took the time to speak with thousands of them. We have the benefit of being the same age as our members, so they feel they can be open and honest when they speak to us.
Youth voter turnout during general elections is a matter of great concern to the FECQ. We believe it is imperative for young people to assume their rightful place in public debates and for political parties to take young people into account. Our country's well-being and development are at stake. Excluding a generation, whether indirectly or directly, is one of the worst things a country can do.
Voter turnout among Canadians at federal election time has been steadily dropping since the 1980s. In 2008, just 58% of Canadians went to the polls. The trend is even more evident among 18 to 20 year olds; only 38% of them cast their ballots in 2011.
It's a troubling picture because it's likely to get only worse with time. If young people don't exercise their right to vote at their very first opportunity to do so, they will become less likely to vote later on. In other words, poor turnout among first-time voters leads to poor voter turnout overall, down the road. This is a serious problem that requires all sides to do everything in their power to fix it.
We fear that the passage of the election reforms in Bill C-23, especially the changes to section 18 of the Canada Elections Act, will do nothing to make things better. In fact, they will do the reverse.
The FECQ has noted that voter turnout among youth is determined by four major factors. The first is the view that voting is a duty. The second is a solid grasp of the electoral process. The third is an understanding of politics, the way government works, the issues of the day and the political parties, themselves. And the fourth and final determinant is an interest in politics. All four need to be present. Someone who feels a sense of duty to vote but isn't the slightest bit interested in election issues, or doesn't understand how government works, won't necessarily go out and vote.
Clearly, it's not the responsibility of the Chief Electoral Officer to make equal efforts on all four fronts. But we do feel he should at least be mandated to help spread the message that voting is a duty, as is currently the case, in addition to informing people about when, where and how to vote. Section 18 of the act shouldn't be amended to diminish the Chief Electoral Officer's scope of activity.
Keeping up public education is imperative. In 2011, Elections Canada commissioned a study to ascertain young people's motivation for voting or not voting. The study revealed that barriers tied to motivation, so determinants one, three and four, were just as much to blame as barriers having to do with access, so determinant two—knowing when, where and how to vote—if not more.
Naturally, some youth cite not having received information on when, where and how to vote as an excuse. But our experience, especially in recent weeks, has led us to realize that that excuse is often used to conceal a lack of political knowledge, trouble understanding the differences between the parties and a poor grasp of the impact voting has. Only when we told students they needn't be embarrassed about not being experts on political matters did they open up about feeling uncomfortable because they knew little about politics or which party they were going to vote for.
We would tell them about tools to help steer them in the right direction, doing more than just giving them factual information. That could mean, for instance, telling them about the Vote Compass tool on CBC's Web site or providing comparisons between the various parties' platforms. We would stress how important it was for them to vote in order to have their say. And that's what would convince them to cast their ballots.
Of course, making sure young people know when, where and how to vote is important, but so is ensuring they know who they are voting for and why. And that can absolutely be done in a non-partisan way. We did it for four weeks. Bear in mind that a young person won't go to the trouble of voting if they don't know who they are voting for.
The Chief Electoral Officer already provides factual information about the voting process. So we don't understand the desire to pass legislation preventing him from eliminating the second barrier to voter turnout—the biggest one, in our view—motivation. The government's decision is even harder to understand given the compelling evidence that shows motivation is indeed a barrier.
Elections Canada commissioned a study showing that the Student Vote program had a positive impact on numerous factors tied to voter turnout. The program helps young people better understand the political issues and parties, develop an interest in politics and realize that voting is a civic duty, all while introducing them to the voting process. Therefore, the program is active on all four of the fronts that lead to improved voter turnout. The same goes for major public awareness campaigns, which Quebec's chief electoral officer credits with getting 34% of those who see the ads out to the polls.
In conclusion, our position is this. We share the government's concern about providing voters with quality information. Nevertheless, we believe that Elections Canada can, and should, continue to impress upon young voters the idea that voting is a duty, help them better understand our political system and encourage them to become more interested in politics.
Section 18 of the Canada Elections Act should stand in its original form. That would ensure the Chief Electoral Officer retained the independence and freedom to educate the public not just on when, where and how to vote, but also on why voting is important.
Thank you for your consideration. We sincerely hope all the parties will be able to reach some common ground and amend the bill in a way that improves youth voter turnout, not the opposite.
Conservative
Youri Cormier Executive Director, Apathy is Boring
Thank you very much for having me here.
I am Dr. Youri Cormier and I'm the executive director at Apathy is Boring.
Apathy is Boring is a national youth-led non-partisan charitable organization that has been working to educate Canadian youth about democracy since 2004.
In keeping with our strict non-partisanship policy, we do not advocate on matters of public policy, and this includes not taking a public stance for or against the Fair Elections Act.
Our goal today is to provide an accurate, impartial and balanced analysis of the youth electoral context in Canada in relation to this bill, with the hope that this will be a valuable addition to the current debate.
Youth voter participation is not a partisan issue. Youth do not form a voting block that sways as a whole one way or another. This in fact has been proven by various studies. One example of this is the student vote program, which has shown that high school mock election results roughly mirror actual electoral results. Also, a recent poll found that 18-to-24-year-olds support Canadian political parties in proportions that are similar to those for other age groups. Even the issues they prioritize are roughly the same as those of older generations, including people over the age of 60.
Despite these similarities between generations, voter turnout in Canada is not evenly distributed amongst age groups. Youth vote at a rate significantly lower than that of their elders. This is happening throughout the western world, not only here in Canada.
The other problem is that the decision to vote or not is a habit one develops at an early age. Young people who don't vote in the first two elections in which they are eligible to do so tend not to vote for the rest of their lives.
Study after study has shown that the key factor determining voter participation is motivation. Non-partisan motivational campaigns have had a measurable impact on voter turnout. And the evidence exists to back that up.
We recognize that elected officials and political parties have an important role to play in motivating citizens to vote. That said, non-partisan actors are also key, because they do not have a stake in the outcome of any given election. While political parties may choose to speak to those in their base and to undecided voters—both of which are current voters—non-partisan actors play a fundamental role by encouraging non-voters to become voters, thereby continually renewing the pool of electors and the health of our democracy.
If Elections Canada is no longer empowered to invest in and conduct outreach campaigns that promote voting, who then will actively reach out to non-voting citizens and youth who are deciding for the first time whether or not to vote? Will Elections Canada be able to continue to invest in research projects that aim to understand the trend in youth voter turnout and identify which strategies are cost-effective for turning the trend around?
Another barrier to voting is that youth have high levels of mobility. They move away from home, they go off to college, and they move again to find work—the unemployment rate in Canada for youth is very bad. As a result, these young adults are less often correctly inscribed on the electoral lists.
To make voting easier for youth, Apathy is Boring recommended in a report commissioned in 2008 that Elections Canada could capitalize on changes to ID requirements to increase accessibility to elections. VICs were deemed to be a logical choice, because even before Elections Canada piloted their project with these cards, our research found that many people thought the VIC was an acceptable form of identification because it seemed to contain all the information listed as being acceptable.
Voters may have 39 alternative forms of authorized ID, but the problem is that if high mobility results in someone's address being incorrect on one of these, it usually means that it is incorrect on the remaining ones as well. In such circumstances common to young Canadians, vouching and VICs can indeed facilitate access to voting.
If tighter ID requirements are implemented, it will be indeed crucial to ask this question. What means will be put in place to counter the potentially challenging impacts of tighter voter identification on young eligible voters who are not correctly on the voting list? In attempting to safeguard democracy from administrative risks, how can we also ensure that we do not expose our democracy to another important risk, that is, the immediate and continued decline of youth voter turnout and the impact this might have on long-term voting habits?
A democracy may be very well-administered and free of irregularities, but what worth would it have if this “regularity” came at the expense of citizens opting out of the democratic process?
Apathy is Boring hopes that engaging youth as voters will be an important part of the debate around Bill C-23. We continue to be committed to our non-partisan charitable mission of educating Canadian youth about democracy. And in so doing, we need the support of the many critical stakeholders: government, political parties, electoral agencies, community groups, donors and, of course, youth volunteers.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you, Dr. Cormier.
We'll go to a seven-minute round of questions. We'll try to keep it tight so that we can do the committee business at the end.
I think I have Mr. Reid first.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all of our witnesses.
I'm going to start my questions with Dr. Cormier.
Forgive me for saying this, Dr. Cormier, but you look very young to be a doctor.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
It happened on television, sir. You can get a clip of this.
Go ahead, Mr. Reid.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
There are a whole bunch of things I want to address—you've done a very interesting presentation—but the first thing is just a problem that was identified by the Chief Electoral Officer or by Elections Canada in the 2011 post-election national youth survey report. They went through and tried to determine reasons why young people hadn't voted.
When they're dealing with the side of it that is not attitudinal but rather that involves actual impediments to voting, they do cite difficulty in providing identification and proof of address, but they also cite not receiving a voter card. The obvious point, which is easy to understand, is that those people who are least likely to have a long-term residence that has been established, for which records have been collected and so on, are also those who are least likely to get the voter card.
When they broke down youth into subgroups and looked at underprivileged youth, they found that for ethno-cultural youth, the top reason for not voting was not receiving a voter information card. For unemployed youth who were not in school, the top reason was the same. It was the same as well for youth with disabilities. So it suggests that the voter information card is just unlikely to be a solution to the expansion that the CEO proposes. The voter information card is not likely to actually resolve the problem. I think some other mechanism has to be found.
I offer that as an editorial to you. But I really wanted to ask you about this card you handed out. This is really good. I followed, as everybody did, the Quebec election. I had not seen this until today. But I did see—in fact, I took a photograph of it—an ad put by the Quebec chief electoral officer on the side of a bus, which said, "Notre vote, c'est un pouvoir". There was a big X and it said, "Je vote". I have to say that I don't find that very compelling. I'll bet you nobody went out and voted because of those bus boards.
On the other hand, I look at what you have here—and I gather this was done with the CEO's cooperation? It was a joint effort?