Evidence of meeting #35 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was advertising.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I don't know what the secret is to getting on the list here, but last time Madam Latendresse was talking, I waved and she said, do you want me? I said, no, I'm trying to get the clerk's attention to get on the list.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
It is mathematically impossible for her to be on the list again unless you can pre-subscribe for multiple occasions, which is maybe what Mr. Christopherson does.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I do remember sometime in my lifetime you waving at me, Mr. Reid. I just can't remember at all when it was.
Madam Latendresse, would you allow Mr. Reid to go before you since you have spoken once on this?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I had no doubts. I just wanted to announce it to the world.
Mr. Reid.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This issue goes back to a frustration that I've had with the administration of the advertising budget of Elections Canada for some length of time, that is, it put a tremendous effort into telling us why we should vote, why our voice is important, and so on, but inadequate attention, and indeed in some cases it seems to me no attention, on the practicalities of how to get out and vote.
As I pointed out numerous times in the course of the hearings, the survey done by the CEO post the last election as to why youth had not voted indicated that when they divided youth up into five subgroups, they found that three of those five subgroups weren't voting in large measure because they didn't know where to vote. In many cases it was because they didn't have voter information cards, which indicates that the CEO had not managed to locate them.
This may not be a specific youth problem. I suspect that it relates simply to people whose addresses had changed recently. The point is that people whose addresses have changed recently are the most likely not to be on the list, as indicated by the fact that they aren't getting a voter information card, so how to get a voter information card, how to get on the list of voters, how to become a candidate, how to vote when you are disabled.... As we saw from our witnesses, there are numerous forms of disabilities. Someone who is visually impaired does not suffer from the same problems of access to voting—the same in principle perhaps, but not in practice—as someone who suffers from a mobility issue.
The CEO has, in my view, paid inadequate attention on this very important issue, so fewer people have voted than ought to have been voting in these categories because they didn't know where to turn and how to find out that information. It seems to me that the CEO ought to devote more energy to this task, but it is really hard to design legislation to ensure that an officer of Parliament will actually do something proactively, so the whole effort in section 18, the changes to section 18 that are reflected in this section of the fair elections act, are designed to push the CEO in the direction of doing this kind of advertising. That is the entire purpose of it.
He took a view that he wouldn't be allowed to do certain other things. A number of the witnesses indicated their own fear that this would make it impossible for youth to vote and that kind of thing designed to start the process of educating young people about their right to vote. That particular problem is now being corrected as well. He made it very clear that the restrictions relate to advertising and advertising only, which is the point that Professor Scott clarified with the folks from the Privy Council Office.
That's the point. Advertising really should be about how to exercise your franchise in a country where people who are marginalized, that 15% of the population who don't have a driver's licence, or the people who have just moved, the people who are students or aboriginal or homeless or seniors, or those who care for them and want to ensure their right is exercised.... They were being neglected. They were being unjustly neglected. Hopefully, as a result of this legislation they won't be. I think that is a cause to celebrate, quite frankly.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you, Mr. Reid.
Madam Latendresse, thank you for allowing that, and you're up next.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
I'm glad to be taking the floor after Mr. Reid because I have a few questions related to what he just said.
I would really like him to explain how the Chief Electoral Officer can continue to develop education and information programs for any groups other than students at the primary and secondary levels if the amendment he proposed to section 17.1 is adopted. Considering what is set out in section 17.1, I don't see how that would be possible. I would really like him to explain this to me.
I also have a technical question about the French version of the amendment. I would like to know why paragraphs (d) and (e) were changed.
Senior Officer and Counsel, Privy Council Office
It's just a simple correction. The bill uses the expression “les renseignements communiqués en vertu du paragraphe”—I don't remember the exact subsection—while the drafting convention dictates that the words “au titre de” be used. So they took advantage of the fact that amendments were being made to the section to make those two technical changes.
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you.
Now I can come back to the issue with section 17.1.
I understand that the government continues to come back to the example of the survey conducted by Elections Canada, according to which one of the main reasons young people did not vote was a lack of information.
Committee members have heard testimony on that topic. Most youth group representatives told us the following. Many young people say they did not vote because they did not know where to go, but they may also have been somewhat ashamed because they had no legitimate reason. They simply didn't feel like voting that day or they weren't too sure of what was happening. It is easier to say they didn't know where to go then to provide justification or explain that they are not very interested in politics, that they are not very familiar with the issues, or something like that. All youth group representatives told us that we should not put too much stock in those answers because people did not always give the real reason.
It's possible to tell Elections Canada to focus on that issue without preventing the agency from developing other participation programs. I don't understand why the government continues to see those measures as completely incompatible. It's as if an absolute choice had to be made between that measure and a free for all, where nothing would happen. I don't understand why we cannot simply have both. It seems to me we could specify what we want the focus to be on without having to prevent Elections Canada from talking about other considerations.
I would really like to know how public education and information programs aimed at groups other than students at the primary and secondary levels will be able to exist.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
This is the second time, I think, that my colleague has asked whether anybody on the government benches is—
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Okay.
I think the bottom line here is, this is a provision that is now better than the proposed section 18 that was tabled in the bill, but it still has the major limitations that we've been setting out. It's deeply, deeply disappointing and disturbing, including to go back to my colleague Scott Simms' image of cherry-picking.
What rationale, other than some soft spot for civic education, is there for restoring public education and information programs only to one sector? If you look at groups like aboriginal people in our society, new Canadians, university students, there's an indirect, an implicit kind of backing away from the same education that's valued for students. If it's valued for students, why isn't it valued for those groups? And if it's valued for students because one hopes it's going to lead to their being engaged, active, voting citizens, then is the inverse that...? Whether the hope is there, I'm not going to say, but the effect has to be that we don't care that the other groups are not going to be subject to the same encouragement and therefore may be less inclined to vote. So let's just call that indirect, maybe not intended, but unfortunate and clear in its effects, voter suppression. That's what it is. That's how it ends up.
Tom, that's how it ends up. When you ratchet back what already existed, when you ratchet back all the programs and the ability to run these programs that already exist and you only select one group, and by selecting the one group, you say that this is a valuable thing to do to encourage them to vote, but everybody else is now cut out. You don't worry. I'm saying in the effect that's what it does.
Just so everybody's clear, because it took a little bit of back and forth, the advertising thing now means that the distinction is between the exercise of democratic rights, and then there's the list, a limited list, and any other purpose can still be advertised for as long as it's different from the exercise of democratic rights. That's an unfortunate distinction in terms of potentially narrowing the Chief Electoral Officer's ability to advertise as it makes sense to him, and so that's also a limitation.
That said, when we do come to vote on this, I'll be voting for it, because as an amendment, it's better than proposed section 18 was, but I'm very disappointed.
Conservative
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
To steal an opening line from Mr. Simms, I'll be short.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
There was a pitcher of water in front of you. My apologies, Scotty knows I love him.
I have two quick points.
Number one, I take great issue with Mr. Scott who was saying in effect that this would be voter suppression of other demographics. How in the world could you be suppressing the vote when we're saying that Elections Canada should be extensively advertising, telling people how, where, and when to vote? That's telling them to get out and vote and here's how to do it. How in the world could you consider that to be voter suppression?
The other point I'll make very briefly is this. I take great issue with Mr. Christopherson's continued mischaracterization of the fact that he believes, or at least he contends, that Bill C-23 muzzles the Chief Electoral Officer. It does nothing of the sort. This clause only deals with advertising. If Monsieur Mayrand wants to go out and appear on one of the political panels here in Ottawa, he can do so. If he wants to hold a news conference, he can do so. If he wants to go and speak at a university, he can do so. He is not being muzzled and that is apparent. So at the very least, at the very least, Mr. Christopherson is being extremely disingenuous. This bill does not attempt in any way, shape, or form to muzzle the Chief Electoral Officer.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I have both Madame Latendresse and Mr. Christopherson.
I'll go to Madame Latendresse, because I did see her first.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I have three times on the same clause, so let's keep this one a little tighter.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
That's exactly the point I want to raise, Mr. Chair.
I am putting my question to the government for a third time because they have still not answered it.
I would like to know how Elections Canada can continue to implement public education and information programs intended for groups other than students at the primary and secondary levels. Can I get an answer to that question?
