Thank you.
Good afternoon, committee members.
First, I'd like to thank the committee for the invitation to make today's submissions, and I would give a particular thank you to those who aided in the rescheduling of today.
My name is Daniel Mulroy, I am here in my capacity as a human rights and constitutional lawyer and as a disability rights advocate. I am also here on behalf of my client, Mr. Dean Steacy, to address the accessibility of voting for persons with disabilities.
Through my brief submission, I'll introduce Mr. Steacy and his experience as a disabled voter, as well as the legislative mandate that requires Elections Canada to explore accessible electronic voting options to accommodate disabled Canadians. I will also request that this committee consider telephone voting as a viable and secure means of accommodating and franchising disabled voters.
Mr. Steacy—who intended on being here today but due to accessibility issues with the Zoom link will be viewing through ParlVU—has voted in every provincial and federal election since turning 18. From 1976 through to 2003, he was able to cast his ballot secretly, meaningfully and independently in accordance with his rights guaranteed under section 3 of the charter.
However, in 2003, Mr. Steacy permanently lost sight in both of his eyes. Since losing his sight, he's lost the ability to secretly, meaningfully and independently cast his vote in federal elections. Mr. Steacy's experience is not unique. Arguably, the most fundamental barrier for persons with disabilities is the exclusive reliance on the paper ballot and the unwillingness to adopt solutions based on available, accessible and secure technology. Allowing these barriers to continue puts Canada in violation of human rights, the charter and its international obligations pursuant to article 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Mr. Steacy is currently in the final stages of launching a charter challenge against the Canada Elections Act, alleging violations of sections 3 and 15 of the charter, as it denies persons with disabilities the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the electoral process and discriminates against disabled electors.
I am here today on his instructions to exhaust all avenues before returning to the courts.
Elections Canada has long recognized the existence of discriminatory barriers in our elections process, and since 1998, it has been aware, one, that technology is essential to accessible voting and, two, that telephone voting is the most viable and secure option.
Parliament has also provided Elections Canada with a clear mandate to explore electronic voting options.
In 2014, section 18.1 of the Canada Elections Act was enacted, requesting that the Chief Electoral Officer devise, test and study an alternative electronic voting process for use in future elections with Parliament's approval. Despite this mandate, no alternative voting process has been tested or proposed for adoption by Parliament, to my knowledge.
Further, in 2018, section 18.1 was amended through the inclusion of subsection 18.1(3), which states, “The Chief Electoral Officer shall develop, obtain or adapt voting technology for use by electors with a disability, and may test the technology for future use in an election.” It also added subsection 18.1(4), which provides that voting technology used for the inclusion of disabled electors needs only the approval of the responsible “committees of the Senate and of the House of Commons” for its use in future elections. However, the Chief Electoral Officer has not developed, obtained or adapted any such voting technology nor sought approval for its use in a federal election.
It is unacceptable that removing the major barrier to inclusive, independent and confidential voting by persons with disabilities has not been accomplished, despite the clear mandate handed to the Chief Electoral Officer 10 years ago and the information being available to Elections Canada for the last 25 years.
Telephone voting stands as the most secure, viable and accommodating voting procedure available, and it would represent an enormous step forward for individuals facing informational barriers, literacy barriers and transportation barriers and for those with visual barriers, like Mr. Steacy.
We respectfully ask this committee to review and report on whether Elections Canada has fulfilled its legislative mandate under section 18.1 and to report on the efficacy of telephone voting as an accommodation that will enable persons with disabilities to exercise their democratic rights on an accessible and equal basis.
Thank you very much.