Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 2 - Evidence - Meeting of March 11, 2009
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:29 p.m. to study the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (topic: new voter identification procedures and Aboriginal Peoples).
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I call the meeting to order.
Good evening. I would like to welcome all honourable senators, any members of the public with us in the room, and all viewers across the country who are watching these proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on the facilities of CPAC and the World Wide Web.
I am Senator St. Germain from British Columbia, chair of the committee. The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally.
[Translation]
Today we welcome the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. First I will introduce the members of the committee.
[English]
Present are Senator Peterson from Saskatchewan; Senator Carstairs from Manitoba; Senator Dyck from Saskatchewan; our deputy chair, Senator Sibbeston, from the Northwest Territories; Senator Brazeau from Quebec; Senator Lang from the Yukon; Senator Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick; Senator Watt from Quebec; Senator Hubley from Prince Edward Island; and, from the great province of British Columbia, Senator Campbell, former mayor of the city of Vancouver.
Today we will examine how the new voter identification requirements to prove identity and residence affected Aboriginal peoples during the general election of October 2008.
To discuss this topic we have before us Mr. Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. Joining him, also from Elections Canada, is the Director General, Outreach, Communications and Research, Mr. Belaineh Deguefé.
[Translation]
Welcome, gentlemen, and thank you for accepting our invitation. I understand that you are prepared to give a brief presentation and that copies have been distributed to the committee in both official languages.
[English]
Your remarks, if you agree, will be followed by questions from senators.
[Translation]
Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Elections Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to be here today at your invitation to discuss the new voter identification procedures as they apply to Aboriginal electors.
I will begin by speaking about the purpose of the legislation, which was adopted in 2007, and I then describe how we have implemented it. I will share with you our experience with the legislation before and during the 40th election. My colleague and I will be pleased to respond to your questions afterward.
First, the new legislation. As you know, the 2008 general election was the first general election at which the new voter identification requirements were administered. Before June 2007, voters already registered on the list of electors were seldom asked to prove their identity or residence when at the polls in a federal election. However, as you may recall, parliamentarians had become concerned about the integrity of the voting process and the potential for abuse.
There was discussion of the possibility of impersonation or the use of successive vouching. As a result, Parliament passed legislation to amend the Canada Elections Act. The changes received royal assent on June 22, 2007, and required electors to prove their identity and residence when casting their ballot, and also prohibited the use of successive vouching. These requirements were applied during seven by-elections held before the 40th general election.
After the changes were made, it quickly became clear during the summer of 2007 that to implement these new requirements, issues with regard to civic addresses would have to be resolved. Indeed, some electors, especially in rural and northern areas, simply do not have a complete civil address that would prove their residence within a polling division. These electors have only a mailing address, a post office box or a rural route number, or they rely on general delivery at the nearest post office.
In addition, many electors living in the same areas do have civic addresses, but use their mailing address on most of their identification documents. In both cases, the electors would not likely have been able to provide proof of their residence at the polling station. Nor could they likely have relied on someone else from the same polling division to vote for them as their neighbours might have been in the same situation.
Given these concerns, the initial voter identification requirements were amended through Bill C-18, in late 2007. The new legislation provides that an elector who shows a piece of identification on which the address is consistent with the information on the list of electors will be deemed to have established his or her residence.
Where does the legislation stand?
[English]
Since 2007, the new identification requirements and options available to voters are as follows: First, they can provide one original piece of identification issued by any level of government in Canada or an agency of that government. That piece of identification must show the elector's photo, name and address. Alternatively, they can provide two original pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer. Both must show the name of the elector and one must also have the elector's address.
It is worth noting that the act provides that the Certificate of Indian Status issued by the Government of Canada is one of the authorized pieces of identification on the list. That piece of identification provides for the photo and name of the individual. However, it does not contain the address.
As a third option, voters can swear an oath and be vouched for by an elector whose name appears on the list of electors in the same polling division and who has himself or herself acceptable identification.
As mentioned earlier, before 2007 it was possible for an elector who had been vouched for to vouch for another elector. However, successive vouching is no longer possible. It has been expressly prohibited by the act.
As we looked at implementing the legislation, we did an initial review in 2006 and found that there is no single piece or identification card issued at the federal level that meets all the requirements of the first option, which is, again, to provide photo, name and address. A piece of identification that comes to mind is a passport. Passports contain your photo and name, but not your address, so it does not qualify under the first option.
As well, only a few pieces of identification issued by other levels of government, such as the driver's licence, satisfy all these requirements. Finally, while many cards do establish a person's identity, they do not include the address. That information is more likely to appear on other documents, such as utility bills.
The act, therefore, provides for the establishment of a list of pieces of identification that are authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer. Electors must provide two pieces of identification on that list. As mentioned earlier, both of these pieces of identification must show the name of the elector and one must also show the elector's address.
When establishing the list, our objective was to respect the intent of the act with regard to supporting the integrity of the vote while at the same time striving to make voting as accessible as possible. This meant a closed list of 44 pieces of identification and original documents, which was eventually expanded to 46.
The development of the list also took into account the specific needs of key groups of electors, including Aboriginal persons on reserve. A key addition to the list was a letter of attestation of residence. It allows the responsible authority of an Indian band or reserve to attest to the identity and address of an elector residing on the reserve.
The development and administration of the list have been influenced by ongoing consultation with a variety of stakeholders. Before the new voter identification requirements became law, I shared a proposed list of identification pieces with the minister and sought the views of both the house and Senate committees responsible for electoral matters.
Since then, we have also consulted with candidates, members of the House of Commons and representatives of those groups of electors most likely to face challenges in meeting the new identification requirement. This included northern Canadians, seniors, residents of long-term care facilities, students and homeless persons. We sought feedback about the effectiveness of the list, any barriers the new requirements might present, as well as advice on how to communicate effectively with these groups. Representatives from Aboriginal communities were part of these interviews and consultations.
Prior to the fortieth general election, we had the opportunity to experiment with the new requirements through seven by-elections — three by-elections in September 2007 and four in March 2008 — which were the first opportunities to implement the new identification requirements. We used public opinion surveys and feedback from our election workers in those electoral districts to assess the effectiveness of the list and our communication to electors.
The results showed that overall implementation was smooth. Most electors were aware of the new rules, were not opposed to having to provide their identity and found the new requirements easy to meet. The results from respondents in Northern Saskatchewan showed those same tendencies. However, it was also clear that fewer respondents were aware of the new requirements, and a larger number indicated that they did not have the required documents.
Moving to the fortieth general election, as I mentioned earlier, this was the first election at which the new voter identification requirements were administered. Administrative procedures and the training session that had been put in place and tested in by-elections were continued for the general election. We implemented a proactive information and advertising campaign, which included the distribution of a leaflet to all Canadian households reminding them of the new identification rules. It informed them of their options to prove their identity and residence and included a copy of the list. This campaign was supplemented by supportive media relations to inform journalists of the new requirements.
In addition, we actively pursued communications and outreach efforts aimed at Aboriginal electors. I have with me today several examples detailing our efforts in this regard, which I will be happy to share with members of the committee with the chair's permission.
Highlights of our efforts included the expansion of our Aboriginal radio campaign in 13 northern electoral districts, local outreach by our community relations officer, and a partnership with the Assembly of First Nations. The AFN called leaders of many Indian bands to brief them on the identification requirements and encourage them to provide letters of attestation.
Preliminary evidence from our post-general election telephone survey of electors indicates that the clear majority of Canadians were aware of the new requirements and did not experience any problems when voting. However, we do have anecdotal evidence that certain groups, including Aboriginal persons living on-reserve, face particular challenges in proving their identity and address. These situations included some electors arriving at the polls without the required piece of identification. Some were confused about the new process and which pieces of identification were acceptable.
I had the opportunity to observe a number of electors who attended the poll with a passport and a voter identification card, which again were not sufficient under the requirements of the legislation.
Some electors relied on the attestation of residence, a letter from the administrator of an Indian band, to establish their address, but were unable to provide additional pieces of identification as required. The attestations also placed a burden on some administrators who needed to be available on a timely basis to complete these forms.
The newness and the greater complexity of the rules led to some inconsistent application by polling station officers. Again, I think I can add to this that in small communities where poll officials and electors know one another, it caused a little bit of tension when they were asked to first state their name and address and then provide the document to prove their name and address. That created uneasy situations from time to time.
My office is presently conducting a series of post-election evaluations, and these will help us further identify and establish priority areas that may require improvement. Last month I tabled a report on the conduct of the fortieth election that I believe was distributed to all members of the committee. I also appeared before the House of Commons committee responsible for electoral matters to share our experience in the election and get their views, and I am of course here today to again share our experience with the new voter identification requirement and listen to your observations. These findings will be part of an integrated report I intend to publish late this spring, and by the end of the year I also plan to submit to Parliament a report containing my recommendations for the better administration of the act.
At this point, Mr. Chair, I would like to thank you and members of the committee. My colleague and I would be pleased to answer any questions you have.
The Chair: On behalf of my colleagues, I want to thank you for your presentation.
Senator Carstairs: I want to publicly thank Mr. Mayrand, because I contacted him during the election campaign and we had a conversation. I was getting calls from all over Northern Manitoba from band councils, chiefs, and members of the communities who were totally confused. I had it explained to me carefully by Mr. Mayrand, and I also know they did those outreach programs that he referred to, in the northern riding of Churchill in particular.
I also did an experiment: I went through my own pieces of identification. I had only one. Yes, I have a passport, which did not qualify; yes, I have a social insurance card, which did not qualify. I have an Old Age Security card, which did not qualify; and a Manitoba health card, which did not qualify because there is no picture on my health care card in Manitoba. Fortunately I drive an automobile, so I have a driver's licence, and the driver's licence had everything on it that I required to meet that first hurdle in the process. If you did not have a driver's licence in Manitoba you did not have a piece of ID. Many of the people in Manitoba who live in northern communities do not have a driver's licence.
That was why I asked for Mr. Mayrand to appear here, because I am very concerned.
Have you done any comparisons between the voter turnouts in a riding like Churchill in Manitoba in this election as opposed to the previous election? If so, what have you learned?
Mr. Mayrand: That is part of our evaluation process. It is not completed, but we are certainly looking into it, especially for the 13 northern ridings I referred to in my presentation. We will look at the turnout there and how it compares to previous elections, and again look at what factors might have been at play in the variance in the turnout.
It is true that the most commonly held document that meets the first tier is the driver's licence. Our information suggests that only 85 per cent of electors would have a driver's licence. A large sector of the electors would not have that document.
Senator Carstairs: My second question has to do with the treaty card. The treaty card can be used as a secondary piece of identification. It cannot be used as a primary piece because it does not have a picture on it, and generally it does not have an address, although some do. Can you envisage a time in which the treaty card could have both an address and a picture, which would then give treaty card holders that piece of identification?
Mr. Mayrand: That would fall under the responsibility of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC.
One of the difficulties for any organization is managing addresses. That is a cumbersome, complex and labour- intensive process. We are now into the business, if I can use that expression, of managing pieces of ID. We have a list 46 pieces long, and who knows what other pieces could be added to that list.
One possible solution I will explore and bring back to Parliament for advice is to consider whether the voter information card that all registered electors receive could be accepted as a document establishing the address of the elector. We have over 23 million electors across the country, the vast majority of them registered. Most electors receive that card, and the concept would be that, in combination with a status card, for example, that would meet the test. It raises other issues that will have to be brought before various committees, but is certainly one possible solution that needs to be explored.
Senator Carstairs: My third and final question is about the vouching. This may be false, but as it was explained to me by a group of voters, a number of people from the same household went to the polling station. The first voter had the utility bill plus his treaty card — two pieces of ID — and was allowed to vote. He was then able to vouch for only one more member of the household. Is that correct?
Mr. Mayrand: That is correct. That change was introduced in 2007. Before that, you could have successive vouching.
Senator Carstairs: If a father vouched for his wife, he could not vouch for his four children over the age of 18?
Mr. Mayrand: He would have to choose which one of the five he wanted to vouch for.
The Chair: Can the clerks or the people working as election employees vouch for someone?
Mr. Mayrand: Not under the current legislation. It has to be another elector on the list in the specific polling section.
Senator Sibbeston: I will say bluntly that, for the most part, people in the small communities in the North use common sense. In small communities there are no civic addresses, and so you can never get an address. I looked at my own driver's licence today, and it only has my post office box number. I went to the poll in Fort Simpson. Everyone knew me so there was no question. I just went to vote, and that is what I saw, people coming to vote. In small communities, everyone knows each other, and it is absolutely silly to insist on seeing an address. It is just like, «I know you.» If I knew you from childhood, does it make sense that you show me your cards before you vote? The idea of all of this is to ensure against fraud, but in the North where everyone knows each other, it does not make sense to insist on people showing their identification.
Can you please do something to change this illogical process? It is silly; it is stupid; it is all these things for communities where people know each other. I know of situations where if someone is too sick or old they will take a ballot over to the person's house to have that person vote. That is the way people handle elections in the North. It is a common sense approach and it works. No one cheats or does anything fraudulent.
On many occasions, if everyone in a Northern community has finished voting by three o'clock, they will count the ballots right there because it is finished. Why wait until seven or eight that night when people are gone? Voting has happened that way, and the reason why the small communities have had pretty good turnout is because people use their common sense to vote.
I hope this can be recognized and this way of voting can be done. The thing about Canada is we are such a big country, and I have noticed that rules are generally made for Southern Canada, big cities where people do not know each other, but for people in the North and particularly Aboriginal communities, it is different. Fort Simpson is a community of about 1,400 people, and everyone knows each other, native and non-native alike. Why not make laws to recognize that rather than rules to impede and make it more difficult?
From my own experience, I was involved in four territorial elections and very involved in bringing people to the polls, and generally the voting process is a foreign undertaking. It is really hard to get Aboriginal people to come to vote because they do not understand or know the system, and it takes a lot of effort on your part even to get them into the vehicle and take them to the polls. Then, after that, you have to get them up the stairs and into this little foreign setting where they end up putting their mark on a form. It is a very foreign process for Aboriginal people. Why do we not recognize that and make it as easy as possible for them?
I note the special efforts made through advertisements on TV and radio encouraging Aboriginal people to vote. If you really want them to vote, then do away with the city-type rules and give them the opportunity to vote. Recognize that in small communities people know each other and so they should not have to show papers. Native people do not carry documents in their pockets. Doing that would alleviate the situation and do more than the millions of dollars spent on advertising and outreach programs trying to have them follow the city rules.
Could you do that, please?
Mr. Mayrand: I take your points. Your driver's licence showing a mailbox address is a very good example. Again, that was addressed in the legislation. If you are a registered elector, your mailbox address as well as your place of residence will appear on the list of electors. Your driver's licence with a mailbox address will allow you to vote and to meet the requirements of the act.
With regard to the legislation that is setting a uniform national standard no matter what the demography or geography, I am afraid that this will require Parliament's consideration. Today I have discussed or described briefly what administrative steps we try to build in, but you certainly point out a number of issues and examples that show that legislation sometimes needs to provide a little more flexibility. Certainly that is the case at hand.
Senator Sibbeston: I challenge Mr. Mayrand to put his job on the line. When you make recommendations to Parliament, say that Aboriginal people need special consideration. It is stupid to insist on Toronto rules for all these communities in the North and rural parts of our country where people know each other. It is silly and stupid.
Can you not recommend that to Parliament when you make your report? In that way, you will ease the way and make it possible for Aboriginal people to vote and to take part in the very Canadian tradition of voting.
I think we need some heart. We need some special effort and some real interest in doing something about it. The easiest way is for you to ignore what was said tonight and insist on the Canadian way, the Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver way. However, you will not have helped the Aboriginal people and people who live in the more remote parts of the country. Something needs to be done. Someone like you can accomplish something meaningful and real. You are responsible for voting in the country, so make it happen.
The Chair: Do you want to respond to that?
Mr. Mayrand: Very briefly, I think our actions show that we certainly care. We take this as a very serious matter.
The other point I would like to make is that in my first report on the election, you will note that I identify only three key issues for parliamentarians. One central issue deals with ID requirements as they affect Aboriginals, seniors, students and homeless people. I intend to come back to Parliament with recommendations in that regard.
Senator Peterson: Thank you to the presenters for appearing. I am from Saskatchewan. We have a large Aboriginal population that impacts on nearly every seat in the province.
As background, in the election in Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River, prior to the new rules, the turnout was 58.4 per cent; in the first by-election after the new rules, 24.7 per cent; and in this last election, it went back up to 44 per cent. Those are still not stellar numbers. You can see the difficulty we are facing.
More particularly, when we try to get Aboriginal people more involved in the democratic process, this is not the way to get them involved. They get frustrated and upset, rightly so. We have to find a way to deal with it.
You pointed out what you are doing. I do not know whether there is a polling station on every reserve, but if there is not, is there a process that one can go through to ensure that there is a polling station on every reserve — at least one, and in some cases maybe two?
With all this you are trying to do, I know you will report by the end of the year. If there is a fall election, what are we dealing with? Are we dealing with the existing legislation? Can you do anything before that?
Mr. Mayrand: The process here would involve me making recommendations to Parliament, Parliament examining the recommendations, making a suggestion to government, and government drafting legislation and tabling it for study by parliamentarians.
In terms of polling stations on reserves, we pay close attention to that. We had 480 polls on reserve in the last election. That is an increase — I forget by how much — but one of our goals is to bring the polls as close as possible to electors. We are currently doing a polling division review, and out of that there may be an increase in polling stations on reserve.
Senator Peterson: Why do you say "may be?'' Why would it not just be mandatory? Why should they not get one? Many of these people do not have transportation. They cannot walk to the polling station. What is the difficulty?
Mr. Mayrand: The difficulty is often in access and recruitment, having access to people to staff those stations. It is having access to the localities in some cases. There are all sorts of local issues that have to be addressed. Again, our commitment is to bring as many polling stations as possible on reserve.
Senator Peterson: I hope staffing would not be the stumbling block in order to accomplish this. I find that incredible.
Mr. Mayrand: I understand that. This is one of the most significant challenges. It is the second challenge I identify in the report, the difficulty we have in recruiting and training polling workers. We need 200,000 of them.
The Chair: In fairness, Mr. Mayrand phoned me prior to this appearance to say that his study and his analysis of the last election are not complete, as he has pointed out. However, we wanted him here now, and hopefully we can effect change. It is part of our responsibility as parliamentarians to make the change.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: My question also concerns the requirements for identification. Senator Carstairs mentioned that many people do not have a driver's license. All they have for identification are their status cards. I just do not think it would be that much trouble to add a picture, a date of birth and an address on the status card. That would enable those people to vote.
In addition, many elders are scared, as Senator Sibbeston has said. It is a new concept. I had received some complaints regarding members not knowing who to vote for because no one came around to their houses and they do not know who the person is. Is there a Liberal or a Conservative? More people should be going into these communities to campaign. Many of them just cannot go out; they are unable to go out of their city, town or small community.
Mr. Mayrand: With respect to the status card, it does not have an address, and that is why we added to the list a letter of attestation issued by an authority on the reserve. That, combined with the status card, would be enough to establish proof of identity and residence.
We did provide an administrative mechanism, and we have engaged band leaders across the country to help facilitate this process of issuing letters of attestation. That would address the lack of address on the status card. In addition, those cards are issued by other authorities. I can make representations as to those authorities, but I will require your support to make sure that the matter is attended to.
We also have community relations officers for Aboriginal communities. These officers are there during the election. We had 182 of them across the country. They are entirely dedicated to providing information and education and helping to facilitate the process.
I am looking for observations, comments and suggestions as to how we can improve this program. I do not want to leave the impression that nothing is being done.
Those community relations officers, as much as possible, are recruited from the reserve. We are looking for people from the community to help engage the community members.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I have to comment on that, because some of the people that come from the communities are biased towards Conservative or Liberal, and they will not let the other person allow the choice to go here or there. It is a concern.
Mr. Mayrand: Our community relations officers are hired by Elections Canada and are truly non-partisan. They are not there to advocate any policy. They are there to explain the process and facilitate the voting.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I beg to differ.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: Welcome, Mr. Mayrand, and thank you for your presentation.
I have to congratulate you on the work you have done. You took a lot of initiative in reaching the Aboriginal population, in terms of communicating with them to inform them about the new rules before the last election. In my community, we had a good information session on the new rules.
That being said, other communities may not have been as progressive. We also have to admit that when new measures are introduced, some time is needed, to communicate the changes so the public will be properly informed.
Just after the election in October, in my previous capacity, I received a number of complaints from people across Canada who had not been allowed to vote because of the new rules.
Would you agree that the new criteria do not benefit Aboriginal people, in terms of participation?
Mr. Mayrand: I will be the first to admit that there are some groups, particularly Aboriginal people, for whom this is more of a challenge than for someone who lives in a major urban centre. There are other groups of electors as well and we have to find a way to emphasize information and find administrative solutions. Because there are limits on the administrative measures that can be taken, Parliament will have to review this legislation and identify adjustments that reflect the circumstances, the geographic and demographic environment, of certain groups in the population.
Aboriginal people certainly come to mind, but also, I think there is a problem with senior citizens who are often disadvantaged and do not have identification. I sincerely believe that it was not the intention of Parliament to restrict these groups' exercise of their right to vote. Parliament is going to have to re-examine the situation.
Senator Brazeau: I see that you have had a partnership with the Assembly of First Nations, in terms of communications and sharing information about the new rules. Is there a particular reason why Elections Canada has a partnership agreement only with the Assembly of First Nations? There are four other national organizations in Canada, that represent Aboriginal women and Aboriginal people living off reserve. Emphasis is more on Aboriginal people living off reserve, but the problem affected all Aboriginal people, regardless of where they live. I would suggest that you enter into partnerships with all of those organizations, and also with the National Association of Friendship Centres across Canada.
In the off-reserve context, there are over 100 friendship centres across Canada that could help to share information across the country, for Aboriginal people, and inform them about the new rules.
Mr. Mayrand: I agree with you completely. That is an excellent observation. We are making efforts with the friendship centres across Canada. These are networks that are solidly established in the communities, but it is a challenge for us to reach them and we are working on it with other groups. We have to overcome certain difficulties because of funding methods and timeframes. We are trying to improve all this. This is another question that I certainly want to raise in the House of Commons. We have to facilitate programs for communications and relations with the communities across the country. There should also be some changes to the legislation in this regard.
[English]
Senator Lang: I appreciate the witnesses coming before us this evening. It seems like this might be an even broader question than one just strictly within the Aboriginal community. The problems that electors are facing — as Senator Carstairs raised earlier — are in respect to the photo identification requirement. You mentioned that only 85 per cent of the population has photo identification.
Mr. Mayrand: A driver's licence is the main piece.
Senator Lang: I just looked in my wallet and I am in the same situation as my good friend there. I happen to have a driver's licence. I got new ID when I got here, but I did not have it before I arrived, so I just had the one during the last election.
In broader terms, do you have any idea of the number of people who were turned away from the polls in the last election because they had improper identification?
Mr. Mayrand: That would be part of our evaluation. We will be looking into this through a survey of electors. Right after the election we did a survey of 3,500 electors. The analysis of that survey will help us identify how many electors were turned away. In addition, other sources, mainly workers, will also be surveyed to determine how many people were turned away on election day.
Senator Lang: I would like to get a sense of what we are dealing with here. Did you receive information the day after the election that there were quite a number of people turned away?
Mr. Mayrand: We did get a number of complaints: 200 complaints. We did get a number of complaints and comments — some from members of Parliament, some from candidates, from political parties, from electors themselves — pointing out that a number of electors were turned away because they could not meet the requirements on that day.
As to what portion of the population of electors was affected, I do not have that information yet. I have anecdotal evidence at this point.
Senator Lang: If I recall correctly, at one time we were not required to have photo identification.
Mr. Mayrand: Until 2007 you did not have to present identification at the polling station. You would attend the polling station, state your name and address as an elector, and the deputy returning officer would give you a ballot.
With the changes, you have to prove both identity — which is one thing — and residence, which is the challenge. That is new in this last general election.
Senator Lang: Just one other point I would make. I find it hard to believe that my passport is not adequate for a polling booth when it gets me into Peru. Maybe that point could be added to the list.
The Chair: Put your address in your passport.
Mr. Mayrand: That will not do it.
The Chair: I withdraw that. That would be illegal. That would be tampering with a government document.
Mr. Mayrand: Maybe if I can clarify, the passport would be an accepted piece of identification as long as you have another to establish your address. The passport alone is not enough.
Senator Dyck: Thank you for your presentation. It was very interesting. This is actually quite a complex question.
Throughout the discussion we have been using the word "Aboriginal'' a lot, and there are obviously three distinct groupings of First Nations. You probably have more data on First Nations because you seem to be concentrating on people on reserves. There are also the Metis and the Inuit, and probably the needs for identification would be very different between the three groups.
Up North, as Senator Sibbeston has said, there are usually small communities of people who know each other. I am not sure whether the Metis have a card for identification. A status card will only cover people who are status Indians. It will not cover non-status Indians. For those who have status, I might suggest that we make an exception and deem sufficient a photo status card for those people who have one. That is a suggestion. I do not know how far it will go.
Within your report, you should probably separate out the three groups and also consider rural versus urban. Certainly on the Prairies — Saskatchewan and Manitoba — we have large groups of Metis and large numbers of Aboriginals. We dump the numbers all together for those living in cities. Do have you any statistics on whether there is a difference in voter turnout in northern communities versus large cities?
Mr. Mayrand: Not yet. I am waiting for the results of a survey with oversampling of Aboriginals on-reserve and off- reserve. I will have to double-check. I do not know whether the survey will distinguish between the three groups you mentioned.
Senator Dyck: With respect to your outreach activities, did you contact Aboriginal media — newspapers and radio stations — servicing the North?
Mr. Mayrand: Extensively.
Senator Dyck: For example, was the Cree language used to contact people in the North?
Mr. Mayrand: Yes. You have a brief description of the communication activities we ran and the extent to which we used the Aboriginal media in the language they would normally broadcast. We also make most of our publications available in eight Aboriginal languages, including Inuktitut.
Senator Dyck: Do you have a sense that proficiency in the English language might be a barrier in some communities, such as where Inuktitut or Cree are the predominant language?
Mr. Mayrand: It is in some communities. We have put various initiatives in place. Again, they are described in the document. Wherever possible, we have established an elder and youth program that brings people together in the community and serves to provide information and to act as interpreters to overcome language barriers. That is a program used in each election.
Senator Dyck: Getting back to Senator Sibbeston's point, could provision be made to provide special services to communities in other than only the official languages of English and French? Is there some way of facilitating the community language that would aid voter turnout?
Mr. Mayrand: The youth and elder program helps with that on polling day. One of the reasons we like to recruit community relations officers from the community is that they speak the language. They understand all the dimensions of the community and better communicate with and engage the community in the voting process. However, I would welcome any suggestion in that regard to make improvements.
Senator Hubley: Thank you for your presentation this evening. I have a couple observations.
First, I worked the last election. I must say that I was in touch with the electoral officer for Prince Edward Island almost on a daily basis. Without a doubt, he was helpful on every occasion.
Second, from my perspective of another small community, there were abundant communications on the requirement for this new identification. However, there is also a feeling that people have been voting for years and they will do it the same way again no matter how much information they have been given. We worked very hard to inform everyone.
Looking at the new identification rules to vote and the available pieces of identification, it is obvious that there are not enough pieces of identification that carry a picture. The driver's licence probably does now and with more people using passports, that is also an option.
It may be time to find a way for people who do not have those pieces of identification to get a voluntary ID card or some other sort of picture identification. Many of the cards identifying our Aboriginal communities might now consider that a picture is an important item to include, given that voting is a basic right of every Canadian.
Another point I want to make is that seniors are somewhat disadvantaged by having to produce this identification. At some point, many seniors have to relinquish their driver's licence. Would an expired driver's licence still be considered a valid piece of identification, or should they too be offered some alternative piece of identification in order to vote?
Mr. Mayrand: You raise a good point. One of the issues at the heart of the problem is that there is no national identification card in Canada. There are a variety of pieces of identification, but no standard identification card issued commonly to all citizens in the country.
That would warrant consideration by Parliament. It would also raise various considerations regarding privacy and government playing Big Brother with a new identification. That is central to the challenge we are facing — the lack of a common piece of identification issued by the Government of Canada and meeting the standards in federal legislation.
You mentioned seniors, and that is in my report as well. Issues around seniors and identification have been raised. I will be bringing forward recommendations in that area to ease the voting process. These are electors who have voted all their lives. Suddenly for valid concerns over voting fraud, we unintentionally excluded them from the voting process. That must be addressed.
Senator Raine: Thank you for the excellent presentation. We have a bit of a conundrum here. We would all like to see very high standards for our elections with the utmost security to guard against any fraud; however, there is no way that one size fits all in Canada. We have to look across the North and identify polling stations that qualify to be treated differently.
Instead of attaching our challenge to the individual voter, perhaps we should consider giving voting stations more authority to have personal identification where it is applicable. As Senator Sibbeston said, that is simply common sense.
Mr. Mayrand: Agreed. We have to be careful not to prevent common sense from prevailing. Unfortunately, that is sometimes an unintended consequence of legislation.
Senator Raine: There is no reason why polling stations that are small and remote cannot be treated differently from urban centres; correct?
Mr. Mayrand: It would require changes in the legislation, but I agree. I think we need to pay more attention to geography and demography, also, and try to model the solution to the problem we are trying to fix; we should try to model it more to the circumstances that exist, which vary across the country.
The Chair: I have one quick question, and I have Senator Carstairs on the second round.
What discretion, latitude or flexibility do you have with this legislation? I am not familiar with it. I have been here 26 years, but it is one piece of legislation I have not studied.
Are there regulations that go with the legislation, or is it cast in stone?
Mr. Mayrand: It is very much cast in stone. The Canada Elections Act is over 400 pages in length; it is very prescriptive and leaves little discretion. There is no regulation under that act except for the tariff of fees paid for election officers.
In this area, on voter identification, the one discretion that is left to the Chief Electoral Officer is in setting out the authorized list of ID pieces. There is some discretion, but the act is quite prescriptive as to how it can be exercised.
Senator Carstairs: I want to address briefly the issue of the letter of attestation. I think that was how you tried to deal with a very awkward and difficult situation. The reaction I received from the reserve communities was that this was highly paternalistic. The chief may or may not like the particular person or may not wish to give an attestation to a particular individual.
The bottom line was, "Why should I need to have it anyway? I am a Canadian citizen. Why should I need to say if someone attests to the fact that I exist and that I live in a certain place?''
I thank the electoral people for going that extra step to find some way to make it work, but I have to say the information given to me was the sense that it was a highly paternalistic way of dealing with it.
Mr. Mayrand: I did get feedback from an Aboriginal candidate in the election. He told me that for many Aboriginal people, it is almost an insult to ask them to identify themselves in their own communities. There is an issue of value and culture that is not recognized in this piece of legislation.
Senator Carstairs: The last issue is with respect to your survey. I believe you said you were intending to oversample Aboriginal people. We know, through polling, that they are highly under-sampled and that Northerners, rural dwellers and Aboriginal members and Aboriginal people who live in cities, in particular, tend to be very rarely sampled in any kind of statistical survey.
Mr. Mayrand: There has been a deliberate effort with the firm hired that we have a sampling of both electors on- reserve and Aboriginal electors off-reserve.
Senator Peterson: I have a quick question. What authority do scrutinizers have at a polling station vis-à-vis outside the polling station? Can they ask people for identification? Can they follow them in and intimidate them? Did you receive any correspondence to this effect?
Mr. Mayrand: I am not sure I understand your question.
Senator Peterson: Say, for example, there are voters outside the polling station. They are being hassled and people are asking for their identification. They are followed into the polling station. Are you aware of this being an issue at all?
Mr. Mayrand: No, but I can explain the way it is set up. We have information officers who greet electors when they arrive at the site. Normally, they will inquire whether the elector has their voter identification card first, which identifies which table they would go to, and also whether they have identification documentation, so they can have it handy to accelerate the process further down.
I am not aware that this has been perceived as intimidation. I am not sure what is being referred to.
Senator Peterson: Who has the authority at the polling station? In one incident, I heard the RCMP was called in. Would this be appropriate, or does the deputy returning officer have total authority?
Mr. Mayrand: We have an information officer. We also normally have the central poll supervisor, who is the person in charge of the whole site. That person is expected to ensure peace and order during the day. If assistance is needed, he or she may have to make calls.
However, again, I am not aware of any particular incident that occurred during the last election.
The Chair: Colleagues, that ends the questioning. I would like to personally thank Senator Carstairs for bringing this issue to committee. Senators, I think the questions were excellent, as were your concerns. It is an indication that the Senate is concerned and very conscious of minority groups in the country that are affected by legislation.
I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today and for being forthright in their responses. Hopefully, we can give the Chief Electoral Officer a little more latitude in the future.
(The committee continued in camera.)