Past Session:

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Issue 7, Evidence - April 9, 2014

OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 9, 2014

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 2:04 p.m. to examine the subject matter of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts.

Senator Bob Runciman (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Good afternoon. Welcome, colleagues, invited guests and members of the general public who are following today's proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

This afternoon, we are continuing our pre-study on Bill-C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts. The committee's task is to conduct public hearings on the subject matter of the bill, which will allow us to report on some of our findings prior to its introduction in the Senate.

For our first witness this afternoon, I would like to introduce Taylor Gunn, President of CIVIX.

Welcome, Mr. Gunn. Please proceed with your opening statement.

Taylor Gunn, President, CIVIX: Thank you very much. As you likely know, I presume out of your professional responsibility and that it is your job, I did appear at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of the House of Commons, PROC. My message today is the same. I believe the consequences to our flagship Student Vote program, among other ways that Elections Canada has supported us, are accidental. I don't believe they are on purpose. I think they're an unintended consequence of the bill, as written.

When we became aware that the Senate would be co-studying this bill, we thought it was time to communicate to our teachers some of the risks in front of us. I thought I would read that letter as my initial statement. I would then like to read a couple of samples of the types of responses that we have received from teachers.

The way I look at today, it is just another step in this process for us as an organization. We are not here to speak out against the bill; that is not our role. We are here to conduct experiential civic education learning programs across Canada. We think we do that well, and we want to keep doing that and make it even better. I'm hoping that we can work together today to find some solutions and to carry on this process.

On April 2, a day or two after we found that you were starting to study the fair elections act, I wrote:

Dear Teacher,

Thank you once again for bringing Student Vote into your school in previous federal and provincial elections. It has been our privilege to work with you and we hope to work with you again in future elections.

Student Vote has been in the news recently because of the `Fair Elections Act,' a new bill (C-23) proposed by the federal government.

I write to you today to explain the implications of the `Fair Elections Act' on the Student Vote program.

The `Fair Elections Act' — as currently written — would disempower Elections Canada from supporting the Student Vote program in federal elections.

That means that they would not be allowed to provide us with the official Elections Canada ballot boxes, voting screens and electoral district maps that we offer free to schools as part of the Student Vote program. It also means that they would not be able to financially support the Student Vote program which includes the development and delivery of materials and activities in schools across the country.

Your effort, combined with Elections Canada's support, inspired more than 563,000 elementary and high school students to cast a Student Vote ballot in the 2011 federal election. Students elected a Conservative minority government with the NDP as Official Opposition.

If you look at the next page in the booklet, you will see the voting results from the last four federal elections.

Although the loss of Elections Canada's support will not necessarily destroy our charitable organization, it does present a surprising and incredibly serious challenge to our ongoing work, and could mean that we will not be able to coordinate a Student Vote program during the 2015 federal election.

Elections Canada provides an irreplaceable credibility that has helped Student Vote continue to grow into more and more schools across Canada. We fear that the loss of the non-partisan badge provided by Elections Canada, and the loss of their official election materials, would cause Student Vote to lose the authenticity that educators have come to cherish.

And although we carry hope that we could find alternative sources of funds to pay for the Student Vote program in the next federal election, we do know that there is no better source of funds than from Canada's official and independent election agency.

We feel it is important to make you aware of this situation.

The Bill was introduced in parliament for first reading on February 4th. It passed second reading and was referred to committee on February 10th. It is expected to reach final reading on May 1st — 29 days from today. The Senate has now begun a process of `early-reading' so that if the Bill arrives at the Senate in May, it may be passed immediately.

I went to the House of Commons to appear at the Procedure and House Affairs Committee last Thursday on behalf of our charitable organization — CIVIX - to seek a solution to the challenges we face by this bill.

Our position is that the impact on Student Vote caused by the Fair Elections Act must be accidental.

It is hard to believe that the Government of Canada or any Member of Parliament —

— or senator, if I may say —

— would purposely attempt to stop children from learning about their democracy.

We continue to speak with government officials reasonably and respectfully to find a solution to this issue.

I appreciate your concern and they could get in touch with me if they were interested.

A couple of responses.

The Chair: Sorry, Mr. Gunn. The translators are having difficulty because you're speaking so quickly.

Mr. Gunn: Sorry, I was just trying to move along because I thought you could just read it at the same time in your booklets. I'll go slower.

This is an email that came back 15 minutes after I wrote that email to teachers from Deborah. She is a Grade 5 teacher here in Ottawa who says:

I also can't believe that students would not be allowed to take part. In the area that I teach in, many of our parents do not understand how to vote. By my teaching the children and running an election, many of the parents voted for the first time. They were taken by their children to vote. The children were able to help their parents understand what to do and how to mark a ballot. I hope that this program can continue.

This is from Jim in Calgary:

Taylor, as a teacher who has participated with Student Vote in allowing my students to actively participate in a shadow federal election, I'm very concerned that this opportunity might not continue in the future.

While the Alberta Grade 6 social studies curriculum is all about teaching democracy, the active participation in a shadow election allowed my students to experience the reality of an election. Their research, conversations and involvement caused amazing levels of awareness to grow and flourish among students.

Children were keenly interested in the issues and the party platforms. They learned about their local candidates, voted with informed conscience and were fascinated by the results posted on the Student Vote site. They compared their views and votes to those of other Canadian students.

My students proudly stated —

— and this is a regular occurrence for us —

— that they knew more about the election than their parents. Some said that their advice was sought out and valued by their family members. Surely a proven, successful tool to reverse this alarming trend warrants government support.

Finally, this is from Debbie Noesgaard, also a teacher in Calgary:

Hello. What a sad outcome. As a teacher who works with youth at risk, I had great success in increasing participation and empowerment through using this program over the years. I would have youth return to the school after graduation and elections who were proud to tell me that they researched the candidates, the issues and cast their vote in provincial, municipal and federal elections. It was an outcome I was extremely happy with, as this was one of the most important goals as a social studies teacher: to make my youth active, informed participants in our democracy.

Please pass this along to any ears that might reflect on this message and have any influence.

I'm passing it on to you today.

I hope you'll take note that in our letter to teachers there was no call to action. There was no, ``Harass your MPs.'' We even attempted to remind them that if they do communicate with anyone, to do so reasonably and respectfully.

I would like to work with you towards a solution. I know we're getting down to what would be last reading, and I am happy to answer all and any of your questions today. Thanks for having me: It is nice to be here.

The Chair: Thank you for being here.

I would like to allay one of your concerns in the letter to teachers where you suggest that the Senate, once the bill arrives, will pass it immediately. In my limited experience, nothing is dealt with immediately by the Senate. I can assure you that, again, when the bill is here it will receive appropriate consideration by this committee and the Senate itself.

Mr. Gunn: Thank you.

Senator Baker: Thank you, Mr. Gunn, for appearing here today and the message that you bring us. First, could you clarify the fact that you will no longer be able to avail of the services of Elections Canada and the assistance they gave to you because of the passage of this bill? Who told you that they would no longer be able to provide that service?

Mr. Gunn: Elections Canada has. I believe it's in their brief that they've made where they go section by section. I challenged them on this many times. If you look at section 18, the existing and the newly proposed one, both are up to interpretation. Nowhere in the previous section 18 did it say ``support people doing parallel elections in schools across the country,'' and nowhere does it say in the proposed section 18 to not do that.

So I've asked them many times, and they have told me many times, that they would be — ``disempowered'' is the word that I've used, to be able to support us.

Senator Baker: Yes, they've given the same testimony before this committee. I just wanted to make sure to get it on the record that that is your position and to assure you that there was some suggestion made by the minister when he appeared before our committee that perhaps there would be amendments to the bill. As I understood it, a reasonable person would take from his statement that the amendments would in fact take place in the House of Commons at committee.

Then, of course, to negative another portion of your statement, you said that when the bill arrives in the Senate, as the chair raised, it may be passed immediately. If there are amendments it couldn't be passed immediately; that would be unlawful. They still have to be dealt with in this committee.

Have you turned your mind to a possible amendment to the legislation that would achieve what your organization wishes to achieve?

Mr. Gunn: I think I'll stick with what I said at PROC because I think what I said at PROC is —

Senator Baker: PROC is the —

Mr. Gunn: The Procedure and House Affairs Committee at the House of Commons.

Senator Baker: It's for the viewing public.

Mr. Gunn: Yes. I think you call it ``the other place,'' is that what I hear?

Senator Baker: Yes, the other place.

Mr. Gunn: That other place. I never knew the term PROC before either, so maybe I'm trying to sound cool or in the know.

I said at the time that I didn't see a reason why you just couldn't believe my opinion, I guess, and it's more of a personal opinion, that I think there are bigger things to deal with than the section 18 stuff. My first suggestion to the other place, PROC, was just to leave section 18 and have your dialogue on the vouching and other issues that come up.

The reason that I do that is I'm not a lawyer. I'm not going to pretend to be a lawyer. You could ask me to pretend to be a lawyer, but I would advise you not to take my advice because I'm not a lawyer. I don't write bills.

I still think that it could be interpreted with the proposed section 18, just as it was interpreted with the previous one, that we could carry on our work with the support of Elections Canada.

My sense, though — tell me if I am wrong — is that it seems that people don't want Elections Canada to be doing this type of communication. I thought over the past couple of days there has been discussion about other groups, new agencies or something. I don't know anything about that. We can talk about that further, but I just feel that in a bill I don't know if you want to put in a one-liner that says something that Elections — I don't know if that's great bill- making. Anyone could tell me different, I don't know, to put in a line that Elections Canada should encourage people under the voting age to participate.

I'm not sure how you would draft it. I guess you could draft one, but I'm not the person to tell you what that amendment is. I'm sure this table of smart, accomplished Canadians can figure that out on your own.

Senator Baker: In other words, you are saying to verify if it can be done under the new wording, and if it can't be done, for a suggested amendment to be approved by the committee whereby it would accomplish what you want done and what you've been able to do in the past.

Mr. Gunn: Yes. I don't know if I've heard this said, but I think I'm sensing that there's some concern of people working on the ``why'' to vote. Is that a bit of a head nod there?

I believe that what we do is the when, where and how to vote. I cannot control the fact that, out of that experience in schools, a ``why'' develops. I have to honestly tell you that, by the results of this going well in a school, kids learn their own ``why.'' They learn their own ``why'' because candidates come into the auditorium. In a big school there could be 1,000 kids. They are grilled, the kids feel empowered, but they also haven't made up their mind yet, so they care to hear the responses. That's a ``why'' that results out of the program.

I would like be public with the fact that a ``why'' results from us teaching the when, where and how. I don't think people should be scared of the ``why.'' I can understand people's apprehension of some of the ``why'' type efforts in the past. I would need to be reminded of them and be made more clear on them because I can't recall many, but our program teaches the ``why'' just by doing what we do without having to try to.

Senator Baker: And the wisdom of their decisions. You will notice that they predicted exactly what happened with the general public. They predicted a Conservative victory, albeit they were perhaps more wise because they said ``minority.''

Thank you very much for your presentation. It has been very enlightening, Mr. Gunn.

Mr. Gunn: Senator Baker, if I may ask, did you have an old friend from out East, Francis LeBlanc?

Senator Baker: Yes.

Mr. Gunn: He is on my board, so I thought I would say hi for him.

Senator Baker: Good choice. Thank you.

Senator Frum: Thank you for being here. I would like to commend you as an organization for the important work that you do. I don't think you will have any difficulty persuading the senators in this room that this work is vital and important to our democracy.

Mr. Gunn: Thank you.

Senator Frum: I would like to have a little more understanding about the relationship between CIVIX and Elections Canada. They fund your program and you take over from there?

Mr. Gunn: Yes. A very important distinction for me is that — first, I wanted to ask you: Do you know Michael McMillan?

Senator Frum: Yes. You have done your homework.

Mr. Gunn: I think the funniest thing that I wanted to say is that you went to Havergal.

Senator Frum: I did go to Havergal.

Mr. Gunn: My first kiss was on the grounds of Havergal College, but not with any Frums. I went to Crescent.

It is very important for me to point out that we created this on our own. This is not an Elections Canada-created program. This was a couple of young people that thought you could teach students, children, young adults, teenagers, the habits of their citizenship. It is something that you could teach in school like we decide that math, English and science are important. You teach it in school and you teach it annually, and hopefully they remember something from all of that effort. That is our rationale as well.

To go back a long time, I had asked Elections Canada. I was trying to pursue them for their support, and I don't think they knew if they could or how to support us. Some parliamentarians came together and drafted this motion, not a bill, just a motion, pretty much telling Elections Canada that they had to support us. That was great, and that worked. We had them giving us some in-kind contributions — that is in detailed form in one of the pages here — for the first two elections. It was more complicated, less ideal. Then finally we got to the place in 2008 and then 2011 where they covered the whole cost of the program. I dare say that, yes, it was sole sourced, and also I am okay with that because no one else does what we do.

Senator Frum: Is anyone from Elections Canada on your board, for example?

Mr. Gunn: No.

Senator Frum: What reporting responsibilities do you have to Elections Canada?

Mr. Gunn: It's pretty extensive. I should have brought a sample report that we bring. It is everything from pre- surveys and post-surveys of students and teachers. They conducted an independent evaluation on us, kind of like a performance audit in a way, in advance of 2011 and then through 2011. Some of those are in the graphics there in the binding. We submit a full report and then also audited financial statements on how we use the funds.

As you will see in that piece of paper, a lot of the funds that we spend for our program are on things like $200,000 for distribution. I am okay with that because that is what helps teachers with these physical tools: ``Use this in the classroom.'' It is also a little bit of a guilt factor. When you have a large package come with all of these materials, you are more likely to use it than, ``Oh, I'll download that stuff from off the Internet.'' I would advise anyone interested in doing something in schools to take the time to build great materials and the expense to send them to people, because you'll be more effective. This is a lot of money for us, but $400,000 came to our organization which then covered people's time, additional staff, warehouse teams, all that sort of stuff for the projects.

Senator Frum: But at this point, you are 100 per cent funded by Elections Canada, are you?

Mr. Gunn: Only at the event. What we don't get is annual funding from Elections Canada. If you could get them to give us annual funding, that would be fantastic, but no one gives us annual funding. I don't know why they don't just change it, but they don't have a granting and contribution stream. Canadian Heritage has a granting and contribution stream. It is a contractual relationship.

Senator Frum: I would like to hear more about that, but I can't resist asking you, because you did include a graph in your presentation about voting results, and Senator Baker has alluded to this.

Mr. Gunn: The red line? Is that what you were going to point out?

Senator Frum: Actually, no. I was going to talk about the blue line. I don't know who these are. Who qualifies as a student for this graph?

Mr. Gunn: This is basically kids aged 10 through to 18. These are elementary and secondary school students. Our highest turn-out in the last federal election was 563,000.

We have since done all of the provincial elections following that last federal election. In jurisdictions like British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, we are either approaching 50 per cent or at 50 per cent of all schools. If we apply that same growth to the next federal election, we could be in 6,000 or 7,000 schools across the country, which is what I think everyone at this table would like to see us do.

The results speak for themselves. They are taking this seriously. They are either thinking just like adults do and voting in that manner, or they are regurgitating their parent's values at their own student vote, at the ballot box at school. Either is a win for us.

Senator Joyal: Thank you for your explanation, Mr. Gunn. I cannot resist but ask you about this. I don't see Quebec mentioned under ``province or territories.'' Could you explain why the province of Quebec is not included?

Mr. Gunn: Sure. We have Quebec students and schools participate with us in federal elections. We work in partnership with an organization that is fully funded in that province that does parallel elections, by Elections Quebec, and I believe their Department of Education.

We are looking forward to improving our presence in Quebec. We are still learning how to work together. They kind of piggyback on us within federal elections. If there was something that already existed and we have some best practices we feel we can share with them, we just feel it is better to work in cooperation.

Senator Joyal: Is it a question of language or money, or the fact that it comes from the federal government and they are reluctant to be involved in federal materials? You understand what I am trying to allude to with this question.

Mr. Gunn: I do. That is something that does exist. I think we can get through it. I believe it really had to do with, as an organization, attempting to get into schools. We walk a very fine line between persistence and — I don't know how you politely say —''pissing people off'' at the school that could potentially register. They have traditionally been not as aggressive.

There has been a leadership change in the organization, and now I believe we can bring our numbers up significantly in Quebec by this new leadership that is very interested in working with us.

Senator Joyal: Would you be able to measure the impact that you had on the motivation for a new voter? I see that it is from ages 10 to 18, so they have not yet voted. However, once they are entitled to vote, have you been able to measure those students who have gone through your program versus those who have not to see if there is an impact on the level on participation in their first election?

Mr. Gunn: We have not yet. That's the longitudinal study we would like someone to pay for, for us to measure that. I thought Elections Canada might. I think at this point they have settled on the characteristics that we do establish within participating students during the election. Interest, knowledge and sense of civic duty cause dialogue between participating students and their peers. Usually for us, the difference for us is whether we raise money to do our work or raise money to pay somebody else to study us, and at this time we decided to raise money to do our work.

Another thing about that is, let us look at the last B.C. election. It was fully funded by Elections B.C., a great program, our best one yet in the province. We got up to 44 per cent of all schools, and 101,000 kids in the jurisdiction participated, or about one out of five or six kids in the entire school system. That is fantastic, but I won't see the long- term changes that we want to see until I am reaching five out of six kids. But you don't get to five out of six kids until you reach one out of six kids. Most people don't even come close to reaching one out of six kids. They are reaching one out of a thousand kids.

We are doing really well, but when we started I thought I could do one election and we'd inspire kids to be political citizens. I realize now that our organization needs a couple more decades to do what we want to do. I think it has been a great start. We celebrated our 10-year anniversary last fall.

Senator Joyal: How do you make sure that the information that would summarize the various parties' stands on issues would be made comparable?

Mr. Gunn: We don't provide that. The reason we don't provide that is this: How do we guarantee that we're providing non-partisan information? It's not our duty.

Part of what we're trying to teach the kids is that it's their responsibility to search out and harness that information. They can do so in a variety of ways. One of the best ways is when the actual candidates come into schools and do a candidates forum in front of the kids. You know that from the research you've probably read about this. Against the wishes of teachers, we don't provide summarized party platforms. We usually say, ``Look to your local media, your local newspaper, your editorials.''

Senator Joyal: Or computers.

Mr. Gunn: Or whatever. There are tons of things, but what we're about is the process. For us, it's really a mix of knowledge and experience that we want kids to get out of this, knowledge being the when, where, how and other aspects. Just knowing the name of your electoral district is a knowledge achievement. Then, experience achievements for us are things like meeting a local candidate, consuming news, reading the newspaper to make your decision rather than just watching, maybe, the leaders' debate, or maybe doing both. Those are experiences. That's what we do with this program.

Senator Joyal: Finally, about the annual funding, you receive, if I understood well, money from private sources, from outside government sources, to maintain your level of activity.

Mr. Gunn: Actually, not so much because we're only just beginning to do that. We weren't always a charity. We became a charity by seeking a bigger mandate and merging with an existing charity. You might have known Warren Goldring, AGF Management and the Goldring family. We merged with them to create CIVIX because I wanted to do more than just Student Vote, like we have with our recent budget consultation that involved Finance Minister Flaherty and like we're doing with Rep Day, getting representatives into schools across the country.

Senator Joyal: What would the budget be that you are aiming for?

Mr. Gunn: We're project to project. We're almost like a social enterprise. We're very entrepreneurial. We have to earn our money, or we have so far, to stay afloat. We'll string projects together, like the student budget consultation, like an election, like B.C., like the past Nova Scotia election. If we ignored the project expenses and just had to pay the team that we have right now, it's about half a million dollars a year, including rent, a little bit of travel and then additional expenses on top for the programs.

Senator Moore: Thank you, Mr. Gunn, for being here. I looked at the student results for 2011, and I don't see any ridings from Nova Scotia. Are you active in Nova Scotia?

Mr. Gunn: Yes. Which page are you looking at, sir?

Senator Moore: It's not numbered.

Mr. Gunn: That page is not all of our results. In the last federal election, we had 301 of 308 of Canada's electoral districts represented. That page is just simply the first page of about 20 — or 15 or something — where we are ranking the electoral districts with the highest level of participation in the country. So if you would like to give MP Patrick Brown from Barrie, from the other place, a pat on the back, he had 6,553 students in his electoral district participate. That is absolutely fantastic. Then, the list goes down from there. So it is just the first 20 of the descending order of our electoral districts by seats.

Yes, we have all of the ridings represented in Nova Scotia, and we just coordinated the Student Vote program in Nova Scotia for the provincial election, best election yet. We had 230 schools registered, which is about half, and 22,000 kids took part in casting a ballot.

Senator Moore: In Nova Scotia.

Mr. Gunn: Yes; October 8, I think it was.

Senator Moore: On the graph showing the growth in participation, the schools and the students, how many schools did you say there are in the country?

Mr. Gunn: Depending on how you count them, there are around 14,000 or 15,000. Some schools don't apply to us because they're primaries, like Grades 1 to 3. There are about 15,000 schools in the country.

Senator Moore: Are these schools all schools, public schools, private schools?

Mr. Gunn: Yes.

Senator Moore: Would you do CEGEPs in Quebec, or is that beyond the age?

Mr. Gunn: You can. They're a little bit more difficult to get into, in our experience, but yes.

Senator Moore: Did you say you've been in existence for 10 years?

Mr. Gunn: Yes.

Senator Moore: We've heard that educating youth by way of CIVIX, your organization, and ``civics'' — i-c-s — leads to greater participation in elections, so has your organization tracked the students who have voted in your student elections compared with whether or not they voted in the next provincial or general election in their respective province?

Mr. Gunn: As I said in response to Senator Joyal's question, that is the longitudinal study that we would love to have someone take on. Right now, we just have anecdotal evidence, like from the emails I read of teachers telling us that their 18 year-old students come back and tell them that they now participate in politics. That's not much to stand on in front of a committee. We don't have what I would like to have, which is the longitudinal study.

[Translation]

Senator Dagenais: Mr. Gunn, I may be mistaken, but I get the impression that you seem a bit nervous about the electoral reform. We spoke a lot about your organization, which does excellent work, but what is it about the electoral reform that concerns you?

[English]

Mr. Gunn: Right now, Elections Canada is telling us that we would not be able to continue to receive their support to do our Student Vote program. It's not just the money; it's where the money comes from. When we're trying to get into schools across the country, a lot of the time the first question from a school administrator may be, ``Who is behind this?'' If we can simply say that it's Elections Canada, there are no more questions. That is the greatest threat to us — our ability to grow into the future if we don't have that brand attached to us. That's why I'm here. I think we can get to half of all schools in 2015 if we have that brand attached us to us. If I have to say that it's a big foundation or individual donors or whatever, it's just not as clean as being able to say that Elections Canada is the group that's behind us. That's my concern.

[Translation]

Senator Dagenais: Thank you for your answer. I see that my hunch was correct.

[English]

The Chair: It may be time for clarification. You said that Elections Canada has advised you that, with the changes, they will be prohibited from funding the program going forward. It has been raised by our counsel, Mr. Spano, in terms of interpretation.

I wonder if you have spoken to anyone else with respect to Elections Canada's interpretation because, if you look at the clauses that are impacting you, one is dealing with communications. The other has actually been broadened, and that's dealing with the ability to conduct pilot projects. If you look at 18(1), the Chief Electoral Officer may carry out studies on voting. I'm just wondering if there is a question there around interpretation. In fact, you may not be falling out of the queue in terms of qualifying for ongoing funding. I don't know. I'm just raising that as an issue.

Mr. Gunn: I think that there have been two months for someone on the government side to clarify that interpretation just so that you could give somebody else 45 minutes to be here instead of me. I have communicated with the minister's chief of staff. I think that, if that's the case, that would be great. Someone could say that. I think there has been an opportunity. We have definitely been kind in giving a way to get out of this without anyone being upset, so that would be great if someone wants to tell us that.

The Chair: We'll seek clarification on that.

Mr. Gunn: Thank you; that would be great.

By the way, we should all congratulate Senator Runciman. When he was in provincial politics he won the student vote back then. It was for Leeds-Grenville. Is that correct, sir? Yes. He got 30 per cent of the student vote, and I think 2,500 or so kids participated. Congratulations, sir.

The Chair: The reincarnation of George Baker.

Senator Joyal: The next generation.

Senator Batters: I know of someone else. My husband, Dave Batters, was the Member of Parliament for Palliser in Saskatchewan from 2004 until 2008, and I'm pretty sure that he also won student votes.

Mr. Gunn: He did, yes.

Senator Batters: He very much enjoyed Student Vote because he got to go out to all those schools. He decided from the time he was a young boy that he wanted to be either a member of Parliament or an MLA, and he achieved that goal the very first time that he ever ran for elected office. He held that position for four and a half years.

Certainly organizations like this are a key way to make sure that our students are engaged at a very early age and that they know about these processes.

Mr. Gunn: Could I ask you a question?

Senator Batters: Sure.

Mr. Gunn: Do you know Speaker Dan D'Autremont?

Senator Batters: Absolutely.

Mr. Gunn: I was just a guest at the Saskatchewan provincial legislature after the last four days, since Saturday. I think I may be an annual speaker at the Saskatchewan Teachers' Institute. If that man is a reflection of Saskatchewan people or just any Canadian, we're all lucky. He's a tremendous fellow. Please pass on our kind words, if you could.

Senator Batters: Absolutely. I will tell him to read Hansard and to watch on you CPAC.

I have to say, this is maybe the first time ever at a Senate committee where somebody has discussed the location of their first kiss.

Mr. Gunn: We're always breaking ground. We're trailblazers.

Senator Batters: I want a little bit of clarification. Thank you for providing this chart about Elections Canada and what they have contributed over the past 10 years.

Am I correct in understanding that initially they were not the primary financial supporter; they contributed about half of the project contribution? That was the case for the 2004 election and the 2006 election, and then for 2008 and 2011, they funded 100 per cent. But they only provide funding for the federal election time frames; is that correct?

Mr. Gunn: For the federal election project. We're probably one of the few groups that appreciate minority governments because we could do 16 years of work in about half the time.

No, they don't give us money annually. On occasion, they have given to us. I think it's important to point that out. For their Democracy Week — I don't know how it shows on their books — they sponsored me to speak at the Teachers Institute on Canadian Parliamentary Democracy, which was a great honour. They've put in $23,000 to help us kick off our federal Rep Day, which got representatives in from across the country, but that money is only for federal election projects, which are about a year long.

I'd like to start working right now — which is why I'd like to clear this up — on the 2015 federal election because it's a lot of work.

Senator McIntyre: Thank you, Mr. Gunn, for appearing before this committee. Thank you for your presentation. You have a good sense of humour; I'm sure the students must have really enjoyed your presentation.

I understand that recently you appeared before the House Affairs Committee on behalf of your organization. You made a presentation and submitted documents. How did that go? Was the committee receptive regarding the concerns that your organization has?

Mr. Gunn: I went so far as to meet with the chair before my attendance at the committee. I had a phone conversation with MP Reid and MP Lukiwski. I had a quick email back and forth with Mr. O'Toole.

I feel that I was treated respectfully. I was on a panel with three colleagues chairing an hour, and we all had five minutes. Harry Neufeld was the hour before us, so how much we really took the stage that day is questionable, but I felt that I was received well. It's just that we need an answer, or we need to see a fix.

[Translation]

Senator Rivest: First of all, I would like to commend you for the work that you do with students to encourage them to vote. During last Monday's vote in Quebec, the chief electoral officer of Quebec set up campus polling stations to encourage students to vote. In spite of this measure, barely 15 per cent of students exercised their right to vote. We can only conclude that this measure was not sufficient to encourage students to vote and that we need organizations like yours.

I would like to know whether other provinces in Canada have initiatives to encourage students to vote on campuses.

[English]

Mr. Gunn: Election agencies across Canada, in our experience, are terribly focused on how to enfranchise everyone. I know the brand of Elections Ontario is ``We make voting easy.'' They are trying to do it in any way possible.

Campus ballot stations we have heard from, although it's out of our demographic, are saying that young people are yearning for them. They're yearning for a way they can participate.

This gets into a little bit of the vouching, and I think you want to work hard on that issue. For example, I travelled here today with my health card. That's the only ID I have. I know that's embarrassing to say at the age of 36, but it has no residency on it. If I had to vote tomorrow — and luckily my wife handles all the money, so I don't really have any bills in my name — I would need someone to vouch for me. I think I'm an acceptable enough citizen that I should be participating.

There are some people out there that really don't have proof of residency like others do, and I do think that no one would want to be responsible for that administrative challenge.

Senator Plett: I'll try to be brief. I do want to talk a little bit about the chart here again, and I apologize for being a bit late this afternoon.

You have 29 results listed here. When it says ``Elected in Student Vote,'' I think there are five that say they are not, yet you have their numbers recorded. Could you explain that? They weren't elected in the student vote; was there somebody, then, that had a higher percentage of the vote? Why wouldn't their name be here?

Mr. Gunn: The ``Ballots Cast'' number beside their name is not the individual ballots they received for themselves; it's the total ballots cast in that electoral district through the Student Vote program.

Senator Plett: I understand.

There has been much talk that this bill is designed by Conservatives to suppress the vote. However, out of the 29, 21 of those are Conservative-held ridings. I would say that we have a pretty good track record and would be silly to try to suppress the vote if we can do that with students.

Mr. Gunn: I would agree. The only thing I've seen that really gave me any reason to wonder why some of the section 18 things were going on was an article in the Orillia Packet and Times. MP Bruce Stanton said that he felt that Elections Canada could be seen as unbiased if they were promoting participation within groups that traditionally, he thinks, don't vote for a certain party. I would just correct the fact that there is no proof that young people don't vote Conservative. I also would advise any political party — anyway, I think I've said enough.

Senator Plett: You can continue saying that.

Mr. Gunn: I just don't think anyone should think they have the youth vote.

Senator Plett: Thank you. I appreciate that.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Gunn, for a very interesting presentation, and we appreciate your appearance here today.

Mr. Gunn: Thank you so much, and good luck in your deliberations.

The Chair: Our next panel of witnesses appear as individuals via video conference; Paul Howe, Professor and Chair, Department of Political Science, University of New Brunswick; and Pauline Beange, Lecturer, University of Toronto.

Welcome, Ms. Beange and Mr. Howe. We appreciate your taking time to contribute to the committee's consideration of Bill C-23. I assume you both have opening statements. Ms. Beange, I'll offer you the first opportunity.

Pauline Beange, Lecturer, University of Toronto, as an individual: I am pleased to participate today in your discussion of this bill. My doctoral dissertation completed in 2012 compared the regulation of party finance, the powers of enforcement agencies, the role of the judiciary and so on in Canada, the U.S. and the U.K., which are comparable, mature democracies. I focused on the period since 2000 but conducted a retrospective back to Confederation, so I am quite familiar with both informal and formal ways to regulate parties.

My research demonstrates that it is important to compare Canada only with other mature democracies that have strong networks of institutions guarding democracy. This finding reinforces that of Michael Boda, who is now the Chief Electoral Officer of Saskatchewan. By ``vigorous network of institutions,'' I mean political parties, citizens, a free press, relative transparency of party finance, Parliament, social media and so on, which have all worked together to protect Canadian democracy and earn its global reputation.

Two factors differentiate Canadian practice in the administration and enforcement of party finance roles. First, only Canada among these three countries combines the oversight of elections and the oversight of party finance under one agency; and second, the party finance enforcement agencies of the U.S. and U.K. are headed by a group of nominated commissioners who serve limited terms rather than one appointed head who serves until age 65, as is the case of the Chief Electoral Officer, the only officer of Parliament to have that length of tenure.

The separation of party finance enforcement from election administration is not a novel idea. It was endorsed by the House of Commons Committee on Election Expenses, the Barbeau Committee, in the 1960s and by the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, the Lortie Commission in the 1990s. The proposed move, in my opinion, is the final step to implement the recommendations of those two prestigious bodies. I support this restructuring for several reasons but will limit my comments to the following:

First, while the Commissioner of Canada Elections is technically in charge of party finance administration, he is selected by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and the commissioner reports to Parliament through the CEOC. This is a muddled reporting scheme.

Second, even with the proposed changes, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada will keep his long term of office and will retain many other powers including the following: the power to initiate and advise Parliament on matters of interest, for example, his newly appointed committee to study electoral reform; the chair of the Advisory Committee of Political Parties and the powers thereto; the power to choose future broadcasting administrators, arbitrators; and the power to appoint external members of the audit committee of Elections Canada.

The Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada is perhaps the single most influential position in the entire Canadian civil service; and pronouncements by him carry enormous weight. Canada has had and continues to have able and dedicated Chief Electoral Officers, but that does not necessarily mean that they are right all of the time. Federal Court Justice Martineau in a 2010 hearing found it necessary to rebuke overreach by the Chief Electoral Officer. He stated that:

Parliament has expressed no clear intention in the act to empower the CEOC to play a general regulatory or supervisory role in the creation or enforcement of rules regarding the financing of electoral campaigns or the conduct of participants.

I would suggest that Bill C-23 may have flaws, but the proposed separation of responsibility over party finance regulations from that of elections is a sensible one that focuses the CEOC's mandate on strong elections.

In conclusion, Canadian democracy is protected by a strong network of institutions, not just one office, and will be strengthened, not weakened by the proposed restructuring.

I welcome your comments and questions on other parts of the bill.

The Chair: Professor Howe, please proceed.

Paul Howe, Professor and Chair, Department of Political Science, University of New Brunswick, as an individual: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had the opportunity to speak last week to the House of Commons committee examining Bill C-23. I have concerns about a number of provisions in the bill, but the principal issue I raised was the proposal to limit Elections Canada's role in promoting voter turnout, requiring it to provide information to the public only on matters of when, where and how to vote. I pointed out that the principal reasons why many young people are failing to vote nowadays have little to do with difficulties with the mechanics of voting and, therefore, the broader role of Elections Canada in promoting voter participation should be retained. I'd like to elaborate on this point today.

One of the background papers on Bill C-23, found at the government's Democrat Reform website, provides a rationale for limiting Elections Canada's role in terms of promoting voter turnout.

Under the heading ``Back to Basics,'' it notes that a study done for Elections Canada on youth participation in the 2011 general election found that about 25 per cent of youth non-voters indicated that not knowing where, when or how to vote played a role in their decision not to vote. If we take this result at face value, it would seem to suggest that there are substantial gains in youth voter turnout that could be achieved through concerted efforts to make young people better aware of the mechanics of voting.

I have looked closely at this study done for Elections Canada. In fact, Elections Canada has also provided me with the original survey data to examine, something it will often do for interested researchers. I have done a bit of my own analysis to learn more about these young non-voters who said they did not know when, where or how to vote in the 2011 federal election.

For example, the survey asked all respondents if they knew which party had actually won the election. Fewer than half of these young non-voters who did not know when, where or how to vote could correctly identify which party had won the election. Here is another interesting result. Only three out of ten — I repeat, three out of ten — of these young non-voters who did not know when, where or how to vote could provide the correct name of the premier of their own province, and just over two in ten managed to answer both of these very basic political knowledge questions correctly, the name of their premier and which party had just won the election. Clearly these young people who did not know when, where or how to vote also did not know a lot of other things about the federal election and Canadian politics more generally.

There are a few points to draw from this. The first is that many young non-voters are disconnected from politics and current affairs in a quite profound way. Trying to inform them about election procedures is, therefore, a very challenging task. If a young person does not know which party won an historic federal election that just took place or does not know the name of their own premier, it is an uphill battle for an elections body to try to educate them about when, where and how to vote. The fact is that Elections Canada already does a great deal to make people aware of the mechanics of voting, as detailed in its various post-election reports. For anyone who really wants to know when, where and how to vote, that information is ready available.

The second important point we can draw is that even if you could somehow make these young non-voters aware of when, where and how to vote, in most cases it would make no difference to their voting behaviour. The underlying reason that many of these young people are not voting is that they are deeply disconnected from politics, possessing little general knowledge and having minimal political interest. Not knowing anything about voting procedures is a symptom of their disengagement from electoral politics; it is not the reason they do not vote.

I am certainly not suggesting Elections Canada should reduce its efforts to inform the public about voting procedures and to ensure easy access to voting for young people. This is, in fact, an ongoing priority for the agency. But I am emphasizing that the gains in voter turnout among young Canadians likely to be achieved through this approach are relatively small. The problem of low voter turnout among young Canadians is more fundamental and requires efforts to address underlying educational and motivational dimensions of the issue.

Elections Canada has a key role to play in these larger efforts. I would quote from an Elections Canada report after the 2011 election, which discussed this issue of low voter turnout among young Canadians:

. . . the Chief Electoral Officer has called for a concerted effort involving parents, educators, youth, politicians and the media to give young Canadians the tools they need to play an active role in democratic life. This effort includes supporting civic education to increase young people's knowledge about politics and democracy in Canada.

The approach outlined in this quotation seems to me to be exactly right. Elections Canada should not and cannot undertake educational and motivational initiatives alone, but it has a vital role to play in raising awareness of the youth voter turnout issue, as well as encouraging and facilitating wide-ranging initiatives by others.

If Bill C-23 passes in its current form, this role will be taken away and there will be no one leading the way in Canada on the issue of youth voter turnout. This would be a tremendous loss and would, I believe, represent an abdication of the government's responsibility to be serious in its efforts to attempt to address the pressing problem of political disengagement among young Canadians.

Thank you. I would welcome any questions.

The Chair: Thank you, sir. We will begin with questions by the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Baker.

Senator Baker: I certainly welcome both presenters today. Those were very interesting presentations. In the first presentation from Dr. Beange, it generally is approving of the move made in this legislation and saying that it is good legislation, and you gave the following reasons. Then we when had Dr. Howe, who said, ``Well, now, just hold on a minute. You're taking away certain powers from the Chief Electoral Officer and it will discourage attempts to improve youth voter turnout in the election.''

Let me ask my first question of Dr. Beange: Are you concerned about anything in the new bill that you addressed overall? For example, you addressed finance regulation. Some people would say that the moves made in the legislation would benefit the rich and the powerful and the big political interests of the day and discourage political participation by other parties. What would you say to that criticism?

Ms. Beange: I don't think that the evidence bears that out. If you look historically at data as to who contributes to political parties, charities and so on, it is a relatively small percentage of the population. It always has been. By no means, I believe, in Canada can it be said that the rich dominate political discourse when the current limit on contributions is as low as it is.

By contrast — and I am not saying in any way that we should go in this direction — if we look at maximum personal political donations in even the U.K., they are significantly higher. They are in the thousands of pounds sterling. They are not as low as $1200. I don't think that is a major factor.

I agree, of course, with Professor Howe that there is youth disengagement, but I am not convinced that it is ``the failure or the success of Elections Canada that has brought that about.'' We see the same trends in youth voter turnout in both the U.S. and the U.K. In both of those cases, voter education and mobilization is undertaken by political parties and charitable foundations, not-for-profits and so son. The government does not have an official role at the federal level. It is difficult to say that we should expand the role of Elections Canada in voter education while at the same time not being able to look at evidence that shows that it has worked in the past. I think there are secular forces that we are all contending with. I would sum up by saying it is not just the government. There has to be room for other actors as well to encourage youth and other actors.

Senator Baker: I wish to ask Professor Howe to respond to those comments, but I want to put one further question for the sake of time here that perhaps you both could comment on.

Dr. Beange, I wonder if there are any other subjects that you wish to bring up with the legislation. I imagine you would have an opinion on the compel argument — you are shaking your head; I knew you would have an opinion on that — as to whether or not this legislation falls short of the mark. Canadians are all concerned about the robo-call matter and the fact that Elections Canada came before this committee and said, ``Look, we are stalled unless a change is made to the Elections Act to allow the commissioner to compel testimony, as many other persons in similar positions of authority have the power to do.'' I would ask you to comment on that, Dr. Beange, and then Professor Howe to comment not only on that but also your previous remarks.

Ms. Beange: First, I am not a legal expert —

Senator Baker: You have a PhD.

Ms. Beange: I have, but I am not a lawyer. I have spent a lot of time on this, yes.

I am of two minds, to be quite honest, on this subject. I understand clearly that Canadians do not want robo-calls or anything of the sort that is a misrepresentation. That is clear. Whether the Chief Electoral Officer himself needs the power to compel evidence, I am not clear that that is the case, or whether the normal recourse of events or processes at the present time is insufficient. I am not completely sold on that argument.

Senator Baker: Professor Howe, on both subjects, sir, if you would.

Mr. Howe: On that first question on the political finance regulations, I actually in my previous presentation to the House of Commons committee made some comments on that. I had just done a study quite recently with some of my students at UNB, which will be published very soon, on the subject of political finance. Specifically, we looked at the degree to which there is some dominance by wealthier Canadians in the system of political finance. We looked at some of the public records that exist on individuals who donate more than $200 to a political party. We found that, while these people account for one quarter of all the donors in Canada, their contributions represent about two thirds of the donation dollars, which is not surprising.

We went further and also found information regarding the neighbourhoods in which these individuals lived, which you can do because you are provided with the postal codes of the donors. We found that there were about four times as many people living in relatively wealthy neighbourhoods, in the top 20 per cent of household incomes, giving this amount of over $200 as there were people at the bottom end of the scale — about a four to one ratio of the people in the top 20 per cent versus the bottom 20 per cent.

Our conclusion was that there is significant dominance by relatively wealthy Canadians in our current system of political donations. Consequently, raising the limit to $1,500 is not a good move. It will only exacerbate that problem, and our conclusion is that amount should actually be reduced.

In Quebec, they have had this debate, and they have reduced their maximum donation amount to $100 per year. That's a system that would create a more egalitarian form of political giving than the one that we have now, which, as I say, is dominated by wealthier individuals.

On the point concerning other jurisdictions and their promotion of voter participation by young people, as well as the broader reasons for the decline in turnout, I certainly agree that the causes of this phenomenon are, broadly speaking, cultural in nature. They are not a result of anything government has done. I don't even put that much blame on, say, political parties, in the way that some might, for turning off voters.

Nonetheless, this trend has occurred, and we do have very low turnout rates. It is not a problem that I think will solve itself. I don't think we can look to civil society to, in a sense, spontaneously take care of this problem. I do think it is a problem that government needs to take the lead on. In particular, I believe that the independent elections agency is the appropriate body to do that, taking the lead in terms of raising awareness about the issue and encouraging and catalyzing efforts by civil society to try to bring about some positive change.

I would also note that, in the U.K, the Electoral Commission has done a great deal of work in this area, including research and sponsoring civil society groups that undertake things. Much like the Student Vote project that we have here, there has been a similar initiative in the U.K. A tremendous amount of work has been done there, and they've taken the issue very seriously.

The Chair: Professor, I am very sorry; I'm going to have to jump in. We have a lot of members who would like to ask questions, and I'm going to have to encourage both witnesses to try to give us all an opportunity to participate. I hope you will reflect upon that with your responses. We will move on to Senator Frum.

Senator Frum: To both witnesses, thank you very much for two excellent presentations.

I want go back to what you said in your presentation, that you support the measures of Bill C-23, particularly when it comes to the separating the role of the Chief Electoral Officer from that of the commissioner. What I took from what you said is that this will give true independence to the commissioner, who is the investigator, as opposed to what we have now, which you called a muddled reporting scheme. Could you just amplify? We had the former Auditor General here saying that she thought the central reporting scheme worked just fine. Can you explain why you think this is an improvement on the reporting scheme?

Ms. Beange: I think it is an improvement for the following reasons. The first is not a critique of Mr. Mayrand himself; this is simply a commentary on the position of Chief Electoral Officer.

The Chief Electoral Officer position has been in place since 1920. As a result of that, there is huge moral persuasion and moral suasion that adheres to anything at all that the Chief Electoral Officer says. I think that, to some extent, that puts political parties at a disadvantage when it comes to litigation or a contest about what the boundary for Elections Canada is, as it pursues violations or alleged violations.

For example, again referring to the same hearing, Justice Martineau had to rebuke both Elections Canada and the Conservative Party for what he termed their ``extreme'' positions adopted in the case. I feel that, by moving the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the enforcement of party finance into a different sphere, that will relieve any possible partisan implications or potentially improper influence.

Senator Frum: Can I also ask you about the provisions that will increase allowable donations to $1,500? In terms of the world context, what is your opinion about that increase and whether it is reasonable?

Ms. Beange: First, if we look again at the two comparable nations, it is not valid to look at, for example, Zambia or Indonesia or South Korea. They don't have the length or the stability of democracy that we have. That's the first comment I would like to make.

The second comment is that $1,500 is a relatively small amount of money, given Canadian incomes.

The third thing is that donations do rise with income. If you are on a fixed income, your first thought of giving a donation is not typically to a political party. A different point is that political donations tend to track charitable donations. So Canadian charitable donations are less as a percentage of the population and less in absolute dollars than they are in the U.S. Similarly, so are their political donations. I think that is very important to keep in mind.

The final thing is that Quebec may have a $100 limit, but it has had and continues to have severe party financing crises, as witnessed by the ongoing Charbonneau inquiry. So I'm not sure that that is where we want to look for an example.

Senator Frum: Let me also ask you about the issue of third party donations. This bill is trying to make a measure so that only third parties who have a connection to Canada can contribute. Do you think that is an enforceable measure? First of all, can you comment on the importance, or not, of keeping out foreign money to influence elections? Is it enforceable?

Ms. Beange: Let me address the second question first. I think it is enforceable. First, we currently enforce the fact that foreign nationals cannot give to political parties, for example. If that is enforceable, it shouldn't be difficult to enforce third party regulations for foreign donors or activities. Second, we have had very strong control on third party donations for many, many years.

I, personally, think that there is more room for third party donations and a stronger role or actor-role for third parties because they typically bring to the table new perspectives and new initiatives that, perhaps, the parties haven't taken up on their own. It shouldn't be unlimited, by any means, but the current amount, which is roughly $150,000, give or take inflation, is not really very much to reach the number of voters in Canada. The limit within a particular constituency association is minimal when one considers that many constituencies have close to 100,000 voters.

Senator Joyal: I would like to ask a question of Mr. Howe on party financing. The bill contains a provision allowing a party to solicit former donors and not count the expenses of that initiative during the election campaign. What is your assessment of that proposal of the bill?

Mr. Howe: I would agree with some of the criticism that we have heard voiced about that provision that it would be difficult to separate out the fundraising component of that from the campaigning component that might be involved.

Certainly, one can see how it could represent a major fundraising opportunity for parties to be able to do this because, if they have significant additional funds to put toward that cause, they certainly could raise very large amounts of money during campaigns. One can see the motivation behind it. However, I don't think it is a reasonable provision.

Senator Joyal: Do you think that the limit contained in the act in terms of party contribution is high enough, too low or could be increased without jeopardizing the objective of balance that the system tries to achieve?

Mr. Howe: Are you referring to the $1,500 proposed maximum donation?

Senator Joyal: Yes. I heard you comment on the new legislation in Quebec limiting contributions to $100. It seems that from $1,500 to $100, the margin is high in terms of establishing capacity for individual citizens to contribute to a cause for which they believe there is a strong social value.

Mr. Howe: That is true. However, I would express the concern that someone can have a strongly felt viewpoint they wish to express through donating money, but a major part of their ability to do so is driven by their income level. Someone who is earning $30,000 a year cannot possibly think about donating $1,500 to a political party; they might make a donation of $20 or $30. A limit of $100 is much more reasonable. Many people can express their views by donating money, but it is a more level playing field if everyone is capped at a maximum of $100.

We had a system, which is being phased out, that provided for a subsidy given for each vote in a federal election. That was a much more equal system in the sense that every voter would be contributing to a political party of their choice through their vote. Regardless of income, everybody would be making an identical contribution. Now that that part of the system is being phased out, we need to look at the donation side of things and ask if, perhaps, it has some inequalities in it by virtue of wealthier Canadians dominating the system to a significant degree.

Senator McIntyre: Thank you, Ms. Beange, for your presentation. In your report, you mention that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada will not only keep his long-term office but also retain other powers, such as Chair of the Advisory Committee of Political Parties. This committee has been in operation for several years, from 1977, if I am not mistaken. It meets once a year and is made up of the CEOC and two representatives of each political party. The role of the committee is to ensure that the views of represented parties are taken into account in the management of electoral law.

Bill C-23 would create this committee on a statutory basis. However, I note that under Bill C-23, the advice and recommendation of the committee would not be binding on the CEOC; Elections Canada would have the final word.

In light of the fact that the advice of the committee is not binding, do you see the need for the creation of such a committee on a statutory basis or should we just keep things the way they are? What are your views on this?

Ms. Beange: That is something I haven't paid a great deal of attention to. First, whoever chairs the committee steers the horse, okay?

Senator McIntyre: Well said.

Ms. Beange: In that sense, the Chief Electoral Officer, the position not the person, maintains control. I don't think I would advise in either of the situations, whether the current situation or the changed situation, that such changes would be mandatory. I am a little reluctant to tie that kind of behaviour and make it mandatory so I would recommend that it be optional.

Senator McIntyre: There is no question that the committee acts as a safeguard for the arm's-length administration of elections.

Ms. Beange: Absolutely.

Senator McIntyre: You agree with that.

Ms. Beange: Yes.

Senator McIntyre: Mr. Howe, do you wish to add anything?

Mr. Howe: No, not on that particular point. I don't have much expertise in that area.

Senator Moore: Ms. Beange, in your statement you said:

The Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada is perhaps the single most influential position in the entire Canadian civil service; and pronouncements by him carry enormous weight.

A young man before us earlier today, Mr. Taylor Gunn, said of the existing act that the Chief Electoral Officer may implement public education and information programs to make the electoral process better known to the public. Perhaps both of you could respond. Mr. Howe, you touched on the need for education and making youth more aware of the process. Does either of you have comments as to whether the Chief Electoral Officer should retain his authority and mandate to educate youth and others in our community about the process and about the importance of involving themselves in casting a ballot?

Ms. Beange: I would like to speak to that. Certainly, the Chief Electoral Officers call it ``education'' in terms of where to vote, and so on. That is very important. However, I would not necessarily call that ``voter education.'' I don't mean to split hairs, but I think that's ``election education.'' Voter education is something that can be undertaken by political parties and by the not-for-profit agencies. I don't think that the Chief Electoral Officer needs to ``lead in that.'' Unfortunately — and I say this with regret — all of the programs undertaken to date have not done much. I question whether, on an evidence basis, there is reason to continue. Perhaps this is a time to reconsider and let this go for five years and review at the end of five years to see what happened. Sadly, there is little to show.

I find in my own university courses when I ask students why they are not voting that initially they say it is not interesting. When we get right down to it, that response is a more socially acceptable answer than saying ``I kind of felt lazy,'' which is what they subsequently say.

I have asked a second question of them: When I look at the statistics, I see that at least a third more of you will be voting by the time you are 29. What do you think is going to make you vote by the time you are 29; and they all say, ``A real job.''

I am not sure that government and state efforts to increase voter turnout are necessarily going to show the fruit that we would like to see. Perhaps it is time for experimentation since Elections Canada has had it under its wing for some years.

Senator Moore: You don't think that the efforts and the results of Mr. Gunn and his CIVIX organization have been beneficial or worth continuing.

Ms. Beange: That's precisely the kind that are worthy of experimentation. Canada does similar activities. In the U.S, there is a whole host of civil society organizations that work on voter education, and so on. One of the problems in Canada is that there is so little civic education at the high school level. In my studies at the graduate level, high school civics education tips the scale a couple of percentage points in youth voter turnout. Generally speaking, and I think you heard this yesterday, youth voting tends to depend on parental and family influence and dinner table conversations. That is the primary driver; and that has been shown over and over again.

Senator Moore: I thought that his intervention with regard to the assistance from Elections Canada in terms of funding for sure and of the provision of authentic material so that youth have a real sense of participating in a bona fide election was important, but you don't think that should continue.

Ms. Beange: It is important, but I'm not sure whether the current number of dollars, which I am not really aware of, necessarily needs to go into that.

Mr. Howe: I would take entirely the opposite view. I believe that these initiatives are very important for the educational component. I am not suggesting that Elections Canada should necessarily do this directly. The Student Vote project does it indirectly. It provides the funding, and the program is carried out by an arm's-length group.

I believe it's actually quite difficult to say what the impact of Student Vote has been; I think Taylor Gunn alluded to that. What we've seen in youth voter turnout over the last 10 years or so is a levelling out, and it had actually been declining quite consistently for a good number of years.

I'd also say we've had certain forces, perhaps, tending to push turnout down over the last 10 years or so: We've had quite an acrimonious political environment; and we've had a lot of negative advertising occurring and attack ads, which can drive turnout down. So there are certain things that might be tending to drive turnout down, yet we have managed to at least stabilize things.

I don't think these initiatives will take place at the same level if we do not have somebody leading the way — somebody drawing public attention to this issue of low voter turnout among young Canadians and encouraging various organizations and groups, including parents, to help change that. Elections Canada can promote the idea, for example, to parents through its advertising that it's important to get your children involved: ``Your children who are just turning 18 — why not bring them to the polls this time?'' I can imagine a campaign along those lines.

This occurs independently to a lot of parents, but I don't think it can hurt at all to have the elections agency promoting the idea; that could help to a significant degree.

[Translation]

Senator Dagenais: My question is for Mr. Howe. I understand that, for you, the Chief Electoral Officer plays a key role in helping voters and disseminating information.

What if I told you that, under the new bill, the Chief Electoral Officer's work would be more focused on duties related to his administrative powers, or in other words, his work would be more focused on customer service duties rather than investigative duties? Would you agree that this could be beneficial for voters and for those who run the elections? Would you agree with that?

[English]

Mr. Howe: Currently, Elections Canada does focus a great deal of its efforts on the administration of elections and in dealing with a lot of the administrative issues. Therefore, I don't agree with the bill's proposal to strictly limit Elections Canada to that role with respect to communicating with the public. Elections Canada will continue to focus primarily on that role, but there's another part of its mandate and job that is very important, which is to educate in a broader sense.

Therefore, no, I don't agree that Elections Canada should be strictly limited to focusing on the administrative dimension of elections.

[Translation]

Senator Dagenais: The bill would not limit his mandate, but it could take away his investigative duties and give them to the commissioner. The Chief Electoral Officer could then focus more on the administrative services offered to voters, and his investigative duties would be given to the commissioner. The bill would therefore not be taking away his power but would have him focus on administrative duties related to customer service. Do you not think that would be better?

[English]

Mr. Howe: I didn't realize you were referring to the investigative powers that were going to be moved out of Elections Canada's jurisdiction. On that point, I do not have as strong a view. I certainly listened to the various opinions that have been expressed. I do not have as much expertise, and therefore I don't think I could really offer as much information or opinion on that particular aspect of the changes.

I was focusing more on the educational mandate and the communications mandate of Elections Canada and how broad that should be.

Senator Batters: Ms. Beange, this may have happened while you were travelling here, preparing for your testimony or something like that, but just a few hours ago, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau announced that if he were to form the next government, he would repeal the entire fair elections act. He would do away with not just the controversial provisions of this bill, but he would do away with the fix for the robo-call situation as indicated by Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the 38 Chief Electoral Officer recommendations, and these independent measures that you indicated today are very welcome.

I very much appreciate the considered opinion you gave us today. I notice the very last paragraph of the written statement you read today says:

Canadian democracy is protected by a strong network of institutions, not just one office, and will be strengthened, not weakened, by the proposed restructuring.

When I saw that part about ``Canadian democracy is protected by a strong network of institutions,'' it called to my mind that the Senate is also one of those strong institutions, so I had to get that in today.

I also appreciated it when you spoke about the position of the Chief Electoral Officer and said:

Canada has had able and dedicated chief electoral officers — but that does not necessarily mean they are right all the time.

I thought that was a very good way of putting it, and how you expressed that it's not necessarily the individual in the position; it's just that that is a very powerful position and we need to make sure of the powers.

Mr. Howe, when you were responding to questions about political financing from my colleague Senator Baker, I thought the particular study you were referencing was interesting. I would have been interested to see what the study results would have been if you would have had study results dealing with the donation limits before our government decreased the donation limit from $5,000 to I think it was initially $1,000 and then it slightly increased. Prior to the $5,000 limit the Liberal government put in, it was of course much higher than that.

Would you recognize that the limit compared to what it used to be — we heard testimony the other day from, I believe it was Jean-Pierre Kingsley, indicating that our political donation limits are the best in the world. The study you referenced I'm sure would have shown a much greater concentration, had we been dealing with the much higher limits we used to have in Canada.

Mr. Howe: Yes, would I certainly concede that. We were moving in the right direction by going from no limits and then we moved to a $5,000 limit and kept going down.

However, I have to say that as far as I know, there has not been any other research that has really looked closely at who is making the donations to political parties, specifically taking into account the size of the donations they're able to make. So I think this study is the first to show there really is a significantly disproportionate number of wealthier Canadians who are able to make the larger donations. Of course, it stands to reason; it's not really a surprising result, but we have empirically verified it.

I agree with everything you said, except that I feel we were moving in the right direction and we should keep going in that direction to make a more equal or level playing field.

Senator Batters: I would have to disagree when you talked about having a hundred-dollar cap and then instead financing it through the per-vote subsidy. I guess we have a fundamental philosophical difference on that, because I would prefer that it's the Canadian electoral public who get to choose which political party gets the money rather than all Canadian taxpayers having to subsidize. That's a philosophical difference.

Mr. Howe, when you were speaking about Elections Canada's role in motivating young voters, I think you conceded later that Elections Canada might have more effective efforts in that realm if they were to concentrate their efforts on more indirect methods as opposed to direct motivation efforts. We have certainly seen that although Elections Canada has had significant efforts to motivate young voters and voters in general, voter percentage has significantly declined. I'm wondering what you would say about the role of political parties instead in motivating young voters and all voters to get out and vote?

Mr. Howe: I certainly agree that political parties have a role in that. I would say that if an individual has a certain basic level of political knowledge and understanding and who has some interest in politics, then that's somebody who can be mobilized by a political party's message; that's somebody who might decide, ``I'm going to vote because I like this party.''

The problem is we have a lot of younger Canadians who fall below that basic level, to the point where the party's messages just go right over their heads. They don't even hear them or if they do hear them they don't really understand the significance of this party promising to do this or this party's ideology is this. They don't really understand it at all, to be honest. Therefore they can't really be mobilized by a political party until they are brought up to a certain base level of knowledge and interest. That's the civics education process, which is the responsibility of schools primarily.

As I've said before, Elections Canada can help to encourage and catalyze that process specifically through some of the experiential civics education such as the Student Vote process. It's a twofold process and I agree though that parties can motivate voters once they are aware of politics and paying attention to what's going on.

Ms. Beange: Dr. Howe, respectfully, he assumes that interest in politics generally will then lead to political party engagement. I would suggest there's a significant body of research that shows the opposite to occur; that once one becomes engaged, usually by a one-on-one invitation and gets involved in a political party, that then leads to voting and consistent voting, so there are two schools of thought on this.

The Chair: Okay, thank you for that.

[Translation]

Senator Boisvenu: I would like to thank you for your presentation, Mr. Howe.

I am going to try to interpret your brief. I think that you provided a very clear explanation of the distinction between young people knowing where, when and how to vote and young people knowing about the election itself and who to vote for. The date of the election and the location of polling stations is objective information whereas who to vote for is subjective information. People have to make a choice between one, two or three parties.

Do I understand correctly from your brief that that notion of who to vote for should be part of Elections Canada's mandate?

As you said, the problem is not that young people do not know where to go to vote. The problem is that they simply lack the motivation to do so. Whether or not a person votes is always related to his or her level of interest in politics. The more interested a person is in politics, the more motivated he or she is to vote.

If Elections Canada is given the mandate to motivate young people to vote, would we not be running the risk of politicizing Elections Canada?

[English]

Mr. Howe: Phrased the way you've put it, it certainly could sound like it could be a potential problem. What I'm actually referring to is that I would place greater emphasis on the educational dimension and, at the same time, I would point out that one can talk about generating a certain level of political knowledge and understanding, but at the same time it almost goes hand in hand with that. It's impossible not to be generating a certain interest in politics. When one knows something about the topic it becomes more interesting. I'm talking about a very generic sort of political interest in wanting to know just what's happening out there in my country, what's going on, what do these different political parties stand for, what does it all mean? I'm referring to that kind of political interest, not necessarily a politicization where you're starting to lean towards one particular party or another.

Therefore I would see Elections Canada participating in a larger process that leads to the building of political knowledge but also this generic political interest among younger people.

[Translation]

Senator Boisvenu: That is exactly what I am asking you. If we have Elections Canada teach young people about political parties' platforms, for example, do we not run the risk of politicizing Elections Canada?

When a young person is taught about a political platform, whoever is presenting that information is practicing politics. The information is being interpreted. This puts Elections Canada at risk of becoming a political organization.

[English]

Mr. Howe: I think I've been misunderstood to some degree. I'm not suggesting that Elections Canada would actually present the contents of political programs to students in any sort of direct fashion. I'm referring more to the kinds of things it's already been doing, which has been more neutral and objective I would say. It provides information, for example, to schools as resources about just how elections work and so on. It sponsors the Student Vote initiative where they get to participate in a mock election, but then it's very hands off and that just takes place in the schools.

That's the kind of thing I have in mind. I'm not suggesting that Elections Canada would actually play any role in presenting political platforms of parties to young people.

Senator Baker: I'd like to give Professor Howe an opportunity to answer the question that I had originally asked and was answered by the witness here in the room with us. First, I recall a book called Judicial Power and Canadian Democracy. Do you recall that? The name Paul Howe was attached to the authorship. I'm surprised that you would hesitate to comment on things pertaining to the process of bringing charges and so on under the Canada Elections Act.

By the way, I congratulate you for that book. You must have written it when you were 10 years old because it was way back in 1999 or 2000 that that book appeared on the scene.

Let me ask you about compelling testimony as far as the commissioner is concerned. What are your opinions on the fact that this has been brought up so forcefully by the witnesses before this committee, that a just conclusion to the robo-call matter is prevented without it, as well as to other similar matters that may arise in the future?

Mr. Howe: I'm amazed that you remember that book. To provide a bit more on my background very briefly, and not so much in the area of judicial politics, I was an editor of that book and I worked on it with Peter Russell, one of Canada's most pre-eminent political scientists.

My expertise is not so much in that area, but more in the area of political participation and youth voter participation. However, that said, I have listened to the testimony of others who have said it's very important to have this power and I'm persuaded by their reasoning and their arguments. I think in the end that when we have these kinds of issues that may be undermining confidence in the electoral process, it's important to be able to investigate them thoroughly, efficiently and quickly in order to retain Canadian confidence in that process.

I would agree with the idea that testimony should be able to be compelled.

Senator Moore: I want to follow up on that question by Senator Baker.

Professor Beange, you say you support the splitting up of the authorities whereby the Commissioner of Canada Elections will be the investigative body. It's interesting too, your comment here about we've had and continue to have dedicated Chief Electoral Officers, ``but that does not necessarily mean they are right all the time.'' That may apply to the current CEO and it may well apply to the immediate past, in view of his comments with regard to this compelling matter and the robo-calls, past and future, if they continue.

Under this legislation, the Commissioner of Canada Elections, he or she, does not have the power to compel a person to appear to testify. Records are only kept for one year and the records do not include the phone number of the person contacted, which is pretty fundamental. I don't see how that commissioner could do the job with those kinds of obstructions or omissions in authority.

Do you have any comment on that? I will ask both of you because this is very important. We have heard Justice Mosley in the past. Fraud was committed, although not enough to overturn the election he said, but fraud was committed and this is the reason why. I would like to have some comments from each of you on that.

Ms. Beange: Certainly. I'd like to separate the two issues. We can separate the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, but we can also supplement his power, for example, on matters of record-keeping and phone numbers and so on, which is, as you say, completely logical. I don't think the two need to be tied together. We can separate and move and house the Commissioner of Canada Elections elsewhere and give him certain powers that are necessary to do his job. We don't need to leave him under the leadership of the CEO, so I think they are two somewhat different issues.

Senator Moore: That could be.

Ms. Beange: Would that be okay?

Senator Moore: That could be, but I think that the commissioner should have the authorities; this is very fundamental. This is not something where we wait until we get down the road and the same thing repeats itself. That already happened. We know what happened. We know we can stop it. Why don't we put those stops in this bill?

Ms. Beange: It could be that I have a faulty understanding in this area, but my understanding is that a court subpoena can compel my testimony, my records, and so on. I'm not clear why that has to be done at a prior stage to a court setting. That may be overly simplistic, but I'm not clear on why that's essential.

Senator Moore: You don't think that the commissioner of —

Ms. Beange: I don't know.

Senator Moore: You don't know.

Ms. Beange: Because I do know that my records and a great deal can be subpoenaed at a court hearing.

Senator Moore: I know that. Yes, in usual proceedings, that's right.

Ms. Beange: I'm not sure why this would be an unusual proceeding. If there's an answer to that, I would like to know. I haven't read that myself.

Senator Moore: You should really think about this because it's pretty important.

Professor Howe?

Mr. Howe: I think for me the litmus test would be to look at what happened in 2011 and try to establish a system that would simply allow the Commissioner of Elections to get to the bottom of these kinds of things. The bill should be looked at through that lens. Consequently, I'm no expert in that specific aspect of things, but that's the litmus test I would use. We've heard from the people who are the experts, the people who administer and try to carry out these investigations. They have indicated that these kinds of powers would be necessary and essential to that end, and therefore I would support that perspective.

Senator Joyal: Professor Beange, I would like to come back to the underlying idea in your two-and-a-half-page brief. The perception I have is that you compare the Canadian, U.K., and the U.S. models and say, ``Oh, there is a difference in terms of status of the CEO with those two countries, so we should line up Canada with those two countries.'' It seems to me there was an expression that now, with the animal protection rules, we cannot use anymore in public, but I will risk it: There are many ways to skin a cat.

Ms. Beange: Absolutely.

Senator Joyal: And there are many ways to reach democracy. As you said, the U.K. has rules that protect its democracy that we don't find in Canada, and there are rules in the United States that I would certainly not like to import into Canada. That would give you thousands of examples. I don't think that one can say, ``This model is perfect, and let's use it because two out of three have it, and we should have it as the third one,'' unless our model is proved to be wrong.

For instance, if the fact that we put finance campaign oversight under the CEO produces wrong results, bad monitoring, a lack of follow-up on the donations or there is incapacity to monitor the system, then I would say there is something wrong in the system. But would I not, as a principle, want to say let's line up our system with those ones because they are bigger, older or whatever.

It's not clear in your brief for which reasons we should be dismantling the CEO, because I think you have a problem with the power of the CEO as it stands now. It seems that you want to strip it — let's put this here, let's put that there — and then we will have a CEO that will still be effective.

I think that a system has a philosophy and principles, and it evolves on the basis of its history. And along the line there is a capacity to review it, like the Barbeau committee or Lortie commission. It's good, as you said, after five years to go back and see the results, especially when you move on new grounds like party financing. As Professor Howe and other witnesses have mentioned, our system of party financing, fundamental revision, is still very young as a system. The limit of $5,000 is recent. We've changed it from $5,000 to $1,000, now we increase it to $1,500 and then we open it to solicit the new members. There are always ways of adjusting it, but to adopt a position as you seem to in your brief, unless I read badly between the lines, I think you have a problem with the status of the CEO as it stands now. You think there is too much there, but you don't show why it is wrong.

Ms. Beange: I couldn't do that in five minutes.

Senator Joyal: Do you understand my point?

Ms. Beange: I understand completely.

Senator Joyal: You brief lacks convincing power, in my opinion, to say yes, she's right.

Ms. Beange: I could have made it longer, but I was under strict instructions to make it five minutes.

First, my reference to the U.S. and U.K. is not to say that we have to change to be like them. My only point in saying that was we have party finance oversight that is different and it is headed by a single appointed person, rather than a body of commissioners. It was simply to point out that we are an outlier, not to say that we should change simply for the sake of change. That's the first question.

On the second question, in reading very closely the investigations of the Commissioner of Canada Elections in the past six years or so, I had some concerns that there was a veering towards partisanship. For example, in one of the cases that had to do with whether the Chief Electoral Officer would allow certain expenses of the Conservative Party, it came out in testimony that the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party had done exactly the same thing. But the Chief Electoral Officer had sought only to further the investigation with the Conservative Party. He argued he was doing that in order to level the playing field. However, if justice is to occur and be even-handed, then my contention is if all parties violated that section of the Canada Elections Act, all should have been prosecuted. To me, that is too much discretionary power.

The Chair: I'm going to have to jump in there and thank you, Ms. Beange, and Professor Howe, for your assistance with our deliberations on Bill C-23. It's very much appreciated. Thank you for being here.

For our final panel this afternoon, we have, appearing as individuals, Paul Thomas, Professor Emeritus, University of Manitoba; and Nelson Wiseman, Associate Professor with the Department of Political Studies, University of Toronto.

Welcome, gentlemen, and thank you for being here. Professor Thomas, I gather you have the lead with opening statements, so please proceed.

Paul Thomas, Professor Emeritus, University of Manitoba, as an individual: You are actually listening to two Winnipeggers today because Nelson and I are old friends from the north end of Winnipeg, so you are getting a particular flavour here.

Thank you very much for the privilege of appearing before this committee. Earlier, I submitted a 36-page brief on Bill C-23 to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. I believe that document has been circulated to committee members. I understand also that you may have been provided with my commentary on current debates on the sensitive issue of voter identification. Those debates have been taking place in the U.K.

Debates over Bill C-23 have focused mainly on a few controversial features like the mandate of Elections Canada and the future of vouching. It would be unfortunate if amendments were made on a couple of contentious matters and other problematic features went unexamined and unchanged.

Tonight I will simply list, without much elaboration, a dozen areas of concern about the bill as presently worded. The listing is not in any particular order of importance, although I have placed the more high profile issues toward the end of my remarks. This is a dozen recommendations.

One: Add a requirement that all registered political parties participate in the development of a code of conduct indicating their acceptance of certain fundamental principles and values of fair and free elections and that party leaders, candidates, paid staff and all volunteers agree to uphold such code.

Two: Add a provision extending the application of Canada's privacy laws to registered political parties.

Three: Drop the provision of the bill that allows the winning party in the previous election to recommend the name of the central poll supervisor and the provision that allows district party associations to recommend the names of deputy returning officers, poll clerks and registration officers. These provisions have the potential to give rise to actual, perceived or potential partisan bias in election administration.

Four: Retain the useful provision that authorizes Elections Canada to issue ``Guidance and Interpretation Notes,'' but add a requirement that the agency develop and make public the criteria and procedures that will govern their use.

Five: Delete the provision that removes from the ceiling on election expenses the cost of fundraising by electronic means where such communications are directed to past donors who have contributed $20 or more. The distinction between fundraising and campaigning does not hold up well in the real world, and the provision is unenforceable by Elections Canada.

Six: On the issue of deceptive communications with voters, so-called robo-calls, increase the time period for the retention of records, including recordings and scripts, by telephone service providers from one year to five years in order to allow time for the completion of investigations.

Seven: Amend the bill to provide the commissioner of elections with the power to compel testimony when he/she has convinced a judge that the person to be examined has information relevant to an ongoing investigation.

Eight: Drop the provision that relocates the position of the Commissioner of Canada Elections from within the administrative framework of Elections Canada and places it under the Director of Public Prosecutions situated within the Justice Department.

Nine: Drop the provision that prevents any professional administrator who has worked for Elections Canada from becoming commissioner and change the term of the appointment of commissioner from seven years to ten years to ensure that individual will oversee two election cycles.

Ten: Reinforce the core task of Elections Canada by passing section 18 in the bill, but also add a parallel provision that recognizes the right of the agency to study, report and comment on the conditions within the domain of electoral democracy.

Eleven: Include a requirement for consultation with the Chief Electoral Officer before future changes to the Canada Elections Act are introduced in Parliament.

Twelve: Drop the proposal to eliminate the use of voter information cards and vouching. Find a more appropriate method for balancing the constitutional right of eligible Canadians to vote with the very remote risk of voter fraud. I have some alternative suggestions on that.

To wind up, changes to the Canada Elections Act should be based on widespread consultation and as much consensus as possible. Changes should not be passed hastily and unilaterally, leading to real or perceived political advantages for the governing party, nor should the changes place the interests or the convenience of all political parties ahead of the voting rights of all Canadians.

In closing, I should indicate that I am a member of the Elections Canada Advisory Board, and in that capacity I have been paid for two days of work at the inaugural meeting of that body.

Also in the interest of full disclosure, I should inform the committee that during the year 2013-14, I was the co- investigator in partnership with Mr. Lorne Gibson, former CEO of Elections Alberta, for a study commissioned by Elections Canada. Briefly, in that study we were examining the relationships of independence and accountability for national election bodies in five countries compared to Canada, including the roles, mandates, scope of authority and the way they reported to governments and to Parliament. The study is undergoing translation and will be published in the future. I was paid $18,000 for that. Part of that amount included expenses. I wanted that on the record so I wouldn't be accused of hiding something about my connections with Elections Canada.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Counsel just pointed out to me that Recommendation No. 3 is already in the act — ``candidates who provide the names,'' and this was a request by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Mr. Thomas: Right, the second part of that, the district local supervisors, yes. In principle, I would favour merit- based appointments across the board, but I realize there is a history going back some time.

The Chair: Mr. Wiseman?

Nelson Wiseman, Associate Professor, Department of Political Studies, University of Toronto, as an individual: Thank you for inviting me. I want to apologize to the francophone members of the committee because I don't have comprehension or facility in French. I didn't hear all the testimony of the witnesses who have gone before me because I only found out on Monday evening that I was coming here. I thank you for your patience because I know it is hard to sit in on sessions right at the end of the day, and it has been a long day for you.

I don't have to tell you that the overwhelming majority of academics, editorialists, opposition parties, election officials and representatives of various groups have criticized Bill C-23. They claim it abridges Canadian democracy and the constitutionally entrenched right to vote.

Elections acts are fundamentally different, I believe, from other forms of legislation, such as trade treaties, budgets or the bills dealing with veterans, drugs and agriculture, which are currently being considered before Parliament. Election acts have a quasi-constitutional status and, therefore, it is best to gain a consensus, as Professor Thomas said, among those affected by the introduction of such acts — something this government hasn't tried to do.

Having said that, I am not sure earlier governments have done it, either. I believe when the law was changed with respect to election financing in 2003, there wasn't even consensus in the governing party that did it. The president of that governing party referred to the change as ``a bag full of hammers,'' if I recall.

Among the most controversial provisions in the bill are the elimination of vouching; limiting what Elections Canada may say and do; party financing, which we have heard a fair bit about; and transferring the office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections to the Office of the Director of Prosecutions.

Let me begin by talking about vouching. In the last election, depending on whose numbers you use — I think Professor Thomas used 100,000 in his brief as having been vouched for, and more recently we are hearing 120,000 — somewhere between 99.2 per cent and 99.4 per cent of voters did provide identification. We are not dealing with a huge number of people in terms of percentages. This is one reason that politically vouching doesn't resonate with most of the public.

According to one table published by Elections Canada — and this is in the compliance review, although I heard Mr. Mayrand use a different number — in five provinces, including the three largest, electors must prove their identity to vote in provincial elections. I would suggest that the federal requirement is not exceptional.

People say this isn't a good comparison but let me make it: People are required to provide identification when they drive a car, board a plane or visit a doctor. Asking a passenger in your car to vouch for you isn't going to suffice. I know that voting is a constitutional right, but it is reserved for citizens. The identification bar is a lot less demanding than that.

I would also point out that rights are not absolute. They may entail limitations and obligations. For example, we have the right to free speech, but we are limited when it comes to hate speech. We have the right to free speech, but we can't cry wolf in a crowded theatre. These are reasonable limitations. I would point out that just as citizens have the right to vote, they have the right to run in elections, and that is regulated by law. Consider all the paperwork that one has to do to run in an election. Compare that to what one has to provide to vote in an election.

An elections' expert in my department, Peter Loewen, who has worked for Elections Canada as well — I never have — calculates that the elimination of vouching may advantage a party possibly theoretically, if at all, by one tenth of a percentage point at most. Such a narrow margin determines few, if any, constituency contests and makes dubious the claim that eliminating vouching will be of significant benefit to a party.

I do, however, believe that although about 10 per cent of the voter identification cards have errors disqualifying them as a form of identification is an unnecessary change, it will confuse, anger and frustrate many voters. My experience in 2011 when I went to vote in the federal election was to present my driver's licence, and that was rejected by the polling clerk because I didn't have my voter identification card. I made noise and the polling supervisor got up and overruled her. I am pointing out, in a way, that running elections is an amateur undertaking; 226,000 people. The problem we have is finding people to serve as clerks.

I haven't heard much about incumbent MPs nominating poll supervisors, but I've seen academics write about it so I might be wrong about all the details in the bill. My understanding is that incumbent MPs will nominate poll supervisors. I believe the candidates of the losing party in the previous election will nominate the polling clerks. Is that correct?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Wiseman: I understand this isn't anything new as I believe this was the practice during most of the 20th century. The real challenge that Elections Canada faces is finding sufficient numbers of poll officials who aren't amateurs.

Elections Canada has faced the same challenges in finding door-to-door enumerators before the 1990s and cited this as one reason to move to a permanent voters' list. Moreover, there is no evidence to substantiate the assumption that poll supervisors nominated by incumbent MPs will not act honestly. A member of the other place said that poll supervisors and polling clerks are not your enemies; they are your neighbours; these are good people.

In any event, the incumbent member holds only 52 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons.

I believe Elections Canada should focus on running elections, not to proselytize the virtues of voting. If voter turnout is of great concern to you as parliamentarians, you could offer them tax credits. You are offering families $500 when their kids go bowling or horseback riding. Or you could take the advice of one of your former colleagues, Senator Harb, and make voting mandatory; or you could impose a fine.

Citizens have a right to vote but they also have an equal right not to vote. They ought not to be badgered about having to go out to vote at their own expense.

In any event, I believe there isn't any gain for democracy by encouraging know-nothings to cast a ballot and telling them it doesn't matter who you vote for so long as you vote. It does matter who you vote for. If you're going to vote for a racist, I prefer you stay at home. Better yet, maybe you should leave the country. It is an empty gesture to have people who know nothing about the election go to vote because all we want to do is increase voter turnout. I don't think that contributes to democracy.

I want to say some other things about Elections Canada because I have gotten a lot of their reports. I can't read all of them and some of them I found very useful, but what I've noticed is that over the decades Elections Canada has become a large bureaucracy. It produces, in my opinion, many unnecessary and costly reports that are of questionable utility by private firms who are the major beneficiaries. Let me give you a couple of examples.

After the last election, and I think Elections Canada hired about 1,000 so-called community relations officers who were hired to liaise with so-called disadvantaged groups, one of the largest polling firms in Canada, a private firm, when they sent surveys out to 863 of these officers, only 308 could even be bothered to respond and, unsurprisingly, what did we kind? That the program for which they were hired they thought was helpful. Well, what would you expect and do we need to pay for that?

Here is another survey that was done. A questionnaire after the 2008 election by another contracted private firm found that hardly any of the 63 media respondents — and they canvassed about 200 journalists — had used the audio clips, video footage or pre-written stories provided by the agency. The agency put all this money into producing these products, virtually no journalist tuned into them, and then a private firm is hired to find out that information. What gain to the public?

Elections Canada has also produced some misleading material. In the 2004 election they ran ads in all the newspapers in Canada saying if you are not on the voter's list, you can't vote; and to get on the voter's list, you have to run down to your returning office. Well, I knew that wasn't the case. I knew that I could vote if I showed up on election day with proper identification, but the ads gave the impression that you could not. I resented that. I went down and registered, but I also pointed it out; and of course they said you can show up and vote if you've got proper ID. Why wasn't that in the ad?

Increasing the contribution limit by individuals from $1,200 to $1,500 I believe is of little significance, but I think there are large financial issues. This is the money that fuels campaigns that are conducted before the writ period. We seem to be in a permanent campaign now. I think we should require, as the Chief Electoral Officer says, parties to produce supporting documentation. This is the case in the various provinces, especially because their expenses are taxpayer subsidized.

There is also an unfair advantage to parties and their candidates. They have an unfair advantage over independent candidates who may only issue tax receipts during the writ period.

The exclusion of a provision compelling witnesses to testify in cases of alleged fraud or voter interference I believe is the greatest failure of this bill. Restricting Elections Canada's ability to communicate publicly suspected incidents of fraud I believe compounds this problem. The commissioner of elections, yes, will continue to investigate, and I believe it's in his power to recommend charges if warranted, but if information regarding investigations that deal with electoral malfeasance is unreported that, it seems to me, would only encourage more misconduct.

It was only after Elections Canada reported that it was investigating voter interference in Guelph that many electors came forward in over 200 other constituencies to contact authorities. So, on balance, I believe the new bill will have little effect on the running of elections and the outcome of elections.

I am uncomfortable about the commissioner of elections' budget being subject to the Treasury Board approval because that is a way of starving him from pursuing investigations where I think they have to go.

The greatest shortcomings of the bill, in my opinion, aren't what it does; it's what they don't include. In that sense, I think the bill is unfair.

The Chair: Thank you, professor.

Senator Baker: We thank both the witnesses, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Wiseman, for their appearance and their words of wisdom to this committee. I will ask one question to each of the witnesses.

Mr. Thomas, you've suggested that this new legislation be altered to allow for the retention of records relating to robo-calls or any similar matter for five years instead of one year under the present bill that we have before us.

Upon reconsideration of that, would you not agree that 10 years would be more logical, given that under the provision of prosecution in the Canada Elections Act for a summary conviction offence, and not even an indictable offence, charges can be laid 10 years after the occurrence of the event? Would it not seem more logical for you to revise your suggestion from 5 years to make it 10 years to comply with the provisions of the present Canada Elections Act?

Mr. Thomas: I'm not a lawyer so I have to be careful of what I claim to know about this, but I know that in the United States they have been wrestling with the problem of so-called robo-calls and I'm actually trying to write something about that currently. They've made a number of different procedural requirements and then record-keeping requirements and the average period of time is five years. I presume that industry representatives would claim to keep records around beyond a certain period of time is not cost efficient, although in the digital era one wonders if there is that much expense associated with that.

I guess you would also look at what happens when there are investigations leading to prosecutions and court cases and the way those things drag outside in the Canadian context. In all the attempts to amend election laws, we're always trying to balance effective enforcement and compliance with due process and the rights of those individuals and organizations that are accused.

You don't want it to linger out there too long because during that period presumably a worthy candidate or a party organization is under a cloud of shame, so to speak. You've got to find the right balance. It's like baby's porridge; not too hot and not too cold, you've got to get it just right. You may be right; I may be too cold.

Senator Baker: This committee dealt with this question when this government first came in under the big bill that they brought in as to whether or not we should extend it to 10 years and it was extended to 10 years for the bringing of a summary or indictable offence. As you know, under the Criminal Code it's six months for a summary conviction offence because you don't want there to be too long a period.

Mr. Wiseman, you made a statement; you told us that vouching does not resonate with the public. You then went on to elaborate. It may not resonate with the public but it resonates with the courts. We could go back to every single court case involving the Canada Elections Act and somebody claiming they were denied the right to vote because of the changes we introduced in 2007 and 1997.

Section 3 of the Charter says that every citizen has a right to vote in a federal and provincial election campaign. Any restriction on that, any requirement of identification, has been judged by our courts to be in violation of section 3 of the Charter.

Then the court moves on to section 1 and they do an evaluation. Do the salutary effects of the legislation outweigh the deleterious effects of the legislation? That's the measurement that's done under section 1 — the Oakes test that my friend referred to previously.

We have heard from the Chief Electoral Officer what the deleterious effects are. He says tens of thousands of Canadians will be denied the right to vote. I'm wondering how somebody could come up with salutary effects that would outweigh such strong deleterious effects about which the Chief Electoral Officer has put himself on the record in this committee as stating — records that can be used in a court of law as evidence, unless the leadership in the Senate says this is all under parliamentary privilege and can't be used.

Mr. Wiseman: I respect the courts but have disagreed with a lot of their positions, including how many people can constitute a party. For them, there's no limit.

Senator Joyal: You mean the Figueroa decision?

Mr. Wiseman: Yes, it used to be 12, and they said, ``No, we can't have any.'' I disagreed with that, but I accept the court's ruling; they've ruled what they have.

You're making an assumption, Senator Baker, with respect, which is that all the people being vouched for are people who could not provide identification. I believe in many cases it's a husband and a wife, and they know that, ``Yeah, you've got ID. You don't have it on you, so I'll vouch for you; it's not an issue.''

I don't even know the exact number of people who haven't — I've heard 100,000 and 120,000. I believe it's in that range. I don't dispute it, but I do dispute that in all those cases it was because they never had identification that could not be used.

I also support and think it reasonable to have to provide some ID. The Constitution does say you have to be a citizen. You don't have to prove you're a citizen to vote; you just have to provide identification. For a lot of people who have drivers' licences, I notice that Elections Canada gets their information from motor vehicle branches. Yes, they have a driver's licence, but they might not be citizens. They should not be entitled to vote. I'm not saying that they should be providing citizenship papers. I have said that I think the voter identification card, despite the limitations with it, should be kept as a form of identification. I don't think that should be dropped.

I only caught bits of testimony. Sheila Fraser mentioned that her daughter, who is a university student, would not be able to vote. Because the university just communicates with her on the Internet, and I thought, ``Well, doesn't her daughter pay for her Internet provider? Doesn't she get an invoice, even if it's online with the address?'' When you register at the university, there's a record; you have to have an address. That would establish where the person lives.

So I think a lot of these problems exist in theory. I admit there will be a few people — also I think on Indian reserves — I think with your Indian card with the photo ID and a letter from an administrator there, a blanket letter going to everybody that you live on this reserve. My understanding is you would qualify as one of the conditions.

It is similar in seniors' homes. I noticed Mr. Mayrand said some administrators in seniors homes don't have the resources to produce letters indicating that a person lives there or they refuse to do so. Well, compel them to do so. We now compel landlords to allow partisan canvassers to come knocking on my condominium door.

Senator Baker: That's another matter, though; that would be if we had that legislation there. If this is what we were doing, compelling them to produce the documentation.

The fact of the matter is that there is no compelling, as you've outlined. The fact of the matter is that a great many seniors have all the mail come to one name, at one address. The fact of the matter is the Chief Electoral Officer said tens of thousands — 120,000 he estimated; he said tens of thousands. The point being that the Chief Electoral Officer is the respondent in the next application brought by a person that says, ``You've denied me a right to vote, and here is my name; here is what you say on the face of the case,'' and the respondent is the Chief Electoral Officer. Well, the Chief Electoral Officer has already said, ``Yes, tens of thousands of people.''

Never before have we seen this where the Chief Electoral Officer has been agreeing with the applicant, so obviously the matter would be ruled unconstitutional, don't you think?

Mr. Wiseman: Yes, it might be. I'm not a lawyer. I suspect from what you've told me, it will be, so the onus is on parliamentarians to fix the law so that people do have identification. You said all this mail goes to one person. I don't understand why this person who receives mail on behalf of others cannot be compelled to vouch for them.

Senator Baker: You both made that point; you both made an excellent point on the compelling test.

Senator Frum: Dr. Wiseman, I was struck when you spoke on the issue of the poll supervisors; namely, that the same people who say they do not fear any form of fraud in the vouching process and want to maintain vouching as it is are terrified that if we allow the winning party to name a central poll supervisor, then we will open ourselves up to possible fraud, even though in that case you have the returning officer who is appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer. There are also scrutineers operating from all the parties. But that's where a lot of people see an invitation to fraud, but they cannot see where the invitation exists with vouching. So thank you for alerting me to that thought.

Mr. Wiseman: But there is a contradiction in my position, because I'm willing to trust the poll supervisors of a party I may not care for, but I'm also apparently not trusting of a voucher. I'm just accepting the government's bill, and I don't think it's that onerous.

Senator Frum: I'm saying there are many more safeguards to having the winner party — as you say it's only 52 per cent of the governing party — there are many more safeguards for that individual to do their job properly than there are for vouching.

Professor Thomas, I don't understand that, and I will let you respond to that if you would like.

Mr. Thomas: I can respond to whatever point you want. The chair is in charge.

Senator Frum: That was more of a comment on my part, which is not perfectly appropriate, but I couldn't help it.

Professor Wiseman, I wanted thank you for something that you wrote in Policy Options in 2006. It was an article called ``Get out the vote — not: increasing effort, declining turnout.'' When we had Mr. Mayrand testifying, I asked him if he didn't see that there was a conflict of interest between having the same person be the chief administering a fair election and also for that person to be an individual incentivized to ensure a good voter turnout — that those roles contained within them a conflict.

I want to thank you for this article, because you've expressed it well. I want to read a piece you wrote, and you can address this:

The job of Elections Canada ought to be, as it was when turnout was substantially higher, restricted to facilitating and monitoring fair and transparent elections, not to proselytize for voting. It ought not to proclaim that voting is important or that it is imperative to participate, because it cannot and should not try to back up those claims. It ought not to act as a slick salesman turning to the manipulators and image-makers of the advertising industry. The sponsorship scandal — like the thousands of dollars thrown away in the cause of promoting the Charlottetown Accord, combatting obesity and smoking, and promoting energy conservation — exposed the inefficaciousness of government advocacy advertising. One of the characteristics of a totalitarian regime, in its concern for securing a high turnout, is to demonstrate its triumphal reach over its subjects. Political apathy can be a sign of resistance to the prevailing political system and its actors.

That, to me, makes the case for the conflict, which I thank you for, and I'm wondering if you can expand or discuss it, or if you continue to agree with yourself from 2006 that there is a conflict.

Mr. Wiseman: I had forgotten I'd written that. Thank you.

That's essentially my position. When I grew up, Elections Canada stuck to its knitting and we had higher turnout. I think the recent turnout going down has little to do — and I don't think the efforts have been very much. There are all kinds of broader cultural reasons; Professor Howe talked about them.

Turnout has gone down throughout the Western world. I have my own sense anecdotally on why it has gone down among young people. Pauline Beange talked about it; there is not the same social stigma attached to it. There is a difference in turnout if you're in a rural area, small town. You're more likely to turn out than if you live in a condo where you don't know any of your neighbours. There isn't that same social pressure. There are all kinds of reasons why it goes down.

To me democracy isn't the number of people that turn out to vote. If that's the case, we're doing well compared to the United States. The last congressional elections had 38 per cent turnout. I don't know what it was in Afghanistan, but I'm not worried. They're not more democratic because their turnout might have been 70 per cent and ours was 61.

Democracy includes deliberation, compromise, courts that are independent, an active civil society, a free press, being able to say what we want to say. One of the reasons voter turnout has perhaps gone down, especially among young people, is they're not that stupid; they have more education than ever. A lot of them realize it may not make much difference who gets elected.

Senator Frum: I won't agree with you there.

Senator Joyal: I may have to declare a conflict of interest; I have known Professor Thomas and had the benefit of his contribution to a book I edited in 2003. It was with no strings attached or money.

Mr. Thomas: The royalty stream has dried up.

Senator Joyal: It was on the understanding of the institution of the Senate, as Senator Batters has said, as a component of our democratic institutions.

That being said, I would like to come back to your suggestion, Professor Thomas, and perhaps Professor Wiseman could comment after that. Both of you want to drop the proposal to eliminate the use of voter information cards. I think you both concur it could be a document used to establish the proper address of the voters, and then you continue vouching, which is where I want you to lead, find a more appropriate method for balancing the constitutional right of eligible right of Canadians to vote with the very remote risk of voter fraud.

I want to stress that the Chief Electoral Officer, in his statement in the House of Commons, mentioned that 120,000 people, in his books, used vouching in the last election, and he said in none of the cases was there an appearance of fraud. To me, vouching is really the last resort of identification, and the numbers show it. There are more than 8 million Canadians voting and there are only 120,000. The problem is not the number; the problem is the people.

You and I have a driver's licence, a lot of proof that we live at an address or not, but unfortunately not all Canadians drive a car. Unfortunately, not all Canadians can prove easily — because they are not as highly educated as you are — that they live at such an address or have an address that is well identified. We have to be concerned with those people. That's why we are the Senate. If there is a utility for this institution, it's essentially to ask: What is the impact of this bill on Canadians who can't, at first sight, come within the general framework whereby the majority of Canadians are? That's why we have a democracy that seems to be humane, in a way, concerned with those who don't answer the rules of everybody.

It seems to me the vouching system is an alternative for that. If somebody proves to me it's an entrance door to fraud or a change of election results in a way that it steals elections, I would say let's look into it. None of the witnesses have been able to show that to us. If it is a system whereby a Canadian who cannot provide the documentation that you have in your pocket and I have in mine, then I would say before putting a cross on it or throwing it in the basket, I want to know if there is a better alternative than vouching to protect the rights of those people to vote. Those are the ones who are more vulnerable. Those are the ones who are less educated, and so on. We have to be concerned about those people.

As you said, I don't think section 3 puts a qualification on the status of the person who votes. That person might vote for all kinds of the wrong reasons, in my own opinion and yours, but, nevertheless, that person has the right to be wrong and to vote for the wrong reasons. We all know that. But that's not the philosophy of the system. The objective of the system is to allow people to participate in voting because participating in voting is part of Canadian society. That's essentially what it is.

I don't want to lecture you.

Mr. Thomas: Is there going to be an exam? Let me go through a few points.

There should be far more emphasis on the front end of the process in ensuring that registration is kept up to date and there are few inaccuracies in it. The U.K. is going to online registration and online voter authentication. That will reduce the risks on voting day, which is a hectic period of time with a lot of volunteers in charge.

My second point is that the problem, as everyone knows, is not so much proving your identity, it's the address requirement. In Manitoba, I think it's a model to be looked at. You appear at the polling station and you have two pieces of identification, neither of which contains an address. You're not forced to go home or find someone to vouch for you. You do what's called declaration voting. You declare that you are who you say on your card and you live within the polling division within the constituency where you're being asked to cast a vote. If there was more time for this process — if the government and Parliament take more time — you would be looking at the U.K. where they're developing a more balanced and principled, proportionate approach to the potential of voter misrepresentation. It's not demonstrated.

In Australia, at the national level, in all six states they have had declaration voting until this year when Queensland became the only state to now have photo ID but not an address requirement. They did that on the grounds to reassure the public. They say directly, in black and white, that they have found absolutely no evidence of voter fraud, but they have had criticism and to assure the public that there's integrity in the electoral process, they are adopting this.

I'm saying if this went before the courts — I'm not a lawyer — you would have to address the question of proportionality. Is this a restriction that meets the requirement for proportional restrictions based on the risks of voter fraud? I'll stop there.

[Translation]

Senator Dagenais: Thank you to both of our witnesses.

I listened to your testimony and the resulting discussions. As you mentioned, voting is a constitutional right. This law has been in place for many years.

Do you not think that, as time goes by, laws need to be modernized and brought into line with the existing situation?

For example, about 10 years ago, people did not wear seat belts, whereas now they are required by law to do so. People could travel by plane without identifying themselves, which is no longer the case. Oddly enough, people were also welcome to walk right into the Parliament Buildings. As you and I both know, and perhaps you may have even experienced it today, people can no longer enter the East Block without identifying themselves.

Does this bill not seek to modernize our way of doing things in order to try to prevent fraud?

[English]

Mr. Thomas: Yes, absolutely, we should update election laws over time. Ideally that would be done on the basis of study by parliamentary committee, with the advice and support of the Chief Electoral Officer, and sweeping dramatic changes are probably not the best way to ensure widespread consensus and legitimacy for the result.

The U.K. is taking multiple years and is actively consulting the Speaker's panel on electoral law, so all parties are having input into it and it's mandatory under all the election laws — there are about 38 pieces of legislation if the U.K. — that the head of the Electoral Commission be consulted before changes are introduced.

That's a preferred approach. I've looked at the American situation. They have a bipartisan commission which is deadlocked now. They can't go anywhere. There are always accusations flying around that either the Republicans or the Democrats are trying to gain political advantage. That, over time, corrodes the acceptance of election law by everybody involved, and voters no longer have the level of trust that they should have that the process is fair and the playing field is even and balanced.

I agree with you. Earlier I think Professor Wiseman stated that Elections Canada is a big bureaucracy. Yes, and it should be held accountable and should be pushed to prove its operation. I recall a letter written by all the officers of Parliament to both houses of Parliament, insisting that you hold us more accountable for our money, for our staffing, for our actions and so on. It's an unfulfilled request, as far as I'm concerned. I watch that world very closely. There is not enough attention on an ongoing basis by committees of either house to the activities of the eight or so officers of Parliament, including Elections Canada. It shouldn't get unilateral authority. It should be held accountable. You need the right balance between independence and accountability. I just wanted to throw that in.

[Translation]

Senator Dagenais: Did you wish to say something, Mr. Wiseman?

[English]

Mr. Wiseman: Thank you. And thank you, Senator Joyal. I learned from both of you.

I agree about modernization and what you say sounds reasonable to me. It's very apparent when you come on to Parliament now about identification and so on, but there is an excellent issue here. Part of the job of the Senate is to defend the rights of minorities and the less privileged, though John A. Macdonald thought the rich were a minority and thus we needed the Senate for that.

So we have conflicting views here. I still want to keep it in perspective. I know we hired 226,000 people last year to work at these polls. That means there were at least twice as many poll workers as there were people vouched for, so that's about one per poll. It's not very high, but there is a principle here. We can't deny anyone the vote.

I also don't believe that there has been widespread fraud, but I also heard what the minister said. He said yes, but nobody has investigated this. I believe there is an element of paranoia about fraud.

Remember, we had serial vouching before. I think there was a case in Vancouver, I don't know if it was 2004 or 2006, where one person vouched for all these people in east Vancouver, and that raised hackles and concerns.

I'm more interested in the outcomes of elections and what happens. I'm not a constitutional lawyer; I don't deal with rights as much. I think in the totality the upshot isn't going to be all that different. It's not going to be as bad as the critics of this bill make out and it's not going to deliver the benefits that the sponsors of this bill have made out. Maybe it's another vehicle for partisan debate.

I didn't sign the letter by my 158 colleagues. I think Professor Thomas was one.

Mr. Thomas: I did not sign.

Mr. Wiseman: My feeling was, I wonder how many of these people voted for the government party to begin with, and if the government changed its position would they actually change their attitude, too? Often what you get is a reflex that if it comes from so-and-so it has to be bad, or if it comes from such-and-such it has it be good. This has been caught up in a partisan fight.

Professor Thomas is very wise on this; he has studied this in an intense way that I haven't. I think it's best if we move toward an electoral regime in which there is consensus. I don't know when we came to this consensus that Elections Canada should be out there spending all this money trying to convince people that they have to go out to vote.

Senator Moore: I want to follow up on Senator Baker's question about the Commissioner of Canada Elections having the authority to compel witnesses to come forward and testify when he or she knows that something is not right and it looks like the law is being violated. That happened in the robo-calls situation. Mr. Justice Mosley found it was fraudulent activity, yet under the bill we have before us it does not give that commissioner the authority to compel. It only provides for the keeping of records for one year, and the records need not include the key element of the phone number of the person contacted.

We know that these provisions don't go far enough. We know what it can lead to. We saw it happen in Mr. Justice Mosley's decision. Do you have any comments about that? This is legalese; it's also practical, thinking about trying to run the best election we can run. Do either or both of you have comments on that, please?

Mr. Thomas: One of the things I've discovered studying these matters over the years is that the devil is often in the details, that we need election laws, structures, procedures, policies and so on that connect to fundamental principles and values, and that's an art form, not a science. Political scientists and lawyers, dare I say, can't say with precision that you'll get just the right balance in all of this.

I served as the first party allowance commissioner in Manitoba a year or two ago, appointed after all-party consultation to decide the future of annual, per vote subsidies paid to political parties. Once you got past debating some of the principles, you then had to put it down in black and while, and that's when the real challenges begin. It's easy to have the abstract discussions that academics love to have, but the really tricky part is how you work this out in a way that works. That's a bit of a tangent.

I think in five provinces now, the Electoral Commission or the CEO of the elections body — is it six, Senator Baker? — has the power to compel testimony. In the U.K. they have that authority under the Electoral Commission. I interviewed Mr. Wardle, the executive director. It is useful to the body. Again, you might think it's arbitrary, unfair, but in fact it can be very fair to the person against whom complaints have been raised.

Senator Moore: Clear the air as soon as possible.

Mr. Thomas: The U.K. issued a discussion paper on enforcement policy. They went through, step-by-step, the procedural safeguards to ensure natural justice, due process for people who are accused. It's not just about naming, blaming and shaming. It's about making sure that the law is upheld; in particular, its legal requirements but also the spirit of the law, and you should give the enforcement body a tool kit that has a continuum of instruments available to it to ensure that parties and candidates come into compliance with the law.

You shouldn't start by saying let's take them to court, and the law in Canada is rigged towards court prosecutions. It's Criminal Code, and Elections Canada doesn't have the authority to use secondary legislation or delegated legislative authority. Other countries that I've looked at in the study I mentioned had that authority and they're going in that direction.

I will stop, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wiseman: I think the most outrageous upshot of the last election was the voter interference calls in Guelph, definitely. We have charges, and elsewhere as well. I think the greatest failing of the act is that witnesses are not being compelled. We know there are people right now who could shed light on this, and I believe people of good faith, of positive values, want this. I don't like this idea that Elections Canada cannot share information with us when they get reports about alleged fraud or misbehaviour. I agree with Professor Thomas that if you could compel witnesses, we would often have the opportunity to clear these things up earlier.

It saddens me. I am thinking about the cases we have had for the MPs from Peterborough and Labrador. Now there is some procedure against the MP, not on the basis of the last election, but on what happened in 2008. Why is it taking so long? That discredits the system.

Senator Moore: It does.

Mr. Wiseman: I thought, in Labrador, why are we having the by-election right away? It was as if we had the by- election right away and the member got re-elected, then that would absolve what had happened. I don't think that is proper, either.

At the same time, what saddens me, if I may say so, is Canadians feel, I think on the whole, that we do have a democratic system and even these kinds of errors will not change the balance of who is going to win and who is going to lose. When I think back, why did we have the 2011 election? For the first time in Canadian history a government was brought down, I believe, for demonstrating contempt for Parliament.

Senator Moore: That's right.

Mr. Wiseman: One of the parties said that was the issue in the campaign. We know what happened to that party. For those of us who are political junkies and political scientists who appreciate how Parliament works, that was significant.

Senator McIntyre: Gentlemen, thank you both for your presentations. Mr. Thomas, congratulations for your 30- page brief on Bill C-23. I haven't had a chance to digest it.

Mr. Thomas: It comes with a cure for insomnia, so go ahead.

Senator McIntyre: I skimmed through it, though.

``Fair elections Canada'' is to provide new voter contact registration rules and a voter contact registry. Under Bill C- 14, the CRTC will have the mandate to administer these registries, not Elections Canada.

My understanding is that the CRTC has some experience in maintaining registries with respect to unsolicited telecommunications. Parties and candidates already follow CRTC rules when they make unsolicited calls. In your view, is it a good idea to be housing the new contact registry within the CRTC?

Mr. Thomas: I think that is the right location. The U.S. and the eight or nine states that have maintained registries have placed them in oddball locations like the Civil Service Commission. It just doesn't make sense. I think Elections Canada has enough to do. It has a statutory appropriation which is open-ended for events like elections and referenda, but I do not think it needs to add that area of expertise to its operations. I think the CRTC should accept that as part of its mandate. I don't know if they were consulted or agreed to it, but it's the right place.

Senator McIntyre: Mr. Wiseman, do you share that view?

Mr. Wiseman: I defer to Professor Thomas. My own view as a citizen is that I don't want any robo-calls coming to my house.

Senator Moore: Hear, hear!

Mr. Wiseman: I find them offensive. It's insulting to me that I can't communicate with the person and I am being told press this button or press that button. That is what I would like to see restricted. We are not in a campaign period. Why are we being subjected to this? I don't even want to be subjected to it during the campaign period. I can seek out my own information online and through newspapers, and parties are free to come and drop off their material. I feel my privacy is being violated. They can do it in a way that private operators can't. Why?

Mr. Thomas: Here is my advice to Nelson: move to Ohio. That is one of three states where you have to have the respondent's consent before the message will be played.

Senator Batters: Thank you both for attending today.

Professor Thomas, I want to put this out. You indicated very up front that you are on that Elections Canada Advisory Board. You said thus far you have been paid for two days of work. Is it a per diem amount? If so, how much is that?

Mr. Thomas: I do not know if I know off the top of my head. The chair and co-chair are paid more than ordinary members. I have a bunch of new friends from that body of distinguished Canadians.

I think my pay is about $2,000 per day; something like that.

Senator Batters: So far there have been two days for that.

As well, you talked about the study that you are currently undergoing or have just completed?

Mr. Thomas: It is completed. It was commissioned last year, co-authored with Lorne Gibson, former CEO of Elections Alberta.

Senator Batters: That was the $18,000 that you talked about earlier, part of which was for expenses. That was part of the study?

Mr. Thomas: That is correct.

Senator Batters: Professor Wiseman, I appreciated your comments when you spoke about vouching because in my view the right to vote certainly is an important right that we have, but it is also accompanied by the very reasonable obligation to prove who you say you are with respect to identity and, in Canada, residence.

I would take this opportunity to remind Canadians that there are 18 months before the next election and there is plenty of time to get one of those 39 pieces of ID, which include a number of those attestation documents that we have been referring to that provide some address information for some of those disadvantaged groups that may otherwise have trouble providing that type of information.

You spoke about voter information cards. Earlier, we had Marc Mayrand testifying before us. He talked about the 10 per cent error rate with those. He confirmed that there were 23 million voters in the last election. That would equate to 2.3 million errors. He conceded that after revisions of those cards, that took it down to about 7 per cent, but that is still several hundred thousand errors. To me, that is too many to ensure the integrity of the system. Do you have a comment on that?

As well, I noted your 2011 election experience where the poll clerk made an error, it sounds like. Do you reside in Ontario?

Mr. Wiseman: I live in Ontario.

Senator Batters: Right; so your driver's licence has your name, address and photo. You should not have even needed your voter information card. That would have been sufficient in itself.

Mr. Wiseman: Of course. Well, I agree; I know that.

Senator Batters: But many don't know that.

Mr. Wiseman: And many poll clerks don't know that. The problem we have is finding people to serve in these positions.

I was travelling outside of the country in 1990. There was an election in Ontario on September 6. I showed up in the country on September 1 and at that time under Ontario law, you had to be on the list to vote; I don't think I could vote at the poll. So I had to drive way up on St. Clair — I live south of Yonge — to get my name on the list. When I got there, yes, they put me on. Then they got on their hands and knees and begged me to be a poll clerk because they never had people. The ironic thing that I found is that it was across the street from me in the married students' residence. Yet they couldn't get a single student there. They were complaining about their incomes and there was a professor there who was a poll clerk.

I realize the problem. It is great that we have regular people doing these things but we are thankful that they are willing to sit there for 12 hours a day. The compensation is not that great and it is hard on a lot of senior citizens.

About the voter identification cards, because I have moved around a lot, I have received many erroneous cards. I know of a journalist who tried to get his mother's name off the card for 10 years and gave up.

Having said all of that, I am a conservative on this issue, small ``c'' conservative.

Senator Batters: I like that.

Mr. Wiseman: But you might not like my answer, which is that we have a tradition of using the voter identification card. People are used to using it. I think it will shock a lot of people. Will they still be sent out; they just won't be accepted as ID? Is that what is happening under the new law? They will not even be sent out?

Senator Batters: I don't know. That would probably be up to Elections Canada.

Mr. Wiseman: If they are not sent out, I believe that will decrease voter turnout because, for a lot of people, it is a notice — especially a lot of new citizens — that there is an election on: ``Oh, maybe I am required to go because this is the place.''

This is one of the reasons I lamented the decline of door-to-door enumeration. I think there was a direct relationship between the elimination of door-to-door enumeration and declining voter turn-out because for a lot of people, someone showed up at your door. You now had contact with an agent of the state who said, ``Who lives here? Are you citizens?'' And they gave you a little card. For a lot of people who have only been in the country for a few years or come from countries that don't have democratic systems, ``Hey, the Canadian state is looking to me to go out to vote.'' Once that disappeared, what do we get now?

Senator Plett: One comment, Professor Thomas: You talked about the system that we have in Manitoba. I was very involved in the last provincial election in Manitoba. I would certainly disagree that we didn't have massive voter fraud in Manitoba in the last election.

Mr. Thomas: You say there was massive —

Senator Plett: I believe that there was massive voter fraud in the last election in Manitoba. That is a comment. You made one for the record, and I wanted to at least put that on the record, that I disagree with the comment that you made.

Mr. Thomas: The former Chief Electoral Officer, speaking in Manitoba a week ago, said that the system of declaration voting had worked over two general elections without serious problems. I don't remember any reports issued by Elections Manitoba to the effect that there was rampant voter impersonation going on.

Senator Plett: I certainly would disagree with his report.

You state, Professor Thomas, that you do not support the dropping of the possession of the Commissioner of Elections from within the administrative framework of Elections Canada and placing it under the Director of Public Prosecutions. We have had a few witnesses who disagree with your position there, including one that was here just before you. She said that the present system, she believed, is a muddled reporting system. I would like your comment as to why you think this is a bad thing. I would like Professor Wiseman to give us his comment, because I don't think that he addressed that particular point in his statement. I would like to hear your comments on that as well.

I will quickly ask the other question before the chair cuts me off. You spoke very briefly about the donation system and the increase, and you said you were okay with increasing it to $1,500. Again, Professor Howe was very opposed to it and wanted to reduce it to the Quebec system of $100. I believe certainly our party, and I believe other parties, too, collect the vast majority of their money from $100 donations and not from $1,500 donations. I would like to hear your comment. For the Conservative Party, their donation is under $100 per donation and under $200 annually. I would like to hear your comments on whether you think that is the right amount.

Mr. Thomas: I have three points on relocating the Commissioner of Elections. First, you are moving it from within an officer of Parliament, which is insulated to a greater extent from political pressures, to situate it within a department. There is a risk that the individual will be subject to the communications restrictions of the department. In the New Zealand example, they moved away from having three separate election-related functions housed in different parts of government departments and put them all under a consolidated three-person electoral commission, with a judge as a head. I think the trend everywhere that I have examined is towards integration. There is an organic relationship between the activities of Elections Canada and the commissioner, so I think that will be lost.

I worry about the Treasury Board placing budgetary limits. There was, from 2005 to 2012, a Speaker's panel on financing and accountability of officers of Parliament. That body has ceased to operate now. That was a protection against the government stifling these bodies.

On the donations, Senator Plett, I agree with the increase in the donation limits. In the studies I did as party allowance commissioner in Manitoba, I came to recognize and appreciate in a first-hand way that parties need resources, both money and other types, to perform crucial functions. If you cut off one source of funding, such as annual subsidies, then you have to give them more room. If you ban corporate and trade union dues, parties need to raise money, but they need to do it in as transparent and accountable a way as possible. I think there are some accountability elements missing from the bill in terms of party fundraising and spending.

Senator Plett: I think Mr. Wiseman wanted to make a comment.

Chair, I would like to read something for the record just on a question that was asked, if I could, very briefly.

The Chair: Do you want to do that first?

Senator Plett: No, I will wait for Mr. Wiseman.

Mr. Wiseman: On moving the Commissioner of Elections under the Director of Public Prosecutions, I don't have a problem with that because I believe both the director and the commissioner will do their jobs. I think the issue here is whether the budget of the commissioner is going to be restricted by the government through the Treasury Board.

On the $1,500 finance issue, my feeling is that $1,500 is fine. To stop this from being an issue, why don't we just establish it at $1,500 and link it to inflation? I think the real issue with finance is all the money that's going into advertising before the writ is dropped.

Senator Moore: Exactly.

Mr. Wiseman: Lastly, because we are all Manitobans and you brought up the issue of fraud in the last election, I wrote a book chapter on the last election. The media always looks for this. I didn't see any reports of this. The main fraud that existed in Manitoba was the introduction of a bogus independent Aboriginal candidate, as you know, by the Conservative Party in the 1990s, which led to the NDP government which is still in power.

The Chair: Professor, thank you.

Senator Plett: We will debate that later on.

Chair, there was a question raised about whether voter cards will be sent out, and we have some information here. Elections Canada will still send them out. You will just not be able to use them as ID. Important information on where and when to vote, that information will still be sent out.

The Chair: The last question goes to Senator Cowan.

Senator Cowan: I think we have a vote. I was going to ask you a question. Maybe the two professors would care to comment.

I think we all agree on the importance of allowing and encouraging people and facilitating the right of people to vote. We also agree that it is an important thing that as many people as possible believe in the integrity of the electoral system and the management of it. How should we proceed? We would also agree that there is a lot of controversy about the current attempt to reform the system. Could you think about this and perhaps send us a note, if you wouldn't mind, as to how you think we should proceed in the future to deal with this important question? What is the proper process to follow to achieve what I believe, and I think you believe as well, is an important consensus amongst Canadians that the system have an overriding integrity to it.

Mr. Thomas: I won't keep you from your vote but, quickly, the 2009 reforms to the Party and Elections Act in the U.K. set parameters on the role of the electoral commission and outreach to voters. It was all about the basics, the mechanics of voting, and limited to the issue of whether some groups had the adequate information. It wasn't about motivation. It was about identifying target groups that needed additional support in order to vote. The language is in the bill. It could be imported very easily. You should talk to Peter Wardle of The Electoral Commission in the U.K. because he could give you chapter and verse better than I could.

Senator Joyal: On a point of information, Professor Thomas wanted to know where the royalties from the book went. They were all donated to the government, from the beginning. I am sorry, but they are not in my pocket, so I cannot give them back to you.

The Chair: Gentlemen, thank you both for an informative and helpful contribution to our deliberations.

(The committee adjourned.)

Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Issue 7, Evidence - April 9, 2014

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs