HANSARD
NOVA SCOTIA HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PARTICIPATION IN THE
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
Mr. Darce Fardy and Mr. Ian Johnson -
The Right To Know Coalition of Nova Scotia
Mr. Tom McInnis - The Election Commission
Ms. Paula Romanow - Research & Statistical Officer
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
SELECT COMMITTEE ON PARTICIPATION
IN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
Committee Membership
Mr. Michel Samson (Chairman)
Hon. Mark Parent (Vice-Chairman)
Mr. Patrick Dunn
Mr. Keith Bain
Ms. Maureen MacDonald (Vice-Chairman)
Mr. Graham Steele
Mr. Charles Parker
Mr. David Wilson, Glace Bay
Mr. Harold Theriault
Staff Attendance
Ms. Margaret Murphy - Legislative Librarian
Ms. Christine McCulloch - Nova Scotia Chief Electoral Officer
Mr. Robert Kinsman - Hansard Reporting Services
Mr. James MacInnes - Legislative Television and Recording Services
Ms. Kim Leadley - Select Committee Clerk
Mrs. Sherri Mitchell, Select Committee Clerk
Witnesses
The Right To Know Coalition of Nova Scotia
Mr. Darce Fardy - President
Mr. Ian Johnson - Board Member
The Election Commission
Mr. Tom McInnis - Chair
Ms. Paula Romanow - Research & Statistical Officer
[Page 1]
HALIFAX, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2008
SELECT COMMITTEE ON PARTICIPATION
IN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
9:00 A.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. Michel Samson
MR. CHAIRMAN: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our meeting of the Select Committee on Participation in the Democratic Process. Before we start off, if I could get the members to introduce themselves.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have regrets today from the Honourable Mark Parent who is unable to attend. I believe Cabinet is probably meeting at this time. As well, David Wilson sends regrets, being unable to attend today.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Steele, as well, sends his regrets.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Steele as well. Thank you, Ms. MacDonald.
We did have a meeting of the subcommittee last week and I think, a little later on today, we'll bring all the members of the committee up to date on those discussions. I'm pleased that we have two presentations this morning, from both the Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia and the Election Commission.
This morning, to start off with, I see we have Mr. Fardy and Mr. Johnson. So without further, ado, Mr. Fardy, I give you the floor to introduce your colleague and yourself and anyone else who might be joining you this morning.
1
[Page 2]
MR. DARCE FARDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I'm the president of the Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia. I ran for office and won easily - no one else wanted it. Ian Johnson is one of those who I persuaded to join our board because all of us are - we wanted people who are committed to openness and accountability in government. So we've been active, out talking to people, meeting with legislative committees when we can, and otherwise just trying to talk up the importance of openness and accountability, particularly at this time when public apathy is so high and voter turnouts are so low. So I thank you for allowing us, as representatives of the Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia, to meet with you. We wouldn't be here if we thought we didn't have something to contribute.
The Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia was born about two and a half years ago by a group of volunteers interested in promoting open and accountable government. We do that in several ways; promoting the use of access legislation among our citizens is one of those ways, and being advocates on behalf of openness and accountability.
Two hundred and fifty years of representative government is quite a milestone and deserves the attention it is getting but democracy was not achieved in Nova Scotia 250 years ago. We have continued to evolve toward democracy with the opening of the franchise to women, non-property owners and minorities. Women waited 160 years, I think it was, and had to fight for that right. It was in 1960, under John Diefenbaker, that Aboriginals were given the right to vote.
So part of the evolvement is demonstrated in legislation that protects the right of minorities and gives citizens the right to fair treatment by their government. Part of that evolvement was the introduction of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy legislation. So you see democracy in Nova Scotia is still evolving. All it takes is the will of our legislators to ensure the evolvement continues.
We will miss an important opportunity to protect and enhance our democracy if we do nothing more than celebrate an anniversary and promote voting as a single role of citizens within a democracy. It would better serve democratic objectives to take stock - serious stock - of where we are in the democratic evolution and to consider ways to move Nova Scotia further along that path. Voting is important, of course, and the recent alarmingly low voter turnouts in this province and across the country are, or should be, a matter of serious concern that needs serious attention.
You must remember that citizens vote because they feel involved and connected with their communities and their society. They feel they make a difference not every four years, but every day. Participation is linked to knowledge; if you don't have enough information, you can't participate intelligently and effectively. When access to information is thwarted, people who want to participate in public issues walk away in frustration, and common sense suggests they are less likely to make the effort to vote. Our coalition has been told that time and time again, and I suspect so have members of the Legislature.
[Page 3]
In a true democracy, freedom of information legislation would, of course, be redundant. The default would be that information would be available and decision-making processes would be open to interested citizens. Citizens should not be required to apply under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act - at $25 an application, by the way - except in unusual circumstances. As an aside, we have recently and continuously petitioned the government to remove the $25 fee for applications as it did the $25 fee for an appeal to the Review Office.
[9:15 a.m.]
The majority of the information sought should be provided when asked for. Other information should be routinely disclosed and people should know where to find it. It's important that people know where to find it and not just smother the Web site with information. Exceptions may include requests that are truly linked to national security or personal privacy or business competitiveness, but certainly environmental reviews, which would change the nature and quality of life and community, should not fall under any of these categories.
We still have public bodies - bodies that spend public funds - declare to applicants they are not subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The South West Shore Development Authority, for example, is one of those public bodies and I'm sure all of you know how important development authorities are to Nova Scotia. SWSDA, as we call it, opposed our coalition's request to intervene in a Nova Scotia Supreme Court case. SWSDA opposed it, but the court allowed our intervention and we have finished arguing our case and are awaiting a ruling of the court. We asked to intervene, because the Department of Justice would not and the Review Officer could not.
If the court agrees with the coalition, then we would expect our legislators to see to it that all regional development authorities and all other agencies that spend public money are explicitly brought under the umbrella of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. In fact, there should never have been any question that some public bodies - and we define public bodies as organizations and agencies that spend public money - can exempt themselves.
When government and other public bodies engage in secrecy, when government forces citizens to undertake expensive and unwieldy application procedures and appeals and long waits - getting longer, I'm told - when bureaucrats read the freedom of information legislation to find exceptions, not to facilitate the release of information, then government is saying it does not trust its citizens and why, then, should citizens trust government enough to participate in elections?
We only started on the road to democracy 250 years ago; we'll be there only when our citizens are well-informed and feel part of the decision-making process. Thank you.
[Page 4]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Fardy and Mr. Johnson, for being here today as part of the Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia. I'd be happy to open up the floor to members should they have any questions of our presenters. Ms. MacDonald.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Thank you very much for your presentation. Can you tell us, when was the last time amendments were made to our freedom of information legislation?
MR. FARDY: Well, I think the first amendment - although we knew the municipalities were coming under the Act - was Part XX of the Municipal Government Act. Can you remember?
MR. IAN JOHNSON: I believe it was a couple of years ago when there was some reduction in the fees.
MR. FARDY: Well, that didn't require a . . .
MR. JOHNSON: Didn't it? Oh, okay.
MR. FARDY: I think that was an Order in Council - no, on the fees, I don't think that went through the Legislature.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: That would be by regulation.
MR. FARDY: We have made several suggestions on what we thought were proper, appropriate changes - one that the Review Officer should be an officer of the Legislature and should not look for his goods and services from the Department of Justice. In no other province in the country are these freedom of information officers not appointed by legislative. . .
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: That was my other question, Mr. Chairman. Comparatively to other provinces, do other provinces have a greater breadth of powers in terms of access to information and public bodies than we do here?
MR. FARDY: About half of them have order powers, they call it order powers. The other half have the Ombudsman model, which is to make recommendations only. Those who have the Ombudsman model, sometimes there's a feeling that it would be a lot better if we had the order powers. My feeling was, I think it was probably better this way.
Once you get into order powers it becomes a very formal process. The poor applicant had to drag a lawyer in - with all due respect to the lawyers - every time he met with the Review Officer because the public body would certainly be represented by a lawyer. So at least it was satisfactory to me, it was the kind of informal process that I kind of liked.
[Page 5]
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parker.
MR. CHARLES PARKER: Thank you for your presentation, an interesting premise that you're putting forward here. One of the things you mentioned is that access to information is thwarted and I guess we've all heard examples of that, when individuals in political Parties and others certainly have applied for information and were not able to get it or not in a timely manner. We've all seen the reports where most of it is blackened out or whited out, or whatever, so the information is not forthcoming. Would it be possible to give us an example or two in the past where you've seen that happening, where people have not been able to get information that should be available to them?
MR. FARDY: Yes, I handled, I think, 1,200 appeals while I was in that Review Officer job and in most of them, I felt I could recommend the disclosure of at least some of that information. I think the people who at first were administering the Act for the departments were new to it and were reluctant to give anything out without asking. You shouldn't really have to go through the freedom of information Act. You should phone somebody - and people should answer the phone, which nobody does anymore - and they just tell you. Most of this stuff should be out there, you know, so people are nervous perhaps about upsetting their masters. Boy, we've seen the frustration out there and we're not exaggerating.
I must say when I took the Review Officer's job, I had been retired as a journalist and the longer I was in it I said, this is really not working. It's a good Act, it extends to all of these public bodies, except those who want to opt out when they find it uncomfortable, like the South West Shore Development Authority. So it's a good Act, except for that major weakness that the Review Officer is not an officer of the Legislature, and there needs to be something in the legislation about revealing the names of applicants and that to others. I always laid down rules there and I don't know, maybe they're not being followed. A decision on whether or not to give it to an applicant shouldn't depend on whether he's one of these journalists or other types.
MR. JOHNSON: Could I comment? You asked for examples of - I'm in the coalition because I use the Act a fair amount. One area that we pursue - I work with the Nova Scotia Government & General Employees Union, just for the record - is requests for proposals. One area that we routinely see where it's difficult to get information is copies of all the proposals, not just the successful applicant, but those who make other - and I've been in an extensive application process and even review process just to get access to all of the proposals that are submitted in this one issue with the Department of Justice. We've been virtually shut out. I mean we did get some information finally, but just to get a copy or even part of the proposal, we got something, but as you said, it came out with a whole series of blackened out or exempted provisions of that.
[Page 6]
It seems to me at least, and I think to the coalition, is that the use of, especially, the third party exemption - it's abused really, it's not used appropriately. That opens the door for exempting a lot of information that should be routinely provided, so that's an example. The fees associated with that - I mean, that's a big problem and I think you and other people have experienced that, where you're given an estimate of how much it's going to cost. I've had estimates sometimes of $3,000 or $240, those are two examples that come to mind - that's a lot. We could probably pay it, but should people be asked to pay that kind of money to get information that is publicly available?
MR. PARKER: It does seem rather . . .
MR. FARDY: There is a misunderstanding as well where I think some of the FOIPOP administrators think if the third party says no, it's no, and it isn't. It's not up to the third party, the third party is asked and the business of contracts - how can one judge how good a deal was struck in the contract that was awarded if they can't compare it with the other contract? There are some good reasons why not all - I mean they lost the bid, so we're not going to necessarily want to reveal all of it, but enough so that we can make some sort of judgment on whether or not the contract that was awarded was a good deal for the province.
MR. PARKER: Under the legislation, Mr. Fardy, you mentioned that some public agencies are able to opt out. Can a government department opt out or is it like a school board?
MR. FARDY: By legislation, there's only one piece of legislation, long forgotten now, it was the Highway 104 Western Alignment Corporation, and when that was established it was deliberately brought outside the freedom of information Act. So I questioned why that was necessary and, in fact, it likely wasn't necessary because if people were looking for records for the Highway No. 104 corporation, they could find them in the Department of Public Works anyway. I don't know why they did that, I don't know what they were thinking.
MR. PARKER: Are there other exemptions or are there other possibilities that could have it?
MR. FARDY: No, they would argue - SWSDA is arguing some kind of way that they're not really a public body and we have to make sure that a public body is defined as any agency that's spending public money.
MR. PARKER: If I could, Mr. Chairman, just one other question. Your whole premise is based on because citizens are not able to get the information they need, therefore they're not engaged in the public process as much and, therefore, our voter turnout is less. Could you just expound a little bit on that idea?
[Page 7]
MR. FARDY: Well, it's the only one we can come up with to explain why people aren't voting because if they were voting, they'd vote because they were engaged. We think there's this frustration with the whole system and they've given up. As you know, all our institutions now are questioned - the police, the churches, politicians. None of those institutions are held in any respect and it's because people now feel that the thing is going to hell in a handbasket and they've got no input into it. I think that's a fair representation of what I find when we're talking to applicants.
MR. JOHNSON: If I could add to that, we've done a little bit of research. One of our colleagues has looked a bit at, if not the relationship, at least the link. It seems to be between participation in general terms - not just voting, but in a whole range of civic and public activities - and secrecy in government and in the broader sense, including what we're talking about but broader than that. There seems to be - I can't say we've established a causal link but certainly we've noticed a relation, the two seem to go hand in hand. The more secrecy, the more problems people have in getting information or understanding what's going on or openness, the lower the participation seems to be and voting is one indicator of that. So we're trying to look more into that but I guess we want to lay it out there for you.
Last year the government's business plan even said something leading up to this committee being set up, "As the system becomes more transparent, open, and accountable, confidence in our . . . political system should improve. This in turn should increase voter turnout and attract new people to the political process." So even you've recognized as a government that there is some kind of link between what we're talking about with openness and accountability, and participation. So we encourage you to look further into that.
MR. FARDY: And the same exists right across the country; all people feel that governments are secret, and some governments are more difficult than others, but it's not unique to hear. But it can be solved, in my view, so easily. You know, I've never been a politician and I know there are some concerns there when you have the responsibility of government but boy, you know, you see the trouble that they get into when they refuse to give out information.
[9:30 a.m.]
The Commonwealth Games, now that was too expensive anyway, perhaps, but it lost public interest and I warned them early on. I said, if you don't start giving out information, every newspaper story about the Commonwealth Games will start out saying something about your refusal to release information, and support for it went pfft. It was so simple to give stuff out and call people and talk to them and say, here's where we are now and all that stuff, and that kind of concern would not have been there, that suspicion would not have been there.
[Page 8]
I'm not suggesting that they did anything wrong, they just thought it would be too cumbersome to have all their people commenting on that.
In fairness, a lot of people don't know much about the freedom of information Act. When the municipal candidates come to the door, I'm out on the doorstep and my wife is saying, they're going to be sorry they came. (Laughter) But they don't know. I'm asking them now and we are going to ask them now for a commitment to the freedom of information Act because municipalities are the same as any other government, they don't want to give stuff out and I can never understand why. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Theriault.
MR. HAROLD THERIAULT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Fardy, for your presentation. You mentioned a couple of problems, one being a $25 fee and another problem of a long waiting list. It seems to me if the $25 was taken away, if that's keeping people from going for freedom of information, probably the list would even get longer. So there's a problem there somewhere of this waiting time.
Can you tell us maybe, do you know what size the staff is there? Do you think by taking this $25 away that the waiting list may get longer, and how that could be corrected - the waiting list?
MR. FARDY: The waiting list seems to be getting longer anyway, I understand from talking to people who call me now. That's a serious problem and it could be attended to more quickly.
Some of the FOIPOP administrators now, I should say, are access advocates. There are three or four, maybe more now, but there were several there before I left who were on the side of giving - they were able to "speak truth to power" but I guess that's not easy to do in government. Some of them are uncertain and some of them don't know the Act well enough, so some of them are going upstairs to get - and they're waiting, because if they're going as high as the deputy minister, the deputy minister probably has a few other things on their plate. So that's part of the delay.
Just generally, people don't see the urgency of getting the information out and it's too formalized - it's too hard to reach people on the phone. You've all had that kind of experience in other organizations, that you just throw up your hands and that's what I think people have done because it is a good Act - it extends as wide as it does. It's a pretty good Act, except for a few major weaknesses.
I don't know where the fees came from. They were the highest in Canada for a long time, even higher than in Alberta. Now at least the review fee is gone but the $25 - I think $25 is a lot of money, I mean, to go for - and then there would be other fees, processing and
[Page 9]
that. So it's not inviting, there's no encouragement for people to use the Freedom of Information Act.
MR. JOHNSON: If I could just add, Mr. Theriault, it isn't just the fee. Yes, that's an issue but as we suggest in the presentation, it's also trying to be more anticipatory and proactive in terms of what information are people looking for, what could be made available. There is so-called routine access but that seems to be quite limited in the case of most - I mean it provides some information, yes, but there's a lot of information that still isn't considered "routine." So if that was expanded and if there was an attempt to anticipate, not just to react to applications, your question about waiting lists I think it could be reduced because the information would be there and made available.
What we're talking about is a change in mindset, I guess, or a culture, in terms of how information is viewed and making it available. I think it speaks directly to the mandate of this committee. How we should be operating- as a democracy in this province and in this country - in terms of the access to information and how that's so critical in terms of public attitudes and perceptions of government.
MR. FARDY: You're probably all aware there are 20 - when I took that review officer job there were no court cases relevant, one, Freedom of Information, that was the old Act. There are 20 now and I guess 19 of them came down on the side of openness, giving it out. I used to quote it until I was fed up quoting these judges' rulings and, in fact, most of my recommendations were accepted, which would make you wonder if they're not going to do any harm now, why didn't they go out beforehand? I had no clout or anything, I just sent out reviews.
So I think legislation has a big job to do to - all members of the Legislature have a big job to do to get people onside and encourage more openness and accountability and remind the people of the importance of the freedom of information Act. So I think it's pretty serious, I really do. I get these calls from people who are just throwing up your hands.
MR. THERIAULT: So you're not saying it's a staffing problem, there's lots of staff.
MR. FARDY: Well, everything could be a staffing problem.
MR. THERIAULT: But the staff are afraid to put the information out.
MR. FARDY: Yes. You know I think our review officer was short of staff, I mean nobody is going to say we've got too many. I think it can be done, I'm sure it can be done with existing staff.
MR. JOHNSON: You know, I think the point we're trying to make is it could be part of the way governments operate. I'm just thinking of another example which we had in the
[Page 10]
last few months where one particular department - I won't name it - in a certain issue that we were looking at, sent out a message to people outside that they would not be putting anything in writing because it might be FOIPOP'd in this particular case. I think that's deplorable that any government agency or department would send out that kind of message, within the department and outside. I mean it's that kind of mentality that clearly has to be changed and is very much linked to public cynicism and, to some extent, apathy as well.
MR. FARDY: They're told, you know you might get that but you should ask under the freedom of information Act, so it gives them more time to think about it that this is going to come, when they should have just given it out over the phone. I can't think of any other reason for people to be put off as they are now, except government secrecy, or what they see as government secrecy. So something has to be done, too. I mean some of that information is legitimately withheld but nobody believes anything now. They all believe that there's a little bit blacked out. I often recommended that parts of a document be severed because I didn't think it was either fair to the third party or didn't need to be in there and that it didn't really reveal the kind of information that this person was looking for anyway, but nobody has their minds to it, nobody in government has put their mind to freedom of information.
Even the debate that started the Act years ago - when I looked it up, there wasn't much from the Opposition about trying to improve what the Savage Government was bringing in. It was a pretty good Act, but there were weaknesses.
MR. THERIAULT: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I just had a couple of questions. I hear what you're saying, Mr. Fardy, you've made the quote that the system has "gone to hell in a handbasket" and this perception that there is secrecy out there. That's one of the frustrations for us because I think all members of the different political Parties sitting around this table will tell you that one of the biggest challenges we have at finding people to step forward as candidates is they tell us they have absolutely no privacy in elected life.
MR. FARDY: Well, that's true, politicians don't.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The public perception is that there's secrecy in our employment yet those who know what we go through don't want to run for public office because there's absolutely no privacy. Almost every aspect of their life, their income, what they do, where they travel, everything they do, there is no privacy and that's one of the biggest challenges. One of the challenges of this committee is not just people voting, but we can't get people to put their names forward.
When one looks at the federal election that's going on right now, you'd be hard pressed to find more than one riding or one Party that has had a nomination with more than one person. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that the Halifax federal riding - the NDP
[Page 11]
were the only ones who had a contested nomination for this upcoming federal election. That is sad, for us as elected officials and it should be sad for Nova Scotians.
I wonder, how do you contrast that? Your feeling is that there's still too much secrecy, yet one of the biggest problems with us getting people to run for public office is because of the fact they have no privacy and that every aspect almost of their lives is exposed and they don't want that for them or for their families. How do we strike the balance between those two competing interests?
MR. FARDY: That's more a privacy question, but I don't think that weakening the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in order to solve the problem that you're bringing up is going to - that's always going be there. That's a tension between journalists and politicians that I don't think there's an easy answer to it. I'm not among those who think politicians are just sitting - I have great admiration for politicians, I wouldn't want to do it, maybe I have a shady background of something. I know what politicians are going through and I know why they throw up their hands and say, good Lord, now we have these people shouting at us.
There are parts of the Act about the protection of privacy - now there's another problem. The review officer - at least I didn't and I don't think it has anything to do with investigating privacy complaints, I did it - but the Supreme Court has said that people who spend public money and politicians and that can't expect the kind of privacy that the ordinary citizen can. You're out there and you want to get elected so you're telling perhaps - the politicians are the ones who put their families up, it's none of your business about my family but the families are there for a lot of the promotion stuff and that. I don't know the answer to that, Mr. Chairman, but it is deplorable.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm curious and I know you've mentioned some of the appeals and everything else and again, our democracy is evolving, there's no question of that. How much secrecy, in your view, is still out there that affects the daily lives of Nova Scotians and the ability of government to function? How big a problem is there really in the daily lives of Nova Scotians?
MR. FARDY: Perception might be as big a problem as anything else. Something has to be done in order for people to believe, yes there is some information within government that can't be shared for whatever reason for whenever, but it's almost too late now. The perception is out there that they can't trust anything that comes out of government, or out of the Legislature, I don't know. You might think our solution is simplistic, but I haven't heard another one.
There were four ex-Prime Ministers on television ruing the low turnouts and that, well none of them looked inward and said, well, you know, there's something governments can do about it.
[Page 12]
MR. CHAIRMAN: And that's one of our greatest frustrations, I think you said it yourself that it's too late, the perception is out there. The question is, how do we change that perception?
MR. FARDY: Well, by picking away at it. By phoning people. Government can do it by answering the bloody phone, it's not brain surgery. You can't get people to talk to. A lot of them, they say they haven't got time, so you've got this voice mail which probably never gets returned. I'm just a bug on answering telephones, I answered my own telephone while I was review officer all the time - if it rang, I answered the bloody thing. Now that might not be the most efficient way to do it, but it was the only way I knew how to do it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fardy, I'm curious as well, how much work has your organization been doing with municipalities, both to educate the bureaucrats within the municipalities, the municipal councillors themselves? I'll give you an example - I think there's a greater awareness of municipal issues amongst the population because more and more of these municipalities are controlling large sums of money, yet it seems that nobody is really watching from a public perspective.
In my own municipality, there have been issues that have been raised and the public has been asking questions and been having quite a hard time finding that out. I think the height of the frustration is when council asked for the salaries of staff and received a legal opinion that while councillors could see it, that it should not be disclosed to the public. In this day and age, that's sad. I'm curious, what have you been doing because we all know provincially, you can go and get the book and find out the salary of every civil servant in the Province of Nova Scotia.
MR. FARDY: And you should with the municipalities.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But the question is, what is being done to make aware of that? If a legal opinion can be given in 2008 saying that that is private information of people who are paid for by municipal taxpayers, there's something wrong and it's not here in the province, it's down at the municipal level.
MR. FARDY: A lot of it is education. A lot of them were not really participants in any way in freedom of information legislation. A lot of them don't know about it, have never heard of it and we're a small group of people with $800 in the bank, so we can't go travelling around the province. We offer to and I'll go anywhere if somebody asks me to come and will put me up for the night or something, but I can't go driving around as I'd like to. I'm prepared to put the time in and I have done it, I've talked to municipalities down in Digby, that was the first time I met Mr. Theriault. Most of this stuff is coming out of my basement from a computer where I'm sending e-mails, I've sent e-mail now and will today to every municipal councillor whose name and e-mail address I can find to tell them that their responses will go on our Web site and things like that. That's not enough, we need a much
[Page 13]
larger organization than we have to go out and do the kinds of things that we should be doing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you receive any government funding at all, Mr. Fardy?
MR. FARDY: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No funding at all. Have you ever requested government funding?
MR. FARDY: No, I wouldn't.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You wouldn't request it? Not even through the Department of Justice?
MR. FARDY: No. I worked with CBC for 39 years, I took government funding long enough. (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm wondering if there are others in the room who would like to comment on that as well. Maybe we should handle the microphone after this meeting and ask some questions to certain individuals in the room. (Laughter)
MR. FARDY: Somebody did ask me the other day, is the government - and I was appalled to think he thought I did but anyway. No, I think that would kind of discredit - we have to be seen to be independent of those kinds of pressures, you know. You won't get the money unless you're behaving.
Freedom of information, nobody knows much about it. I did an op-ed in the paper last week, I haven't met anybody yet who has read it, including my kids because I was out of town. (Laughter) They just roll their eyes, there's dad again. But I'm really surprised when somebody stops and says, I saw that op-ed. We've been going on about this for a long time, I've been writing a lot and people have given me opportunities to go with this. It may be a weakness of mine and you may know, those who know me well, there wasn't much of a rant in this, the rants all started with the questions, but they told me I should tame it down a bit for this presentation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We certainly appreciate your presentation. Again, whatever efforts you can do, whether they are opinion pieces or not, to inform Nova Scotians - I think many of them know what's happening, what their rights are provincially and that's always to be expanded upon, but certainly at the municipal level people really have no idea what their rights are.
MR. FARDY: Yes, because the closer the government is to you, the more important it is. I've approached some councillors here in Halifax and others, and some of them didn't
[Page 14]
seem to know what I was talking about or didn't respond. They don't think in those terms at all and to the credit of governments and that, at least they're thinking about it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any more questions from the committee? Mr. Dunn.
MR. PATRICK DUNN: I have a couple of comments, Mr. Chairman. Once again it's the task of this committee to acquire and get as much information as possible. I certainly enjoyed your presentation, your views and your opinions with regard to the task that we have ahead of ourselves. Certainly freedom of information is an important topic and you mentioned about getting people engaged. I couldn't agree more with you - if they're not engaged, they're not going to participate, that's for sure.
You were talking about trying to gain information and you made reference to politicians and so on. As I look around this table at my colleagues, they certainly are very busy on their phones and their meetings and trying to access information as quickly as possible for their constituents and so on. Perhaps if I might have one question - it's just getting an opinion from you - what's your opinion of groups with regard to obtaining information, probably for the abuse of information - using information perhaps not in a positive way? I'm just looking for an opinion.
MR. FARDY: I understand your question. You can't limit disclosure if you think the people are going to abuse the information; we're stuck with that. I don't think the FOIPOP administrator, because the request is coming from somebody they know and they know what they're going to do with it, that they can make the decision then on whether or not to disclose it. It has to be open to everybody and hope that there aren't too many abusers.
MR. DUNN: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bain.
MR. KEITH BAIN: Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. I guess the bottom line of what you're saying in your whole presentation is that an informed public is going to be a big contributor in the determination of voter turnout. I think I'm fair in saying that, whether it's freedom of information or other issues, I think informing the public is what you're saying, get the word out.
I have one question. Does your coalition communicate with other coalitions or groups, say within the Maritime Provinces? If so, what are the problems they face and how are they going about trying to resolve them?
MR. FARDY: Our little coalition is the only one in Canada at the moment. They're all over though. I'm on some lists and if I'm away for a day I get 82 e-mails from Latvia and
[Page 15]
all over. They're really into this. There's a group in British Columbia but not with exactly the mandate that we have. Our mandate is quite simple: tell people about the Act, help people to use it, and go public when somebody will use whatever you have to say, and that's about it. Lots of groups looking for volunteers are finding it more and more difficult, and they're all saying that, but ours is more a question of having enough people interested, where we might be able to get some stable funding, and we know how to do too much of that, but enough to be able to get around the province.
MR. BAIN: It's interesting because although you have a very active coalition, this is a problem countrywide.
MR. FARDY: For sure.
MR. BAIN: And there are no other groups - well, there are small, splinter groups, I'm sure, but there are no actual coalitions, you're the only one in Canada?
MR. FARDY: Yes, and we're not really spread out much, either. I'm trying to get - we have one board member in Cape Breton and any time some applicant comes to me who I think might be interested in this, I always kind of approach him about joining us and stuff like that.
MR. BAIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Theriault, one last question.
MR. THERIAULT: I'd just like to make a comment, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fardy said earlier that he wasn't a politician and I believe you are because I believe a politician . . .
MR. FARDY: I'm honoured. (Laughter)
MR. THERIAULT: I believe a politician is a representative of the people for the people, and I believe you're representing a lot of people in this province.
I also believe - you said you never got much pickup on the piece you wrote for the paper. I have a feeling today that you're going to get good pickup from CBC Radio. (Laughter)
MR. FARDY: Well, Jean did promise.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, thank you, Mr. Fardy and Mr. Johnson. You are our first presenter for our select committee. We're hoping to get as much feedback as possible, so certainly we'd ask you, through your organization and through your membership around the
[Page 16]
province, it is the intention that this committee will not only be seeking input here in Halifax but we will actually be travelling around the province, as well, seeking presentations . . .
MR. FARDY: Will they be public meetings?
MR. CHAIRMAN: They will be public meetings. In fact, we'll be discussing the specific details shortly but we're going to be doing both focus groups in the afternoon with youth and with interested parties afterwards, and then in the evening have open sessions. So people will have a choice of either participating in a focus group or coming to make a public presentation to us. We'll be having video of that and then posting that as well. So, by all means, any members throughout the province, they don't need to travel here to the city, we'll be going around the province and they can take that opportunity to participate as well.
MR. FARDY: And we'll put all that information on our Web site and any time I'm talking to somebody around, I would strongly suggest to them that they should come and participate in this.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Greatly appreciate that. So again, thank you for taking time out of your day to present to us.
MR. FARDY: Well, thank you for having us.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think now we can probably recess for a few minutes in waiting for our next presenter to arrive. (Interruption) That's the expectation, at 10:00 a.m., but we may be delayed a few minutes. Thank you.
[9:56 a.m. The committee recessed.]
[10:13 a.m. The committee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, if we can resume our meeting. I know we already did introductions but we have a new presenter, so it might be of benefit to our presenter to have a name to go with all of the faces, but something tells me, following Nova Scotia politics, he probably knows more about us than we'd want to guess. Just the same, we will start the introductions.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McInnis, you're certainly no stranger to this committee room, it probably hasn't changed very much from the days when you were here, so you're certainly well familiar with how these committee meetings work. But you're here today as chairman of the Nova Scotia Election Commission and we're certainly quite interested in hearing your presentation today, so the floor is yours.
[Page 17]
[10:15 a.m.]
MR. TOM MCINNIS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm pleased to come today. Actually, I'm not sure this room was in place when I was an MLA but I have to tell you, when I was 16 years old, I came to work with the Nova Scotia Power Commission and they were housed in this building. My desk was in that corner over there and I was kind of a gopher, I used to look after all the stationary and so on. My office was on the 4th floor, there was no lock on the door and my greatest challenge for Bud Russell, who was the purchasing agent, was to keep control over the supplies because particularly in September, when the kids were going back to school, an awful lot of supplies seemed to go missing. (Laughter) So I spent a few years on this floor.
I am here this morning in the capacity of chairman of the Election Commission and with me this morning is the Chief Electoral Officer, Christine McCulloch, here to my left. While Christine reports to the Executive Council, she is of great assistance to the commission. I should tell you - and you probably know this but in the event that you don't - the commission is an advisory group, there are two appointees named by each of the Parties and I'm appointed by the Executive Council.
We try to operate on a consensus basis and we have some good sage there. There's one gentleman who has been there off and on for 25 years, Michael Coyle, and I think Bud Lantz, Christine, has been there for quite some time. We just received two new appointees from the Liberal Party and I'll just name the members if I may. There is Bud Lantz from the Progressive Conservatives, Audrey Harmer from the Progressive Conservatives; Michael Coyle from the NDP and Kim Turner from the NDP; and the new appointees, Jean Beeler and Chris MacInnes. Jean is from Dartmouth and Chris is from Sydney.
I guess you could still call me a freshman chairman because I probably have had two or three meetings, I think, at this point and it's been a sharp learning curve. Despite the fact that I've had a public life, others seem to run the elections for you and you think you know all there is to know about the Elections Act and all of the other Acts that go along with it, but that is not necessarily the case.
I mentioned to the commission back a couple of meetings ago that when I found out about your committee, I thought, for two reasons - certainly, we have a responsibility to come and just let you know that we're there and that we're there to help and to work in unison with you. Also, I think there is a duty upon us to do what you're doing, and that is attempting to have more participation in the democratic process. Of course I rather suspect that this committee was set up predicated on the fact that the vote has been going down and not going up, the number of voters.
We operate in an advisory capacity and that's all we can do. Our mandate doesn't say that if we suggest something, that it's going to end up in legislation; that's not the way it
[Page 18]
works. We advise and I guess maybe you could say we lobby to some degree, if we feel strongly about getting some legislation passed.
Currently one of the things we've embarked on is a review of the Elections Act. I want to mention that because I'm not sure what you will be doing in that regard - you may well be doing that as well. There are some things in the Elections Act, and there are some things that we are looking at with respect to what we feel will increase the number of voters, that will require legislation.
Accessibility of the voters is important and of course we live in an aging society where it's becoming increasingly more important that we make polls more accessible. So some of the things that we will be looking at - and if you ask questions this morning we probably wouldn't be able to give you some very good answers, that we think would increase the participation of voters - we will be looking at electronic voting. It may well be that if it's easier for individuals to get to the polls by voting electronically - and that could be - polls could be in the universities, they could be in the shopping malls, they could be more accessible, more high profile. You may have a tendency, as a consequence of that, of getting more people to vote.
Some of the other areas that we are looking at - currently, there are write-in ballots and I'm sure all of you have participated in the write-in ballot. It's cumbersome, no one has been able to come up with a better system, we don't think. I'll touch on something that may eventually be a little better but it's not widely known, and I think that's important. There's got to be more education of the electorate, letting them know that these write-in ballots are there.
As I say, it is cumbersome to get it done because there are a number of envelopes, and I'm sure you all see them and, if you're going to do it on behalf of a person, you've got to go and get the ballot and all this type of thing. It's quite an ordeal.
Now we have, and we're doing a little bit of research on what they're doing in New Brunswick. They have a mobile poll where a representative of each of the Parties - up there it's two, here it would be three - actually visit the residents. They have to make an appointment and they actually take the ballot box and the ballots to the home, to the hospitals, so those individuals have access to the polls that they otherwise wouldn't have, wouldn't be able to get there.
Now, having said that, it's reasonably costly, it's like all of these things, it's costly. But how relevant are costs, if you're getting people out to vote and being able to exercise their franchise.
Christine McCulloch, the Chief Electoral Officer, met with a member of your committee, Graham Steele, and Ms. McFadden who is head of the local chapter for the
[Page 19]
alliance of impaired Canadians. They feel they don't have absolute access to vote independent, as an individual, and they want that. They feel it's demeaning that someone else has to mark the ballot for them - another area that we will be looking at.
As I said earlier, all of these items are costly but we're researching them, we will be bringing them forth to have them dealt with and we, of course, then will be making representation to the government with respect to the amendments. Those are just some of the things. As I say, we came today more as a courtesy but to show that, look, we agree with what you're about and you're probably going to hear all kinds of individuals come before you with suggestions as to how we can increase the vote, but those are just some of the things. Christine, I don't know if there are some others that you have that you want to add to this, but these are some of the things that we have.
As well, we've asked our membership on the committee to think and go back to their respective caucuses and discuss these things to bring support, whatever suggestions they can. So that's just a brief synopsis of what we're about. If there's something that we can do to facilitate or to help you, we're here to do it. Maybe you have some questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parker.
MR. PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This whole idea of accessibility, I guess, for voters, in the federal elections there's - I'm not sure what they're called - a special voting officer, or whatever - there's a certain title, I don't have the exact name - and they, by appointment, go out to people's homes and actually allow the voter to cast their ballot right then and there - disabled people or somebody who is confined to their home by sickness or whatever.
It seems to work quite well and I've seen it in use in the federal campaign. Why couldn't we have something like that in our provincial campaigns? It's convenient for the voter, maybe they're in a wheelchair or whatever and there's great difficulty for them to get to the poll on election day, or to the advance poll or whatever. It's a system that's working well in the federal campaign. Could we implement something like that in our provincial campaigns?
MR. MCINNIS: It would have to have legislation. They go out . . .
MR. PARKER: They go out to the home.
MR. MCINNIS: Is that like New Brunswick that I was talking about, Christine? I suspect it is.
MR. PARKER: Maybe so, but it was in force in the last federal election, perhaps before that, I'm not sure, but it's so convenient for the voter who can't get out. They call the
[Page 20]
returning officer and make an appointment and then the special elections officer comes right to their home, often the spouse votes at the same time, and then the person takes the ballot back to the returning office and it's counted on election day. It would make sense, I think, provincially to have a system like that.
MR. MCINNIS: That would be analogous, I think, to the write-in ballot.
MR. PARKER: Well, except that the write-in ballot is very cumbersome.
MS. CHRISTINE MCCULLOCH: It's similar to New Brunswick.
MR. MCINNIS: Oh, the mobile poll, except that it's the election official, it's not...
MR. PARKER: The election official comes directly to the home, by appointment, and the voters are able to vote right then and there. She or he takes the ballot back to the returning office. It works very well for disabled people.
MR. MCINNIS: Well, that's one of the things that we are looking at. We're checking into New Brunswick, that's what they have up there. The difference is, there are representatives of each Party who actually go and watch the vote take place. What you're suggesting is that it would be one of the officers.
MR. PARKER: Yes, somebody hired by Elections Canada is actually going directly to the home, just one person, and the person is able to vote quite easily. So it's a suggestion that I think works well at the federal level, and it could work well at the provincial level.
MR. MCINNIS: We're looking into the costs, and undoubtedly that will be one of the ones that will be coming forward.
MR. PARKER: The write-in ballot that we have now really is difficult for people because, if a person is disabled, then their son or daughter, or some family member, has to go to the returning office with a form and then bring it back, get the voter to sign it, and then I think they have to return to the returning office to get the ballot and then come back home to get the person to vote. Then they have to go back with the ballot to the returning office. It's too many trips.
MR. MCINNIS: But you missed one step.
MR. PARKER: Well, maybe so.
MR. MCINNIS: I didn't know this until last time but actually what you do is, you actually have to take the ID - a licence, their health card or something - and go to the
[Page 21]
returning office, get it and take it back. Then you're supposed to leave it there with them, so you have to go back again and get it - I had to make three trips.
MR. PARKER: It's far too complicated.
MR. MCINNIS: I hope they voted the right way - I have absolutely no idea - because I put a lot of labour into it.
MR. PARKER: It's still a secret ballot in the end.
MR. MCINNIS: It's still a secret ballot.
MR. PARKER: But it's far too cumbersome for most people, especially if they're 20 or 30 miles from the returning office.
MR. MCINNIS: Yes.
MR. PARKER: Okay, thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Parker, and I'm sure with all of the discussion of the Green Shift and the environment, that one would not consider that practice to be environmentally friendly or very cheap with the price of gas these days. Mr. Dunn.
MR. DUNN: One thing that you mentioned when you were talking in your initial comments, areas where there's more high profile, I think that's something we should be looking at with regard to improving voter participation. With regard to mail-in ballots, what's the time span during an election as far as people mailing their ballots in? Like my colleague there was talking about the write-in ballot, just to give an example, someone living in Manitoba and they're there for a few months and they're wishing to vote locally. What's the time span that they have in order to have that accomplished? They have to go through the mail, of course, but do they have two weeks or do they have three weeks?
[10:30 a.m.]
MR. MCINNIS: It's up to election day but it's after the nomination, then it would have to be there, I rather suspect, before the polls close on election day. I don't think there's any other time restriction, is there, Christine?
MS. MCCULLOCH: Write-in ballots, one of my favourite topics. You can apply for a write-in ballot from the time the returning office is open. You have to have someone to call to ask for the application to be sent to you, or you write to them, you communicate with them. They send you out a package which is really an application and if you're on the list, they turn around and they send you a ballot and you return the ballot. If you're mailing it in
[Page 22]
it has to be received by the returning officer by the close of polls, but they're open from the time the writ - effectively, a couple of days after the writ is issued to the close of polls.
The difficulty with write-in ballots is, if you're mailing one in you have to be fairly quick off the mark if you're in Florida, or you're in Korea, so it's difficult. We often do get write-in ballots coming in after the polls close, after the count has been done. Another problem with them is, they are available from right after the returning office is open and when you receive a ballot you can write in either the candidate's name, if you know it, or you can write in a Party name, because they're available to be filled in prior to close of nominations. So it's an option that's available and that extends the time period in which they're available for people to use.
If I can make another comment about them, I think what has to happen with respect to increasing accessibility on this front is to not try to twist the write-in ballot to do something it was never intended to do. What we really need is a different kind of balloting. Special balloting like what is used in New Brunswick, and federally, is a very different concept. It doesn't involve all of the envelopes, instructions and back and forth - it's a service that's provided by real people to electors who can't get to the polls. It's a very different environment.
Our problem is we don't have any legislative authority for that kind of thing, so we've tried to manipulate the write-in ballot to address some of those problems and it's not intended for that purpose. It was originally instituted a number of years ago to replace the proxy vote and a lot of concern surrounded the write-in ballot - I think, by all interested in it - because they were concerned with abuse and they were trying to address those things.
What they did was they created a process that's hugely complex with all sorts of safeguards built in and rules around how it's done and who can do what, so it is what it is. But trying to manipulate it into being something it's not and was never intended to be is not the right answer to the problem of getting out to people who need assistance voting.
MR. DUNN: Perhaps one more question. In your review of other provinces, territories, countries, have you come across other things that may be unique as far as access to the voting polls? When I think of areas like the Northwest Territories, I think electronic voting would be advantageous for areas like that, but have you come across any in your reviews of other areas of our country, anything unique, anything that perhaps we're not doing?
MS. MCCULLOCH: Yes. (Laughter) One of the things we changed in the Elections Act just last year was to allow people to vote where they live on voting day or when they go to vote. Our legislation used to say you vote where you live when the writ is issued, which meant there was this period of time from the writ to election day where people had to vote if they moved from Sydney to Halifax, they had to go back to Sydney and vote in Sydney
[Page 23]
because that's where they were on the list. That has now changed so that people can actually vote where they live when they go to vote, but then they have to identify their change of address and they have to be moved from Sydney to Halifax.
Another one we're working on is allowing registration of electors on-line. That's a very interesting subject because there's a balance between getting people on the list, which is effectively your entitlement to vote - you have to get on the list before you can vote. It's troublesome for people because when people move, they don't understand why their name isn't on the list at the right place because they checked off that box on their income tax form, or they changed their address at Motor Vehicles, or whatever it might be. So they're irritated by that process around getting on the list.
We don't have an ability to set up polling stations wherever we would like and we have a continual request for, why can't I have a polling station in my high-rise, why can't I have a polling station in my seniors' home, or whatever it might be? There are very tight restrictions on where polling stations can be. There are things like that, so there are a lot of small problems. The way the legislation is written means that you're subject to whatever those strict rules are, so you can't just manipulate whatever you want in order to accommodate these needs. The Election Commission is very interested in modernizing the legislation in general, it's quite antiquated in many respects.
MR. MCINNIS: The respective members of the committee are going back with a list - this has probably not much to do with what you're deliberating on today - of suggested amendments that we've identified already, but the Act is somewhat outdated and it's time we go through it and we're just in its infancy with respect to it. It's quite a task. There are some things as we are identifying them, as I say, the members of the committee with the respective Parties will be meeting with you. In fact, Mike Coyle doesn't have any difficulty, he's there, but that's what we're about.
MR. DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. MacDonald.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Well, first of all I'm going to tell my Tom McInnis story. I almost brought today, Mr. Chairman, a copy of a letter I received from Mr. McInnis in 1984 and I've never had an opportunity to thank him - 24 years later, I'm going to thank you. I ran in my first election in 1984 and at the end of the election you wrote me a very gracious and very lovely letter, thanking me for my participation in the election. I was quite a young person at that time, 24 years ago, and it's in my scrapbook which I couldn't lay my hands on this morning because it's tucked away.
[Page 24]
I was thinking about it as I was getting ready and I have to say, I really, truly was very impressed by the graciousness and the time you took to write me - a defeated candidate in a riding that wasn't anywhere close to your riding. It really did make an impression.
MR. MCINNIS: Thank you very much.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: So, having gotten that out of the way, I want to ask you about whether or not the Election Commission is monitoring or observing in any way what's happening in the municipal election here in HRM. As I understand it, they are using electronic voting for the first time and shortly we will all be receiving our cards and pin numbers. I'm just hearing a little bit about this, as people are starting to get more interested in what's happening. It seems to me that it's quite an interesting opportunity, a new experiment, I suppose, and because the HRM is so big, it has the rural pieces, it has the urban pieces, suburban, it might be a good opportunity for our provincial commission to gather some information about what the strengths and shortcomings are of that particular process. That's my question.
MR. MCINNIS: Well, Christine, what are you doing? (Laughter) I think it's just for the advanced polls.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Is it only for the advanced polls?
MS. MCCULLOCH: It's the advance poll in HRM and yes, we've been actively involved with HRM in attempting to support the development of their list because the voter information card that goes out to each elector has to go to a mailing address, which means if your mailing addresses aren't very good, no one is going to get their card and their pin is on it. So we've been actively involved with that aspect of their election. We are monitoring the electronic voting, it's a very big interest of ours so from my office's point of view, yes we are.
The Election Commission itself, as far as I know, besides being very interested in electronic voting, isn't actively involved in participating in that aspect of the municipal elections.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Okay, that's my question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bain.
MR. BAIN: Just one thing, Mr. McInnis, you were talking about the aging population of which we are a part - but that's the good point of it, I guess we are aging. (Laughter) Christine, you mentioned polling stations at high-rises and senior's buildings, and I guess I'm going to tie both of them together. This aging population is the same population that has been accustomed to having a polling station within their small community, especially in the rural
[Page 25]
areas where you have sparse population spread out geographically for miles. They are used to having the polling station in their community and now they have to travel, in some cases, to another community and this aging population doesn't like it. They're saying, why should I have to go from my area over to X to vote - that's not my community, this is.
I realize that a lot of this has been done because of the expenses involved, because of the workers that would be needed in each individual polling station. I guess I'm looking at the rural aging population and the mindset of the more senior of those, I guess, and having the poll within their community. Is that being reconsidered at this point by any chance? I'm saying this from experience, because I know some people who refuse to vote because they had to go to another community to vote. So I'd like to get your feelings on that.
MR. MCINNIS: Well, absolutely, I agree. Just for example, I live in Sheet Harbour and there are people who just would not drive to Spry Harbour, which happens to be probably 15 to 20 kilometres away, out of principle. They've always gone to St. Peter's church hall, not that it had to be St. Peter's church hall but they wanted to vote within the community and that's something - but once again, all of this, I think, will evolve with respect to the review of the Act.
I think in that situation in Sheet Harbour - I don't know if it was with yours - it was more with the federal. I don't know if we've had that experience as well, I can't remember what it was in Sheet Harbour.
MR. BAIN: I think of one in particular that I'm aware of - for a provincial election there was a poll taken away but it was put back for the past election. I guess where I'm going, we can talk electronic voting, we can talk everything but this more senior population are the ones that have to go into a polling station and mark their "x" beside the person they're voting for. They're not going to participate in electronic voting, they're not going to - that's what they have to do. I guess we have to look at youth and . . .
MS. MCCULLOCH: A couple of things. I think it's very important that you don't let technology drive your business. Your business is to service the electorate and in this province, like in many of the jurisdictions across Canada, there are lots of people who enjoy marking a ballot. They enjoy going to the polling station - it's a social event, it's a family event. Getting rid of opportunities to actually exercise your franchise in that manner is not on my agenda.
[10:45 a.m.]
We do take location of polling stations very seriously because our anecdotal feedback from candidates and returning officers and people who have taken the time to call up to tell me that they're ticked about having to go to some other place when they've always voted at the fire hall, indicates that moving polling stations is a very serious matter; we don't do it
[Page 26]
lightly. Sometimes there are very good reasons. There might be accessibility reasons, it might be because the fire hall burned down, or it might be because it's not available this year for whatever reason. There are lots of reasons why they move but they don't move easily.
My standing instructions to returning officers are always if you're changing boundaries or proposing that they be changed - polling division boundaries - if you're proposing that they be changed and that would therefore require the relocation of a long-standing polling location, you should be talking to the members, you should be talking to the people about why that's happening. The good returning officers actually go to the Parties and they talk about those kinds of things and they try to figure out what the resolution is to the problem because polling division boundaries change as the population size changes, so they move. They try to keep standing locations and they try to put those voting places where people are familiar with them but they try to do it centrally. They try to pick logical places, but they don't move them easily.
So I realize that it is a problem and we try hard to address it but there are times, circumstances, when there's nothing that can be done about it.
MR. BAIN: I must say that in 2003, the one I was speaking about before in my constituency, after the 2003 election the returning officer did meet with myself and also with the campaign manager for the Liberal candidate. We expressed our concern about that particular poll that wasn't there and it was in place. So I guess we were listened to, the both of us, at that time.
MS. MCCULLOCH: Input is required before they start doing those kinds of things. They are supposed to be talking to the members. Someone from all the Parties, not just the MLA, so all the Parties can have input into the location and any change.
MR. BAIN: Thank you for that.
MS. MCCULLOCH: If you're unhappy, let me know.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bain. I had a couple of questions myself, a couple of comments as well. Mr. McInnis, I think you indicated a review is being undertaken of the Act and I shared this with Ms. McCulloch earlier but the Elections Act was, in essence, put together to prevent abuse in the voting system in Nova Scotia. I think we've gone far beyond fears of abuse. The whole intention of this committee is proof that it's not the problem of abuse, it's the problem of participation. So we need to have an Act that reflects that, rather than an Act that is meant to make sure that people don't vote more than once which, in essence, is the premise of many of the rules of the Act itself.
Ms. McCulloch, maybe you can correct me on this but if I'm not mistaken, the way the proxy is working municipally is that you simply need to get the elector to sign the form,
[Page 27]
the person who will be voting for them to sign the form, and then the candidate can bring that to the returning officer, be given a ballot to be given to the person who will be voting and that's it. There's no ID requirement.
MS. MCCULLOCH: I don't know if that's correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, from what I've seen, that seems to be the system and I can tell you, that's a much more friendly system than what we're using provincially. In my case, I believe the returning officer wanted us to bring the person who would be voting the ballot to the returning office to pick up the ballot personally. In some cases it was seniors where the husband couldn't get out so we had to bring the wife, who was 88 years old, to come to the returning office to pick up the ballot for her 92-year old husband.
It just wasn't practical and it really didn't make sense. Again, it's all on the premise to avoid abuse where the voting numbers clearly show that abuse is not our problem here in Nova Scotia, it clearly is participation.
One of the subjects which I am surprised did not come up is the whole issue of enumeration. I know Ms. McCulloch probably doesn't like to hear enumeration because I know it created nightmares, there's no doubt it did; in such a small time frame there is no question of that. But, if nothing else, not only did enumeration help keep more updated lists, it let people know there was an election which today, with a federal election going on, many people in Nova Scotia have no idea there's an election going on. But when someone shows up on your doorstep and tells you why they are at your doorstep, it was another means of getting the word out that there actually was an election going on.
We've eliminated that, that's no longer the case. It was a problem for us in Richmond County when I had residents who had been living in the community for 30 years weren't on the list. So I can only imagine what it was like here in metro, where people move every year, or every six months in some cases. So it's a big problem and I'm curious, is there a place to bring back some form of enumeration here in Nova Scotia, or are you content that the new, permanent list is working and is the way for us to go?
MS. MCCULLOCH: The permanent list is, in my view, the way to go. We did do a full provincial enumeration in 2005 and it is the basis of our current, provincial permanent list. I think that mobility is a huge problem in terms of currency and mobility in places like metro is extremely high. It is also my experience that a mobile population is very difficult to enumerate as well, and there are a lot of people who don't care to be enumerated for a number of reasons.
When we did enumerate we got a fairly low response in many of the areas in the populated parts of the province because it is just inherently difficult to enumerate people who aren't home, people don't want you coming to the door and asking for information, more
[Page 28]
senior voters live in locked buildings where you can't even go in and they don't want you in there because their security is dependent on being in a locked building. People actually did nasty things to enumerators, so we have a lot of issues associated with enumeration. So it's not in itself an answer to this problem. For instance, in areas of Clayton Park, there are a lot of landlords who offer that if you pay for three months you get the fourth free and it creates a movement of people that is dramatic. Nobody could track that, the whole population up there is extremely mobile.
Having said that, there are problems with enumeration. There are problems because people here aren't responsible for their own registration as they are in the United States - if you don't register, you don't vote, there's no registration on election day so you have to do it up front or too bad. But we have a very different approach to this here and there isn't any responsibility on those who choose to participate and that's our tradition. But we do limited enumeration, we call it targeted enumeration in areas that are identified as requiring attention and that's done in the first week or so after the election is called. It is completely impossible to do a provincial enumeration in a week, so the only choice you have is to do targeted.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If I can ask this, in light of the fact that the municipalities are still doing enumeration, what interaction is there between the municipal units and your office in order to cross-reference lists and see if there are additions or deletions that should be made to those lists?
MS. MCCULLOCH: There's a full arrangement in place with all municipalities who care to participate. They have access to our list, we have data-sharing agreements with them and we provide them with whatever mapping they would like. So there's a very strong relationship on the technical side with municipalities.
MR. CHAIRMAN: With the write-in ballot, the requirement of having identification and everything else, in your view, what is the need for that?
MS. MCCULLOCH: I guess I would say the trend across the country is not to reducing or eliminating the technicalities around proof of identity, they are toward increasing them. In Ontario in the last provincial election you had to show ID at the polls, even if you were on the list, so the trend is the other way. Do I think it's necessary? People who go to the trouble of using the write-in ballot process are more likely, because it is so complicated, to be forthright and truthful in what they're trying to do. I mean I have had people who are trying to vote from Korea, teachers who are temporarily in Korea teaching English and want to vote. There are challenges because if you don't get it right the first time you're out of time, things like that.
In my experience, I have not seen extensive abuse, I haven't seen anything I would call serious abuse. I have seen odd situations, but they're not associated with write-in ballots, they're associated with individuals attempting to vote more than once.
[Page 29]
MR. CHAIRMAN: We usually tell people, vote Liberal, vote often, but we were just joking when we said it. (Laughter)
MS. MCCULLOCH: Some people take that fairly seriously.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The reason I asked about the identification part is, again, as a rural member and the travelling to the returning office and everything else, who would try to abuse that knowing that if the elector finds out someone else voted for them without their consent, I'm assuming that our Elections Act would have some penalty provisions in there or common law would have some penalty provisions in there? That is why it goes to the idea that we're trying to prevent abuse but there are other protections out there that we could make the system much more user-friendly knowing that if you are going to pick up a ballot for someone you don't have the consent for, you're going to be facing prosecution for illegally trying to vote for someone. If that protection is already there, why are we adding more layers of difficulty for this?
Again, for us in the rural communities, in Richmond, we have one returning office and if you go from Point Tupper down to Irish Cove or Point Tupper to Forchu, you have a long way in between and the returning office is in D'Escousse which is not really in the middle, but it's as close as you are going to get, but it's just not practical and it's a system that could be very useful, especially for well-organized campaigns that will work hard to make sure these people have the right to vote, but it's a tremendous expense and a tremendous amount of time being used. I fail to see the need for that safeguard knowing there are already other means of safeguards out there to start off with.
MS. MCCULLOCH: I don't think the safeguards are strong enough against that kind of thing. I would not want to see reducing the requirements for proof of identity in that context, I would leave that one alone and I would try to address this problem of accessibility differently. I would increase the number of physical places that people could go to, the number of polling stations. I don't think addressing it that way is the right thing to do. I think there should be some special balloting process in this province. Those have proven to be quite well used elsewhere.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a reason why we're not accepting fax copies of identity or e-mail copies of identity, knowing that the courts are now accepting these electronic forms of communication? Why are we not accepting it through the elections office, that because of the distance we couldn't just fax in the proof of identify to the returning officer in order to get a ballot mailed out to the individual?
MS. MCCULLOCH: Well the question is not the fax, the fax I would accept. The question is, who is getting the ballot? It's not the fax.
[Page 30]
MR. CHAIRMAN: But wouldn't there be just mailing the ballot to the individual or, if they've appointed someone else to be the voter for them, that it would just be mailed out to the individual?
MS. MCCULLOCH: Again, it's set up that way to avoid abuse. I mean that's the purpose of that. I believe - I wasn't involved in the development of the write-in ballot process - but I believe it was designed the way it was and it was a difficult thing to bring about because it was believed that proxies were abused. The use of proxies were abused.
So you have to look at it historically. Historically they were trying to allow a process where people could vote from away when they weren't here and they were coming from knowing that this system, or believing that this system we used to have, was abusive or abused. So they're moving to another form of that, a modernized form, but they were coming from a perspective of believing that they needed to be careful about that problem.
[11:00 a.m.]
So that's a historical issue. Whether the write-in ballot could be improved, I have no doubt it could, it's extremely technical. But it is what it is and it's written, it's very tight in the legislation so there's very little ability to manipulate it to serve purposes that are different than they were when it was instituted.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well let me just finish by saying this - other members may have questions - but I think it's quite clear from what you're hearing around this table from all the Parties, that I think it's safe to say we would encourage you to bring forward to the Legislature changes to the Elections Act, to try to find means of making it easier for Nova Scotians to vote, whether it's due to disability or being away or for just average Nova Scotians, to cast their ballot.
So I think you're hearing all-Party support for change, to make the system more friendly and to make your job easier because again, you're restricted by legislation. So I would strongly encourage you to bring those proposed changes to the Legislature for us to consider and I think you're clearly seeing there's a desire for a significant change, from the elected members. Mr. McInnis.
MR. MCINNIS: Well, I'll just say this - this is the write-in ballot. I asked Christine to provide all the members and the commission with it. I can tell you, we are going to be exhaustive in terms of our research and review. We already are now looking at the mobile ballot and we're not - we don't meet for two and a half hours every five or six weeks just to sit and look at one another. I didn't take this on, I didn't ask for it, and I'm there to try to make some improvements.
[Page 31]
I think there's an age group out there that has to be targeted - 35 and under. They're not voting, we have to figure out ways to get them to vote. If that's electronic voting, that's what we'll be recommending.
As I say, we have no teeth. We can't tell you to do it, but if you listen or hear and read and understand what we bring forth and we actually do it - this is cumbersome. I personally participated in it last time and several problems with it, which you'll hear later on when we get our commission views on it, but the most important thing is that people don't know about it, that's the biggest problem.
I happened to be knocking on doors, two individuals in the same seniors' apartments had no idea - they said look, Tom, I could never get out to vote. They were single men and I have no idea - I wasn't out doing - I just wanted to get them to vote but what I had to go through to get it was ridiculous. So that's why we've asked for a review.
There's all kinds of things in the Elections Act. This has nothing to do with this committee but if you want something to put you to sleep at night, read the definition of an election expense and read them from across the country and the national definition, it's somewhat ludicrous. So those are things that we're challenged with and we're hoping that we'll be able to come forth with some very serious recommendations. All I would ask, Mr. Chairman, is the respective Parties - when the representatives on our commission come back with suggestions - understand that it wasn't by a majority vote. It was by a consensus of individuals who are there, well-intended, coming forth with recommendations.
I think we have to step at least into the year 2000, if I might put it that way, in terms of voting because electronic voting, I think, is one of the ways we should be going in order to increase the number of people who vote, it has to be more accessible. There are people out there today who are not voting and it's because they can't get to the polls. Quite frankly, we don't have a system in place to handle it and I'd like to change that and if that's mobile voting, it's going to cost them dollars but then, what's the cost of a vote and the right to vote, so that's what we're going to try to do. As I say, we're just embarking on it now and Christine has been most helpful. She's inundated with work but she's carrying out certain research that we've asked her and her staff to do, so I'm hoping that we'll come forth with some real meaningful suggestions. All I ask is that the respective Parties at least pay attention to it because it will have been well vetted at our boardroom table out there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. McInnis. Mr. Parker.
MR. PARKER: I just have a couple of quick questions here, I guess. On election day, when a voter comes to the poll and there's a few of them who are quite disabled, but somehow they've managed to get a drive or whatever and have gotten there, but then it's very difficult sometimes for them to actually get inside the building and into the poll to vote.
[Page 32]
Is there discretion on the part of the DRO to actually take the ballot box, go out to the car and let that voter exercise his democratic right? Can he or she be accommodated?
MS. MCCULLOCH: We have this protocol called curbside voting. It's not widely used because it has to be used with care because you have to effectively close down your polling station, move your polling station to the curb and deal with all the business you do in voting. So it means it's not just the DRO - it's the poll clerk, it's the ballot box, it's everything so you're moving your polling station to the individual. Yes, we do have it, it's not used extensively, but we do have it. What happens is it is used most effectively if somebody calls the returning officer and indicates that they would like to vote, but they can't get out of the car and they're going to come at 2:00 p.m. and they're going to bring their car up and they plan it.
MR. PARKER: Is it at the discretion of the DRO or can they be refused or do they have to be accommodated if it's requested?
MS. MCCULLOCH: There's no mention of anything like this in the Elections Act, this is all an effort to accommodate special circumstances.
MR. PARKER: So it's a courtesy provided by the DRO?
MS. MCCULLOCH: Yes and the DRO may well say, I'm sorry, I can't accommodate that, I have a line out the door, you'll have to wait until 4:00 o'clock. It has to be discretionary to the extent that you have to accommodate the voters who are there in line, as well as someone who may have come with an issue.
MR. PARKER: But it's a matter of trying to coordinate it at a convenient time, but in the end it is at the discretion of the DRO, is it?
MS. MCCULLOCH: There's nothing on that in the legislation and we have a process, but it has to be applied in the context of the voting environment. So you can't say, you must do this when it's requested because there are other considerations, other voters to look after.
MR. PARKER: I've experienced it a couple of times and thankfully the DRO - at a convenient time when there weren't other voters in line - did accommodate the individual.
MS. MCCULLOCH: The trick, I think, is trying to organize it when the DRO is likely to be able to tell you when the polls are quiet and if it's done in advance that there's a chance of it being just fine.
MR. PARKER: Okay. The other question I wanted to ask then maybe and perhaps this is for Tom or both of you. When is the next review of riding boundaries in this province or when would the process actually begin?
[Page 33]
MR. MCINNIS: I think it's every 10 years and I think it probably will be 2012.
MR. PARKER: So 2012, it starts or is that when it has to be completed?
MS. MCCULLOCH: It has to be done, it will start in advance of that.
MR. PARKER: So it will start in 2011?
MS. MCCULLOCH: I believe so, probably.
MR. PARKER: It's not too far away then. What are the criteria for determining riding boundaries? I know it's based on population but we have 52 ridings in the province and I guess that will remain. I know if the population goes up or down that those are considerations, but do you anticipate changes or the need for change in the future?
MR. MCINNIS: I'm not sure what the legislation says, but certainly geography should play some role - the land mass. You have some MLAs, the riding that I live in, he covers from Canso to Newton's Brook to Ship Harbour - the size of P.E.I. It's not for us to say, but population is obviously important, but we can only make a recommendation, it's something that you'd have to make, I suspect, to the commission. I don't know if that's in their mandate or not, if it's not then it should be.
MS. MCCULLOCH: I think probably the legislation surrounding boundary review here is not nearly as robust as it should be. I think it is the nature of the investigation, the kind of resources you need to support the review, the kind of commission you have hearing the representations - it's very complex. In other jurisdictions in Canada, it's quite a big deal and I've never been through one myself, so I can't speak from experience, but I think it's a worthy subject for review. It doesn't actually involve my office, technically. We supported the last one on a mapping side, mapping and statistical information.
MR. PARKER: So who does have jurisdiction for it?
MS. MCCULLOCH: It's a Select Committee of the House of Assembly that is created to deal with the redistribution.
MR. PARKER: Okay, thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If I can help with that, Mr. Parker, the Legislature has authority over boundaries and there are actually very specific criteria involved in determining boundaries, both population and there's a whole, three or four different items that are looked at. You'll recall that here in Nova Scotia we also have the distinct ridings as well that are protected because of their unique identity. Last time it was a Select Committee that was appointed by the Legislature - I believe the Chair of it was Mr. Colin Dodds, President of
[Page 34]
Saint Mary's University, the last time it was done. So it will be up to the House to appoint another committee in 2012. Any more questions or comments?
That being the case, I certainly want to again thank you, Mr. McInnis, for the job you're doing and your presentation this morning. Again, allow me to reiterate that there is strong support from all the elected members of the House, including the members of this committee for the work being done by not only the Election Commission, but Ms. McCulloch with Elections Nova Scotia.
The whole creation of this committee is because of our concern over the low voter turnout and what can we do as elected officials in working with the commission and with Elections Nova Scotia to make the changes necessary to make it a much more voter-friendly environment. So, again, thank you for the work that you do and please extend our thanks to all of your colleagues who sit on the commission as well for the work that they're doing. We look forward to your recommendations and any legislation coming to the House.
MR. MCINNIS: Thank you very much, it was a pleasure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee members, I wanted to provide you with an update of our subcommittee and maybe I can ask our researcher, Paula, if she wishes to come forward now to give us a bit of an update on the discussions that took place at the subcommittee.
At the meeting was myself, Mr. Bain and Mr. Parker. We met last week and started to map out some goals for the committee.
MS. PAULA ROMANOW: Sherri is just handing out sort of the draft of this and after our discussions today a more final version of the proposed focus group list and locations will be done up and I'll send it out to everyone.
Basically, the subcommittee met last week and we discussed the locations and the breakdown of the focus group sessions. Also, Michel came up with a game plan for the dates, which of course I suspect hinges on some measure of when the House is recalled. I'll just go over the schedule as we have it here.
The first week we're looking at October 20th to Sydney; October 21st, which is a Tuesday, to Antigonish; October 22nd to Truro; and then October 23rd to Amherst. I think the discussion, Mr. Chairman, was that week is probably pretty set in terms of dates. The second week, again, is going to hinge on when the House, the Legislature, is recalled: Yarmouth on the Monday, October 27th; Tuesday, October 28th, Bridgewater; Wednesday, October 29th, Kentville; and Thursday, October 30th, here in Halifax.
Now because we're doing this a little bit differently as we've discussed at previous meetings and not just having the public consultation in the evening, the usual one, but in the
[Page 35]
afternoon having at least two and possibly more focus groups depending on location, it gets a bit more logistically interesting.
[11:15 a.m.]
What the committee has decided is we want to hear from the youth vote. In our discussion last week, we decided that perhaps the most efficient way of doing that would be to issue an invitation to each school board which works out nicely in terms of the locations that the meetings are going to be held, asking them to send probably a male and female student in Grade 11 or 12 to come and participate in a focus group.
Now, one of the things - and I'll speak about focus groups in a minute - is focus groups tend to be small. Some of the school boards actually have upwards of 15 high schools in them, which then becomes a problem because you're looking at 30 people. The other thing which we hadn't discussed but which I'd like some direction on from the committee if possible, I was thinking this week that students at the Nova Scotia Community College campuses also are young adults who would fall certainly within this demographic and, I think, might be as interesting to hear from as the high school students because they're actually of an age where they're out and about and starting to create an adult life and are also ones who are probably not voting. I'd be interested to know whether the committee thinks we should also issue an invitation to each campus, which the downside of course is that again is going to increase the numbers at some of these groups.
The format that we had decided was we would have a youth focus group/forum first between 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. and then we would have a break for about 45 minutes, and then have a second focus group for the second part of the afternoon which would be made up of community members, interested parties, that kind of thing. The focus groups will be by invitation - well, the youth groups will be an invitation to the schools sent through the school boards.
I have a call into the Youth Advisory Council to find out what the protocols are in terms of the invitation process because my experience as a researcher is that it's complicated. When you start involving kids, in terms of this kind of thing, you have to get permissions and it has to go through the right thing, you have to have waivers signed and all the rest of it. Democracy 250 did it, it took a bit of doing, but they managed it and so the protocols are in place. We just have to find out what they are and, of course, we have a bit of a time crunch, so we're going to expedite that as soon as we can.
The first focus group, for instance - if we start in Sydney, we look and we see that there are 11 high schools in Sydney and a Nova Scotia Community College campus, so that's 22 and possibly 24 people. So that becomes a forum and not a focus group at that point - and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that logistically it means having to find a somewhat bigger room perhaps than you would for a focus group. But that's just logistics and it's going
[Page 36]
to hinge in some measure - that's also assuming that we can get participants from all of these schools that are willing to participate.
Before I go and look at the specific groups in terms of the adult groups, one of the things we wanted to ask direction from the committee is in terms of the Acadian school board. Do we want to have a separate focus group for French-speaking youth, or kids who are attending the high schools and that, or do we want to just incorporate them in the locations where there are schools - because, of course, that school board covers the entire province.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm still waiting to hear back from the superintendent of the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial to confirm as to what would be the best format to meet their concerns.
MS. ROMANOW: Okay, we'll take his direction on that. So that would be the only thing as far as the youth goes. So typically every one of the eight public consultation days will have a youth focus group from the various high schools.
One of the things we also discussed was especially here in Halifax with the HRSB, which is a huge board - as we know, there are 15 high schools in the HRSB - is whether we want to break that up into two which is also another thought. Again, we'll need direction from the committee as to how we want to do that.
Now, what I'd like to do very quickly is just go over the list of invitees that I've suggested might be useful as the adult invitees in each of these locations. If the committee has suggestions or alternatives that they think would be better, I'd love to hear them to make the changes as needed.
Basically we're going to send an invitation to each of the 12 RDAs in the province to attend these focus groups. The rationale behind that is they are very connected with the community development and sort of the grassroots business elements in each of these areas. I should preface this by saying in each of these adult focus groups, we've tried to have a balance of all the different constituent types and groups that are in there. Whether it's African Nova Scotian, whether it's business people, community volunteers, seniors' groups, all of those women's groups, anti-poverty, that kind of thing, the ones that the committee had identified as the groups of interest in this discussion.
In Sydney we were looking at the Cape Breton County Economic Development Authority and the group from Whitney Pier, which is not actually the Whitney Pier development association; they call themselves the Whitney Pier Historical Society. That may sound like an odd choice, but the members of the Historical Society actually are very, very involved in all the community activities in Whitney Pier, so the representation from that, I
[Page 37]
think, is important because they will actually be able to speak to the multicultural aspects of that area.
Tina Bernard is a First Nations person who I'm sure is well known to members of the committee. She's involved not just in First Nations issues, but she's also very much involved in community development, as well as women's issues and anti-poverty issues - not just in the First Nations environment but in her area of Cape Breton in general, so we've asked her to attend.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Paula, if I could make a recommendation, being that members are just seeing this list for the first time. Just to be a bit more efficient, if I could recommend that members be given the opportunity to take this back to your caucuses to share with your colleagues to see if there are any organizations that may not have been included that you think would be of interest. Could I also suggest that the subcommittee would meet again in order to finalize this list, rather than go through all of the names today and that just to move - we're going on to two and a half hours here.
MS. ROMANOW: My only request in that though is the invitations for this need to go out in the next two weeks, so if we're going to do that, if we could get the feedback ASAP, that would be terrific.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That being the case I'm assuming all caucuses will be meeting next week, is that correct? Yes. Ours will as well. That being the case, maybe we can schedule a subcommittee meeting for next Thursday and then the subcommittee can . . .
MR. PARKER: We're away next Thursday.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You're away next Thursday? Okay, how about if we do this. If I can ask the subcommittee members to communicate with our staff here at the Committees Office with any additions they would like to see added on that list. So maybe there's not really a need for the subcommittee to meet, but that we would agree by next Wednesday, after caucus, that any additions are to be forwarded to the committee. In fact, I'll ask our staff to send a reminder to all of the members next week, just to make sure it's raised with caucus and that can be forwarded to the committee, so it will be given to Paula at that point.
MR. PARKER: I think that's workable. I was going to ask, though - we talked at our subcommittee, or maybe at the last committee meeting, about riding association presidents. Are they invited to the public sessions in the evening or to the focus groups in the afternoon?
MS. ROMANOW: We discussed that and again, because focus groups need to be small and because the focus groups are very much for the research end of this, we decided, unless the committee would like to set up a separate group for that, we would like to invite the riding association presidents, the presidents of the different Parties, past and present
[Page 38]
members and all the rest of it, will be sent a general invitation to the evening public consultation process, so if they wish to show up and make a presentation there.
MR. PARKER: For example, when we're in Sydney, the nine ridings in Cape Breton then, would they get an invitation from each political Party to be aware of the meeting on the date there?
MS. ROMANOW: Yes, either Sydney or the meeting in Antigonish for Richmond and . . .
MR. BAIN: Inverness and Richmond might go to Antigonish. . .
MS. ROMANOW: Yes, that's what we were thinking, the lower end of Cape Breton go to the Antigonish meeting instead.
MR. PARKER: So they're going to be informed anyway?
MS. ROMANOW: Yes, absolutely, all of them will.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And it would be a general notice that would go out to them, but to make sure they specifically would receive it to make sure they're aware that we'd love to hear from them if they wish to participate, so that's going to be done as well. Again, as was indicated, we'll be sending out the requests to the school boards that each high school within those districts would send us two students, if possible, to be part of the youth focus group that would take place early in the afternoon.
MR. PARKER: I think it was decided we were going to pay mileage for those students who come to the forum.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we indicated that we would provide the option of paying for mileage for those students to travel to see us at that focus group.
MS. ROMANOW: The other thing I wanted to just point out also is that it was suggested we would have a separate focus group for First Nations, a separate one for African Nova Scotians - I'm trying to think of what the third one was - those two groups specifically - oh, and the Acadians, of course, that we would have separate groups for those three groups in particular because those - at least certainly the first two are two of the lowest voter participation groups.
We were planning on doing the First Nations one in Truro and that would be the only focus group other than the youth one in the afternoon, and then the Africa Nova Scotians would be held here in Halifax if the committee is in agreement with that. We also have representations from those groups and some of the other focus groups, especially the African
[Page 39]
Nova Scotian individuals, but we thought it would be good to hear from them separately, because they have concerns as communities which really are very specific to them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The other matter is the actual dates for the committee meetings and we have a draft here for members that would see us starting Monday, October 20th and the last date that's marked there is Thursday, October 30th. I believe there has been some indication that it now looks like the House may be resuming on Thursday, October 30th, so it appears there's only one date that might be in conflict with the House. But it happens that we would be here in Halifax, so hopefully it should not be too much of a logistical problem for us to accommodate that.
There's also the issue of the possibility of having to have a second meeting here in Halifax. If that's the case, then as we move forward we will have to look at scheduling such a meeting. If there are no concerns with that we would be proposing to move forward with establishing these dates as proposed in this draft. So there being no issues there, I think we have lots for our staff to do. Mr. Parker.
MR. PARKER: Do we have a location for each of these meetings or is that still being worked on?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is still being worked on by the staff. Again, that's probably something the subcommittee can look at. It will depend on availability of the locations and facilities that we'll require, both ourselves and Hansard and Legislative Television. The minute we have those specific locations we will make that available to the members.
For the most part, in my 10 years' experience, you can pretty much predict where it's going to be in most communities. It has been at the same location regardless whether it's the Electoral Boundaries Committee or any other select committee, from Workers' Compensation to many of the others, so I don't think there will be too much surprise there. If members have specific suggestions regarding locations in their areas, by all means, please contact our Committees Office staff and make them aware of that. Mr. Dunn.
MR. DUNN: Are we going to suggest what particular grade level or levels with regard to the youth in school?
MS. ROMANOW: Grades 11 and 12, you'd want, I think, the young people who are close to voting age. There have been attempts in other provinces at talking to children as young as Grade 6, but I think in the interests of time, perhaps that's for the future.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Paula. That being it, again, thank you to the committee members, to all of our support staff, and committee staff. We have lots to work on as we prepare, so we'll look forward to hearing back from members if there are any additional names to the proposed focus group lists and if there are issues that
[Page 40]
come up and it's necessary, we can always bring the subcommittee together to deal with those matters.
That being the case, again, thank you everyone for coming and we will be sending out a notice when our next meeting will take place. Thank you.
[The committee adjourned at 11:29 a.m.]
