Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

I'm an associate professor of political science and a class of 1965 professor in leadership at the Royal Military College of Canada. I also co-direct the Electoral Integrity Project, which is an international research network that focuses on the quality of elections throughout the electoral cycle.

In this work, I've had the opportunity to study the academic research and perspectives of electoral officials around the world on issues relating to the voting process. This includes what we often call in the academic literature “convenience voting measures”—methods of voting outside of the regular polling place on election day. The idea behind these measures is that they reduce some of the time and cognitive costs of voting for the general population. However, the reality is that convenience voting measures are sometimes less convenient than voting at a polling place on election day. Voting by special ballot here in Canada allows you to vote from the comfort of your own home, but it requires an additional point of interaction with Elections Canada to get a special ballot within a specific time frame, more effort to fill it out by figuring out your candidates to write in, getting the envelopes correct to ensure privacy, and getting it in the post on time.

Across the board, we don't see increases in voter turnout when more convenience measures are used. There's a lot of American research on this, showing that, in some cases, there's no increase in turnout when these measures are applied. Some show no effect at all. Other research has considered who uses these mechanisms and has found that those who take advantage of convenience measures are in population groups that tend to vote already: older, more educated and higher-income voters. My own research in the Canadian context shows the same.

Bill C-65 is designed to increase the actual convenience of these types of voting measures among population groups that are already the most vulnerable to being deterred from voting due to administrative procedures. My colleague Toby James and I would reframe these innovations. They're not “convenience voting measures” but rather “inclusive voting practices”.

We can consider a few examples.

Under the new provisions in this bill, an adult with social anxiety who would not normally go to an unfamiliar polling station could benefit from signing up for a special ballot before a fixed-date election and receiving it when the election rolls around. They could avoid confusion by writing in the party name, rather than the candidate. If they run out of time or change their mind about their preferred voting method, they could reach out to a returning officer to amend their voting method or attend a regular polling station to drop off their ballot.

Consider, for example, a post-secondary student voting for the first time, one who must use a special ballot to vote in their home riding while away at school. Under the new provisions, they would be given additional support through an on-campus voting office to guide them through their first voting experience using that more complicated special voting procedure.

In another example, an individual has recently moved into a care home. They no longer drive and do not readily have identification with their new address on it. Under the new provisions, they could take advantage of a poll at their residence and not need to show identification regarding residence by virtue of the fact that they live at their polling station.

In each of these cases, these individuals could vote without the additional measures proposed in this bill. There are legal ways to sort out these situations, but their circumstances could easily lead them to being dissuaded from even trying. Without additional support, the end effect could be the same as if they weren't able to vote—what we call their “effective disenfranchisement”. Beyond this, research suggests that a voter's experience of elections is impacted by how accessible they find the process. For potential voters who may find the voting process extra burdensome, inclusive voting procedures like these can enhance their sense of inclusion and their ability to meaningfully participate in civic life.

For all voters, the use of convenience measures can lead to a more positive experience of elections, something that has been empirically demonstrated in the American context. This is due to the additional convenience and to a less stressed workforce greeting them at the polls. Having more opportunities available to electors spreads out the burden on administrators, who are already short-staffed on election day. Positive experiences influence future behaviour and opinions about elections in an era in which trust in elections cannot be taken for granted.

For this reason, the inclusive voting procedures proposed in this bill—which may not increase turnout across the board for people like us, who have a stable address and identification readily in our wallets—will have a positive impact on some of the population groups most likely to already feel left out of the voting process. That reason alone makes those provisions worthwhile amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

Thank you.