open Secondary menu

Returning Officers Post-Mortem Sessions 41st General Election

5 – Accessibility and Voter Information Card (VIC) as ID

5.1 – Accessibility

Accessibility Training Delivery

Most ROs expressed that the training sessions on accessibility were fun, and the message was loud and clear. The booklet and online accessibility modules were great and the case study was useful. Some ROs specified that during training, accessibility and human rights worked really well together. It was also mentioned that the regional meeting was useful as it set the context and hinted at the upcoming workload. On the other hand, some ROs mentioned that the training was overkill – too much information in too little time. They suggest reviewing the timing, that this all came too late and caused a lot of stress for them. Finally, it was suggested that the booklets be updated and more detailed.

Accessibility Verification Visit to Polling Locations

ROs found the accessibility verification visit to the polling locations during the week prior to polling day very useful and helpful in mitigating any potential problems. Some ROs mentioned that it made the deputy returning officer (DRO) and the central poll supervisor (CPS) more responsible and conscious of accessibility issues. Most ROs agreed that the timeframe was too short. It could have been done a little sooner to give the landlord time to fix any problems, and it should have been made into a pre-event task. ROs also suggest that the verification be done by the RO, and not the CPS.

Availability of level access in some communities was limited, and it poses a problem with "reasonable" location. It was identified that there was not always enough space to build a ramp according to the building code, and that many owners will not renovate their building, or the building was accessible but the street and/or parking lot was gravel. It is important to verify the site before the lease is signed, but some ROs felt that sometimes getting access to the site was difficult. In rural settings, the RO often has to rely on town administrators to determine accessibility because they cannot visit all the sites. ROs do suggest that where possible, the same team be sent out to check the facilities. Pre-event accessibility tasks should be done within the same year as the event, it should include a documented formal floor plan of each site, and the RO must visit each site to verify accessibility.

Accessibility – Verification Logs

For the most part, accessibility issues raised at the advance polls were corrected for ordinary polling day. However, in some cases, ROs had trouble correcting problems because the CPS did not give the log to the RO; it is important to talk to the CPS to make sure that they are providing the RO with information on all the issues, not just the ones on the log.

Accessibility – Feedback Process

Most ROs feel they were provided with more than enough supplies, feedback forms and feedback boxes for the Accessibility Feedback process. They even say there were too many forms, and too many copies of the manual. They do not feel they need a new feedback box every day, but they do need more signs, and a different variety; for example signs that you may peel and stick in windows.

Data entry into the Incidents, Complaints Breach Monitoring System (ICBMS)

Some ROs were able to use available staff to do the data entry of the accessibility feedback forms into ICBMS immediately following the advance polls and polling day. Some ROs, say they were not able to, because ICBMS was too complicated to navigate. The majority of ROs commented that most feedback on the feedback forms was not related to accessibility. There were complaints regarding new sites, long waits, etc. The forms not related to accessibility should be put aside, and EC should send instructions to that effect.

Follow-up with electors requesting feedback

When it comes to follow-up with electors requesting feedback from EC, most ROs mention that they did it themselves, and in some cases they delegated the task to the ARO.

5.2 – VIC as proof of address

Determining polling locations

Some ROs mentioned that there were no problems determining polling locations, since it was a pre-event task. Other ROs found it was problematic when other electors came to vote in seniors’ residences. It seemed to be a problem also in the North where there were large aboriginal communities or in areas with electors living across the street from reserves and wanting to use the VIC as ID since they received the pamphlet in schools.

The Use of CRO and Targeted Revision Agent

Using community relations officers and the targeted revision agents to inform electors was an effective communication strategy, mostly with seniors. Some ROs mentioned that it was not an effective strategy with youth or aboriginals, and they felt they still had problems with the general population showing up with the VIC as ID.

Three Target Groups

Using the VIC as proof of address was useful for seniors, especially in rural areas. Administrators in the seniors’ residences were very grateful for this initiative. Some ROs say it worked well with Aboriginal electors, other say it did not work so well. In the far North specifically, it does not work with Aboriginals due to geographic dispersion. In the NWT, often homes do not have a physical number, some reserves get their mail at a PO Box, and these pose challenges. Finally, source data for First Nations is low, so the VICs are hard to produce. For some ROs it worked well for students, for others it was hard to tell, as it was the end of the year and most students were gone. Some ROs mentioned that using the VIC as proof of residence makes things go much faster at the polls. Finally, some ROs suggest that if we are going to use the VIC as proof of residence, then it should be done across the board.