Evidence of meeting #26 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vouching.
A video is available from Parliament.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I appreciate that, but we don't know if those people also come to the polls to vote and end up being vouched for. That's my point. We don't know who those people are.
7:45 p.m.
Counsel, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
Right, and we're not going to know how many people are going to not vote, and how many people are going to be deterred from voting if this goes through as is.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Okay.
My next question is: do you know how many provinces, territories, and municipalities allow vouching? Have you challenged those that don't?
7:45 p.m.
Director, Fundamental Freedoms Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
I don't know. I'm aware that there are some provinces that don't allow vouching, but I'd have to look at what they do allow. Until recently you didn't have to show identification at all in order to vote federally, so it's only useful to say that there are other systems where they don't allow vouching if we look at what else is allowed.
I appreciate that you said we're speaking from the heart, because I suppose what's frustrating is trying to understand where this concern is coming from. What are we trying to solve? Is there a very real concern that many people are heading to the polls and hoping they can upset the whole system by pretending that they're someone they're not? I have to say that maybe I'm a pragmatist, but I don't think that would be a very effective way to challenge the system.
7:45 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
7:45 p.m.
Director, Fundamental Freedoms Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
When we look at the ways that we're using to ensure the integrity of our voting system, we have to see if the integrity is really at risk in the first place. I haven't seen any evidence that it is.
7:45 p.m.
Counsel, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
Yes, absolutely. I can say that in British Columbia the electoral officer there recently added prescription bottles as another form of identification that people could use. As Cara said—
7:45 p.m.
Counsel, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
Yes. There is no vouching, but they are looking at what else they can put in place.
What this bill is doing is taking something out. I don't see what the bill is proposing to put in place.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Sure. A quick answer, please, as Mr. MacKenzie's time is up.
Mr. Richards is next up.
7:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Canada Without Poverty
First of all, I would say that I'm actually speaking from my heart and my head.
Second of all, I want you to note that there was a federal report from the 2008 election reporting that 500,000 people indicated that they did not vote because of lack of identification as a barrier. That is 500,000.
So when you start taking this together, you realize that this issue of identification is a big one, and it is a barrier. I actually am not so upset to know that a businessman and his wife—
7:45 p.m.
A voice
[Inaudible—Editor]
7:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Canada Without Poverty
No, of course, but just because you saw a businessman.... I work with homeless people and poor people, and I know that they use vouch voting. I know that they use vouch voting—
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
Madam Latendresse, please, you have four minutes.
Mr. MacKenzie had a couple of seconds extra, so I may be kind.
7:45 p.m.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
That's very kind, Mr. Chair.
Since we have two people here who work with the most disadvantaged in our society, the homeless, I'd like to pick up on something. The minister constantly refers to the 39 pieces of identification that can be used for voting purposes. What he doesn't explain, however, is the fact that you need two pieces of identification to vote, one of which has to show your address. He says that soup kitchens or shelters can provide a homeless person with a letter, but the person will still have just one piece of identification, one that doesn't list an address. Basically, if someone doesn't have a piece of identification showing their address, they cannot vote. They could have a health card and not necessarily be able to vote, even with a letter from a shelter.
The idea that a homeless person simply has to get a letter is problematic for another reason. To my mind, those who run homeless shelters have to invest a great deal of energy and resources to accomplish a myriad of tasks, so they don't necessarily have time to prepare a letter for someone so they can go and vote. I, for one, would much prefer that those in charge of shelters focus their energy on helping the homeless.
That really bothers me. I know you are quite familiar with the situation. The government says there isn't a problem, claiming that all these people have to do is get a letter, but the fact of the matter is it's a real problem. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the subject.
7:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canada Without Poverty
You said it yourself. It's not that easy, and I certainly wouldn't disagree. Homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and missions are extremely busy places, seeing hundreds of people. The idea that you can just waltz in and get an attestation letter, as I said earlier, is quite ridiculous.
What worries me in this, and it goes back to Mr. Reid's hypothetical. Even if the woman I described could not have someone vouch for her, I would like to know what Mr. Reid thinks the solution is then. She's not going to end up with ID. She doesn't have ID as a result of this, and if the bill goes through, she doesn't have anyone to vouch for her. So, then what? She just doesn't get to vote. That is the logical conclusion to Mr. Reid's questioning.
I think you raise very important points. What I like to say in my experience of working with poor people and people who are homeless is that people's lives are messy, and a tidy little list doesn't always work for people whose lives are messy.
7:50 p.m.
Counsel, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
I would add one thing to the point about attestations. I think a lot of people often miss that the signature on the attestation has to match up to a list of signatures that are at the polling station. It's not simply that you can ask anybody in the homeless shelter or in the soup kitchen. You have to make sure that person's signature is a verified signature in the collection of the polling officials, so that if you go there with that attestation letter, they can match it against that signature and say this is a valid letter from this union, gospel mission, soup kitchen, or what have you.
7:50 p.m.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
What's more, a homeless person who doesn't have another piece of identification could very well go through all those steps and obtain a valid attestation letter, and still not be able to vote, because they don't have an address. It's a big problem.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Chair, I'm going to share the very beginning of my time with Mr. Reid.
[Inaudible--Editor]...far more generous than Mr. MacKenzie was in returning that time to me.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Anything that Mr. MacKenzie can do, I can do in half the time.
Ms. Farha, I want to get back to the hypothetical example of the woman who's left her abusive husband. In one sense, her problem is the same as anybody who has recently moved. She's at a different address. All her ID is saying something else other than where she is.
But the second problem she has is the one that I struggle with. I hadn't thought of this example until you gave it. She actually does have a place that she's residing; it's the shelter. Those shelters frequently have confidential locations in order to protect a woman from the spouse who is potentially threatening her. In theory, she could get an attestation and vote, but that creates a separate problem for her. This is actually a vexing problem, and I don't think that vouching solves it. I'm not sure what solves it, but it's a problem that's worth thinking about.
That was all I wanted to contribute, and I hope that's okay.