Evidence of meeting #32 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was person.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Lawyer, As an Individual
Absolutely. That's already the process we're utilizing in order for us to be comfortable swearing the statutory declaration for that person.
There are two groups of people. There are people who have some kind of identification, but it wouldn't be sufficient to go to the polls. Then there's another group who have no identification whatsoever. What you're suggesting would be of great assistance to the people who have no identification whatsoever.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Exactly. At the same time, I do agree that each citizen has the right to vote, but the question that is raised here is, what's stopping people from going to two different polls?
I've been told, for example, that you have people going in to vote--they have nothing to do with the homeless there--ordinary people, knowing their neighbours don't vote, simply walking out and walking back in to vote. That's one of the situations they face, and it seems to me that there have been no charges against anybody. You said it yourself. Mr. Kingsley said he has nothing on record that proves that any fraud has been done, but it seems to me that some people think there's fraud all across the country.
I don't know if you could talk to us, for example, about the students in university. We have people who have left their homes to go to university. Close to the election they have not been registered in the poll where they are. They probably have identification, but they have moved just before the election and then they are excluded from voting.
12:40 p.m.
Lawyer, As an Individual
I can speak to the first group. When a person takes their statutory declaration into the polling station, it's actually taken away from them; they don't have the ability to take their statutory declaration from poll to poll to poll. It's taken away from them, and it has their address specifically on it. Even if they were to somehow make a copy of it--I don't know how they would because it has our official notary seal on it--it would have their address and they would be turned away from a polling station if they didn't have the correct address for that polling station.
12:40 p.m.
Executive Director, British Columbia Public Interest Advocacy Centre
The address issue is a very serious problem, because people move a lot in this country, and students are an example. A lot of other groups do too--people who are tenants--so even if they have a driver's licence and a passport, it may well not have the correct address. Then they'd have a problem, and I guess they would have to go through the vouching rigamarole. Again, anything that can be done to make that a more flexible option is going to be of assistance. But for groups like students, I think there's potentially a very large-scale problem.
12:40 p.m.
Executive Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
One other point. Remember, we all fill in our own address on a passport. As I read the legislation, the passport doesn't have the address actually written into it by the government, per se, so there's a real question mark about whether the passport would in actual fact be an adequate piece of ID.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Going back to the witness at the poll, where you're proposing that one witness is for one voter, how do you feel about it? Personally, I have a problem with that. I think if I know three persons, I should be able to say that I recognize those three persons. If I know five persons, what's taking from me the ability to recognize five persons?
12:40 p.m.
Executive Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
I think that's absolutely right. The vouching restriction of one voter, one voucher is just going to cause a really serious problem. So I'd urge the committee to look at that, at expanding that as a solution as well.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you very much. We'll move to round two, ladies and gentlemen.
Mr. Bagnell, you're up first.
We are going to stay with five minutes because of the three witnesses. But please indulge me a bit. We might go over time a bit, but I think that's acceptable.
Mr. Bagnell, please.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Some of you have been cut off in your responses because of our time, so I'm just going to use my time to let each of you say anything you haven't had a chance to say yet in response to the other inquiries.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you.
Let's start with Mr. Quail first this time and then move in the opposite direction.
12:45 p.m.
Executive Director, British Columbia Public Interest Advocacy Centre
I think Ms. Bradford has a fair amount, so I'll be brief and give her an opportunity to say a little more.
With regard to the point that's just been made, softening some of the restrictions so you might still achieve some of the objectives you want would I think be a very worthwhile thing to look at. And the issue of the number of voters that someone can vouch for, I suggest, doesn't really make sense in terms of the objectives of the amendments, and it is a very serious obstacle. We could have the option, for example, in the downtown eastside of having--I think I earlier gave the example--someone who works in the local community centre who might know two or three dozen people quite well, who sees them every day. People there use centres like that a lot because they don't have other facilities; they don't have homes that have comfortable facilities. I can't think of any reason why that person wouldn't be able to vouch for three dozen voters, if that's the case. You would still achieve the objectives you're seeking, but it would at least assist significantly in making sure that people who are citizens get to vote on election day.
12:45 p.m.
Executive Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
I think you need a multi-solution here. One would be a statutory declaration as a primary piece of identification. Another would be providing the authority for election officials within a polling station to take an oath, and indeed take the oath without vouching. But if you're going to insist on vouching, you're going to have to expand the vouching system considerably, as Mr. Quail has referred to.
12:45 p.m.
Lawyer, As an Individual
I just have one brief point. We've talked a lot about the downtown eastside and this centre of poverty. But this is of course not limited to that one particular area. As the statutory declaration program has become more well known, I've been contacted by a number of other ridings in Vancouver who have set up their own stations in areas of concern. So I don't want the committee to think that this is just limited to one particular area in Canada. You can take this problem and carry it over quite a number of areas throughout B.C. and in fact all of Canada.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you.
That was quite a short round.
It's unusual for me to do this, but I'm going to ask for clarification on one thing; that is, on this statutory declaration. I'm not a lawyer. My background is not law. But I did hear one of the witnesses--I'm not sure which one--suggest that in the statutory declaration sometimes we ask you to go through your pockets, and you might have a prescription or something like that. I'm confused that this would be a significant or a reliable source of information, given a previous statement by one of the witnesses that oftentimes items are stolen on a regular basis. It makes sense to me that whatever is in that person's pocket would decrease the significance of the reliability of that source of information, making the whole idea of a statutory declaration in question. Did I mishear any of the witnesses on that point?
12:45 p.m.
Lawyer, As an Individual
I'll speak first to this and anyone else can jump in.
As a commissioner for taking statutory declarations, I am not required to be a detective, to be 100% sure that this person is who they say they are. However, I have to feel comfortable in taking the oath from that person. When I go through the statutory declaration, I need to have something that makes me feel comfortable that this person is who they say they are. Once I get to that state, then I explain to them the potential repercussions to them for failing to tell the truth to me. I ask them, are they a Canadian citizen, are they over 18 years of age, and is there any reason why they shouldn't be eligible to vote under the Elections Act? Just as if they were in court, swearing to tell the truth, we make them go through that process. So it's not something that people take lightly.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Okay. Thank you very much for clarifying that. It's not usual that the chairman gets a chance to ask a question, so I certainly appreciate that.
Mr. Preston, five minutes, please.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Oh, good, the chairman's time didn't come off mine.
You've mentioned that some people have no idea whatsoever and some have a partial idea. What percentages are we dealing with here?
12:45 p.m.
Lawyer, As an Individual
I would say that probably a third of the individuals, approximately 100 to 125 people, in each of the last two elections have had no identification whatsoever. The remainder, a couple of hundred people, have or can come up with something; it wouldn't be enough to get them through the polling station on its own, but it is enough for us to be comfortable swearing the statutory declaration.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
It's a clue to identity, and with the statutory declaration, we figure we can get far enough.
I admire what you're doing and I understand what you're doing, and it certainly does allow people not to be disenfranchised, but I guess I'm asking you to see it from our side. Does the method you're asking us to adopt have a barrier to stop intentional fraud? I say it does not.
12:50 p.m.
Executive Director, British Columbia Public Interest Advocacy Centre
I'd suggest it would be very difficult to totally eliminate the possibility of fraud in this context without having very draconian measures. I don't think that even the amendments in the legislation, necessarily.... If someone is determined to vote twice, fraudulently, they probably can find a way to do it. But I—
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
But then the case of them doing it may stand out more.
12:50 p.m.
Executive Director, British Columbia Public Interest Advocacy Centre
I'd suggest that the issue, given the concern you've got, is what is a sufficient impediment to minimize the amount of fraud that might take place? I think that is probably what the question is going to be. So how onerous do you have to make it in order to discourage fraud to the point where we feel comfortable? In a democratic society, in a free society, you allow people to misbehave to some extent.
I'd suggest this goes much further than would be required. For example, you might contemplate how many people are going to swear a declaration and risk criminal prosecution in order maybe to get away with casting a second ballot. Are we really talking about a substantial number of people? That's a significant change—