Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

[William Nothing]

Thank you.

I raise it as a possibility. But in terms of language, we have people who don't have a good handle on the English or the French language, but that doesn't mean they can't read. They read syllabics. They learned to write in their own language. We've had people come from the far north into cities, especially the elders, because there are no old-age homes, so more and more the elderly come to urban centres. When they get into the booth to vote, they can't read the names. It would be very helpful if it were written in syllabics for them.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

That will be noted as a suggestion.

Do I have another minute?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

One minute.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Okay.

The last question would be to anyone on the panel. Do they disagree with the idea of having universal enumeration, as opposed to targeted enumeration? Secondly, do they believe another way of dealing with it, instead of vouching, is a statutory declaration, as they have in B.C.? I'll submit this to the committee later. That's very simple. It says that the person, wherever they're situated, whatever city, is a Canadian citizen of a certain age--18 years of age or older--and they simply sign and declare, make a statutory declaration, that they are who they are to get a ballot, as opposed to what we have.

The idea here, Mr. Chair, is universal enumeration first, and after that a mechanism for a declaration. It could be specific to the poll as well, given concerns about duplication. I haven't shown this to anyone, including people here, but do you think that method would make sense and would be a little more streamlined and understood? You wouldn't have someone vouching, but you'd have a statutory declaration. Obviously the language concerns would have to be addressed. Do you see any problems with that process?

[Rob Hepburn]

Universal enumeration, absolutely. We're not quite at universal suffrage yet; 16- and 17-year-olds still aren't allowed to vote, but it's important for those who are allowed to vote to access that right.

In terms of a statutory declaration, it's similar to the oath, but then the issue arises of a person voting more than once, going to different locations, because their name is not on the list anywhere. I don't know whether the purple thumb in Afghanistan would work here in Canada, but that's an idea.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I want everybody to have a chance to answer that, but we are well over on this round. We do have some extra time. I'll offer the witnesses a short answer to Mr. Dewar's question.

[Mary-Martha Hale]

I would comment that the statutory declaration would be quite helpful to the homeless population.

[Barbara Carroll]

I agree. I think it could move the process forward in a simpler way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Nothing.

[William Nothing]

In our case, our people have status cards. There are three versions floating around. One is an old one with no expiry date. We have one now that has a picture and an expiry date. I know the government is working on a multi-purpose card. Maybe for us that's the way to go. It's also a health card, a status card, and a passport. They're talking about incorporating all these things in one card.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

I have two people for our third round. It doesn't look as if we're going to need another round after this, because it seems we're running out of questions. I appreciate that of colleagues.

Mr. Proulx, five minutes please, and then Mr. Preston.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've got a question for Mr. Nothing. I'm sure that, as you've mentioned before, you have voted in past elections. Among members of your community, some have voted, some have not voted. What would you recommend to the committee? What procedures should be used in your particular community? Let's not talk at large, though--your community. What would be the most efficient way to have your people vote and at the same time protect against fraudulent methods of voting? And by that I mean one voter, one vote--not one voter, vote as often as you want, but one voter, one vote.

As Mr. Guimond was saying a while ago, for the homeless, I'm in the same situation. Our party wants, whether they be homeless, whether they be in your community, whether they be students, to find a reasonable control to make sure that everybody who has the right to vote could vote. So would you please tell me how, in your own community, we could get everybody who wants to vote to be able to vote without any fraudulent practices?

[William Nothing]

One of the tools that may be used is a registry. There's a registration of every member from that community who is registered under what they call the Indian registry. You could cross-check the registry with people in the know, the chief and the council, since they—if you want to use the term—call the shots in the community. They know all the members. If people work with the leadership to identify a process, I think that's the way to go.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Do you think there is a possibility that this could be done in a fair way, without partisanship? The danger that watches us is that if one individual or a group of individuals can control a community.... How many residents are in your community? How many people?

[William Nothing]

About 300.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

About 300.

The danger, of course, is that we must keep away from partisanship so that we don't end up in a community of 300 having 450 votes. So we have to have a certain system. And what you're saying is that the system should go through the leadership of your community.

[William Nothing]

Yes.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I'm curious about this, and I don't know the answer. Does the Canadian government have a register, an up-to-date register, of all members of your community, for example?

[William Nothing]

My answer would be not necessarily, especially if people have left or moved off reserve and all their extended families have not necessarily done the paperwork to provide the information.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I see.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Nothing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Merci.

Next on the list is Mr. Preston, please, five minutes.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

As we've been talking about today, the job of this committee with Bill C-31 is to establish how we do it.

Mr. Dewar has brought it forward a couple of times, and I'll say it again, there are two pieces to this. There's an accurate list of electors, who people are and where they live. That process needs to be refined. We recognize that where we currently stand is not what it needs to be. So some motions have been put forward by my friend to help in areas where we see it being the absolute worst--the homeless, students, and some other areas. We think, across the country, the electors list needs to be brought to a higher standard.

Once the electors list is brought to that standard, then we still need to identify who is showing up at the polls. That's where the identification shows up. You've hit us today with some very good ideas as to how we might do it.

Ms. Carroll, you're right: your professional credentials are on the line if you are vouching for people and doing this for some fraudulent reason. We have heard, as a committee, about alleged fraud, serial vouching, in past elections, where someone shows up at the poll with 40 people and says that these are people from my street. They get to vote. Under the current election laws, that is absolutely accurate. They can.

I'm not saying that it was fraudulent, because the electors list was in such a bad way. It may certainly have been somebody vouching for everybody on their street, or somebody from their student residence vouching for everybody on their floor.

You mentioned a way to do it, but how do we not get to the point I just mentioned? I recognize, in your personal case, you're saying your credentials would be on the line. But we're trying to prevent fraud. If someone was out there intentionally trying to do it, your way still wouldn't do it for me.

[Barbara Carroll]

I think you'd have to accept that if somebody is very determined--

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Well, of course.

[Barbara Carroll]

--to be fraudulent, you're going to have to have recourse to the Government of Canada and the law to alter things like that.

I would suggest that certainly in most cities and with students, there are recognized bodies. One of the great successes of Anglican services in Ottawa is their willingness to work with Elections Canada over a period of time in taking best knowledge and best practices. If you were to ask in this city--and this may not be replicable in all cities--there are coalitions of service providers.

That may be the best way I could respond to your question. Work with recognized organizations that do not have a vested interest from a partisan perspective. I think you will find they exist. I think they have great knowledge to share. And I think, then, what you will get is something that is workable for Elections Canada and also will resonate with people who are trying to get this piece--