Before going to Mr. Kingsley, I just want to respond to something that Craig Scott said regarding the current Chief Electoral Officer's suggestion that parties should get out of getting election day officers out there.
I disagree with that suggestion, and I want to say why. The DRO and the poll clerk at each poll are appointed by the first and second parties in that riding from the last election. Their job traditionally was to be the first line of defence against fraud by the other party. They essentially cancelled each other out.
It is difficult to find people for those positions, I grant that, and it's getting harder as time goes on, but they do serve as a useful check. In ridings where there is reason to be afraid that someone might want to resort to monkey business, they serve as a very effective protection. I think it's important to keep that. I say this as someone who initiated the measure that caused the returning officers for ridings to no longer be a partisan appointment, to become an appointment made by the Chief Electoral Officer. So as someone who tried to get parties out of that role, I think that getting them out of the DRO and poll clerk roles would be a bad idea.
Going back to the vouching issue, Mr. Kingsley, I just wanted to ask about your suggestion relating to how vouching would be done. You made the following suggestion, which I'll quote. I'm going to ask you to expand on it if you could. You said, “Amending the vouching provisions to require that the requisite oath also be given in writing”—right now, I gather, it's verbally—“will address the concerns which have been raised respecting vouching.”
Could I ask you to expand upon what you're getting at and also on some of the practicalities involved in asking people to fill out a written oath, presumably on-site, with a busy election official?