Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is a national, non-partisan, non-profit organization based in Vancouver. My statement will focus on the BCCLA's main concern with this bill, the removal of vouching.
A constitutional challenge to the voter ID laws that came into force in 2007 is currently before the courts. The Henry case has been heard by the B.C. Supreme Court and the B.C. Court of Appeal. Both courts found that the voter ID laws are on their face a violation of the right to vote protected by section 3 of the charter. Both courts ultimately upheld the voter ID laws, finding that they were justifiable. On Monday an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was filed in this Henry case.
The BCCLA believes that these voter ID laws are an unjustifiable violation of the charter. They seek to address a single speculative concern, voter impersonation at the polls, at far too great a cost: the disenfranchisement of Canada's most vulnerable and marginalized citizens. Removing vouching further makes these voter ID laws unconstitutional and ripe for a charter challenge. In his defence of voter ID laws in the Henry case, the Attorney General of Canada argued that vouching is a fail-safe in the legislation, because it allows eligible electors, without the requisite types of ID, to cast a ballot.
Much has been made about the 39 forms of ID acceptable to prove voter eligibility. I ask this committee to look critically at that list of IDs. While these forms of ID may indeed be largely available to a majority of suburban voters, these are not viable forms of ID for many Canadians, including many of the people on whose behalf the BCCLA acts. A homeless citizen on the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, for instance, does not have a pension plan statement. He or she does not have utility bills, or vehicle ownership insurance, or a residential lease, or an income tax assessment. It strains credulity to believe that these 39 forms of ID are an answer to the disenfranchisement that will result from this bill.
Before 2007 statutory declarations were permitted as a form of eligible identification. Hundreds of voters on the Downtown Eastside swore statutory declarations establishing their right to vote. Demand for statutory declarations was actually on the increase. Amendments in 2007 eliminated those statutory declarations and put in place the limited voting system that we have now and that is at risk.
Of the prescribed forms of secondary ID, perhaps one, a letter from a shelter or a soup kitchen, may be within reach for some of these people, but all too many of our citizens are unsheltered. Theft of identity documentation is a huge problem among homeless populations in urban cities. Getting and keeping current documentation is expensive and difficult for those with no fixed address. Where such identity documentation does exist, it will very rarely prove the individual's current address, as is required by the law.
Everyone agrees that we need to encourage and increase voter turnout, and everyone also seems to agree that we need to reduce irregularities in the voting process. The disagreement comes when we turn to how to do this. The proposed measures to reduce irregularities will disproportionately and materially impact many of our most vulnerable and marginalized citizens. This bill seeks to reduce irregularities by effectively disenfranchising those voters.
In a free and democratic society, the right to vote cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience. Moreover, the underlying premise that if we get rid of vouching we will get rid of irregularities and therefore remove fraud is wholly mistaken. At best voter ID laws can only ever get at the risk of one form of fraud: in-person voter impersonation at the polling station. Irregularities in how the polls operate, even serious irregularities, are not proof positive of voter fraud. All other options for reducing irregularities must be considered before we take one large step backwards to disenfranchise voters.
This bill takes as its starting point an impoverished view of the integrity of Canadian citizens in exercising their most fundamental political right. The bill presumes voter impersonation fraud where there is no evidence of that happening. It subverts the underlying purpose of the legislation, which is to foster the exercise of the franchise. It will do little to enhance public confidence. Instead, it will effectively nullify the political participation of the most marginalized and vulnerable in our society.
In the BCCLA's view, that is the real threat to the integrity of our political system.
Thank you.