Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 2nd, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

He doesn't get a chance to answer now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Well, you're well past your time. Hopefully, if you would like Mr. Quail to answer the question, he might answer it under someone else's questioning.

We'll go to Mr. Lukiwski for four minutes.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thanks.

I have one question for each of you and limited time.

Mr. Quail, you're in Vancouver. We've heard a lot of testimony about people saying that homeless people and those who are severely disadvantaged would be penalized by this bill, if we eliminated vouching. Vouching has been quite a hot button topic here.

I guess my question to you, because I honestly don't know the answer to it, is this. If you were a homeless person anywhere, whether it be in east Vancouver or not, that would imply that you're homeless because you don't have friends, relatives, or anybody else with whom you can live. How would somebody vouch for a homeless person? You have to vouch that you—

[James Quail]

Well, that's one of the real problems with vouching. It's a very serious shortcoming of vouching, you're absolutely right. It's an even larger problem with restrictions on vouching that were put in place in the last round of amendments, whereby you can only be vouched for by somebody who resides not just in the same constituency but in the same little polling division that you're in.

This makes it very difficult, because someone who's truly homeless may not have anyone who is qualified to vouch for them. People who know them—for example, who work at social service agencies—likely live in another part of town; they don't live in the Downtown Eastside. So you're absolutely right, and that is one of the inadequacies of vouching.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you.

With the limited time I have left, Madame Lenard.... I only want to point this out, because this is not a Canadian statistic, but I just found this news story. Since you were saying that there have really been no statistics that have found evidence of fraud in Canada—although I don't know how one would find fraud, quite frankly.... If someone has voted illegally, I don't know how you would find that out, because people who do so usually have a way of concealing the fact that they are voting illegally.

But in the United States—I just noticed this article—North Carolina found tens of thousands of people whom they believe to have voted illegally, including between 40 and 50 who apparently cast a ballot when they were dead. Now, I'm not sure whether we have a completely different system in Canada from what they have in the United States, but I would suggest to you that there are documented instances—and in some cases they're very large-scale—of electoral fraud.

So my question to you is: how would one know in Canada, if someone has committed voter fraud?

Let me give you an example. It has been in the news recently that there was a reporter who registered three different times at three different polling stations, voted once legally, then spoiled the ballot in the other two, and then wrote a story about it. He was ultimately prosecuted, but the only reason he was prosecuted was that he brought to the attention of Elections Canada the fact that he had voted three times. Elections Canada would not have been able to find out otherwise.

So I am wondering how you can say with certainty that voter fraud has not occurred and does not occur in Canada.

[Prof. Patti Tamara Lenard]

Well, I certainly didn't say that.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

There is no evidence of it, you said.

[Prof. Patti Tamara Lenard]

I said there was no evidence of it.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean it does not occur, does it?

[Prof. Patti Tamara Lenard]

In the absence of evidence, why would you change policy to protect against something that appears to be imaginary?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I suppose just because we haven't proven something, you're saying we shouldn't put in safeguards to make sure it doesn't happen. I don't think I can accept that.

[Prof. Patti Tamara Lenard]

I'm saying that the system, as it exists, hasn't thrown up evidence of significant fraud, and the absence of evidence—

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

So, if there were evidence, then would you say that perhaps the safeguards we're putting up are legitimate?

[Prof. Patti Tamara Lenard]

I would say, if there were evidence of the kind of fraud you report in some news story in North Carolina.... So the answer of how you discover fraud is presumably however they discovered it in North Carolina, so that's the answer to your question. I don't know what happened in North Carolina.

But there are two questions. One is whether there is really fraud. There's certainly not fraud. All of the documents we're talking about, the Neufeld report, the Supreme Court decision, have concluded—

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

How can you say there's no fraud when you said—

[Prof. Patti Tamara Lenard]

—that the irregularities.... There's been extensive investigation into types of irregularities, and the irregularities in the Canadian electoral system are mainly of the record-keeping variety. That's what's been discovered already.

There may be, in the future, evidence of fraud, but at present, the research that has been done by Canadian experts has not thrown that up. That's point one.

Point two is that in the case of one or two or three instances of people voting when they ought not to have, you have to have another conversation, which is to ask what are the harms of the legislation you are proposing. What harms will it generate in relation to the benefits you are proposing it will save us from? If we are going to protect ourselves from three fraudulent voters, the harm is not worth it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

We will move to Madam Latendresse for four minutes, please.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses.

I'd like to continue more or less along the same lines. Investigations did, in fact, reveal evidence of fraud. In 2011, for instance, fraudulent calls were made.

The Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Canada Elections and many other elections experts have said they need some very specific tools in order to properly examine this type of fraud. Among other things, they need the authority to compel witnesses to testify and to request receipts from political parties when they file claims and receive public money. Those are just some of the things they are asking for.

The commissioner and Elections Canada need many more powers than they currently have. And no such measures are in the bill. What is in the bill is the transfer of the commissioner to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the reason is rather arcane. It appears to be more of a smoke and mirrors exercise than anything else.

Could you please comment on that and on the fraud cases before us? They did actually happen, although the Conservatives prefer to think of them as imaginary.

In your view, should the bill include measures like the ones I just mentioned?

[Prof. Patti Tamara Lenard]

Basically, I'm going to say that I don't have the expertise to answer your question, but I agree with the thrust of the question, which is to say that certainly there's been evidence of wrongdoing, which amounts to fraud, in other aspects of the electoral system. But that is, unfortunately, not my area of expertise, so all I can do is agree with you and hope you find an expert to corroborate your view.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

There have been many, actually. The overall sentiment is anger. The experts aren't happy that the bill doesn't include such measures, measures that have been sought for years and recommended in various reports by the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner. They are also angry that the people trying to prevent fraud lack the tools they need to do just that in the future. These are the people who know the system best. They should have been consulted on what changes needed to be made to the Elections Canada Act. That didn't happen, however.

Lastly, I can't wrap my head around the fact that the proposed changes to the Elections Canada Act aimed at rectifying the problem are actually measures that will prevent some people from voting. I can't see how taking away some people's right to vote bears any relation to fixing what happened.

[Prof. Patti Tamara Lenard]

I agree.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Quail, did you have something to add?

[James Quail]

Yes, I would use a stronger word than “fraud” to describe what was reported in the last election, and that word is “subversion”, in fact.

I would also like to comment that we have been blessed in Canada with some really excellent people filling the post of Chief Electoral Officer. In my opinion, from my dealings with them and my knowledge of them, Mr. Kingsley and Mr. Mayrand are both public servants of the very highest calibre. I certainly think that whoever is filling that post should be given whatever authority they need to really do the job and protect our democracy.

On the other side of the question of fraud, I think the point needs to be made that the voter identification requirements don't really address the question of any deliberate fraud. First of all, the identity documents don't require you to prove that you're entitled to vote. There is no requirement—and it's probably a good thing—that you have to prove that you're a citizen of Canada. Every adult citizen of Canada is eligible to vote.

If I wanted to vote fraudulently under the current rules, without vouching, I would be able to print off a form of lease on my computer and get my neighbour to sign it, go to the local library to get a library card, and go to vote. That is the system that is supposed to be safeguarding us and ensuring public confidence in the integrity of our electoral system; as opposed to, for example, requiring me, if I don't have the ID, to go to swear a declaration, knowing that I could go to jail if it's a false one, and I'm leaving a document behind that can be identified and investigated. I flash my lease and I show you my library card, and I put them back in my pocket; I vote.

If you want to look at a situation where there is no way of really determining fraud.... Those are the rules we have now, as a matter of fact.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Thank you, Madame Latendresse.

Mr. Reid, you have four minutes, please.