Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of introductory words on the National Pensioners Federation.
We are into our 70th year now. We are the only seniors' democratic organization that holds an open and democratic convention annually with delegates from across the country. I would appreciate that folks take note of our various networks and provincial clubs, and even local clubs, that we have, and our 250 affiliates and over a million members.
Not least, I would like to also mention that seniors vote and we're watching the progress of this bill carefully for reasons I'll get into.
Basically I am here to specifically mention seven different issues in the bill. I know you're very familiar with the comments already out there from 160 academics and 19 international experts, which have been well publicized in the media previously. But I want to touch on seven issues. I'll do each briefly here in the five minutes.
First of all, the issue of vouching in polling stations, I would put at number one. Realistically, although I'm here speaking on behalf of seniors, this has already been identified as a major issue with youth, students, and first nations, but I'll leave it to my friend opposite to comment on behalf of first nations.
The disenfranchisement of voters is a serious issue in Canadian electoral history. We didn't fight wars to erode democratic institutions and values. We fought them to preserve them and enhance them. On a personal note, my father marched through northern Europe in 1944 and 1945 until injured in an artillery bombardment in the Netherlands. Anyway, that is not what they were fighting for, to see institutions eroded, but enough of that editorial comment.
On to my second point of voter identification cards. Please keep them. Seniors are used to using them, used to seeing them in the mailbox, and used to using them at the polling stations. It is rare, if at all, that you would find a senior going in with a fraudulent voting card. Again, there lacks evidence that this is a problem.
As for witnesses to be compelled to give testimony, we would argue for an amendment to the legislation, the re-inclusion to compel witnesses to testify as is the case in some provincial jurisdictions. We can look to the sad example of Guelph in the last election, which is still being investigated to some degree and is before the courts with respect to at least one individual.
Again, there we have I believe a campaign manager, who has refused to testify, legally allowed to do so under existing legislation and this is maintained under this bill. I seriously ask on behalf of seniors everywhere: what is the motive for providing cover for those who potentially may be aware of, or have evidence of, wrongdoing in our electoral process? What is the motive? That is a question I leave with you.
I am up to number four. Clause 44, poll supervisors to be, in essence, an appointment under partisan mechanisms. We would strongly recommend that, again, the proper values in our electoral system be the appointment by returning officers by way of merit not partisan connections. I think this cuts across all party lines. You can certainly find overzealous folks, I know I have in the past, in polling stations.
I was going to get into it later. I've been a campaign manager at the federal constituency level on previous occasions, but maybe more on that later.
I would also add that there is some latitude in the legislation to excuse documentation of all electoral campaign expenses. We fail to understand that for a government elected on accountability. Perceptions of superiority would be involved in not calling for full accounting methods of documentation for electoral expenses. We would seriously question the motives for not covering that end of it.
A couple more points on Elections Canada. On the commissioner, we would ask that he remain an independent servant under Canada's election laws, not be moved over to the Director of Public Prosecutions' office and reporting to a cabinet minister.
Lastly, the seventh point is that Elections Canada should be freely at latitude to promote electoral participation, voter turnout, democracy, and whatever, within its proper full mandate to have full and meaningful elections in Canada, that it not be restricted in any way from promoting democracy or advertising mechanisms of voter turnout. This is simply un-Canadian.
If I've used up my five minutes, I'll stop there. If not, I'll continue. I've covered the seven issues. I have more to say but maybe in the questions they'll come up.