Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.
I'd like to address the issue of preventing electoral fraud. The assumption that organized electoral fraud happens elsewhere in countries we send Canadian observers to, and not in our Canada, can no longer be assumed. The Neufeld report states that in Etobicoke Centre there was judicial agreement that, despite the presence of irregularities, there was no evidence of fraud or ineligible voters being provided ballots.
I support all the recommendations in the Neufeld report; however, the above statement would have been more accurate if it had added that there are legal limitations to the Canada Elections Act and the Privacy Act that practically limit evidence of fraud from being admissible or proven in court—in fact, they make it impossible. As an example, the table in annex C of the Neufeld report points out that, in statistical analysis of three byelections, the incidence of ballots being handed to people not on the voters' list and no registration certificates being completed occurred in 0.4%, 0.5%, and 3.8% of cases. Yet in the court sampling of 10 polls in Etobicoke Centre, the number was 48.2%, almost 1,000% higher.
I've been an electoral observer overseas and have organized electoral observer missions on behalf of NGOs, Canada, and the OSCE, since 1991. When we have found such patterns of statistical anomalies, we've concluded the likelihood of fraud. However, the Canada Elections Act precludes statistical findings of fraud. The standard is to prove that individual ballots are fraudulent. However, the Canada Elections Act and the Privacy Act prevent us from questioning the voters who cast those ballots, nor could we compel election officials to answer questions—a legal Catch-22.
In June of 2011, after being given an anonymous tip that ballots were being handed out in one poll without IDs being shown, we followed up with a statistical analysis of all Etobicoke Centre polls. We found disturbing results. For example, in poll 31, voter turnout increased by 70%, and the Conservative vote percentage increased by 50%. When poll 31 documents were examined at Elections Canada's secure facility, 20% of all votes were by registration certificate, 1 in 5, whereas the overall Etobicoke Centre and Canadian averages were 5%, or 1 in 20. Of the 86 RCs, a majority turned out not to live in the poll. Towards the end of the Superior Court hearing, Elections Canada tabled emails in which both the DRO and registering officer in poll 31 made contradictory and false statements as to whether non-eligible voters were allowed to vote. Has Elections Canada investigated these officials?
There were significant numbers of other similarly problematic polls. To maintain the public's confidence that those elected by the narrowest of margins are in fact a reflection of the people's will, statistical evidence must be allowable and the legal standard ought to be the balance of probabilities and not beyond the shadow of a doubt.
In addition, I disagree that the office of the commissioner of elections' independence be jeopardized by putting it under the wing of a government department. However, I also believe that an arm's length investigative unit should be foreseen in legislation in cases of serious allegations of administrative failures or fraud against Elections Canada officials. Both investigative bodies must have the powers to subpoena and to compel people to give evidence. I also suggest that there be a legal requirement to bring resolution to cases within a one-year timeframe as opposed to the decisions rendered five or more years after the fact, making them moot, as by then the next federal election has occurred.
In Etobicoke Centre, alleged vote additions occurred in an atmosphere of vote suppression, including the disruption and shutting down of two of the strongest Liberal polls by identified Conservative campaign team members, including the campaign manager. Consequential penalties need to be applied in cases of direct vote suppression. Campaigns whose team members engage in such tactics need to face the penalty of having their candidate's election disallowed. A democracy's foundational social contract is that we all have a voice. Young or old, it's one person, one vote. Rich or homeless, it's one person, one vote. White or aboriginal, it's one person, one vote.
If the rules that provide the framework for the act of voting are overly restrictive, the representative nature of a government is questionable. If rules are not followed by officials due to lack of training and resourcing, we have no confidence in the results. If rules are broken by vote suppression or vote addition, a government's legitimacy is called into question. If the government introduces Bill C-23 without serious amendments, it will have facilitated all of the above.