Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 30th, 2014

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Obviously, that provision is the “knowing the elector personally” provision. The effect of this would be that the official opposition would be satisfied to leave that in if it were a normative standard that can't be enforced through prosecution.

It's important for everybody to know that this is not a barren legal beast. The law has lots of examples where norms are enforced in different ways. It doesn't make them less legal and legally binding.

In fact, any oath system tends to be like that. It relies ultimately on the honour of the person swearing because it is so rare that somebody actually is prosecuted for breaching oaths.

This one is just making it super clear so as to prevent this disincentive for people to even vouch because they worry that they leave themselves open to jeopardy because of how subjective and abstract the idea is of knowing the elector personally. I probably don't have to explain any more. That's what it's trying to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Did you say you had more than one?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I do, but if this doesn't pass, then I'm simply going to move to delete the line.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's have a recorded vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

We're back to G-5.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

I'll be very brief as opposed to my colleague Mr. Christopherson. I won't play up to the cameras, but I will point out a couple of things that he tries to continuously—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Not helpful, gentlemen.

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

One is that the NDP position, let's be quiet clear, is that they are in favour of people with absolutely no identification being able to vote. That is simply not the intent of this bill, nor will it ever be.

In fact, even though he tries to characterize the government's amendment G-5 as being a monumental climb down, I would point out to him that 87% of Canadians polled agree with us, that you should have some form of identification before you're able to vote.

This continued discussion and the continued mischaracterization that all Canadians agree with the NDP and the opposition's position on vouching is absolutely inaccurate. They disagree and they disagree greatly. So let's get that out on the table, Mr. Chair.

Also, what we are attempting to achieve with this amendment is not a form of vouching, because vouching merely means you can vote without identification. You have to have ID. Everybody who votes in an election, once the fair elections act is adopted, will have to show some sort of identification, pure and simple, as opposed to the NDP's position, where no ID is needed.

Now David, I know you want to try to get camera time again, but it's my turn to speak. I ask you for your consideration.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

All right then, I'll give you free rein. I didn't take shots at you personally.

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

Again, David, I know you want the camera time. You had 12 minutes before. Now it's my turn.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Come on, you can come up with better lines than that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Gentlemen.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Is that the best you've got, schoolyard stuff?

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

Mr. Chair, the NDP was absolutely, absolutely thrown off their game when they saw that Ipsos Reid poll that shows 87% of the people believe in our position. They do not believe that Canadians should be allowed to vote without producing any identification. That is what Canadians feel. This reflects that, because now to be able to vote, even if you can't prove residency or you don't have identification for residency, you can do it by signing a note and having a co-signer sign a note that testifies they know this person, they know where this person lives. That is what Canadians want to see, and that's what's reflected in Bill C-23.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Richards.

Let's try to bring this to somewhere near the end sometime in our lifetimes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Chair, I'll try to be brief as well. Mr. Lukiwski made some of the comments I wanted to make.

Certainly there's no question, despite the claims of the opposition, this is not something that is simply held by the Prime Minister or even his caucus, but this is something that 87% of Canadians believe is very reasonable, that someone show identification to prove who they are in order to vote. They claim to have concerns about some of the points in this particular amendment when we talk about knowing the elector personally. I want to be clear that what we're talking about here is the ability for someone to prove who they are, and then for various reasons—it may be that a box number is what's on their ID, or other reasons—be able to attest to their residence. What we're doing here is obviously an amendment that would allow for a sort of double oath, a co-sign of an oath, where they're signing an oath attesting that they are in fact qualified to vote and that they do live at the residence that they say they do. They would find, of course, another qualified elector who has voted with the proper identification to co-sign that oath with them.—of course, the penalties are made quite clear and are significant—so that Canadians can be confident that the person is actually residing where they are claiming to reside and the co-signer of their oath confirms that.

The one concern that was brought forward by the opposition was the idea that somehow an oath...the fact that one of the conditions was knowing the elector personally. They seem to have some concerns about that.

I might turn to our experts and ask them some questions. I'll sort of ask a series and they can respond at the end.

Obviously, the taking of an oath is a fairly well-known and common practice within our society. This is something that's done quite commonly when signing legal documents, when someone is served a legal document, for example. I know I've personally witnessed this practice. It's very common. One of the things you're attesting to when you sign an oath is that you do in fact know the person personally. That's a fairly commonly known thing within society. Usually, when we talk about legal documents where you're signing an oath, one of the things is that the person is of the full age of 18 so they are qualified to sign a document. That's one of the things here. Of course, that would apply in the case of an election as well. Obviously, to be qualified to be an elector, they would have to be of the full age of 18 or older.

In this amendment there are a couple of things that are quite germane to co-signing the oath of the person. One is obviously knowing them personally. The other one is knowing that they reside in the polling division, because that's obviously what they're signing the oath to attest to, that they know the person, that they know they are a resident in the poll.

In terms of dealing with the oath itself, I would ask first if you could confirm for me that it is a fairly common practice and is fairly well known within law what an oath entails and what it means, and that the provision of knowing the person personally is something that is quite clearly understood in law. Could you confirm to me what the penalties are for falsely signing that oath?

I would point out as well that government amendment G-6, which talks about the new subsection 143.1(1) and talks about the fact that the oath itself would be in this provision, indicates, much like the current section 143.1 in the act—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You said government amendment G-6. Do you mean G-5?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

No, I'm actually skipping ahead for the purposes of—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You're talking about the next one. Okay, I just wanted to make sure.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for clarifying that, but I am skipping ahead to that simply because it would obviously indicate that if it was passed, what it says is that when the person is signing the oath, the person working at the polling station would orally advise the oath taker of the qualifications for electors, and then it goes on to talk about the penalties. Obviously, when it talks about knowing someone personally—although it is quite clearly known in law what that means—it would obviously also indicate that the person, because they're saying that they're aware of the qualifications in order to vote, is going to be indicating that they know the person well enough in order to know that they are qualified to be an elector, so they would obviously know that they're of the age of 18, that they're a citizen, that they meet all the qualifications in order to vote.

I've asked a series of questions with some explanation, but what I really wanted to know in regard to the signing of an oath—something that is quite common in society, and the idea of knowing someone personally when you're signing that oath is something that's fairly well established and commonly known—is what the penalties are for falsely signing an oath.

Third, when we look at government amendment G-6, talking about the fact that they're explaining what the qualifications for electors are, it would obviously indicate that when they're signing it they're of the full knowledge that this person is in fact qualified to be an elector. That would be what they would essentially mean to know them personally. Would that be accurate?

[Natasha Kim, Director, Democratic Reform, Privy Council Office]

We'll try to answer some of those questions in order.

If you look at government amendment G-5, subparagraph (b) that's being proposed, it essentially says that they are attesting to the elector's residence on oath in writing in the prescribed form and then sets out some elements that have to be part of that prescribed form, so essentially, part of what you're swearing an oath to. Then it sets out those elements, one of which is that they know the elector personally. Essentially, it's saying that they're swearing that they know the elector personally, as well as where they live, which is essentially the purpose of what that attestation is for.

Then the offence for a false oath is set out later in the act. In terms of the taking of oaths, while I wouldn't say it's quite common in the act you do see it multiple times in terms of how it's used to prove something. That offence already exists in the Canada Elections Act as it is now and the punishments that fall for it are being increased under the fair elections act.

The maximum punishments would be, it can be proceeded with on either a summary conviction or indictment. For a summary conviction the maximum punishment would be $20,000 in fines as well as imprisonment of not more than one year. If there's conviction on indictment, which is a very serious criminal offence, it would be a fine of not more than $50,000 and imprisonment of a term of not more than five years or both.

In terms of a false oath, in order to prosecute something like that, the person would have to have knowingly signed that false oath. They would have knowingly felt that they did not know that elector personally. They would have known that elector did not reside where they were attesting to that they resided. It's a threshold that would have to be met.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you.

Yes, I think it's quite clear that knowing someone in this case would be obviously knowing that they're in fact qualified to be an elector. You know them well enough to know that they're 18 years of age, know them well enough to know they're in fact a citizen and they're qualified to vote.

Obviously, it also indicates that they're qualified to vote because they do reside in the polling division that you're saying they reside in. They've also signed to attest to that themselves, so it's a co-signing thing.

With this amendment, essentially what we're doing is we're ensuring the principle, which the vast majority of Canadians obviously quite strongly believe in, that you must prove who you are. This is where the NDP is completely out of step with the vast majority of Canadians without question in taking the position that they do, that you shouldn't have to prove who you are in order to vote. Of Canadians, 87% have been quite clear they expect that. That's still expected under this act with this amendment.

What is allowed, of course, is for you to co-sign. It's quite clear that someone would know the person personally and know they reside in the polling station or division and that they're qualified to vote. That is, in fact, what would be happening here.

I think this is something that obviously has the full support of Canadians. I would ask the NDP to come along with what Canadians expect and support those Canadians who expect that. It's a very reasonable expectation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Richards.

I had no one on my speaking list. I now have Mr. Scott.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move the follow-up amendment, but I also think it's important, for clarity, to know that when Mr. Lukiwski refers to the Ipsos Reid poll that said that 86% of the people believe that you—

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

It's 87%.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Well, the one I have says 86%, but I'll give it to you. Eighty-seven per cent say that you must have ID to vote. In fact, the question asked—and 86% agreed—was whether “requiring voters to personally prove who they are and where they live is essential”. That was the concept they were asked about. It's a very different thing from ID. Vouching is one method of proving who you are.

The same poll said that 52% agree that the elimination of vouching will “unfairly take the vote away from people like students and the poor”. So it's absolutely impossible for the people—