Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 16th, 2018

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

No, not in the electoral district, but for the polling stations.... As we were saying earlier, the election officers at the polling station will have the list of all polling divisions that come under that station, but they wouldn't have ready access to the list of all the electoral districts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I would imagine that there are polling places in rural Canada that do not have Internet connections.

Stephanie, go ahead.

[Stephanie Kusie]

I want to bring up our alternative solution, as outlined in CPC-32, which we feel would more appropriately address this. It would be for care home electors and residences....

[A voice]

It's later.

[Stephanie Kusie]

I know it's later on, but I'm saying.... It's not a different topic, because it's an alternative to the vouching.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

There are four different amendments related to seniors homes that we'll be discussing, which is a very narrow, specific case. It's a good topic, for sure.

[Stephanie Kusie]

I'll leave it for now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Genuis is next, and then Mr. Cullen.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, this may be outside of the scope, but I wanted to follow up on a comment Ms. May made, because it may relate to other amendments. She was saying that the problem has never been about people voting more than once. I don't know that it is a problem, but just for the sake of argument, how would we be able to say definitively that it isn't a problem?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. Let's not get off on too much of a tangent here.

We'll go to Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

We've asked that question many times: Is voter fraud, people voting multiple times, a problem? We've asked that at the federal and provincial levels, and the evidence has come back overwhelmingly that voter fraud is not a problem in Canada. They do an audit at the end of every election.

That's why the fears around some of the changes that are being proposed in this bill are unwarranted, I would argue. There just isn't broad-scale multiple voting or fraudulent voting going on in Canada. That's one of the things that Elections Canada has to audit about the election: Are people voting in a valid way?

Again, let's come back to our witnesses. Somebody walks in.... I think we have to say that within an electoral district where there are multiple polling stations in a gym, the ability to verify that somebody who is also from that voting district is a qualified voter, to vouch for somebody at a different table, absolutely exists. I think it would be incorrect to say that they can't verify that the person who is also voting in that district is that person. Therefore, once they're verified, they can vouch for the next person over. That's a scenario that exists. Your second scenario, where they're spread apart.... I believe Elections Canada does have Internet as a requirement.

I guess it's about your orientation. Are we trying to help this person vote, or are we setting up a barrier, as Ruby talked about earlier? Folks coming forward without an ID who have secured somebody who is going to come with them and vouch have made an effort. I think we need to have a compensatory effort on our side to say that unless we fear that this is going to be abused or be a problem, or that people are going to cheat on elections somehow, we should be open to something that still requires verification of the voter before they can vouch for somebody else. If that means the returning officer has to make a phone call one district over or down the road, they're still in the same voting district. I just don't see that as a huge mountain to climb.

Let's say I have somebody in front of me. She says she's valid, her name is Ruby—not Dhalla—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

—and she would like to vouch for David. With a small confirmation, that can happen. Now we have somebody who's had an experience where we've tried to help them vote, as opposed to saying that because of this technicality the person they brought with them.... People don't know this. As Elizabeth says, people don't know which proper polling station they're at. They just have their card and they go in and try. This just seems to be about the orientation of our effort. We've been trying, within reason, to be oriented toward helping people vote, as opposed to finding reasons for them not to vote.

Again, this does not apply to a great number of Canadians. If they've made that effort, I think we should meet them halfway. That's what this amendment tries to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Bittle, go ahead.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank Mr. Cullen for the amendment. My opposition isn't a philosophical one. It becomes a practical one in terms of the actual lists that are there. Perhaps this is something that needs to be revisited when the digital poll books come into effect in the election after next.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Again, I'm talking practically. If somebody comes into the polling station and says, “This is my voucher, but they're not at this box”, the practical heavy lifting is the returning officer saying, “I'm going to need to validate this. Where do you vote?” They tell you where and you phone over, or walk over if you're in a gym with a bunch of boxes, and you validate the person on the list. I hear you that it would get easier, but it's not anywhere close to cumbersome right now.

Again, we just have to imagine the scenario where someone has brought their care provider or social worker or whomever, somebody who can vouch for them and knows them, and we say, “We understand you're trying to vote. We understand you're tying to exercise your right. But we deem it to be just a little too cumbersome, so please leave.” They're not coming back, guys. You know that, right, after they go through that experience? They have their social worker with them. They say, “Hey, I'd like to vote in this election. I have an opinion.” They go through the thing. They wait in line. We say, “Yes, you're probably you. That person beside you is probably a voter. But we're not going to bother verifying them. Please exit the polling station.” There's no chance those folks are coming back.

We set people off on a pattern here, and then we ask why people don't vote. Well, it's because sometimes we tell them not to—for what are, I would argue, more technical reasons than philosophical ones, as Chris said.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

In order to comply, can it be changed here? We just heard that at the electoral division they do have the whole list. Instead of “electoral district”, the “polling division”—

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

You want it at the “polling station”.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Yes.

That still widens it from—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Does it? I think that's the status quo, isn't it?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

The smallest geographical area in the electoral law is the polling division. Then, under Bill C-76, several polling divisions will be regrouped into one single polling station. Above that, geographically, we have the advance polling district, and above that there is the electoral district as a whole.

This motion, NDP-8, proposes to extend it to the largest electoral geographical unit, which is the electoral district.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Your suggested amendment, Ruby, is to take it to—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

It's the polling station.

That's what you would be able to comply with, at this point. Is that correct?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

The list of electors will be available for the polling station, yes.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Right.

That still makes it larger than what we have had. It makes it a little bit better.