Evidence of meeting #124 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was election.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
10:10 a.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Sure. Essentially, this amendment is reverting to the status quo of no vouching, but with the attestation as to residence, as seen under the Fair Elections Act.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We had scenarios in the last election like the one in my constituency where an elector was coming in to a polling station with their aunt conducting their ID—not having ID and not being able to vote. Their cousin was the one who brought them in to the polling station. Clearly their identity was secure, but nobody could vouch for them.
This applies in many communities, but where I live it particularly hits first nations Canadians, some of the more rural and remote places, and some of the folks who are lower-income. They literally know everybody in the polling station and are related to half of them, and they can't vote.
With the relatively recent history of enfranchisement for indigenous Canadians, the shame of going into a polling station and being rejected is almost a guarantee that the person will never come back again, especially for older indigenous Canadians who maybe in their own lifetime—certainly in their parents' lifetimes—achieved the right to vote in the first place.
This was fought for three years here by a predecessor of mine from Skeena, actually, if we go back to our parliamentary history. Frank Howard filibustered for three years, every Friday, attempting to coerce the government into allowing voting for all Canadians. My point is that this was not easily achieved. Anything that would send a signal to push it back, when clearly nobody is fraudulently casting a vote....
In rural Canada, it's just nonsensical to tell people from your family, people you've known for decades, “I know you but you cannot vote” and send them back out the door. It's humiliating.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
We're ready for the vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That also applies to CPC-33 on page 57.
Now we can go on to CPC-31. It seems to be a reduced version of the previous one.
10:15 a.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Yes, this is like the consolation prize. It's allowing a vouching of identity, established with one piece of ID. I'm not really feeling the will for it around the room, but I don't think I need to say any more, Chair. We can probably go to the vote.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
We are ready to vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
We now have NDP-8. Just so you know, NDP-8 also applies to NDP-9 on page 67, NDP-11 on page 78, NDP-16 on page 114, and NDP-26 on page 352. It's to replace “electors for the same polling division” with “electors for the same electoral district”.
Mr. Cullen, go ahead.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We just think this is common sense. We just talked about vouching. We have circumstances in which the rules, if I'm understanding them right.... Our witnesses can correct me if I'm wrong. They have to be from within that same boundary; if they're not, they can't vouch. They can still be voters. They can still be verified. Why not allow them to vouch, especially if—again, not in our constituencies, Chair, but in ones that are much closer together—they can be friends who live in the neighbourhood, or one neighbourhood over? They're obviously citizens and can be verified as voters, so why not allow them to vouch for somebody who has come in?
It just seems like a strange discretion for us to say that you have to be within that very specific neighbourhood, when it can be one neighbourhood over, just as qualified. Oftentimes, again, with low-income folks, if they have a nursing aide or a careworker who is going to be doing the vouching for them, the chances of their living in the same part of Montreal, in the exact same district, are low to zero. If they're qualified to vouch, why not allow them to vouch for the person? If we believe in it as a principle, why not extend it?
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
From what I remember, there are actually polling divisions where the street is divided down the middle.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You could have neighbours across the street from each other.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
They cannot vouch because they're in the wrong one.
As I read it again—and officials can correct me if I'm wrong—I think it's just a bit too arbitrary for us. If you believe in the principle, then it should be extended.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
I believe in the principle you're trying to get at, but I guess, logistically speaking, each polling division only has a list of electors for that polling division. In terms of still having veracity in the system, how would you verify who the voucher is if they're not on the list of electors already? I just feel like it's maybe a little too loose.
10:15 a.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The specific question is about the ability to verify the person coming in and vouching.
10:15 a.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
The list of electors will now be prepared for the polling station, which could include more than one polling division.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Right. That's the scenario we've just described. We come in. We have 10 stations established within one polling place. Somebody lives across the street where they can be verified because they're in the same room. They're on the list one over. But we say that you can't vouch for this person because they're at polling box one and you're at polling box three. You can't vouch.
Again, I don't imagine this happening an enormous amount, but still, the act of somebody wanting to be able to validate somebody on the list seems like a reasonable one. If they can be verified, which I understand they can, then what's the difference being across the street from somebody?
10:20 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I appreciate, Mr. Chair, the chance to speak to support Nathan's amendment.
The reality is that people in real life don't necessarily know that they're living in the same district or have the same MP. They're voting in the same election but they're not necessarily in the same polling area. Certainly, Elections Canada officials have access to the database. They may not have a printed list in front of them of every elector in every poll, but they have access electronically to a voters list, and they can verify very quickly. I really hope we'll consider this amendment, and I hope the Liberals will vote for it.
This whole notion of carefully scrutinizing voters is new. It wasn't until 2007, I believe, that the Elections Act was changed to require a photo ID. This is a solution that's worse than the non-problem it addresses.
The problem in Canada has never been that people vote more than once; the problem in Canada is that people vote less than once. We need to do everything possible so that when someone comes to a polling station with the intent of vouching, and they have their ID and they live nearby but might not be in the same polling station, they're not turned away.
Thank you.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
I just want to confirm with the witnesses. You suggested that every polling station in the country has access to a list of all the electors in that electoral district.
