PROC Committee Report

Many Canadians have expressed concern about the potential for fraud and misrepresentation in voting. Members of the Committee share this concern. While we have no means of knowing how widespread this problem is, the fact that it exists undermines the integrity of the electoral process. To an extent, the concern stems from the unreliability of the Register of Electors, and the lack of confidence that many of us have in the permanent voters list.

At present, there is no requirement that voters show any identification before being able to vote, so long as their names are on the list. In our society, most important activities require that an individual be able to furnish some form of proper identification, often with a photograph. In the case of voting, we do not believe that it would be unreasonable to impose a similar requirement. Moreover, it would bring home to voters the seriousness and public importance of what they are about to do: exercise a valued and fundamental democratic right.

We note that requiring identification at the polls is intended to establish three things: that persons are who they claim to be; that they live at an address that entitles them to vote at the polling station; and that they are Canadian citizens. No one piece of identification is likely to provide all of this information. The absence of a requirement for any form of identification before being allowed to vote, however, is unacceptable. Moreover, the fact that no identification is required means that many election officials are hesitant to request or demand proof of identity. Making such a requirement the norm will address this problem. It will also help deter people who are not eligible to vote and prevent mistakes and misunderstandings.

We would propose that:

1. Potential voters be required to provide one piece of government-issued identification with a photograph and residential address before being allowed to vote.
2. If an elector does not have photo identification, he or she should be required to provide two pieces of acceptable identification to establish his or her identity and residence. (In such cases, it has also been proposed that the prospective elector should be asked for his or her date of birth, which can be checked against the official list of electors for the purpose of validating the identity of the elector before a panel established for the purpose of verifying voting eligibility.)
3. If a prospective voter does not have two acceptable pieces of identification, he or she would be required to swear an oath as to his or her identity. In addition, a person who has already qualified to vote would be required to vouch for the prospective elector.
4. Concerns were expressed that in the case of electors without identification, there should be a random verification process after the election. There should be severe sanctions for people who falsely take an oath or vouch.

Traditionally, Canada has tried to make voting as easy as possible, but if confidence in the system is undermined, it becomes necessary to make changes. Obviously, it is not our intention to impose any measures that would discourage voting, nor do we want to make voting more difficult than necessary. The credibility and legitimacy of the system, however, require that procedures be adopted to ensure that only those persons who are entitled to vote do so, and that they are who they say they are. This is essential to preserve the integrity in the electoral system.

The Committee’s concerns about adequate proof of identification and residency, and proof of a person’s eligibility to vote were shared by the witnesses who appeared before the Committee and who made written submissions. All of the parties currently represented in the House of Commons support a more effective method of ensuring voter identification, including photo identification, with alternatives available for persons who are unable to furnish the required identification. The Committee wishes to make it clear that voter information cards should not entitle a person to cast a ballot. This was never the intent of these cards, although, in practice, they appear to often be used for this purpose. Given the problems with how they are delivered or disposed of, this must be clarified. Members of the Committee are also disturbed that voters seem to be able to use magazine subscription labels and utility bills to establish their identity. Although such documents may be useful in establishing one’s address, they are no substitute for adequate identification.

The model of the Québec legislation was suggested. Québec requires that voters must provide their name, address and, if asked, their date of birth. They must also produce, as identification, one of a driver’s licence, a health insurance card, a Canadian passport or another document that has been issued by a government body (Elections Act (Québec), section 337). If an elector cannot produce the required identification, in order to vote he or she must report to an identity verification panel and provide a sworn statement along with either two alternative pieces of identification or have another voter who has produced the required identification vouch for him or her (Elections Act (Québec), section 335.2).

In order to deter fraud, and to reinforce the integrity of the electoral process, Members of the Committee believe that signs should be posted at all polling stations warning of the offences and punishments under the Canada Elections Act for voting unlawfully. The Chief Electoral Officer indicated that signs are already posted regarding eligibility to vote, but that these could be amended to include warnings about the consequences for violating the voting eligibility rules in the Canada Elections Act.

The Committee further recommends that warning signs be well-displayed in both official languages as well as any other language that may be widely used in a given poll or electoral district.

The adequacy and integrity of the voter information cards was an issue that generated considerable discussion during the Committee’s study. There were reports, for example, of bundles of voter information cards in apartment buildings and other multiple-residence buildings being left out in the open where anyone could take them. To the extent that these were the result of the actions of mail carriers, we would urge Elections Canada as a priority to take steps to resolve this matter with Canada Post. There are also indications that, in many cases, these cards were discarded by the addressees. The potential for abuse is obviously rife. The Chief Electoral Officer acknowledged this as a problem in the text accompanying his Recommendation 2.7: “Voter information cards (VICs) sent to some addresses — often apartment buildings in areas with a large turnover of residents — are sometimes discarded near the mailboxes of the building. Some electors who are not interested in voting may also discard their VICs. This situation may raise concerns that the discarded VICs will be used by others, fraudulently, to vote under the name of the card's addressee.”

During his appearance before the Committee on June 13, 2006, the Chief Electoral Officer proposed sending out voter information cards in envelopes. This would presumably mean that the name and address of the voter would not appear on the card itself. Members of the Committee are not convinced that this solution is satisfactory.

As the intent of the card is to inform the person living at a particular address where he or she is supposed to vote, some Members think that the cards should be mailed by first class post to the “occupant” of all addresses. The disadvantage of this is that many people disregard non-personalized mail, and such a practice would not allow voters to know whether they were on the voters list.

As noted in the section above, we wish to make it clear that voter information cards do not entitle a person to cast a ballot, although, in practice, they seem to serve that purpose. Given the problems with how they are delivered or disposed of, this entire issue must be addressed as a priority.

Concerns were expressed about the high number of election day registrations, particularly in certain ridings. The representative of the Liberal Party noted that in the last election 55,000 individuals registered at advance polls and 795,000 at regular polls. By his calculation, this is an average of 2,700 voters per riding, although, in fact, the election day registration was not evenly distributed across the country. The result of these voters’ names not appearing on election lists is that the spending limits imposed on political candidates and parties were understated, in addition to the inability of candidates to communicate with or identify electors. At our meeting on June 13, 2006, the Chief Electoral Officer agreed with a suggestion that an audit should be undertaken in the riding of Trinity–Spadina, where there were approximately 10,000 voters who registered on voting day. Mr. Kingsley also agreed to table the results of this audit with the Committee.

The large number of election day registrations reinforces serious questions as to why so many voters are not on the National Register of Electors or, if they are, why their names do not appear on the voters lists.

The practice known as “serial vouching” was also drawn to our attention. This occurs when one person who is eligible to vote and whose name appears on the voters list vouches for a person whose name does not appear on the list; the voter who has been vouched for can, in turn, vouch for the next person, and so on. It is our hope that the implementation of the recommendations in this report will minimize the need for vouching. In any event, we expect Elections Canada to develop guidelines and policies for preventing such practices in the future.

There a number of concerns about the location, accessibility, and adequacy of polling stations.

• First, Members noted that access for the disabled is lacking in some polling stations. According to Completing the Cycle of Electoral Reforms, in the 2004 general election, only 45 (0.2 percent) of the 18,807 polling stations lacked level access, although anecdotal evidence would place the number higher.
• Second, there were concerns as well about the distance that voters must travel in some ridings to access polling stations, and particular problems in the far north were drawn to our attention.
• Third, it was noted that some institutions that normally host polling stations in convenient and accessible locations, such as schools, have revoked permission, often with little advance notice, on the basis of safety and security concerns. This raises the broader question of the obligation of public authorities generally to make their properties available to establish polling stations, and what penalties should be imposed for withdrawing permission.

Members also expressed concern about the filming of party leaders and candidates as they cast their ballots on election day. The general rule is that no media is permitted inside polling stations, but this appears to be applied inconsistently, given that some media have been permitted to enter polling stations. During his appearance before the Committee on June 13, 2006, the Chief Electoral Officer assured the Committee that he would take steps so that the rules concerning media coverage are applied uniformly at all polling stations.

Currently, political parties have to rely on their own election volunteers and staff to periodically update the voters list to keep track of who has voted on election day. This process is cumbersome and puts a strain on the parties’ resources. At present, some ridings seem to have different practices. All the parties currently represented in the House of Commons support a system whereby staff at polls would make available copies of voters lists showing who has voted to candidates’ representatives at regular intervals. The Chief Electoral Officer was uncertain as to whether this practice is authorized by the Canada Elections Act. The Committee recommends an amendment to the Act, if such is required, to permit this method of updating voting lists on polling day.

It was noted by some of the witnesses before the Committee that there is uncertainty over the powers of candidate representatives at the polls. It was noted, for instance, that while the Canada Elections Act provides that they may demand identification from potential voters whose identity and eligibility is reasonably in doubt, Elections Canada has taken the contrary position. Its view is that candidate representatives can only ask election officials to demand identification. Ultimately, it is at the discretion of the official whether to accede to the request. There have also been reports of election officials at the polls threatening the expulsion of candidate representatives who assert a right to challenge a potential voter. This issue would be less likely to arise if our recommendations for requiring identification are adopted. In any event, the rights and roles of candidate representatives in this regard should be clarified.

As is apparent from the above discussion, the accuracy of electoral lists and the integrity and accuracy of the National Register of Electors were issues of great concern to both the Committee and the political parties that appeared before the Committee. The idea of conducting periodic door-to-door enumerations to refresh the National Register of Electors generated some interest among members of the Committee. Door-to-door enumeration was replaced by the National Register of Electors in 1997. While considered highly accurate, enumeration is very labour intensive and requires a longer election period. It is also subject to other difficulties including: recruiting enumerators, finding potential voters at home, reluctance on the part of residents to answer the door in the evenings, and safety concerns.

Some Members believe that consideration should be given to conducting a door-to-door enumeration periodically — e.g. in connection with every third federal general election, or every 10 years. The costs of an enumeration today would be in the neighbourhood of $85 million. This figure is based on the cost of the last enumeration ($71.4 million), conducted prior to the 36th general election in 1997 to compile the National Register of Electors, escalated for inflation.

Some parties have recommended more targeted revision efforts by the Chief Electoral Officer as a means to addressing some of the defects in the Register. The Chief Electoral Officer favours targeted enumerations to supplement the information in the National Register of Electors, and has said that he will consider proposing legislative amendments in the fall for the Committee to consider.

Another proposal that the Committee believes is worth pursuing is that Elections Canada make arrangements to obtain information that is collected by Statistics Canada during decennial or quinquennial censuses. One drawback to this proposal is that, according to the Privacy Commissioner in her letter to the Committee of June 15, 2006, the census data may not include comprehensive citizenship information. She noted that in the 2006 census, citizenship information was not collected on the short questionnaire, which most residences would have received. We would urge Elections Canada and Statistics Canada to work closely to try to ensure that their respective needs are jointly met.

The Chief Electoral Officer’s report Completing the Cycle of Electoral Reforms, focused on matters that are not related to political financing reforms. The party and electoral financing provisions of the Canada Elections Act were significantly changed by Bill C–24, which came into effect on January 1, 2004 as S.C. 2003, c. 19. That bill included section 536.1, which provides:

After the submission to the House of Commons of a report under section 535 in relation to the first general election following the coming into force of this section, any committee of that House to which the report is referred shall, in addition to considering the report, consider the effects of the provisions of this Act concerning political financing that came into force on the same day as this section.

The Chief Electoral Officer has indicated that he will be tabling a report on the electoral financing provisions of the Canada Elections Act. The Committee awaits this report. Several of the proposals from Members and parties related to these sections of the Act:

• Membership Fees and Tax Credits
• Tax Receipts for Pre-Election Contributions
• Minimum Age for Making Political Contributions
• Exclusion of Certain Services as Contributions
• Limits on Leadership Campaign Spending
• Transfer of Candidates Debts
• Elimination of Threshold for Quarterly Allowance for Parties.

We believe that these issues would best be dealt with in the context of the overall electoral finance issues. We intend to return to these upon receipt of the Chief Electoral Officer’s report.

As mentioned at the beginning, members of the Committee believe that a more comprehensive review of the Canada Elections Act needs to be undertaken, and we intend to do so at an early opportunity.