Report on Royal Commission on Electoral Reform 1979 Introduction The British Columbia Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination on the basis of such factors as a person's race, sex, place of origin, ancestry, as well as handicap or criminal conviction unless reasonable cause exists. The purpose of the legislation is to promote and protect basic human rights for the individual. The right of equality of opportunity is as much a cornerstone of our democracy as the fundamental right of voting. We appreciate the fact that the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, 1978 has undertaken the enormous task of reviewing all aspects of the voting process and after study and deliberation has provided recommendations for a new Elections Act for British Columbia. However, concerns over certain of the proposals have been expressed to the Human Rights Branch in terms of the B.C. Human Rights Code. We wish to take the opportunity to express these concerns to you and to request that they be given consideration. Persons Who Are Patients in a Provincial Mental Health Facility, Observation Unit or Psychiatric Unit as Defined in the Mental Health Act Concern has been expressed to the Branch that anyone who "is a patient in a Provincial mental health facility, observation unit or psychiatric unit as defined in the Mental Health Act" will be disqualified from being registered as an elector. The concern is that this broad prohibition unreasonably discriminates against those who may suffer from some mental or emotional disorder or handicap. An individual may be suffering from depression, stress or anxiety and seek psychiatric counselling to overcome this problem. Some people voluntarily commit themselves to institutions such as the Eric Martin Institute for help in some area. The fact that people may be undergoing counselling or treatment for a specific problem does not mean that they are incapable of exercising their democratic right to vote nor does it seem fair to automatically disenfranchise them. This automatic disenfranchisement reinforces the prejudice and stigma that exists in our society towards persons with a mental or emotional problem. This denial of a basic democratic right implies that they are non-citizens with no competency in any area and have nothing to offer society. Such, we are sure you will agree, is not the case at all. If group homes, which allow mentally retarded or disadvantaged individuals to live more normal lives, are considered "provincial mental health facilities", then these people will also apparently be denied their voting privileges. Again there is no reason to assume that people who live in group homes or halfway houses are incapable of exercising their democratic rights. "Mentally ill" or "mentally handicapped" are terms used to categorize groups of people whose abilities may vary considerably and yet they are a group which has suffered much from prejudice and gross discrimination because of the ignorance of "normal" people. More and more, however, mental patients are demanding more awareness and understanding of their problems and recognition of their rights and humanity. Depriving persons of the vote because they happen to have a mental or emotional problem tells that person they are rejected form the most fundamental right of a citizen. This discrimination is one more way of denying that person’s dignity and equality and is certainly detrimental to their self-respect and status in society. Volume III of the Royal Commission Report on page 201 suggests that "every person who is restrained of his liberty of movement or deprived of the management of his property by reason of mental disease" be disqualified from registration to vote. This indicates that only those who, after due process, have been officially and objectively judged to be mentally incapacitated of managing their affair are excluded from the vote. This proposal would appear to require that disqualification be considered on an individual basis having regard to a full medical assessment of the individual’s total mental capacities and would lessen the chances of a blanket exclusion of those who, not withstanding a mental problem, may be competent to vote. Mail-In Vote In order to eliminate practical barriers that prevent handicapped persons from exercising their right to vote, we recommend that consideration be given to allowing a mail-in vote for those unable to leave their residence. In this way the needs of handicapped persons would be accommodated in a convenient manner, just as the absentee vote accommodates persons who are absent from their home area at election time. It would cause fewer problems in meeting the needs of the handicapped than does a proxy vote since, in a group home of five to six people, for example, it might be difficult to get five or six proxies. Native Born and Naturalized Canadians The proposed legislation in the Commission’s report makes no distinction between native born or naturalized Canadians. It is, of course, unfair and unreasonable to discriminate against one group of citizens, as does the present Elections Act, when requiring proof of citizenship and we applaud the removal of this archaic requirement. We understand that the Registrar must have the discretion to require proof of eligibility of an individual whom he/she may suspect as being ineligible. However, we urge that the regulations pertaining to this discretion make it clear that naturalization per se will not be considered grounds for requiring proof of citizenship. Persons Undergoing Punishment as an Inmate in Any Prison or Lockup for the Commission of an Offence, or Who Have Been Deprived of Their Liberty While Awaiting Appeal or Sentencing The Commission notes the severely restricted franchise in other provinces with regard to inmates of penal institutions and recommends that the B.C. Elections Act be made more restrictive so as to disqualify from voting "every person undergoing punishment as an inmate in any prison or lockup for the commission of any offence, or who has been deprived of his liberty while awaiting appeal or sentencing." One may question the philosophy of automatically excluding everyone, regardless of the nature of the offence, from voting. The B.C. Human Rights Code is unique in Canada in protecting persons with a criminal record from discrimination, unless the conviction is related to the matter at hand. We can be proud as a province that our government has enacted legislation to protect offenders from unreasonable and unjust discrimination. All too often an offender finds that in addition to the judgement of the court, he or she continues to be subjected again and again to further punishment in a variety of ways. The principle that the Human Rights Code puts forward is that the person with a conviction has been properly and duly sentenced by the courts, that they have paid the price and that they should not be considered as non-persons without any rights. The yardstick that the Code puts forward is whether the conviction relates to the question at hand. If it does, then it is reasonable to deny the person what is in question. If the conviction does not relate, then it is unreasonable and the denial is discriminatory. Disqualifying those who offences related to the voting process—e.g., bribery, personation, or treason—is reasonable, as the offences are obviously relevant. However, it is not clear why someone serving a sentence for an impaired driving charge or for petty theft is deprived of the right to vote in addition to the deprivation of liberty. The judicial process in our country considers the evidence, make a judgement, and imposes a punishment deemed appropriate for the offence. It is not within the tradition of justice to sanction punishment for the same crime twice. The debt society extracts for a crime should not be more than the court imposes. It is even less fair to deprive of his/her vote an individual who has not yet been finally judged guilty and is awaiting completion of the appeal process, or the person whose sentence has not yet been imposed when that sentence may not even be incarceration but something else considered suitable. To the notion that it would be difficult to register a prison population, we respectfully suggest that there may be no other group in society easier to enumerate—where else would they be when the enumerator calls around? We note that the above recommendations reflect only those specific concerns which have been brought to the Human Rights Branch. While there may be other areas which also require review, we respectfully request consideration of these proposals before enaction of the final legislation.