Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 13th, 2006

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

That is right, sir. They can ask the deputy returning officer to require it, but the deputy returning officer has to make his or her decision as to whether or not it is appropriate and required to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

In the event that the deputy returning officer decides to ask for proof of identity, what are the forms? It's a sworn oath. The committee has heard of cases where voters are using magazine subscriptions, or magazines with their addresses on them. We've heard that the voter information card is used as a voter identification card. What means are available to the deputy returning officer to not only prove the individual is that individual, but that the individual in fact has the right to vote in terms of citizenship?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

That a magazine addressed to that person is acceptable as proof of residence is a fact. All of the documents that are acceptable as proofs either of identity or of address are documents that have been discussed at the advisory committee of political parties, and a listing of them has been approved by them. We made it very clear again at the 2006 general election that the voter information card is a voter information card, not a voter identification card.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I don't want to take up the time of the committee, but while we're on voter identification cards I would like a comment on Canada Post's handling of the voter information card. We've heard from various folks that these voter information cards are dumped en masse in apartment buildings. I guess the point is they're not treated as the first class mail we are paying for.

Would you comment on that?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

That comment was made previously at an appearance here, and I responded that this was not a general phenomenon, in my view, but that part of the problem could also be that people are just picking up the cards and pitching them in the corner where they pitch the mail they're not interested in.

One of the solutions we thought we would incorporate, which is something that could be done now—and in light of the comments that were made around the table, we think we can be ready to do this should the election take place in December 2006 or later—would be to incorporate those voter information cards in an envelope addressed to each elector.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's brilliant. Thank you very much.

I apologize to the committee for asking for clarification, but hopefully it helped.

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I'd like to continue the line of questioning of my colleague, Mr. Guimond, with respect to the election commissioner.

You were giving some information, Mr. Commissioner, to us with regard to the number of complaints you'd received, the source of the complaints, and so on.

My first question is very simple. Is this information that's already publicly available, or is it not publicly available prior to this moment? Could we, had we done research, have found this in a report somewhere, or is it not information that was previously available to the public?

[Raymond Landry]

The Chief Electoral Officer's report does include a number of figures of that nature, but they come at a time when not all the complaints have been filed. They are incomplete in that sense, but they would become complete as time goes on.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Let me add, Mr. Chairman, that the report is not in the statutory report. In the performance reports that are provided annually, we incorporate a number of statistics. But what I would sense from the committee is that the committee should be provided on a regular basis with progress reports on this—they might be annual, or whatever—and I would be more than happy to provide them, so that the committee would know how many cases are open, how many cases have been decided and which way, whether it's a compliance agreement, whether it's a prosecution before the courts, and how many were dismissed because they didn't relate to the Elections Act.

We could be providing on a more cyclical basis all the pertinent information to the committee.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

The information I'm really after here is obviously the number of complaints, but in particular the number of complaints under each of the relevant sections of the act; the source of the complaints, although there may be confidentiality reasons why one can't specify that it came from John Smith, or any other specific information, but whether it's from an elector, a defeated candidate, from Elections Canada, and so on; the number in each case that it was decided to act upon....

I'm not sure; is that information available, if I were to go back to examine the reports for 2004, 2003, or earlier years? Is it available currently, if I were to dig around, or is it not currently available?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

My view would be that it is in the performance report, but I would like to review that, sir, because I did not expect this question.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

That's fair enough.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I want to come back. If it is lacking in there, we'll find the means to incorporate it in some report or other that this committee could look at on a cyclical and religious basis.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Obviously the reason I ask this is that if we are to consider making adjustments to the legislation, it would be helpful to know which parts of the legislation are not being complied with; under which sections it's possible to achieve successful prosecutions; under which ones it's not in fact possible to achieve successful prosecutions, even though there may be some evidence that the practices the act purports to forbid are not successfully being prevented by the act—that kind of thing.

Perhaps I should pose this next question in the form of a request. If it's not already available—we'll be happy to dig up any information that is publicly available, but if it's not—I wonder whether we could get, for a reasonable number of years in the past, a report broken down, as I mentioned, by the number of complaints that were made, by whom, what number were acted upon, and perhaps also to some degree the outcomes—although I know that is publicly available—and under which of the sections of the act.

That would be of enormous use to the committee. I think all of us would find it very helpful.

The next thing I wanted to ask is this. I'm trying to get a confirmation here of how prosecutions take place under the act. I've been reading a copy of the act. I'll cite from it and then ask whether I've understood it correctly.

Subsection 511(1) of the act says: If the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that an offence under this Act has been committed and is of the view that the public interest justifies it, the Commissioner may institute a prosecution or cause one to be instituted.

Subsection 512(1) says: No prosecution for an offence under this Act may be instituted by a person other than the Commissioner without the Commissioner’s prior written consent.

Am I correct that this means no other person in Canada can initiate a prosecution, except by means of approaching the commissioner and having the commissioner accept its possible validity and then continue it further? Would that be correct, Mr. Commissioner?

[Raymond Landry]

Yes, it is correct.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

You've been commissioner since 1992. Does that mean in the past 14 years no prosecutions would have taken place under this act that you would not have approved, and you would have effectively had a monopoly role--that's not perhaps the best word, but it's the one that comes to mind--over any such prosecutions?

[Raymond Landry]

Yes, it's true.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Let me then ask this question. I have an article from the Toronto Star published on April 27 of this year, in which it says,

It is illegal under the Canada Elections Act to vote more than once in an election. Penalties range from a $5,000 fine to five years in prison, or both. But it's believed that no one in Canada has ever been convicted of voter fraud...

So this raises the question. Of course it's illegal to vote more than once. It's also illegal to vote if you're a non-citizen or if you're under the age of 18. It's illegal to vote in a riding other than the one in which you reside. I wonder if you could tell us, in the 14 years since you've been a commissioner, how many prosecutions there have been for each of those things. I realize you may not have the answer now, but if you could submit something in writing to us, informing us of that, it would be most helpful.

[Raymond Landry]

Yes. I have it in writing in front me.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Oh, you have it in writing in front of you, right now.

[Raymond Landry]

Yes.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

In that case, please enlighten us.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, this is the response to the previous presentation that we made here. There was a series of questions, and this was one by the honourable member. We transmitted a letter to the clerk this morning, and there's one page that answers that very point. So the committee can be apprised of it right now, as the letter is circulated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, and we'll circulate that letter right now.

Mr. Reid, you are in fact out of time, unless you can do something valuable in 15 seconds.

We're going to move to the second round. In fairness to the witnesses this morning, the committee will remember that we agreed to send a list of those items we had difficulty reasoning out. So I'm certainly not going to limit any questioning. By all means, members can ask whatever question they want. But with respect to the witnesses, who are prepared to deal with the list, if you could keep it to that list, it would be very helpful.

I would remind everybody to keep your questions and the answers short. Let's move on.

Monsieur Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Davidson, gentlemen, good morning.

At the very beginning of the meeting, I did not look at the list that we were provided with and I apologize. It took me a while to understand, but once I do understand, I understand for a long time.

I'd like to start by commenting briefly on Mr. Simard's statements regarding the posting of the names of voters who have already voted.

I can't speak on behalf of the other committee members, but I would say that the committee is receptive to the idea of a system that would allow the deputy returning officers from each polling station to provide scrutineers, at regular intervals, with a list of those who have already voted. I will explain briefly what I mean by that. Rather than have scrutineers sitting down at tables to fill in what we call our bingo cards, the system could allow for providing us with multiple copies of that list.

For example, the municipality of Gatineau has established a system like that since the merger of the five municipalities took place. The system is working very well. Elections Canada may not be interested in studying a municipality's system, however the system does exist, Mr. Kingsley, and it works very well.

My recommendation would be to go one step further than what Mr. Simard suggested. Elections Canada could regularly provide us with the list of those who have voted.

The other possibility would be to use Quebec's system, whereby official party representatives sitting at the tables are paid by Élections Québec. At the federal level, those people would be paid by Elections Canada.

Another possibility would be to increase the salaries of deputy returning officers and clerks. They work 14 to 15 hours and their salary has not been particularly generous to date. They're practically earning minimum wage.

We won't have time to hear your comments. I'm trying to use up seven minutes during the five minutes that I have been given. You understand what I mean.

Point 1.11 states:

Section 159 of the Canada Elections Act should be amended to remove any time limit for application for a transfer certificate in the event that a polling station lacks level access.

I'm going to play devil's advocate. I am opposed to that change. If it becomes that easy to issue transfer certificates, then returning officers will not feel obliged to be as attentive to the needs of disabled individuals. They will assume that when disabled people come to inaccessible polling stations, they will simply have to sign transfer certificates and send them elsewhere. Unfortunately, during the last elections similar situations did arise, where the access for disabled persons was truly inadequate.

I'd like to hear your comments on that issue. If there is no incentive for returning officers to take their duties more seriously then I will oppose this change.