Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 15th, 2006

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chairman, we have a duty to reciprocate. We ask the provincial chief electoral officers to send us their data, but we are telling them that we will not send them ours. It is a matter of reciprocity. These are public officers, people under oath according to the rules of their province. I do not believe they would sell this information. We must be consistent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Hill, and then Ms. Jennings.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Well, I guess my argument for supporting this recommendation would be that if we don't support it, we're suggesting that somehow Elections Canada is infallible. Regardless of what province it is, if they're updating their list, I think the reason they might want to double-check the source of that information or the preliminary data that Elections Canada used to arrive at that change in the Elections Canada registry would be to make sure it's accurate, so we don't have a situation where a mistake on the national list is then duplicated on the provincial list and they end up with the same mistake the Elections Canada people made. That's why I would support this.

In fact, it might be helpful, in a case where there would be an unintentional mistake made by Elections Canada...the province might catch it by saying, “Wait a minute. There's a typographical error, or whatever, because what you claim was a new address for this registered voter does not match this source material that you say you got it from. Somebody typed in the wrong....”.

So I don't see why we would prevent the provinces from having access to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

There is a discrepancy between the English and the French versions. The English version says:

He cannot, however, share information that has not been incorporated into the Register, thus restricting Elections Canada from sharing source or preliminary data.

In the French version, on dit:

“mais non des renseignements qui n'y ont pas été incorporés, ce qui empêche, par conséquent, Élections Canada de communiquer des données préliminaires.“

So “données préliminaires” is “preliminary data”. It mentions nothing about source data. In the French version--I happen to like the way it's done--it's the data that would normally be on the national register, which can be shared with the provinces, but has not yet been listed on the national register; therefore, he's asking to be able to provide it even though it has not yet been listed.

In the English version we're talking about source data, which is completely different from preliminary data.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's an interesting comment.

Mr. Reid.

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

Well, Marlene's right to point to the difference. Unfortunately, it looks as if the English version is the one that's closest to what Mr. Kingsley is actually asking for. It says he'd like to expand the.... Sorry, I'll just find the exact wording here. He wants to include all information from which the Chief Electoral Officer is authorized to update the register. So this is unrefined data.

We all have databases, right? There was all kinds of unrefined data before we put it into our databases--people who have written to us for casework and so on--that it really is not our business passing on before we've gone through the preliminary stage. I think this is a real danger, particularly since we just passed a resolution earlier saying we're going to permit a wide range of sources. I would think this particular version is unwise.

I can bring it over so you guys can take a look at this, but I--

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

That's fine.

Jamie, when you were qualifying it, why don't we use that language? The database and any un-inputted data--that's where it's destined. I have a comfort level with that, but to share all the source data, as Joe said, speaks to my earlier concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I think we've hit common ground. So we agree, as long as the wording is a little bit more specific on the fact that it's not un-inputted data. Is that acceptable?

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Or eliminate “source”, so it's just “preliminary data”.

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

What difference is there between source and preliminary data?

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Ask Marlene, because she's the one who raised it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

“Source data” is pretty raw data, and the sense may not be accurate in the first place.

How about we reword it that way? We'll have another look at the wording in this clause. We'll reword it and I hope take into consideration the will of the committee.

Mr. Reid.

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

I want to make sure we don't end up doing the same thing, changing the word and not accomplishing anything. I think the worry about “preliminary” not necessarily restricting him very much makes me a bit nervous. I'd really like to make sure we find out.... I don't think it's illegitimate to write back to him and say, “What do you mean by this? Give us a bit more information here.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Ms. Jennings, on the same point.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

It's exactly the same point, so I don't need to remake it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay, the chair will do that today. We'll get hold of Mr. Kingsley and ask him for clarification on that.

We're just about finished. Interestingly enough, section 2.22, “Verification of Eligibility at Polls”.... We are dealing with other issues, such as photo ID and so on, in section 5.

Let me just read this, and we'll maybe broaden the discussion a little bit to incorporate some of these other issues about voter identification, citizenship proof, and so on. This reads:

The Chief Electoral Officer repeats a recommendation made in his 2001 report calling for an amendment to section 144 of the Canada Elections Act to require a written affidavit or solemn affirmation of eligibility from a potential elector at a poll where there is reasonable doubt about that person's eligibility to vote.

Now, the committee has already supported this recommendation. I thought, though, I would bring it up one more time today to see if we want to discuss at this point or to add to this section some of the issues of these identifiers. I'm happy if the committee just wants to let it go and deal with them under their separate issues.

Is there any need to change this, or are we all comfortable if we deal with it later?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm happy with that. I just wanted to know.

Then, in fact, we are finished chapter 2. Congratulations to all the committee.

Chapter 3 is pretty much dealt with on the broadcasting issues.

Chapter 4.0, “Financial Matters”.

Section 4.1, “Examination and Inquiry Powers for the Chief Electoral Officer”. I'm not going to read all of these. I think there were some concerns from the committee that this was extending his powers too far, but I will let everyone read this for themselves.

May I just improvise a few comments here so the committee can get the thrust of this:

Power to examine any document that relates or should relate....

Power to compel a political entity to provide any document or additional information.

Power to enter premises and compel the occupant to provide required information or answer questions.

Do I need to go further?

Mr. Proulx.

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

We are already forced to submit an audited report. I remember that when the CEO was here, he was complaining, saying he doesn't get...let's call them vouchers; he doesn't get this, he doesn't get that. How many verifications, how many audits does he need?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

May I just pose the question? Committee, is anyone in favour of this? Those opposed?

I think we can record that it's unanimous that this is opposed. Thank you.

Section 4.2, “Reports of Volunteer Labour”. “The Chief Electoral Officer recommends amending the Canada Elections Act....” I think we've been through this. I remember specifically discussing this issue with the Chief Electoral Officer when he was here.

Any comments or questions?

Monsieur Proulx.

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

It's again a situation, Mr. Chair, where we're going to be bogged down with filing reports after reports. We already are. Now we're going to have a stopwatch and a punch clock.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I am aware of the incredible amount of work this would entail. We must not forget where this comes from. At the Gomery Commission, some people were hired by a political party to do "voluntary" work and they benefited from a kickback system. Others were on the payroll of their advertising agency.

[An honourable member]

This is already against the law.