Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 6th, 2014

[Marc Mayrand]

No.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Why do you need it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson, thanks.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I made my point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski, you have four minutes, please.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I want to make one comment.

Prior to our last discussion, Mr. Mayrand, we were talking about how my contention is that if people are compelled to provide proper ID as opposed to vouching, the potential for fraud would be lessened. I think that's quite obvious. You responded by saying if we did that, then people in my riding would be turned away because they didn't have the proper ID. If you recall, sir, and I'm sure you do, in the act, it requires that the advertising that Elections Canada does is to tell people where, when, and what ID to bring in order to vote. That's why we put it in there, so people would be informed and would bring the proper identification. I agree with you, sir, that lots of people who have been vouched for probably had the proper ID, but they just didn't know. That's all we're doing here.

My question is simply this. This was before your time, but it goes back to the 2006 election where we had an incident in northern Saskatchewan. A Conservative candidate, Jeremy Harrison, who was the incumbent at the time, was leading throughout the evening in all polls. With one poll remaining, all of the newscasts were reporting that Mr. Harrison had won the election because he was up by about 600 or 700 votes. Three and a half hours later, the last poll came in—it was a northern riding on a reserve—with a 105% voter turnout and every single ballot was in favour of the Liberal candidate. Obviously, there was a request to the commissioner to do an investigation. He came back to this committee. I remember asking him why he didn't find what seemed to me to be obvious fraud. His response was that they didn't think so because they were, first, encouraging the first nations people to get out and vote and so that 105% was a good thing since they didn't know how many people lived on the reserve to begin with; and second, it's not unusual to have 100% voting in favour of one candidate since he was well-known and a former chief in a band close by.

My concern, sir, is if the investigations come back with that kind of result, I don't know what we need to do other than what we're purporting to do in this act, give the commissioner of elections clear autonomy and independence—because he currently reports to you—and more authority to impose greater penalties and greater fines, including jail time, so that we can try to crack down on those fraudulent occurrences that we do know about.

Finally, sir, I will simply say this in response to a conversation you had with Mr. Reid, where Mr. Reid pointed out that over the last several elections there have only been eight prosecutions. That's quite true, but how many instances of fraud have occurred that have not resulted in prosecutions? The ones Mr. Reid was referring to were people who deliberately voted twice, who deliberately flouted the election law and told people about it. I just have to say, sir, that I believe there are—I wouldn't say widespread; that's an exaggeration—many more cases of fraud that we do not know about, and many of them come down to the fact that there's vouching, or poor rules, set up or at least administered by Elections Canada.

The clearest, cleanest, and most effective way to ensure that voter fraud does not occur is to make sure that people coming to a polling station have proper identification, not a VIC, but a name and address in proper form. That is the only way to ensure that voter fraud does not occur, sir. That's clearly what we're suggesting in this legislation in allowing voters to have a choice of 39 different types of documents. Only one of those 39 requires an address on it; the other two need to have names.

I've made the point before that if someone wants to bring testimony here saying they were prevented from voting because they couldn't comply with the 39 documents, I would suggest they probably weren't planning to vote in the first place.

[Marc Mayrand]

I think I gave you an example earlier in my opening remarks.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Yes, I recall that, sir. I think there are many examples that have not been brought forward because we don't know about them.

[Marc Mayrand]

No, I mean the people who still cannot provide proper ID, people for whom their only solution is vouching.... If we are so concerned, and let's think for a minute that we are, isn't there a responsibility for Parliament to ensure that Canadian citizens have access to proper ID and address documentation?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I agree with that. I also agree that there's a responsibility of Parliament to ensure that the sanctity of a vote is observed, and that there's no fraud.

[Marc Mayrand]

Again, I think I mentioned—

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

While we cannot perhaps be perfect, sir, perhaps we can put in a system that makes it the best practices. To me best practices means ensuring that proper identification is presented at the time of voting, and a VIC card is not proper identification, in my view.

[Marc Mayrand]

Again, for some electors that means they won't be able to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I've given you the two rounds here, so you're still going.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I didn't realize I had the second round. Thank you very much.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

[Inaudible—Editor]...I have a problem.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, again, Mr. Christopherson, for another erudite comment.

Let's talk again about compelling of documents. I'd like to know a little bit more about why you feel you need the power. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a section in the act that refers to the filling out of returns by parties, candidates, is there not? I do believe that some place in the act it states that you as the CEO need to be satisfied that a party provides the information required and the information is accurate. If you are not satisfied, it is my understanding that you can withhold reimbursement right now. If that's the case and you already have that power to withhold reimbursements to parties or candidates without the need to compel documents being produced, why do you need that power? If you're not satisfied, sir, you don't have to compel documents to withhold repayment to a candidate or a party. Until you are completely satisfied you can keep that money. That's a pretty good incentive for candidates and parties to comply completely with the act.

[Marc Mayrand]

That's an interesting interpretation you're putting forward.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

It's not an interpretation, sir. It's in the act, is it not?

[Marc Mayrand]

Yes.

The act is very clear for candidates that they have to produce supporting documents, but not for political parties. What I've been asking is we have a similar responsibility for political parties as for candidates and, in fact, for EDAs, the same.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You voted for it, but you didn't put it in the bill.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, David. I didn't realize it was your turn, David.

Finally, Mr. Mayrand, let me just say this. There are over 165,000 documented cases of serious errors in the last election by your own officials. We're going to a new election in 2015 with brand new boundaries and over 30 new seats. We're talking about the integrity of the system. People obviously need to be assured that voting is conducted in a fair manner in Canada. They also have to be convinced and assured that the administration of those elections from your office is done in an efficient and accurate manner.

What do you plan to do to try to rectify over 165,000 serious errors that occurred in the last election, knowing that we are going into a new election with brand new boundaries and a set of brand new challenges?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski's time is up. Perhaps we can get an answer during the next round.

Mr. Bellavance, Mr. Scott has given you his round. It's great to have you here again. You have four minutes.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am also happy to see you and the members of the committee again.

Mr. Scott, thank you for giving me a few minutes of your speaking time.

Mr. Mayrand, thank you for your testimony. It has allowed the committee to discover the Conservatives' new obsession: rooting out fraud. Since they came to power in 2006, I have never seen them as vocal as they are right now.

We all agree that fraud is and must remain the exception and that we must minimize the risks. However, we must make voting easier for anyone eligible to vote, which is your responsibility as Chief Electoral Officer. There is no such thing as zero risk.

Some Conservative colleagues said they had received three voter cards. I am 49 years old and I have been voting like everyone else since the legal voting age of 18, and I have never received three voter cards. Also, since I have been in politics, no one has ever told me about such cases. Having to show another piece of identification will probably solve a lot of the problems caused by multiple voter cards.

I know fraud can happen, but I think the government is using those cases as an excuse to introduce a bill tailor-made for the Conservatives in the next election.

Mr. Mayrand, this bill restricts your ability to consult with the public and political parties. The information that you see as your duty to provide before and during elections is very important and relevant. The bill also limits the power of the Commissioner of Canada Elections to conduct investigations.

Today's questions are about fraud. Will limiting your powers help root out fraud in any way?

[Marc Mayrand]

I think I mentioned this in my opening remarks. Some aspects of the legislation are very useful and beneficial, such as the creation of new offences and new penalties. However, the bill would be much better if it also looked at the tools the commissioner needs to conduct investigations.

You can create all the offences and penalties you want. However, if investigators do not have the tools do discover the truth, they will not be able to enforce the provisions of the legislation.

That is what I am trying to point out to the committee so that it can, once again, think about allowing the commissioner, under judicial oversight, to compel witnesses to testify, not as suspects, but as individuals with relevant information in an investigation.