Thank you.
Evidence of meeting #20 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was elections.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #20 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was elections.
A video is available from Parliament.
Noon
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
It would have to be used in combination with another proper piece of identification.
Noon
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
A citizen would have to turn into a citizen fraudster when, like Mr. Reid, they received these erroneous cards. He'd have to say, “Boy oh boy, I have three cards here and now I'm going to have to go out and make sure that I vote.”
Noon
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
There's no perfect system out there, and we're dealing with 24 million people, so yes. The cards invite electors, if they see any errors, to come back to Elections Canada. The number is there. In the future they will be able to go online and correct any misinformation on the card. That's a request that's being made.
Noon
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Again, misusing, misleading, or providing false information about your basic elector information is an offence under the act. There are posters and notifications everywhere that alert Canadians to that situation.
I have one point of clarification. In the Etobicoke situation, it's true there were issues at the long-term care facility. There was vouching there. The vouching was carried out by the nurse who was caring for the patients, the people there. Statutorily, this is incorrect. That's an irregularity. But would anyone dispute that the people who live there, who had been visited by officials, who had been issued voter information cards.... Would anyone dispute that the nurse is a proper person to attest to who lives in the residence?
Again, this is an irregularity, but there is no reason to believe that any of the votes were not cast by perfectly legitimate electors. This is the kind of error we're talking about when we look at the Neufeld report and the various decisions in Etobicoke. That's why the court maintained those votes and maintained the election.
Noon
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you, Mr. Mayrand.
No doubt you'll receive questions again on this, so I'll move on.
You referred to your concerns about the change in mandate. The public education component of what Elections Canada can do is going to be replaced by a very narrow provision and with a list of tasks that you only can do and nothing else. How worried are you by losing this mandate, in terms of the health of our democracy? You mentioned that participation is the bigger issue here than citizen fraud. Also, I've asked the minister this twice and he said no both times. Can his suggested section 18 and the existing section 18 sit side by side? Can we retain this and also have the minister's?
12:05 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
That may be an option. That would be for parliamentarians to debate as to the proper approach here.
Again section 18 as revised by Bill C-23 would significantly impair the ability of Elections Canada to communicate with electors. Again, all the research that has been used to support various arguments in relation to Bill C-23 comes from research carried out by Elections Canada and research that was published. It informs parliamentarians and Canadians about issues in relation to elections and how we can make them better.
In my mind it's part of a continuous improvement process. Maybe it could be superimposed, but again there may be a misunderstanding of what Elections Canada does. Most of our activities, I would suggest 99.5% of them, have to be specifically to inform electors about how and where and when they can vote and what their options are. We distribute that piece of information to 23 million electors. It tells them where to go to vote. It tells them what is accessible. They get a householder that tells them again basically the same information. It provides them information on ID, the authorized pieces, and that they need to make sure they bring them to the poll.
12:05 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
In other words, I'm not sure what the new section 18 adds, but it certainly subtracts a lot.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you.
Very quickly as well, you mentioned something that everybody is concerned with: the fact that the government did not see fit to provide a power for the commissioner of Canada Elections to apply to a judge for power to compel testimony. If that were in the bill as a procedural enforcement rule, it would apply to the ongoing investigation into what happened in 2011.
It's not there. It's not available. How important do you see that tool as being, especially when the minister is telling us that the commissioner now has a longer reach and sharper teeth?
12:05 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
To me it's absolutely essential. Canadians are rightfully concerned about the time and the outcome of an investigation. One of key impediments for the commissioner—he has reported publicly on that, and I did too—is that increasingly, people who are not suspect in the case fail to collaborate with the investigators. In most regulatory regimes, the regulator would have that authority, and again, that authority is subject to court supervision.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
The model being asked for tends to approximate the Competition Act model, which has lots of safeguards. Is that correct?
12:05 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
The Competition Act, many provincial jurisdictions, and many other statutes; it's not uncommon for regulatory agencies to have that kind of authority.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
March 6th, 2014 / 12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Let me stick with that subject for just a moment. The Competition Act does give that power to compel particular evidence. What you're saying is that in the recent happenings of the robocalls issue.... Actually, I'll quote you from a media interview you did. When you were asked about this power to compel witness testimony, you said “likely”, meaning that if the commissioner had that power:
...likely, because many people in that investigation refused to talk to the commissioner even if there were no suspects, and I'm afraid to say that this is happening more and more in files investigated by the commissioner.
Commissioners are circling here and people are not providing the testimony, and they know full well that they don't have to do this. You think this is a very vital piece of the Elections Act.
12:05 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Absolutely, and it's getting more and more common. It's well known now. People increasingly refuse to collaborate with investigators.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
I know the minister will say that police do not have that authority, but in fact, they can get that authority, i.e., wiretaps, which this government endorsed wholeheartedly. So there is that power to do that.
When you spoke to the minister, when you had your meeting, did this come up?
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
During that conversation, was there anything about specifics that you see that are considered to be fundamental changes to the act in Bill C-23? Was there anything specific?
12:05 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Nothing more than the recommendations I've put forward in the last several years. The reports were already all public.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Basically, it's what you have said in the past. There was nothing about what he was about to do.