Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 25th, 2014

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I respect the plea, and I hope we won't get rid of it. Hopefully that will be an amendment.

On it you also indicate, and I am quoting you directly, “Let me be clear: absent the rescinding of the proposed section 18 in Bill C-23, Canadians will lose their trust and their confidence in our elections.” You are stating that this is not acceptable. What is it that you're referring to? This is the Chief Electoral Officer's ability to communicate with the public without limitations. Obviously you're really concerned about this.

You conclude by saying that with these changes to Bill C-23, there is potential....

Are you saying that if the government does not make the types of changes we've just made reference to, this is a bill that really should not be passed by the House of Commons?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

That is a judgment I shall have to reserve until I see what the changes are that you as a committee succeed in convincing the government about.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Right.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Then I will not hesitate to pronounce myself—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Right. You followed the proceedings when Mr. Mayrand was here. He was fairly clear in terms of the damage this would cause, not only in terms of the changes and the manner in which the changes were being imposed, but no real consultation was done with other political entities, stakeholders, and so forth.

We now have an international community that's looking at it and saying that this is just wrong the way Canada is proceeding with this. Do you believe that the government has a responsibility to maybe put things on hold and acknowledge there's a need for changes, and that if they're not going to agree to those changes and start looking to how they're putting in place the changes, it's really to the detriment overall...?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

There is no way I can visualize any limitation on the Chief Electoral Officer's capacity to express himself or herself to Canadians about any matter which he or she considers important.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That's right.

Given your response and the proceedings and so forth, what would you rank it today? When you said “A minus”, was that more so believing there are going to be amendments brought forward? Could you provide a quick comment on that?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I rated the bill. You saw the positive elements that I've underlined.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

That is what I did.

Insofar as any other rating, I'm waiting, because the minister has clearly stated that he wishes to move it up to A plus. Let us see what is done to move it up to A plus by the government and by the minister.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

If they don't make any changes, are you still going to give this bill an A minus?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

If they don't make any changes is a theoretical question. I will address it when it is a reality.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I'm glad to hear that.

This is a quote from yesterday in the House of Commons:

In the 2006 election, I was called personally and offered hundreds of voter cards that had been left in apartment buildings and so on. Like an idiot, I said, “No, we don't do that sort of thing”. I should have said, “Yes, come on down”, and had the police waiting.

What would you advise a member of Parliament who actually received that sort of a call to do? What would you advise a candidate in an election to do?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I'm afraid I don't know exactly the context of what you're quoting, so it's very difficult. I would not want to react artificially or superficially to something. I don't understand the context in which the remark was made.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Okay.

Let me go back to the idea that we're talking about Canada's election laws and there are jurisdictions outside of Canada. I asked Mr. Mayrand what he says about the current process when he goes abroad. He wasn't very pleased with the current process.

Could you provide a comment with regard to the process we're going into? For example, we had suggested that we go across Canada, that we not just be here in Ottawa but that we listen to what other Canadians have to say, and that there should have been some sort of consultations done with opposition parties. Do you not think this is a fair thing to be requesting?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I don't want to comment about the process that was followed to bring the bill forward, because my successor has done that. That is obviously the perspective of the Chief Electoral Officer in position, and I don't want to be commenting on that for the simple reason that he stated what he had to say about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux.

We'll go to our four-minute round, starting with Mr. Reid.

Mr. Reid, you have four minutes.

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

Just to make it clear, those comments that Mr. Lamoureux was offering were given by Laurie Hawn, member of Parliament, who is sitting just down the table and who will be a witness before us on Thursday.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for giving me this time.

Mr. Kingsley, thank you for being here again. It's a real pleasure.

I want to concentrate on some comments you made today regarding vouching in two locations. You talked about vouching on reserve and in restricted access institutions. I'll start with your comments regarding reserves. You said that vouching occurs “on reserves which are defined territorially and where the person being vouched for already possesses a status Indian card, acceptable proof under the Canada Elections Act. Each reserve usually constitutes one or more polls, and consequently the possession of such a card should constitute sufficient proof of address; it does not. Hence the need for the vouching process.”

That could be seen as an argument, as presented here, for vouching. It could also be seen, I would submit, and I'm looking for your feedback of what I'm about to submit, as an argument in favour of extending the purpose and use of the status Indian card. It has a special status under the law.

I remember being on the committee when we actually negotiated over this point. One of the members of the committee, Karen Redman, who is no longer a member of Parliament, suggested that the status Indian card be given a special spot, which it is under subsection 143(2.2) of the current law, changing that status a bit so as to allow the status Indian card to also serve as a proof of residence. If that were done, would that resolve the issue you drew attention to here?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

In that particular context, yes it would.

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

Okay.

Let me turn to the question of institutional residences. One of the problems that I think occurred, and we saw this in Etobicoke—Centre, was with what the current vouching system actually does not provide. Getting rid of vouching will have no influence on people who are in areas serviced by mobile polls. In this case we're talking about seniors who no longer have a driver's licence and many other forms of ID, but nobody doubts that they are who they say they are. They are in an institution to which access is limited. That would be true in other residential institutional settings as well, such as correctional facilities.

In such a situation, I wonder whether the solution would be to design a special system—I'm not sure if it would be vouching or something else—that simply is not drawing upon the current system, because you aren't going to find other people living in the same poll who can provide a vouching service. One possibility would be to require or compel institutions to provide information to Elections Canada. Perhaps vouching by someone who is a spouse of that individual could be allowed. The point is that it's a specific problem that requires a specific solution. It's not part of the broader problem of voter ID elsewhere.

Can I ask for your thoughts on that?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

If one is able to design a system whereby these people are entitled to vote simply because they are there and they've been enumerated or revised onto the list during the very election, if one can devise such a system, then it handles that part of the matter.

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

Right.

For example, as part of the duties of a returning officer for the riding, they could be required to enumerate mobile polls first and the institutions could be required—perhaps they are not—to submit the information promptly.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

It would help if the institution were to be compelled. I know some of them are hesitant, too busy, or whatever the reason. There's always a good reason for not doing the right thing in the minds of some people. They are part of the targeted revision, all the mobile poll areas, All of those institutions are targeted for targeted revision during the election period. This is why, to me, it is an issue that I cannot understand, why we doubt these people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

We'll go to a four-minute round with Mr. Scott.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

This is something maybe I can come back and talk to Mr. Reid about, his example of the mobile polls. I've never fully understood that, because the act says to vouch for somebody you have to be an elector in the same polling division, which is a different thing from a mobile poll, on election day. If there is a gap on vouching in that context, we definitely have to deal with it. I'm not sure there is, but if there is we should deal with it.

Thank you again. I wanted to come back to just a couple of things. The whole question of the exemption on fundraising during an election campaign, you've indicated it's not justified and that, “It is simply not possible to seek funds without including reasons for giving, and this can only constitute advertising for or against a party or a candidate.” You've given other reasons.

Mr. Mayrand also said that from his point of view, it's unmonitorable. There's a whole exemption that has been put in there in a way that he won't actually even know who's actually being contacted in any effective way so that can be monitored. I'm not sure if you heard or read that part of his testimony and if so, do you think he's accurate on that?