Evidence of meeting #23 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.
8:30 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Excellent. Please let the record note I ended with four seconds to go.
8:30 p.m.
NDP
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I believe the world is spinning faster down here where the Chair lives.
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
No, never, but I did see your iPad take a heck of a bounce when David started talking. We're all trying to go paperless around here and we're all using iPads, but we're going to be in big trouble if Mr. Christopherson does that.
Mr. Lamoureux, go ahead.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
I really did enjoy all three presentations. I did want to pick up on a couple of points, Ms. Dawood. I do think it's really important that people, whether viewers or all parliamentarians, recognize to what degree the academic world has actually been following the proceedings in regard to this very important piece of legislation.
In your presentation you said, and I'll read directly from it, “The open letter has been signed by over 170 professors at Canadian universities who study the principles and institutions of constitutional democracy, including 16 past presidents of the Canadian Political Science Association”.
I think that for most people, whether you're a parliamentarian or not, when you hear of that groundswell that's out there at our post-secondary institutions, I take it that it's from our country's three coasts, Canadians should really stand up and take note that something's wrong here.
Can you or maybe any of your colleagues recall anything of this nature ever occurring before, where they have felt such strong principles on a piece of legislation that they've actually signed off on this magnitude?
8:35 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Probably this is the first time ever that professors have agreed on anything, so this is really quite remarkable. We spend most of our time arguing about everything and not agreeing on anything. Having such widespread agreement with over 170—I think the number is now 179—professors signing on to this is extraordinary. It's completely unprecedented. I've never heard of a situation like this before where there's been such widespread consensus that there is a problem.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Add to that concern that of the current Chief Electoral Officer and the past chief electoral officer, and there's the fact that we don't have any political entities outside of the Conservative Party that are trying to push this legislation through.
Do you feel that this legislation has to be amended? If it is not amended, in your opinion, what should happen?
8:35 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I think it's essential that the legislation be amended. There's also Canada's international reputation to consider, the fact that we are a leader globally for electoral standards. This bill seriously undermines our international standards. I think if it does not get amended, it should be pulled.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
The government might bring in some minor types of amendments. Would you suggest that rather than minor amendments, which might be somewhat helpful, there need to be, in order to receive any sort of real recognition for approval, substantial changes? I've read the letter. It really goes into a lot of detail.
8:35 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I think I speak for everyone who signed it when I say that we believe that significant revisions must be made to this bill. It's problematic in a number of different ways. This is from a non-partisan standpoint of expertise. It's not a partisan position. It's based on best practices and established ideas around how elections ought to be run.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Thomas, you had made a recommendation that interests me. You recommended that the bill be amended to provide for mandatory consultation with Elections Canada concerning future changes to the Canada Elections Act. I think it's wonderful. If we asked that question of the government, they would say, “Well, we did consult.” Can you expand on what it is you're trying to get at here in your recommendation?
8:35 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Mr. Mayrand has indicated that he had an hour-long conversation with the minister before last summer at some point. I know from my studies of five other countries that in a couple of them there are rules requiring that the head of the national election authority be consulted regarding the actual content of a draft bill. They have to operate election law. They have a distinctive type of wisdom that comes from being on the front lines of election administration, and the minister and the government need the benefit of that advice, as do Parliament and the parliamentary committee that's going to study it.
I know in other countries, and this happens in Manitoba, there's a device called the concordance. It shows the changes that are being proposed to the election act alongside the existing provisions, and it provides a rationale. When I first encountered the fair elections act, I was hard pressed to connect all the parts. It's a tremendously complicated and detailed document. There wasn't much assistance to parliamentarians or to ordinary citizens or to professors of political science to get their head around exactly what was being changed and how the different parts would interact with one another in practice.
The government could have done much more to help people understand what they were proposing to do and demonstrated that the three aims they set forth in the act were actually being supported by the changes that were being proposed.
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
My last question for you is to what degree you think there's an obligation for the governing party to actually ensure there's at least some consensus among more than themselves as a political entity before they should change an election law.
8:40 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Well, Mr. Lamoureux, I'll take you back to 2004 when the Chrétien Liberal government of the day abolished contributions, or put a ban on contributions from trade unions, corporations, and other associations to political parties. That change came out of the Lortie Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, for which I did background research. It came out of a committee of Parliament chaired by Jim Hawkes, and it came out of ongoing studies within Parliament. There was broad party support for that change. It had been in the works for some period of time.
Usually these changes are made gradually and incrementally, and political support for them is developed over time. Rushing a bill into law quickly like this, especially a comprehensive sweeping bill like this, is not best practice, in my view.
8:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I want to see what you can do in the 10 seconds you have left, now eight seconds.
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
It's always nice to see Mr. Thomas from the University of Manitoba.
8:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Good. You're a proud Manitoban—way to go, way to get that in. Super.
We're going to go to a four-minute round, starting with Mr. Richards.
8:40 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
I'd like to start with you, Professor Thomas.
You mentioned a couple of things in your opening remarks. One was that it's always good to look at models in other countries and other jurisdictions when you're looking at changing your own laws. I forget what it was in regard to, but you mentioned the U.K. electoral commission.
I had noticed in some of the suggestions made by that commission that they had recommended looking at the expansion of the requirement for photo ID in order to be able to vote. They currently have it in Northern Ireland, and they were recommending expanding it as a way to combat voter fraud. I didn't see any indication there or any discussion of allowing vouching. They were recommending a photo ID system.
Now of course, that would be beyond what's being suggested here, because obviously there are a number of other ways you can create your identity. You obviously have the idea of the photo ID, but you could have two pieces of ID as well. Obviously, what they are suggesting would be beyond this.
I'm curious as to your thoughts. The report from the U.K. commission indicates that since 2003, when Northern Ireland had the requirement, there has been little evidence of voters being turned away from the polling station for presenting an incorrect form of identification.
They also indicated that they had gathered substantial evidence. They said: We gathered substantial evidence during our review that the lack of a requirement for ID... is both an actual and a perceived weakness in the system.
I would be interested in your comments on that, based on some of the suggestions being made there and the comments they have made in their report.
8:40 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Until recently in the U.K. you registered to vote on a household basis. There was an enumeration, and someone in the house could actually indicate that there were persons present who were eligible to vote and so on. Now they are going to individual registration. They are making changes, as you indicate, to the requirements to produce identification, but they are also allowing for online authentication of voter identity. They are trying to make it easier both to register and to actually cast a ballot on election day or in advance polls.
From talking with Mr. Peter Wardle, who is the executive director of the national electoral commission, I understand they haven't had serious problems in terms of even a significant amount of voter misrepresentation. It just doesn't happen, quite frankly, in this system.
8:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
I'm sorry to have to interrupt you, but I have a limited amount of time.
They indicated that they felt there was a potentially real and certainly a perceived concern about the lack of identification. In their putting in the photo ID requirement, I don't see—correct me, if I'm wrong—any discussion of allowing a procedure like vouching in their proposed new system.
8:45 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
As one of the other witnesses already indicated, it's not so much producing an identity card, including a picture card, perhaps; it's often demonstrating your address that becomes a stumbling block for a legitimate voter to be able to cast a vote.
Again, I—
8:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
I'm sorry; I hate to interrupt you, but I have a limited amount of time.
