Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 10th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Reid, go ahead for four minutes, if you would, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to set the record straight on one of the things that Mr. Christopherson said, the view I got from 30,000—or maybe it was slightly higher at 31,000 feet.... I seem to recall you mentioned testimony on this very subject, problems that exist with vouching and with voter identification cards being misused, from members of other parties, and you simply went to the testimony they provided in 2006 in this committee. Those included some New Democrats among others. Am I right?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Let me respond to Mr. Christopherson's comments.

First of all, we have 18 months or so to the next election. There are other people out there who should be involved in helping get ID for people like homeless people, and on first nation reserves, and so on. We all have a responsibility to get there. At the end of the day, I think it would be extremely rare that somebody would have a legitimate excuse, maybe not impossible, but rare for somebody to have a legitimate excuse.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Christopherson, it's my turn now.

Mr. Christopherson, I'm a fighter pilot. I've done a lot of flying at 30,000 and higher, and I can't see a heck of a lot from 30,000 feet and higher. But when I get down to a low level, I can see what's going on.

Marcel Proulx, who was a Liberal MP; Michel Guimond, who was a Bloc MP; and Mr. Hébert, who is an NDP official.... Mr. Proulx's comment was, “First, the Liberal Party of Canada is also in the process of preparing its list of errors and horror stories. We will table it once it is finished because it is a fairly exhaustive list.” Mr. Guimond said, “From the outset, I should say that we are currently compiling, once again, a list of the horror stories from the last election campaign. And I am deliberately calling them horror stories rather than mistakes.”

So, Mr. Christopherson, with respect, you can have a view from 30,000 feet, but that's not where it's going on. It's going on at ground level, at sea level, and that's where you have to go to get the stories, that's where the stories came from to us. That's where the stories came from to the members of the other parties in 2006, and they were not dissimilar from the stories that we were telling.

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

Thank you.

The other thing I wanted to do is to just mention, in response to Mr. Lamoureux's observation. He said that what we need here, what we need.... He said the crying shame is that the government is preventing us from doing the following things: letting Elections Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer inform people of things like how to become a candidate; how an elector may vote and what days, times, and locations are available for voting; how an elector may establish their identity and residence in order to vote, including the pieces of identification they may use; how to make sure they get on the list.

All these things I'm actually reading are the things that he is mandated to do by this law, that quite frankly he is not doing right now. He is required to do these things under this legislation.

I think, Mr. Lamoureux, you have your facts backwards.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

[Inaudible--Editor]

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

Well, okay....

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Through the witnesses or through the chair, but to each other doesn't really work very well around here....

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

Mr. Chair, Mr. Lamoureux was certain that he did not say that. The record will show when it's published that he said exactly that, and he has his facts wrong. He just hasn't read the bill. How can anybody who comments on every single bill manage to—

[An hon. member]

He didn't understand the question.

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

—but this time he's just literally said the opposite of the truth, and I'm just setting the record straight.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you. You still have another minute, if you'd like it.

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

Actually, I'll take it.

Mr. Casey, I do want to bring up something with you. I think your point is really good. You drew that to my attention and showed me where the Chief Electoral Officer had in the 2000 election complained about this, and he apparently did so in the 1993 election.

It strikes me that this must be part of the effort that was made—I guess it goes back to the 1980s—to basically shut out third parties. Mr. Figueroa, the head of the Communist Party, fought a courageous battle to get rid of the restrictions that made it hard for very small parties to compete in elections. I gather that the same effort has not yet occurred on behalf of independence. I think you're right. I suspect that this restriction is probably a violation of section 3 of the charter, which states not only that each person has a right to vote, but that everyone is qualified for membership in the House of Commons or our provincial legislature. “Qualified” has to mean something substantive, not that you can run a non-competitive campaign.

Thanks for drawing that to our attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Any comment on that? A quick one, Mr. Casey, I'm feeling generous today.

[Bill Casey]

It's not only unfair to the candidate; it's unfair to contributors. As strange as it may seem, if I was running as an independent, and Mr. Hawn was running for a party, and you wanted to make a contribution to me, to my campaign, you can make it once in the five years leading up to and including the campaign. You can make the same contribution to him five times. You can give him $5,500 and get tax receipts for it, and I'm restricted to one contribution.

Elections Canada says, just strangely, that contributions to independent candidates are event-based. That means that the contribution limit applies to the event, and once it is reached there can be no more contributions from the same individual to the independent candidate. Contributions to candidates who are supported by a party are calendar-based. That means that the contribution limit is attained for the calendar year, but the same individual can contribute up to his limit again every year before the campaign.

It is very wrong and I hope that you'll make the amendments to make it fair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Casey.

I see a little time on our clock, so we'll try two minutes, Mr. Richards and Ms. Latendresse.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Hawn, you indicated, I think, in one part of your remarks that in 2004 and 2006, because there was a very tight race, that some of this potential fraud that you think likely occurred—and you indicated this based on the fact that the race was close and people got overenthusiastic, basically—was more of a concern to you than it may have been in 2008, in terms of the election result. I'm sure it was a concern, regardless, but in terms of how it might have been affecting the election results.

What I'm curious about is that, obviously, there would be a number of ridings across the country that would have been in a very similar situation to where you were in terms of a close race. How many ridings do you think there are in the country where these kinds of things could impact a result? Would that be enough that it could in fact change the overall result of an election?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you for the question. You'd have to go and see what the winning margins were, and there were some pretty tight margins.

I will just quote from Mr. Neufeld's report actually, which touches on that:

Times have changed, yet the basic voting services model has not. Most Canadians now vote in urban settings, at central polling locations that house many polling stations. Meanwhile, electoral law and procedures still reflect an assumption that voting occurs at single station locations in separate rural communities.

It continues, “Clearly the model is an antique. It could benefit from significant modernization”. As well, “indications of widespread and serious procedural errors in Etobicoke Centre”—which was very close—“and the national audit signal unmistakably that an overhaul is urgently required. However, built-in resistance to changing the mechanics of voting is strong.”

The two things people hate most are change and the way things are. There's always going to be resistance, and that's what hopefully this committee will resolve.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Minister.

Madame Latendresse, you have two minutes, please.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a very specific question for our two witnesses.

I'd like you to give us your opinion on what happened in 2011, in other words, the extensive electoral fraud and the robocalls aimed at suppressing the votes of Canadians. I'd like you to comment on two recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Well, actually, since he's persona non grata, we're really talking about the commissioner, who is in charge of investigating election fraud and other problems that arise. The commissioner, himself, asked for these powers, pointing out that they would significantly help him tackle election fraud in Canada.

The two powers in question would authorize the commissioner to compel someone to testify and Elections Canada to require political parties to submit documentation to ensure their elections spending is compliant with the Canada Elections Act.

Do you think Bill C-23 should include those two recommendations, which many people have made?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have just under a minute to answer, Mr. Casey.

[Bill Casey]

I'm sorry, I thought that question was directed to Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I can go first if you want me to.

In terms of auditing expenses, obviously we need to audit expenses. We need to audit them very carefully because mistakes are made. Most of the time, I think they are unintentional mistakes. Sometimes they're not, like anything else.

With respect to the Commissioner of Canada Elections' role, I think it's very important that the commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer are in fact separated so that there is clearly a prosecutorial part and an administrative part, if you will. If you mix those two under the one office, and the one person, I don't think you want judge, jury, executioner, hangman, all in the same body.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

He has the power to conduct investigations and has asked very specifically for a power that would make that job much easier.

Why shouldn't he be given that power?