Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 10th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Scott, for seven minutes please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a very quick question for my colleague, Mr. Hawn.

This was in 2006. Do you have similar stories or accounts from 2008 or 2011?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

No. The reason for that is, prior to 2006, including 2006, the races in Edmonton Centre were extremely tight. We had suspicions, as I said, from 2004, which put us on high alert. That's why we took the pre-emptive actions that we did.

In 2008, we knew it was not going to be as close a race. We still had scrutineers. We did a lot of the same things, but we weren't as concerned about a small amount of inappropriate voting affecting the result.

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

Are you aware that at the moment, under the regime put in place in 2011 in a number of trial locations amounting to about 900,000 people being able to use the VICs, the voter information cards, that you need a second piece of identity? In other words, if somebody received a card that's in the name of a previous occupant, they would have to go out of their way to forge a second piece of ID and they would also have to have the intention.

You indicated that the people you were talking about who were saying, “Look what I received. I received something with two different versions of my name”, you said they have no intention of using them. I honestly think that's what the system now is all about, the sense that you virtually can't use them because you have to have both the intention—you have to be willing to risk being discovered and then you have to find a way to forge a second piece of ID using the VIC.

Why would we see this as particularly relevant now?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

What I was covering, and I tried to make that clear, was our experiences in the 2006 election. There were changes made because of what happened to us in 2006, because of the complaint we filed with the commissioner of elections and the conversations we had with Mr. Kingsley.

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

My point, Mr. Hawn, is that the abuse potential that you are reading into the current system, based on your experiences then, don't exist.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I'm sorry. I may not have made myself too clear. What I'm talking about is the fact that election fraud does exist in Canada and people will find a way. You know, we plug holes, and that was a hole that needed to be plugged, and it has been plugged to the maximum extent.

My point is that we need to stay alert for other measures, because people will always find a way. People are very creative and inventive, and folks who want to will always find a way to get around the rules somehow.

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

I guess that is where I differ. I think that essentially the gains for voter fraud of this sort are just so limited that's why the research literature shows that voter impersonation is so limited.

Could I ask Mr. Casey?

Did the minister reply to the letter you included in your materials that we've seen?

[Bill Casey]

Actually, I wrote him twice and there was no reply. I didn't get a reply from him or an acknowledgement, which I think is kind of disrespectful, too.

My letter was respectful. It outlined the issues. I did not get a response, with which I was disappointed. I wrote it on February 5. I wrote a second letter and I have yet to receive a response.

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

Given your stature in the pantheon of former MPs, I think that's significant.

Could I please pass on my remaining three and a half minutes to Mr. Rathgeber, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Does he have permission of the committee to do so?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Sure. Mr. Rathgeber, go ahead.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee for that indulgence.

Mr. Casey, first let me say how much I appreciate your advocacy on behalf of independent candidates. I listened with interest about the two sets of rules between party-affiliated candidates and independents, and I couldn't agree more.

In 2006, you were elected as a Conservative candidate in Amherst, Nova Scotia, and in 2008 you were re-elected as an independent. It’s conceivable, based on these differential rules, that the Conservative candidate who campaigned against you in 2008 was able to rely on a surplus you might have left him following the 2006 election.

Is that fair to say?

[Bill Casey]

It was a substantial surplus, as I recall, and he received it.

In 2008 when I ran, it's kind of ironic that I won the election but I was the only one who had to forfeit my cash balance. Unfortunately it takes cash to run in an election. If I wanted to run again, I would not have that money available that I had left, but all of the candidates who ran against me would have it. It's simple. There are five candidates in my riding. Four are run by one set of rules, and a completely different set of rules applies to the other.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

You can appreciate that in 2015 I face the same dilemma where there'll be a Conservative candidate who will be running to unseat me with money that I raised in 2011.

[Bill Casey]

I'm familiar with that.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Based on your inquiries or your research, have you been able to determine any rational explanation for why Elections Canada and the current legislation prohibits non-affiliated candidates from raising money and/or issuing receipts between writ periods?

[Bill Casey]

My only conclusion is that it was an oversight when the rules were drafted, because after the 1993 election and then after the 2000 election, Elections Canada made recommendations to change it. In effect in their paper that I got off the Internet, their recommendation after the 2000 election says, and I read:

The fact is that concerns respecting independent candidate's surpluses can be easily addressed without resort to the draconian form of forfeiture that is currently employed.

So they are saying that the current rules are draconian. They are Elections Canada rules. They made a recommendation at that time to change that. They also made a recommendation to change it in 1993, so I don't know why it hasn't changed.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

You may be aware that in 2003 the Supreme Court ruled that the section 3 charter-protected right to vote extends to more than just the right to cast a ballot. The court indicated that a voter must have an opportunity to balance various ideas in his or her own mind before meaningfully participating in an election process.

In your mind—and I realize you're not a lawyer, Mr. Casey—does the prohibition and the clear handicapping of independent candidates promote fair elections? Or in your non-lawyer view, would that be a violation of the right to meaningful participation in an election?

[Bill Casey]

It's the most clear aspect of Elections Canada to me and it's the most unfair example. It may not be the most important example of unfairness, but it is the clearest example of unfairness that we allow individuals to run for office but some have a different set of rules than others. That is just simply unfair. If we're going to allow independent candidates to run, if any Canadian wants to run, they should be allowed to run. If they are allowed to run, then they should have the same rules as everybody else. That's not what we have today.

In Elections Canada's words—they couldn't have said it better, I love it—they say they are draconian regulations. I urge you to analyze these and change them. I urge you to bring Elections Canada officials in and ask why they used the word draconian. Why are their own rules draconian, and how should you change them?

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Casey. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Rathgeber.

We'll move to Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Hawn, you've emphasized time and time again how fearful you are of fraud. That's what this is all about. Do you believe that Elections Canada has a role to play in preventing fraud from taking place? Do you believe that at the end of the day Elections Canada has a role to prosecute wherever they can when it is believed that fraud has taken place?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Yes, they do. The difficulty, as you know and as everybody around this table knows, is that in the heat of an election it's extremely hard to get that proof.