Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 26th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Let's begin the meeting, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you very much again for coming.

I want to advise members first-hand of course that this meeting is being held in public. I don't think we're going to have too much trouble today with our timing, but we will need at least half an hour at the end to discuss committee business. So we'll all watch the time and hopefully we'll have a half an hour at the end to deal with other matters.

Monsieur Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On Tuesday, my colleague Paul Dewar introduced a motion, and I would like it to be put on the agenda of the committee’s future business.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Absolutely. That is on our agenda and it's okay; we'll just talk about that. I'll save time at the end. Thank you.

As discussed at our Tuesday meeting, the committee invited Mr. Kingsley to come today to discuss the response we've received from the government with respect to our 13th report at the end of session in June. We have that before us. Furthermore, on Tuesday of this week the government did introduce Bill C-31, which implements several of the committee's recommendations. That bill will ultimately be referred back to this committee after second reading. I'm hoping that members can maybe focus on the report, the response from the government today, and see whether or not we want to provide a response to the response, rather than getting sidetracked to Bill C-31. I would hope that members can keep focused on the response. That's what I had spoken to Mr. Kingsley about, and I'm quite sure it's the fair way to go.

Mr. Kingsley, I think if it's okay with you we would like to start with opening remarks from you. Perhaps you could introduce again your colleagues and then we'll open the floor to questions.

Colleagues, just so everybody is aware of the rules before we begin, we'll go in the usual round of questions starting with a seven-minute round in the usual format.

Mr. Kingsley, welcome, and thank you so much for agreeing to come again on short notice. I appreciate your cooperation and diligence for the committee. Please introduce your colleagues and then we can begin.

Thank you.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to respond to the Committee’s request to discuss its June 2006 report, Improving the Integrity of the Electoral Process: Recommendations for Legislative Change—the name you have given it—and the government’s recent response to that report.

I am accompanied today by Ms. Diane Davidson, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer and Chief Legal Counsel, and Mr. Rennie Molnar, Senior Director of Operations, Register and Geography.

The first half of my presentation will be in French, and the second half in English, obviously.

In preparing its report, the Committee considered the recommendations for amendments to the Canada Elections Act set out in my 2005 report to the Speaker of the House, Completing the Cycle of Electoral Reforms.

Several of these recommendations were endorsed by the Committee and included in its report, some with enhancements. In turn, in its response the Government agreed with many of the Committee’s recommendations and has introduced legislation—Bill C-31 as you just mentioned, Mr. Chairman—to implement them.

A number of areas have been agreed by Committee or by the Government in its response as warranting further consideration. These include a simpler and fairer broadcasting regime; a general review of the Special Voting Rules; a more precise recommendation for an expanded authority for the Chief Electoral Officer to create mobile polls; the distribution of the annual and final lists of electors to all registered and eligible partiers; the development of a simpler administrative process for securing time extensions for the filing of financial returns, and the right to strike by employees of Elections Canada.

I continue to think that these are issues worth pursuing by us all and I would be pleased to make available to the Committee such resources of my Office as it may require, respecting any work upon which it may embark in these areas, and to participate in your deliberations.

There are a number of matters raised in the Committee report or in the Government response that I would like to comment on further.

The 2002 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Sauvé restored the right of prisoners in federal institutions, penitentiaries, to vote, but the Canada Elections Act does not have a mechanism for them to exercise this right. The Government has rejected the recommendations for the expansion to federal institutions of the existing statutory process for voting in provincial correctional institutions. In the absence of the required amendment of the Canada Elections Act, I propose to continue to adapt the Act with each election—to the extent permitted by law—to provide the needed mechanism.

I would like to add a comment that is not found in the text that was tabled: I would like to know if this Committee has any objections to my actions.

I also urge Parliament to continue to consider this issue.

I will now continue in English.

In its report, the committee rejected the wording of my 2005 recommendation respecting a civil examination and inquiry authority for the financial returns required from political entities, particularly political parties, under the Canada Elections Act. I remain convinced of the need for such an authority in light of the importance of the public disclosure requirements of the act and the significant amount of the public reimbursements paid out to registered parties on the basis of those returns. I am willing, obviously, to look at the wording with you to see what wording you would find acceptable.

Following recommendations initiated by the committee, the government's response has proposed a requirement for electors to produce identification in order to vote.

Provision of ID constitutes a major change in the functioning of the polls. Should Parliament wish to proceed with this initiative, it must be very clear as to what is required. This requirement will be implemented by some 65,000 individual deputy returning officers across the land, whose judgment must be consistent: in Canada there's only one definition of a Canadian.

Before implementing this recommendation, it is important to know exactly which entities would be considered government or agencies of government and how many types of government identification have a person's name, residential address, and photograph, and to know what part of the elector universe has such identification. Furthermore, I would want to hear the views of Parliament before authorizing alternative types of identification. This is particularly important as deputy returning officers at the polls will have no flexibility respecting this identification once it is authorized for an election.

At the conclusion of its recommendations, the committee noted that it was awaiting a report from my office respecting the financing provisions of the Canada Elections Act. The committee indicated that upon its receipt it would address seven specific topics noted in the report in the context of a review of overall finance issues. These topics will include such things as membership fees, tax credits, and tax receipts for pre-election contributions.

In response to that request, I am preparing a report for the assistance of the committee that should be available within the next 30 days. That report will deal expressly with those seven issues. It will not go further into other financing provisions of the Canada Elections Act.

Elections Canada has data respecting the operation of the 2004 political financing regime, which it has provided to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its study of Bill C-2—that relates to the 2005 financial year. If the committee wishes, I will be pleased to make that data available to it.

The data that is available now to Elections Canada does not reflect a normal electoral cycle because of the effect of general elections in each of the three years since the implementation of those initiatives. In other words, that's why I cannot provide you with a report on the full implications and full ramifications of Bill C-24, as it was then known.

I have already provided the committee, under separate cover dated October 5, in a letter that reached you during your committee deliberations on that day, with information respecting the implementation of different systems to assist candidates on polling day to identify electors who have voted. I would be pleased to answer any question the committee may have respecting that information.

I would also like to note that the government response has two recommendations to which it is asking the Chief Electoral Officer to respond. One of them concerns the warning that would be posted in the polls, which would add to the fact that we already post a notice to the effect that one must be a Canadian and one must be 18 years of age before voting. I'm asked to also add that it is against the law—that it is committing a crime—to do otherwise. I intend to start doing that as soon as possible.

The other one concerns providing instructions to electoral officials who are responsible for registration on polling day. We already do that, Mr. Chairman, so if there is anything I'm not understanding about this, I would appreciate further guidance.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kingsley.

We will begin our first round of questioning, for seven minutes again, with Mr. Owen, please.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you all for being here, and Mr. Kingsley, for your presentation.

Let me just raise a few issues and we may come back to them in different forms, through our various questions.

I'm interested in the lack of response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision that confirms the right of inmates in federal institutions to vote and the somewhat of a standoff we seem to have in the ability to exercise that right. So I'm interested in your comment that you will be acting within the current act to provide that ability to the full extent that you're able. I'd like to know a little more about the barriers to that and whether they are absolute in some situations, or whether there is a way you can provide that opportunity.

Secondly, I'm interested in the government's response to our committee's report and the concern raised about what is termed “serial vouchers”, which is an ominous term, at best. I'm thinking particularly about remote aboriginal communities where ID is often not in people's possession, and what impact that may have on their ability to vote. And I think it goes something like, a “vouchee” can't become a “vouchor”. I think that's the aspect of it. If you're vouched for, you can't vouch for someone else's identity.

And finally, this goes somewhat beyond the scope of your initial remarks. As you know, the Liberal Party of Canada has a leadership convention coming up, and there has been some confusion, if I can call it that, around how convention fees are to be treated, whether they're to be receipted and therefore provide a benefit to the person who is paying them, but also, therefore, a deduction on their allowable contribution for that year. I wonder if you can bring any more clarity at this stage to that. I know you've made recent statements on it, and I wonder if you have a definitive statement to make on it.

Thank you.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Mr. Chairman, with respect to prisoners in federal penitentiaries, I have, in light of the Supreme Court judgment, adapted the statute in accordance with my powers, which is the power to adapt in unforeseen circumstances or in cases of emergency. I have adapted the statute because Parliament had not had an opportunity to amend the law, based on the Supreme Court judgment.

What I am indicating here is that since it is not proposed to change the statute at this time, it would be my intention to continue to do so, unless I hear differently from this committee. That's what I'm asking, because that would be a bit of a stretch to the definition of “unforeseen” and emergency situation, which is what the statute allows me to do at this time.

Otherwise, what will happen is that the persons who are affected by the decision, if I do not adapt the statute, would have to go and seek redress from the courts to force the Supreme Court judgment to be enforceable for the election. That's why I'm seeking the guidance of the committee.

With respect to serial vouching, my understanding is that this is an issue that is of concern to all the parties represented in the House, which is the ability of a person to be registered on polling day, through a vouching, and then to vouch for the next person in line.

This has an impact all over Canada. It has not been particularly reported as an issue, that I can recollect, with respect to aboriginals. I think it would have an impact all over. I sense parliamentarians around this table felt this was a problem and therefore viewed the response of the government to be something that reflected the will of this committee.

With respect to convention fees, I have nothing further to add to what I've stated before in terms of interpretation, and therefore I would not want to add anything.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

With respect to the inmate right-to-vote question, it seems to me that you could be the subject of a mandamus petition to require you to provide a facility for them to be able to vote effectively.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

This is what would happen if I do not adapt the statute. These people are attuned to their rights. Mr. Sauvé is well attuned to his rights, other prisoners are attuned to their rights, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, and this is obviously one redress mechanism that they would attempt.

All that I would be striving to achieve is to make that unnecessary if I were to continue to adapt the statute, but I'm really feeling uncomfortable to do so without the assentiment, the aval, of this committee, and therefore the agreement of this committee that this is the thing to do.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

On the government side, Mr. Preston, please.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I'll carry on where Mr. Owen was on the serial vouching piece. The whole purpose that the whole discussion centred around was the identification of voters. In your talks this morning, you also asked for some more information from us about what identification pieces would be permissible or how to get there.

Mr. Kingsley, I see in other areas you're certainly not shy at coming forward and making decisions on your own and bringing them to this committee. I would suggest that the same would hold true for the identification piece. You have an organization that is countrywide, and you would maybe be better at being able to research what identification is available countrywide. I'd like to suggest that you do that, that you look at what identification is available, and maybe, if you'd like advice from this, as you have asked for on a couple of other cases in your advice from this committee, then send it back to us as to what you've discovered, rather than this committee individually going around the different parts of the country we're from and trying to determine what piece of identification is correct.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I certainly agree entirely with you, Mr. Preston. The text perhaps could have been clearer. I would intend to undertake this work immediately after this meeting and ascertain what government ID exists now, what is issued by different governments across the land.

If you look at the federal government, there is no photo ID, to the best of my knowledge, provided by anyone at the federal government level, except perhaps the passport, and maybe citizenship cards. But at the provincial level, I think it would be important to find out, because if it's drivers' licences, as in Ontario, for example, where I am a resident, that's one thing, but not everyone drives a car. What else is available? Well, there's a health card, but does the health card have a photo? My health card in Ontario doesn't, because I'm part of the group that wasn't done when they did that. So this is the type of thing I think you should be aware of as you proceed down that line, so that you know what the impact will be so that we avoid difficult situations at the polls.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I understand that long before we go to the poll with an ID, we should have decided what ID is acceptable, and that was the discussion of this committee. Certain provinces of the land still don't have pictures on drivers' licences either, or it hasn't rotated through the citizenry that they all have pictures, as with the health card in Ontario. We can predict that those will be photo ID in the future to all or to some, but as I said, you need to come up with that list, perhaps a by-province list of what would be acceptable, and then we could certainly look at that.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

We'll undertake that immediately. That was the gist, the thrust of my comment, sir.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Right.

The other piece on the serial vouching that we certainly talked about--it was discussed here--was that it wasn't about one citizen of Canada vouching for one citizen of Canada; it was a bus pulling to a poll and somebody saying, “These are all my neighbours, and I know them all and I'm vouching for them all.” That's truly what the serial vouching piece was about.

Then again, I think Mr. Owen brought up the other piece, that “I'll vouch for you, then you vouch for the next guy on the bus, and he vouches for the next guy on the bus.” Let's get real. If 40 people come on a bus without ID, I think alarm bells should go off, and that's truly what the whole voter identification piece was about. I'm not sure you answered Mr. Owen's question when he asked you, but was there some unclearness as to what we were talking about?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Well, I did, and what I indicated in my answer is that I share the committee's views on this issue, and therefore I'm not in disagreement with the government's response. Okay? I'm not in disagreement. I'm in agreement with the government's response on this.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Okay. In this response, have you answered to all of the government's response, other than the pieces that were missing from it?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Nothing that the government responded was found objectionable by my office.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Super.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

So it's a form of negative consent, if you wish, but that's not the thrust of it. In my discussions with the chairman, the thrust of what I was supposed to do was to highlight those things left to be studied, and that's the thrust of what I did.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

The only point I'm making is that at some point in the future we won't say that we didn't talk about that. So by not talking about it, we're saying we've responded that we didn't have anything to say about this.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

That is because the government, in its response, quite rightly noted that my office was consulted on what is in the bill, and what is in the bill or in the response we made sure we could implement.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I have one further question on the identification piece. We have made provision in here should someone truly just not have identification--and there will be, we recognized at committee, that eventuality. We hoped that most Canadians would learn that they have to vote by showing identification, but some would not have it, and there would then be an affidavit they could sign that would be signed by the deputy returning officer stating that the person did not have identification but answered the question that he or she was a Canadian citizen and lived within the boundaries of that poll, or whatever other questions there are.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

There's also the requirement for vouching, which means that somebody else must be there who knows the person. I suppose that's a double whammy of a requirement.