Evidence of meeting #25 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was person.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
My question on that is whether it is our intent to then have a record of that.
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
Yes. There will be a record--
Conservative
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
There will be a paper trail. The person will have to sign in such an instance, and if there is any abuse of that, we will be able to trace the document, trace the handwriting, do the requisite comparisons, and prosecute if necessary.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
All right.
And you mentioned in your comments this morning that there are seven financial issues in a report that you're about to bring back to us, and you have that almost ready for us. Would you be looking for a response from us, or is this an informational report?
October 26th, 2006 / 11:30 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
You requested it, and therefore I will provide the information. How you react to it and why you would want to bring me back is really up to you. Of course, I will respond within two hours of notice, Mr. Chairman.
Conservative
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
And if I can be found.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you very much, and it is ten seconds too early.
We'll go to Mr. Guimond.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kingsley, I would like to begin with a comment. We remain greatly perplexed as to the accuracy of the lists. The best evidence of this is that in your 2005 report, you asked that the deadline for distributing the lists be changed from October 15 to November 15. I doubt that this request was made simply on a whim. You no doubt realized that on November 15, the lists would be more accurate and would reflect the considerable number of moves in Quebec.
It explains why we put forward an amendment to Bill C-16 to change the election date suggested in the said bill, i.e. the third Monday in October. That is what is called “crying over spilt milk”.
When you appear again before this Committee after the next elections, we will again lament the inaccuracy of the lists. I warn you in advance that if the voters put there confidence in me once again and I am still a member of this Committee, I will say: “I told you so!”
That being said, I want to get back to the bingo cards. In your letter of October 5, I get the feeling you wanted to make things more complicated than they really are.
Has anyone from your office spoken to Mr. Blanchet or one of his representatives to have them explain this system to you? Do you consider that you have an in-depth knowledge of the bingo card system in Quebec?
For example, you said that a photocopier will be needed at each polling station. Are you aware of the NCR, or no carbon required forms? In Quebec, there is an NCR sheet. The party that shows up first gets the first copy, and the second gets the second copy. Why make it complicated when it’s so simple?
You also said that it would cost between $10.6 million and $23.5 million to hire staff to manage it all. Why not ask the poll clerk already in the polling station to cross names off on the lists, while having the bingo card next to him or her? The poll clerk could indicate that voter No. 28 voted in the last two hours. There would be no need for additional staff.
If you say that this involves costs for employees, some people will surely ask if they are crazy, when it comes to the bingo cards. I asked, and in Quebec, the work is done by the clerk.
You say that the list is confidential. Well, they would not be handing out photocopies of the list, but a sheet listing 28, 128, 132, etc. We have the lists, and we can check and see that voter No. 28’s name is Jean-Pierre Kingsley and that he voted between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m..
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Firstly, with respect to the accuracy of the lists, the letter I wrote to the Committee—on October 5, I believe, I referred to it earlier—clearly indicates that with a fixed election date, special arrangements can be made. However, even with these special arrangements, the list will not be as accurate as the list we would have prepared for November 15, even with special arrangements. I was very clear on the subject. The Committee was aware of this when it voted in favour of the Bill in its existing form.
I made other recommendations and suggestions to the Committee, but it dropped them; I have no problems with that. However, the Committee was clearly informed as to the accuracy of the list. It’s written in the letter. So your decision is not a problem for me, but I will do everything in my power to have as accurate a list as possible.
Would it have been better to wait? I believe that suggestion was implicit in my letter.
Secondly, with regard to the bingo card, we shouldn’t mix scenarios. We did not expect to need photocopiers for the bingo cards. We understand the system. In fact, your representative was kind enough to bring us a bingo card during an advisory committee session two weeks ago. So, I know the system, I have seen it. It has been explained to me.
Before answering, we contacted the office of the Directeur général des élections du Québec to understand how the system operates, obviously, because it is important that we provide information that is as accurate as possible.
Thirdly, if I could adapt it to the existing system, I would do it. If I knew how to do it, I would, because I always do everything I can to help the candidates, as well as the voters. In this job, it’s my mission in life. So if we could find a way to do it, even by making modifications, I would be willing to pursue the discussion.
But when you refer to the Quebec model, you should know that it calls for the addition of two paid employees for this task. We have calculated that one paid employee per polling station costs $10.8 million. That’s the cost involved. Could we do it without paying someone?
I must also take into account the fact that the Committee wants to add identification papers to the electoral process, which will obviously create more work for the polling stations and clerks. But if there was a way to do it, let me say right away that I would agree, because I know that it would help you.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
You would be open to having it done by the clerk?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
If there was a way of seeing if it could be done, I would consider the possibility, but at this point, I don’t see how, because of the workload, especially if there are plans to add identification papers. There is a lot of uncertainty. That is what I am trying to point out.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you.
If we still feel that question needs some more answers, Monsieur Guimond, we can move to it on the second round.
If I may have the committee's consent, Ms. Davies would like to ask a question.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, and thank you to my colleague Mr. Godin for allowing me to be here as well—I'm not usually on this committee.
I am very concerned about some of the proposals that have been put forward.
In your brief, Mr. Kingsley, you talk about the ID provision and that it will constitute a major change in the functioning of the polls, and I would certainly agree with that. You also talk about the judgment that would be applied and whether it would be consistent—we're talking about 65,000 people. But I think what you haven't referenced, and what I would have a huge concern about, is that if we move to this kind of system we are potentially disenfranchising thousands of people, mostly low-income people or homeless people, who for one reason or another don't have ID.
In Vancouver East, for example, as you know, we have relied on statutory declarations and we have lawyers on election day who come from various organizations—it's very non-partisan—and that statutory declaration has been sufficient for the returning officer to accept that the person is who they are, they have an address, they have no other ID. Mr. Owen talks about remote communities, aboriginal communities, and I'm very concerned that with the requirements around ID, particularly if we're saying you need one photograph ID but otherwise it's got to be two pieces of ID, we will be in effect disenfranchising many people in low-income communities. So my question is, are we applying the right tool to the problem that's been identified? If the issue here is multiple voting or multiple vouching, then surely there must be a mechanism to deal with that, rather than penalizing people who legitimately don't have ID and spend hours in lineups waiting to vote.
I've sent you cases over a number of elections of problems that we've had, and it is a major issue. I'm very concerned that if we introduce this as a new principle in our elections we'll really be changing not just the functioning but how we enfranchise people. I'd like you to respond to that.
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
The remarks I made were meant to stimulate exactly the discussion that you're precipitating by your comments. I think it's going to be very important for people to understand that when there are no pieces of ID that are available there will have to be an oath and they will have to be vouched for by someone else who is already on the list. And it will not be possible to have serial vouching to achieve that, in accordance with the changes that would be brought about. I think the committee needs to be aware of that. And there will be no judgment on the part of the DRO; the law will prevent them from making judgments that they'll accept this person anyway because they look honest. That will not be a possibility. There will have to be strict ID, as prescribed.
That's why I said I will send you recommendations of the pieces of ID that I would accept as part of the statute I would have under Bill C-31. I'll send you the pieces that I consider acceptable, and you can tell me if you find them acceptable. Because I intend to be swayed here by the will of Parliament, not by my own will. I run elections; I don't write the laws.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Yes, but I can tell you already that whatever you come up with, there will be people who have none of the above—
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
I agree.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
So we're basically saying that they don't vote. And what I'm trying to get at is your concern: is it primarily the vouching of people doing multiple vouching, or is it that you think there are people who are voting more than once? Because I think there are ways to address that without having to get into the ID question.
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
Frankly, it's the concern of the committee, more than mine. These are not recommendations that I made about serial vouching, even though I can see the sensitivity of that issue, and neither is double voting a concern of mine.
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
I have not seen proof of this. I've read the report, and apparently there were people who came here to testify from parties and they said that they had instances of this. Whenever I hear this, I tell people to provide me with the particulars of those instances, but they do not. I have received nothing from the parties. So it's very difficult for us to see where this is occurring. There are isolated instances that we identify through checking of the records of people who vote at advance polls and vote again at the regular polls and other similar instances. But they are very low in number, and we investigate those and the commissioner either prosecutes or comes to an understanding. It's called a compliance agreement, where the person recognizes that what they did was wrong, and some of them do it for a number of valid or what we would consider not illegal reasons.
What the committee is addressing is what the committee, as elected representatives, feel is an issue, not what I've brought to its attention.