Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 9 agreed to)

Just for the record, the amendment to clause 9 was defeated 10 to 1.

I will remind members that we're doing a great job on being quiet while we eat, but I noticed that our witnesses are not indulging. Please feel free to do so. Trust me, the members around the table will ask you a question even if you have a full mouth, so there's no worry from my end.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

(On clause 10)

There is an amendment to clause 10.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Monsieur Guimond, you are very cooperative.

May I ask the government to speak to the amendment, please. This is government amendment number 4, which you'll find in your package on page 13.

Are we calling the question right away?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I believe we can, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

All right.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to)

There are no amendments to clauses 11 and 12, and I ask the committee if they would consider agreeing to vote on them as a group.

(Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to)

(On clause 13)

Colleagues, we are dealing with three amendments to clause 13. The first amendment is BQ-6 on page 14 of your package.

I'm being advised that technically to some degree, BQ-6 also deals with the date of birth issue, which we dealt with earlier in our discussions, and perhaps we should apply that vote to this clause.

Monsieur Guimond, would you like to speak to it?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

That is what I wanted to suggest. I did not want to make more arguments. Furthermore, the committee voted on this earlier with the majority in favour. Nonetheless, we can vote again, if you like.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Agreed. Let's call the question, then.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I believe we carried BQ-7 as a result of BQ-1. Are we agreed with that?

Monsieur Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Amendment BQ-7 is identical to amendment G-5. Did you notice that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Yes, I did. We could take a separate vote on them. I think that's the right thing to do, but I'm open to what the committee wants to do.

We are treating both BQ-7 and G-5 as the same.

Monsieur Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

The question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Call the question?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Yes.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

There's no need to deal with G-5.

(Clause 13 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 14)

On clause 14, we are dealing with an NDP amendment, NDP-2 on page 18 of your package.

I'll ask Mr. Dewar to speak to this amendment.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I move the amendment.

What we're trying to do here is in terms of allowing people to change information. If you look at the additions:the fact that proof of an elector's identity and residence will be required before the elector is allowed to vote; and

Can you hold on just one second here? There are a couple of notes I want to follow up on.

I was just confirming something with staff.

Essentially, what this does is allow electors to engage in the process by allowing them to change information. Presently the case is that you have this being done essentially through income tax forms, or through cross-tabulation of data with drivers' records. What this would do is simply allow electors to change information once they've moved into a new residence.

So it allows them to get engaged. Presently we have what I call a passive system. We talked a little bit about this at committee. This is simply to allow electors themselves to do it. It's simply allowing people to help out in the process—a little citizen engagement, if you will—and the addition of paragraphs (e) and (f) would add to that. It's simple, just a matter of allowing citizens to help out and to improve the accuracy of the list as a result.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I have a question, Mr. Dewar, if you could indulge me. I don't see the paragraph (e) on the French side. Am I missing that?

I'm being told it's in the bill. That's great.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Yes, there's a reference. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's fine. I'm happy with that.

Are there any comments? Madam Redman, please.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I read this with some interest, and I appreciate the spirit of trying to have citizen engagement, but I'm wondering, regarding “with proof of identity as prescribed in the regulations”, how we'd do that over the phone and by e-mail. I guess I'm trying to jump into the 21st century with you here, wondering how you would do this remotely and not by presenting your ID in person.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

There are a couple of issues around that, Chair, that I won't get into in any great detail, but my understanding, having talked to people who work within our public service and people who work in banking, is that this is done on a regular basis in verification of data: being able to simply verify, because the information is held by, in many cases, banks and governments.

When we change residences or change businesses, etc., that change and verification is not hard to do, because there are many ways of verifying, through the data that is kept by government or kept by a bank to establish that the person on the other end of the line is, if you will, that person. So it's a matter of already having access. That would be vis-à-vis telephone.

Vis-à-vis e-mail, again that's verification starting with an e-mail being sent in, a verification by phone or by other media, mailing someone a hard copy to verify that it in fact is the case, and having them sign off. It's simply to bring people into the process. There are many ways of doing it. It's done on a daily basis in banking and in government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Madam Redman.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would ask the panel this. It would seem to me that financial institutions, which is the example being named, have a vast amount of personal information at their disposal that Elections Canada by definition wouldn't. As we all know, there are silos in the government, so they're not going to go to another department of the government to get this additional information.

I'd like to hear from the panel. It seems to me this would be unwieldy, costly, and not particularly reliable.

[Natasha Kim]

This provision deems to raise two technical issues. One, which was raised earlier, was that on the proof of identity as prescribed in regulations, there are currently no regulations under the Canada Elections Act and no regulation-making authority. The second operational issue is that at the point at which the notice of confirmation of registration or the voter information cards are sent out, the election period has already begun, and so the updating that needs to be done is generally in relation to the list of electors rather than the register, which is what the CEO is in charge of. So the updates to the lists of electors happens at the local level with the returning officers.

If an elector needed to update their information at that stage, generally it would be the RO they would need to contact, rather than the CEO, and the voter information card, under the act, already has a phone number that needs to be prescribed on it.

So those are some considerations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I did see Madame Jennings' hand, but I think you're passing.

Are there any other comments on this issue?

Then I will call the question on amendment NDP-2, with respect to clause 14.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])