Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 4th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lukiwski, for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have a couple of points here and then a question for Monsieur Mayrand.

In response to Madame Robillard's question as to what good it would do if you have to uncover your face and you have two pieces of identification that don't have a photo, how does that help, it may not help completely, but of course every party has scrutineers. Someone perhaps could catch the fact that it's not the person they know it to be, because they've seen the face and they don't care if they have identification saying the person is John Doe because they know John Doe and that's not John Doe. That's one of the stopgaps. It's not perfect, but at least it's something. You suggested, perhaps, that it would be of no use. I think it would be of some use to be able to see the individual who is requesting to cast a ballot.

With respect to Mr. Dewar's comment that there were only three cases of fraud in the previous election, I would suggest that although it may not have occurred more than three times, the ability to cast fraudulent votes has been there up to this point in time, and we have discussed that extensively at this committee.

As an example, my colleague Mr. Reid has pointed out that in the previous election he received, actually, multiple voting cards—one saying “Scott Reid”, another one saying “R. Scott Reid”, and a third one saying “Scott Douglas Reid”—which could have allowed him, should he have chosen to do so, to go to various polling stations and cast ballots.

What we're suggesting with this bill, what we're attempting to do, is to cut down on the potential use of fraudulent voters.

I see Mr. Dewar shaking his head, suggesting that would never happen.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

We have other solutions.

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

Thank you, Mr. Dewar. It's my turn. You'll have yours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order, please.

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

That interjection notwithstanding, the question I have for you, Mr. Mayrand, is this. If this bill is going to be before Parliament but not passed, if it does not receive royal assent and a byelection or a general election occurs, would you be prepared to use your power of adaptation to enact the bill in those circumstances even though it has not passed?

[Marc Mayrand]

As I indicated before, the power to adapt is an extraordinary authority given to the Chief Electoral Officer. In my mind, it should be used with extreme caution and for very exceptional circumstances. This power of adaptation is designed, in my mind, to facilitate the right to vote and not to restrict people from voting. I think it's up to Parliament to establish the conditions for the exercise of the right to vote.

If Bill C-6 is not adopted prior to a possible general election, or even byelection—I believe one has to be called by the end of this month—I will take the same position as I took in September, institute the same procedures requiring all electors showing up at the polling stations to display their face before being issued a ballot. Those who refuse will be asked to take an oath. If they refuse to take an oath, they will not be allowed to vote.

In addition, I will do as I did in September, monitor the situation very closely—in fact, by the minute, almost—and if there are issues of disturbance of the vote or behaviours that would bring disrepute to the voting process, I will take the necessary measures to ensure that the vote takes place in an orderly manner.

At this point, I cannot commit to adapting the act.

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

I think you've been fairly clear there, but for the record, you are saying that even though this bill may have passed, say, third reading in the House and is before the Senate but has not been given royal assent, and perhaps hypothetically, even if the Senate committee examining this bill after it has passed the House has suggested that they would be prepared to give it royal assent but have not physically done so, you would still not be prepared to enact the powers of adaptation.

[Marc Mayrand]

I have to assess the circumstances as they arise. There are a lot of hypothetical situations that can emerge, and depending on which one occurs, I will have to exercise my discretion in light of the specific circumstances that exist at the time. I cannot speculate on my authority or my decision to adapt.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

We'll go now to Mr. Dewar. Would you like five minutes for questions?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Certainly.

To clarify for my friend across the way, the position we had put forward, just for the record, was that if there are issues of potential voter fraud, there are other ways of dealing with it. And Bill C-31, we believed, was not the right way to go--and here we are.

Again just for the record, we had suggested that a couple of smart commonsensical things could have been done. I mentioned the concerns about duplicate voter cards. We believe that we should use this incredible technology called an envelope and address the voter card to the voter. To ensure that these cards aren't picked up by other people to use to vote, the actual voter card would be addressed to the voter. If the voter wasn't there, it would be returned to Elections Canada.

Further to that, we believe there should be what we called universal enumeration for universal suffrage. Right now we have a mess with our voters list, in my opinion. I don't point the finger at Elections Canada; I actually point the finger at when we started with the computerized voters list. We ran into problems. Any of us who have dealt with databases, trying to keep on top of them, know it's an ongoing issue. You have to be vigilant and you need resources.

We believe we should have door-to-door enumeration for every single election. My goodness, if we're not willing to invest in that for something so obvious and important as elections, then I think our priorities are off. We believe those two things should have happened.

Finally, we did try to amend at committee to have a statutory declaration put in place, and it was refused.

So I just want to clean that up. That's a little housekeeping in terms of what we believe should have been done instead of Bill C-31.

I want to ask you this, Mr. Mayrand. I was looking at other options here, but you just mentioned the process that recently happened. You asked that all election officials and DROs require that people, if they are not visually displaying when they receive their ballots, do so, and if they don't, then they're to swear an oath. After you've asked someone to swear an oath, you will have the name, address, and requisite information for follow-up. Is that correct?

[Marc Mayrand]

The name of the elector, yes. Basically, yes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

So if there was a concern around identification or if follow-up was required, you would have the requisite information to do a follow-up. In other words, you would know that, according to your records, for the person who took the oath you would be able to establish a name and address.

[Marc Mayrand]

Yes, and that's what we do when we get complaints about possible impersonations.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to also bring forward--and I think everyone has it in their backup from the Library of Parliament--the situation in Morocco. I'm the one who brought it up.

As you will have in your backup, the procedure in Morocco is not much different. I've witnessed first-hand exactly the same procedure as we have in place, as Mr. Mayrand has provided, where people are asked to visually identify and do so. But according to the section you see in the backup, it doesn't have it in statute that you have to, but it is in practice. I just want to share that with committee members. I think you have the document on that from the Library of Parliament.

I guess I'll stop there, Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dewar.

Colleagues, I notice that we're getting into more commentary than questions, so I'm going to ask whether we need a third round.

I do have a member who wishes to ask a question. So we'll go to a third round, three minutes, please.

Monsieur Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mayrand, I have three questions. I would like first of all to understand something. Mr. Lukiwski made some statements and in my view there is something that does not click.

First of all, Mr. Lukiwski stated that each party had returning officers at the voting tables. He used the term scrutineers. Unless some changes were made last night while I was sleeping, that is not quite the way it works. The party with the best result has one, the party with the second best result can put forward a suggestion as to the second one, but there is not one scrutineer per party. Of course, parties or candidates can have representatives, but there is not, automatically, one scrutineer for each party. Mr. Lukiwski therefore mislead Canadians with what he said.

Secondly, Mr. Lukiwski talked about voting cards. Once again, he mislead Canadians because the postcard or card one receives at home does not entitle one to vote. It informs the person that there will be elections and tells the addressee where to go and vote, is that not the case? That is not what is called a voting card.

[Marc Mayrand]

It's a voter information card.

It is not an identification card.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you. It provides no entitlement, but simply information.

[Marc Mayrand]

Correct.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thirdly, I come now to my most important question. Could you explain to me what logic — and I am not being negative here — would guide you in the following case? If someone whose face was hidden came to vote, would you ask that person to swear an oath? I come back to the example I gave earlier, that of the women farmers of whatever town down the way, who are wearing a scarf that covers their face. Instead of identifying themselves with photo ID, they tell you that they each have two identification cards without a photo and that the law provides that they be able to vote if they have two pieces of identification. You say that you would ask them to swear an oath.

[Marc Mayrand]

Yes, we are talking about current law and not Bill C-6. I simply wish to underscore that fact.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Under current law...

[Marc Mayrand]

According to the law as it stands, each voter wishing to vote must establish that he or she is entitled to vote. That involves two elements: you must 18 years of age and be a Canadian citizen. If the returning officer has some doubt with regard to either one of these two conditions, he or she may ask the person wishing to vote to swear an oath. In September, we set up a procedure to be followed to establish if a person whose face is covered, for whatever reason, should be allowed to vote. Basically, as I stated, when you see a person whose face is covered or hidden, that should cause you to wonder. The person must be invited to show their face or to swear an oath. This is the procedure that was followed for the by-elections in September. Obviously, Bill C-6 would change this process and establish clearly that everyone would have to show his or her face.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

I'm sorry, Monsieur Proulx. We could have time for another round if you wanted to, but we're well over that round. I'm going to go to the next questioner, please.

Mr. Reid.