Evidence of meeting #79 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was need.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Mayrand, I think the focus has been a great deal on robocalls. I'd just like to have your opinion. Is it a fact that all parties keep lists in computers, data that makes it available for them to get out voters?
12:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
My understanding is that most national parties, larger parties, have some sort of database of electors—their supporters and members of the party.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Sure, and that would be logical if your intention is to get out the vote. I think that's the 21st century now, the most logical thing.
And is it equally true that candidates and parties use technology that gets referred to as robocalls, in a general sense?
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
So much of what has been done is always attributed to the Conservative Party, and yet the only conviction registered has not been associated with the Conservative Party. Would that be fair?
12:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Yes, but we're talking about two different things.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
There were findings by the CRTC; I'm not sure they are convictions, but they were findings by the CRTC.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I think, somehow, that gets lost in the translation. I'm not trying to build it up on somebody else, because that's not fair. But I don't think blaming everything on the Conservative Party list is fair either. That's my opinion, and I would expect you would understand that.
12:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
That's why my recommendations focus on the future and how we can provide better rules for using those communication tools properly.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Sure, and in a general sense, across the board, I think that's fair.
With respect to the legislative changes proposed in the recent compliance report, it would appear that many of those things were recommendations you made to this committee after the 40th general election. I think this committee endorsed most of these recommendations when you brought them before us. I think that's a fair assessment from the past.
12:20 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Yes, that is largely true, and I pointed out some variations today in my presentation.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Would it be accurate that to say that these changes were recommended to this committee by your office? How helpful to your office would the implementation of many of these proposed legislative changes, in the recent compliance report and in your report on the 40th general election, be in significantly reducing the number of errors made by election officials at the polls?
12:20 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
They would contribute significantly for 2015. With greater flexibility and recruitment, more time for training, better training tools, and online services for registration, I think we can make a difference. Will we entirely fix the problem? I don't think that will happen until we have redesigned the whole process.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I think it's fair to say that constant improvement is always something that's out there, even though we'll never get perfect. But you've made your recommendations, this committee has concurred, and now we're at the implementation stage.
12:20 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Before implementation, we need to see legislation that reflects those recommendations.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
It did concur, certainly; I think it was in the summer of 2011. But we're still waiting for legislation.
May 28th, 2013 / 12:20 p.m.
NDP
Nycole Turmel NDP Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Mayrand, I would like to come back to my colleague's question about 18-year-old youth and the 300,000 envelopes that you send them. In order to assist you in this process, do you have any recommendations or suggestions that would allow for communication with young people before they reach the age of 18?
12:20 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
There are several and they should stimulate public debate.
As I said earlier, should we have the power to automatically register voters who are old enough to vote and who have the required qualities to do so rather than insisting on getting their active consent? We can imagine that there are countries or places in this world where registration is mandatory. I am not proposing that we make registration mandatory, but when we know who the voters are and where they live, we could at least be able to register them, unless they indicate that they do not want this to be done, which rarely happens.
We would like to be able to keep data. Often, young people have a driver's licence from the age of 16. Obviously, they do not yet have the right to vote. Under the current legislation, we cannot keep data on these young people. We have to wait until they reach the age of 18. However, perhaps we could register young people from the age of 16. In fact, at that age, they are often well-ensconced in their families and they have stable lives, as it is shortly before they will leave home for college or university. We could register them, and ensure that this registration is not in effect until they reach the age of 18.
These are models that exist in different countries in the world. Here in Canada, we believe that British Columbia is in the process of evaluating this type of system.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Nycole Turmel NDP Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you.
I will talk about the workforce a bit later if I have time.
I would like to come back to one point. In this morning's papers, there was talk of some 40 election contributions made the same day in a certain riding for a specific candidate. This occurred in 2009. When such a situation arises and it is noted that many people from the same company send an election contribution on the same day, do Elections Canada representatives have the ability or the power to determine if there is a problem? Perhaps we cannot talk about a problem because, legally, they have the right to do so, but this may occur following the payment of a bonus or an end-of-year bonus. Do you have the power to do prevention work and question such a situation?
12:20 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
In order to do that, we would require additional information. It is legal to make a donation to a party or a candidate and the limit for an individual is $1,200.
The fact that groups get together to make a donation to a given candidate's campaign is absolutely not illegal in and of itself. However, it would be illegal if this action was motivated by a financial reimbursement. In such a case, we might start asking ourselves questions. The law is clear. The money must come from the contributor or donor and not from a third party. The mere fact that people from the same organization, whatever it may be, make donations to a political entity is not itself illegal. We would have to have other information.
We can see that contributions are often made on the same day. It is often the case when there are fundraisers. In those situations, we have no idea who the donors' employers are. This information is not sent to Elections Canada and there is no such requirement in the legislation. We are always keenly aware of these things and if relevant information justifies taking additional steps, we will do so.
