Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 6th, 2014

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Mayrand, in the last election, can you tell me how many ridings where the difference between the winning candidate and the second place candidate was less than 10% of the vote, or less than 7% of the vote? Would you be able to tell me exactly or give me at least a rough idea?

[Marc Mayrand]

A few, but I don't have an exact number. I can come back with that, or it can be checked on the website—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Would you have a guess?

[Marc Mayrand]

I'd prefer not to mislead the committee, but there's more than one, no doubt.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

It's quite a few more than one, I'm sure.

[Marc Mayrand]

Yes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

In fact, it's probably enough to make a difference in who formed the government or whether there is a majority government.

[Marc Mayrand]

That I don't know.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

If you look at the last several elections, there would be a potential for there to be quite a significant difference in the result of the election had there been a 7% or 10% swing in the votes.

The reason I ask that is I'm troubled by some of the previous responses that you've given. I've been troubled by some of your testimony earlier when we talked about both vouching and the voter information cards.

In the case of vouching, you talk about there being an approximate number, 120,000. There was a sample done of some.

Certainly when you look at it, there is definitely the potential that there could have been ridings where significant numbers came from certain ridings, and it could have made a difference on the result of the election if someone engaged in vouching engaged in voter fraud.

Also, when I look at the voter information cards, your numbers suggest there is about a 10% error rate on those cards. I've actually heard numbers that are even greater than that in terms of the error rate, that it's maybe as high as one in six on those voter information cards.

Then in response to one of Mr. Reid's questions you indicated that once some of the revisions were done, that error rate would only be about 7%. The reason I ask the question about the 7% or the 10% is that I would suggest to you, sir, that they would be quite significant, the number of ridings that would have been at a result of less than a 7% difference.

There is a potential here for someone who seeks to engage in fraud to influence the results of quite a few ridings in this country, and therefore influence the result of the election, based on fraud. I was quite concerned that you didn't see there was a problem with a 7% to 10% or more error rate in those cards. That was quite a concern to me, sir.

I look at the issue of the cards, the duplicates, or the error rates. When your predecessor looked at the 2000 election and realized there was almost a million more eligible voters who were leading into the 2000 election than actually was the case, he said, “A voter information card is just that, a voter information card. This card does not mean that you were entitled to vote more than once.”

With an error rate as high as there is, I would certainly agree that this card should stay as just that, the voter information card.

I really think you should give some thought to that, sir, as to whether the voter information card really is reliable enough to be considered as an accepted form of ID. I really ask that you give some thought to that.

What I'd like to ask you about, however—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have about 20 seconds.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I would just ask that you give that some thought because I really do believe a 7% to 10%, or possible even greater error rate is a concern. I think you should be concerned about that, sir. That's why this bill is doing something to correct that issue.

[Marc Mayrand]

We continue to make our best effort in looking for opportunities to continually improve the list.

As I mentioned earlier, it's accurate 93% of the time, not one in six.

Again, at the end of the day, what this committee has to decide, and Parliament, is whether in the absence of any strict evidence of significant abuse of the system, it is worth disenfranchising several thousand electors. That's the balance in the system that we have to take. I'm suggesting that if we are really concerned about the fraud in the system—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I would beg to differ with you, sir. I think that what we do is correct—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Richards. Your time is finished too.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

[Inaudible—Editor] I think there are 39 forms of ID that are acceptable. I think most Canadians, in fact, I'm sure all Canadians, would be eligible for those.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Richards, thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Christopherson for four minutes. I know you can do it in four minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll do my best.

Thank you for your attendance today, Mr. Mayrand. May I just express how disappointed I am that you didn't get a more respectful reception. You should have. You deserve that.

I would also, for the record, urge any Canadians who are watching this to be aware that they can access the committee Hansard online, and they can read every word of the testimony that's being given here today, because it's the first opportunity to hear the real facts and a counterweight to the spin we've been getting from the government from the day they introduced this bill.

I don't have a lot of time, but if I may, Chair, before I move to my point, as I promised during my brief remarks the other day, I said I would move a motion to allow independents to have a presence here in the same way that we did when we studied the BOIE. I'd like to move a motion that's exactly the same language, except for the specific access.

It's a simple motion, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm not trying to stop you, but we were going to do a bit of committee business at the end of the meeting.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, I was hoping it would allow them to have a question in this round. If you would afford them a quick opportunity, then we don't need to do this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It will take one of the parties on the list to give them a spot.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'll be glad to do that. I'll offer up one of our spots to one of the independents.

Then at the business time I'd like to move a motion to make that permanent for the continuing study here, because the one thing that's not here in this process is fairness. Fairness dictates that the people who are in the House of Commons who don't belong to a political party should have an opportunity to have input here. We're going to move that motion and, yes, I will relinquish one of my speaking spots so they can do that today.

I want to move now directly, Mr. Mayrand, to the comments you made. I quote from page 8 of your brief where you say:

...it is striking when looking at provincial regimes that we remain the only jurisdiction in Canada—

—meaning the federal jurisdiction—

—where political parties are not required to produce supporting documentation for their reported expenses. At every election, parties receive $33 million in reimbursements without showing a single invoice to support their claims. This anomaly should be corrected, as I have indicated in the past (and as was recognized by a motion in the House of Commons).

In March 2012, two years ago, I moved the following motion and it was supported unanimously by the House:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should, within six months, table amendments to the Elections Canada Act and other legislation as required that would ensure that in all future election campaigns: (a) Elections Canada investigation capabilities be strengthened, to include giving the Chief Electoral Officer the power to request all necessary documents from political parties to ensure compliance with the Elections Act....

That was supported unanimously by the government. They're over a year and a half late with their legislation and, to the best of my knowledge, that power is still not in here.

As I understand this, sir, and correct me if I am wrong, all parties, including my own, submit 33 million dollars' worth of claims for taxpayers' money and they don't have to provide any documentation and you can't make them provide that documentation, and that power which the government agreed in a motion to say they would include in a bill is not in here.

Do I have it correct, sir?

[Marc Mayrand]

The only point of correction is that it's $66 million of invoices reimbursed at 50%, which determines the reimbursement to be $33 million.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Ah, I like corrections when it strengthens my hand. Usually it goes the other way.

We're talking about $66 million being submitted, of which $33 million of taxpayer money is reimbursed.

So we have a situation in Canada where $33 million of taxpayers' money is given out to political parties with no receipts. Is that right?

[Marc Mayrand]

That is correct.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Do you have the power to say, “Well, I don't see any receipts here, folks. Would you mind just providing me with some receipts to back up your numbers?” You do not have the power to compel that kind of documentation.