Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 6th, 2014

[Marc Mayrand]

The legislation authorizes Elections Canada to establish the list of acceptable forms of identification. Following the first election where the new identification rules were in place, we did a test and we used the voter information card in some very specific places, such as reserves, shelters, long-term care facilities and student residences. Evaluations showed that almost 68% of those people used the voter information cards. We found no indication of fraud or other offences, and people told us—including the administrators of shelters and long-term care facilities—that the cards made voting easier. Voters and administrators appreciated it.

Given the issues with proof of address, not proof of identity, Elections Canada was very transparent in its plan—we have in fact repeatedly mentioned it before this committee—to use the voter information cards with some changes to allow voters in general to confirm their addresses when they vote by showing another piece of identification. For instance, a person with a passport—whose legitimacy could hardly raise any doubts—who showed up with a voter information card could legitimately vote whereas, today, the individual must be vouched for or go home.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

You are basically saying that, even in the rare cases where a mistake may have been made, a person who received two cards with different information could not simply go and vote, unless they have another piece of identification, which could have been forged or could contain the wrong information.

[Marc Mayrand]

The person will have to produce another piece of identification that, indeed, could also be fraudulent.

You know, as long as we don’t have a national identification or citizenship card, we must accept the risks inherent to our system. One of the current challenges has to do with the fact that there is no national identification card. Some countries have adopted a similar system, but Canada chose to rely on various cards issued by various authorities and each of those cards is subject to some risks. I feel that Parliament accepted this level of risk by adopting the system currently in place.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

You mentioned the places where the voter cards were accepted in the last election. Can you confirm whether Elections Canada was planning on adding polling stations on campuses and in Aboriginal community centres in urban areas to make voting easier?

[Marc Mayrand]

That is correct. We will set up specific polling stations in community centres, in what are known as friendship centres and on various campuses across Canada.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Our Conservative colleagues were therefore aware that there would be more and more polling stations on campuses and in those other places, correct?

[Marc Mayrand]

We have been very transparent on that issue. We have had detailed discussions at the meetings of party advisory committees. All parties know about this initiative.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. MacKenzie, for four minutes.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Mayrand, you talk about compelling witnesses. I spent 30 years in policing and investigated crimes from petty thefts to homicide. Police officers don't have that power. My colleague across the floor talked about wiretaps. Wiretaps are not compelling. I know in the Criminal Code terrorism is one of those sections. I don't think we would equate this to terrorism.

Now I know the CRTC has penalized the sitting member for Guelph and the sitting member for Ottawa Centre for the improper use of the telephone. They don't have that ability. They were able to do their job with respect to penalties.

The other area I have a concern with is you already had, in my understanding, the evidence of a large illegal donation to one of the parties, and all that was demanded was the payment back of it. Somehow there seems to be a difference here. That didn't take any compelling testimony. You were able to obtain that. I would say to you, sir, for the most part police officers do their jobs investigating large crimes, including homicide, gangs, and everything else, without that availability.

Do you not think there's something missing in the picture? I'm sure if we were to bring in legislation that said everybody is compelled to tell the police everything they know about a crime, my colleagues across the floor would go ballistic.

[Marc Mayrand]

Let's lead with the illegal contributions, something that you mentioned in your statement. My guide is the statute, nothing else. The statute provides that when there's an illegal contribution, you have 30 days to return it before there's an offence. That's what happened. Again, there's no offence in that—

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

And that's okay?

[Marc Mayrand]

No, but I just want to clarify that because I'm hearing from time to time that we seem to have—

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

But you're raising the issue about the $20 contributions. That was several hundred thousand dollars.

[Marc Mayrand]

It's the same thing. If the contribution is returned, well, we need to look at the statute. You wrote the statute, not me.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Okay, fair enough.

[Marc Mayrand]

The statute says that when there's an illegal contribution—

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Have you asked for that change? That there would be a penalty for that large—

[Marc Mayrand]

No. That's the law. I think it has been applied uniformly to everyone. Every time there's an illegal contribution, we send a notice—

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I appreciate that, sir, but you have suggested many changes. Would you have suggested that change?

[Marc Mayrand]

It seems to have been working. If Parliament decides that it wants to have different rules to deal with illegal contributions, we can have that.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

But that's not a suggestion that you would have made, that large, illegal contributions—

[Marc Mayrand]

That's not something I have put forward. It's the minister who hasn't raised any issues in terms of administering the regime. We have applied it consistently. If you feel that it should be amended, yes, please, of course, and we can have a discussion.

In terms of testimony, I want to reiterate that many regulatory agencies have that power. One of the things that I have conveyed, especially in 2010, is there is an assumption here, which I resist entirely, that those who participate in the political process should be treated as petty criminals when they get offside. I don't think so. Most people are honest and are trying to do their best in complying with very complex rules.

That's why, in the past, I've advocated a system of administrative penalties. I am pleased to see that the bill has responded to this with regard to overspending, which now provides administrative sanctions. I think that's the way of the future for the regime.

But in any regulatory regime, people accept to play by certain rules, and they are held to a higher standard than petty criminals. That's my view and—

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Higher than a murderer, sir?

[Marc Mayrand]

—it's not unusual, and again many provincial jurisdictions have the power to compel and have the power to produce those documents. The CRTC can expect a safe presumption of documents.

Again, all I'm asking for are powers that are similar, not extraordinary or certainly not new, relative to what exists in many regulatory regimes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Richards, you have four minutes.