Evidence of meeting #37 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was move.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Marc Chénier  Senior Officer and Counsel, Privy Council Office
Natasha Kim  Director, Democratic Reform, Privy Council Office
Mike MacPherson  Legislative Clerk, House of Commons

12:50 p.m.

Director, Democratic Reform, Privy Council Office

Natasha Kim

Under section 18.1—I believe it is—the CEO has full contracting authority. Section 20, subsection (1), is what provides that special personal services contracting authority, which is subject to Treasury Board approval to fix and pay the rates of pay. So that is something where the Treasury Board would be providing some guidance in terms of the rates of pay that would be subject to those. The function of that is really to make sure that there is an appropriate rate of pay being used, and it's not being used to circumvent public service standards and that sort of thing. It's not a very in-depth oversight, so there's always respect that's given to agents of Parliament and others where there's an independence of office there.

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Mr. Scott, on that one....

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Yes. I'm going to be upfront that this is one of the amendments I've not had time to reflect enough on, although we got notice—I guess late Friday it was in the provisional package.

I think, in general, the idea of an audit is something we'd support. There's every reason to think that's consistent with everybody's understanding of the need to learn from each election and eliminate irregularities, etc. So I assume that's the reason.

What I'd like to focus on, however, is just to have Ms. Kim ready with one question which is, if there's any specificity to what the word “audit” means. What kind of audit would this actually entail, just by using the word “audit”? There are different kinds of audits and I'm not sure, does this mean in 338 ridings, every polling station, every DRO, every poll clerk? Does it allow sampling? I'm not sure, because that goes to costs.

Or maybe Tom knows the answer to that.

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

I'll comment, and then if you want further clarification, we can get our PCO officials to talk about it.

The amendment, in layman's language, will require the CEO to engage an auditor to perform an audit of compliance with respect to the oath-taking process. In addition we will find—as part of this entire package—we want the audit not only to ensure that the election workers had advised the oath takers appropriately, but we want to make sure that an audit is done so that we ensure that no voter who's taken an oath has voted more than once, and that we will see a little later.

So that's the purpose of this, just to verify that anybody who's coming up and swearing, “Yes, I live here, and I'm eligible to vote”, only votes once and that he was forewarned as to the penalties if he should be misrepresenting himself.

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

That's clear.

In order to achieve that purpose and in light of the fact that the word “audit” is used on its own without any other qualifiers, what kind of audit would achieve that purpose or intent? Have you any idea?

12:50 p.m.

Director, Democratic Reform, Privy Council Office

Natasha Kim

The audit is not defined here or in the act. It's used in other places, for example, for political financing and returns, and audits of standards that should be used in terms of generally accepted auditing practices and standards.

In terms of the scope of it, it's not set out here or defined. For example, the compliance review that was undertaken was not necessarily of every election document that would actually have been gathered. It is to achieve the objective and depending on what's happened, it's really about wanting to ensure that appropriate compliance is being achieved.

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Maybe this would help. Rather than audit, because I understand that audit can mean different things at different levels, this is more of a verification than an audit. It's called an audit. We claim it's an audit here, but it is to verify that anyone who has taken an oath is aware of the penalties if they abuse it. We just want to make sure that Elections Canada verifies at all polling stations if anyone has taken an oath that they've been made aware of the penalties if they are lying.

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

I don't mind the general use of the word “audit” for the exact same function. It's still auditors who are going to be asked to do it.

The reason it's important is, for one thing, we're leaving it open. The audit is generally worded, so at some level the Chief Electoral Officer, with the auditor, determines what kind of audit will achieve that purpose and then that's as much as we can ask if we don't specify more.

But I would note that it says:

the Chief Electoral Officer shall engage an auditor that he or she considers to have technical or specialized knowledge—other than a member of his or her staff or an election officer

Here is where I have two concerns. One, Elections Canada has within it a standing team of trained auditors who are on salary, as I understand it, and if they weren't enough, then you'd be adding some temporary bodies, but it would be part of sunk costs. Effectively, this is almost like it must be an external auditor to Elections Canada. This brings up huge cost questions unless I'm misinterpreting and that's why I'm wondering how extensive the audit will be and whether the costs will be there.

Second, how necessary is it for it to be an external auditor? Elections Canada is the body that regulates anything to do with the Elections Act, including precisely the provisions that we're talking about. They have the internal expertise. I'm just a bit worried that adding that in is not only unnecessary but it's another implicit provision saying that somehow or other the Chief Electoral Officer's team is not independent enough to do it.

So if you add the costs and you add the fact that they have the team, I'm not sure why it has to be external. That's my big concern.

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Mr. Christopherson.

12:55 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, it's interesting that it's an outside person, but here's what's sticking with me. These are my thoughts, not the reflections and wisdom of all my colleagues. This is just my view of it.

It's interesting that the government's going out of its way to ensure in a clause in the law that there is an audit or a review of issues pertaining to—guess what—its favourite subject: vouching. It just strikes me, Chair, that the government is not putting in legislation that there has to be a review and an audit to ensure that the Chief Electoral Officer did sufficient outreach and sufficient education, to review whether he did everything possible to encourage people to vote. That's not the audit. The audit isn't who was turned away at the voting station and why, to learn lessons about improving the bill to make more people vote. No, the audit part is not to look at and make sure that people's democratic rights were protected. That's not the priority here. In fact, as far as I know, that's not even in the bill.

However, its little subject matter around voter information cards—how they can't be used as ID; how it's not sure what the term “personally” means; how people are going to be told, “Boy, you'd better know that if you're signing this document and vouching for someone, this is all kind of serious”—is the only area being proposed for review. Sections 143 to 149, 161 and 162, and 169 pertain only to vouching for an address. That's the only part of the whole bill the government has said it wants to go back and examine after the election. Is it to look at and determine whether or not everything was followed and everything was done to help Canadians vote and to make sure the system works? No, the audit is in the reverse. It's on the negative. Were they allowed to vote? Who were they?

We all know from the submissions that were made which populations will be affected by the changes to vouching. I reiterate that this is just one more small part. If you add up all these parts over the days—and I don't think we're even halfway through the bill yet—we've been able to point out bit by bit.... I say to the government that there are intelligent people who follow these things, who know a lot more about law-making than we do.

My colleague is a professor. For days and days, as he was analyzing the original bill, he'd come to me and say, “Dave, I can't believe what's here. Every time I go through another clause, there's another layer”. All of that fits. That's why there was no consultation done in the beginning. This was all done probably with outside lawyers. It's all very well crafted. That's why they took so long.

I just can't help but think that this is just one more piece of this overall structure that is meant to do the opposite of what we want, in my view. If the government wants to prove that I'm not accurately reflecting its attitude, I sure would welcome amendments that show how it's going to do audits and reviews of all kinds of things that speak to people's rights.

The last point, Chair, is, once again, to point out the disrespect shown by specifying that it has to be an outside person. The government still sees the Chief Electoral Officer as an opponent. Canadians see the officers of Parliament as their friends. Again, it is not this government's view that the Chief Electoral Officer would be competent and professional enough to do a review that would give an honest reflection, seeing as last night it said, among other things, that the Chief Electoral Officer did things to create an illusion.

Again I point out that this just underscores one more aspect of how the government views the Chief Electoral Officer as somebody to be controlled and opposed; whereas the opposition and, I think, the vast majority of Canadians think people like Auditors General and Chief Electoral Officers are some of their best friends here on the Hill.

Thanks, Chair.

1 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Thank you.

Mr. Reid.

1 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, the assertions made by Mr. Christopherson are incorrect.

The Chief Electoral Officer reports to this committee. Mr. Christopherson will be aware, and others on committee will be aware, of the fact that I have expressed frustration on numerous occasions in regard to the opaque nature of his reporting, of how difficult it is to tease out actual detailed information on things as simple as whether or not any individuals have been prosecuted, and if so, how many and where, for voting fraudulently.

I've mentioned examples of how his reports are frequently very short of information on the specifics that we—effectively, his board of directors—need to review. This committee has the opportunity to ask any question, and indeed, it would be my intention to ask questions about these subjects afterwards.

As everybody knows, I've mentioned on a number of occasions how I was very proud to have set up the meetings of groups of disabled people—or a group of disabled people—that led to the inclusion of certain provisions in clause 7 of this bill, Bill C-23, which will amend section 18 of the Canada Elections Act, specifying and requiring the Chief Electoral Officer to ensure that people can get out and vote and that they know how to exercise their rights, rights that are there in principle but not in practice if people are unaware of how to exercise them.

These are rights such as the right to become a candidate or finding out how to put your name on the list of electors if it was left off. The voter information card simply says, as one knows if one looks at it, that this shows you were on the voters list. But you don't know that you're not on the voters list if you don't have the voter card, right? This includes how to vote—different times and dates and locations, including voting by mail, voting at the returning office and so on—and how to vote if you're disabled, if you have problems getting access to the polling station, and so on.

These are all things that we have to enumerate in the law because they weren't being done adequately. I point to this all to make the point, Mr. Chair, that it's actually pretty difficult to figure out how to make sure that he then reports adequately in the future. I'm serving notice now that, statutory requirement or not, it is my intention—assuming we have someone on the committee after this law goes through after the election occurs, and if I'm still elected—to be asking him how he complied: how much money he spent, did he spend it in both official languages, and did he do a review afterwards.

If he doesn't have answers to that, I'll be very critical. It's his obligation to keep accurate records on these matters, and it's our obligation to ensure that he does so in a competent manner.

There is one final note, Mr. Chair, which is interesting with regard to the issue of competence in the administration of the vouching procedure, something that was, after all, the issue on which the litigation over Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj in Etobicoke Centre took place. In that matter, the CEO did nothing to audit or investigate until such time as the matter was before the Supreme Court.

Then and only then did he ask Mr. Neufeld to prepare a report, so I would not say that alacrity in dealing with problems associated with voter verification has been very high on his priority list, and we seek to make sure that it will be, in order to ensure that all Canadians actually are able to exercise their section 3 right, which includes the right to have my vote count. It doesn't count for much if an election can be controverted where I voted legitimately and others did not, thereby changing the results in the riding.

That, of course, is the entire point of the security measures we're putting in place. They're reasonable. They are absolutely balanced to the issue at hand. We seem to forget—or at least members on the opposite side forget—that there are millions of Canadians who can be deprived of their section 3 right if their vote is cast in a meaningless manner because other votes were cast improperly by those who were not eligible to vote, or perhaps even fraudulently.

Thank you.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Yes, in quick response to David's rant, he seems to say, or seems to suggest at least, that we consider Mr. Mayrand an opponent of ours because we're asking for an external auditor.

If that is the case, if that is the logic that he's trying to apply to this, then clearly Mr. Neufeld must be an opponent of Monsieur Mayrand, because Mr. Neufeld did an outside compliance audit. During that time, he noticed a great many discrepancies and problems with the vouching process. This is nothing more than that. The goal is to have a compliance audit done similar to what the Neufeld report was. That's it.

When I jokingly referred to trying to fit David with a tinfoil hat, in this case it has to be expandable, because every time he speaks, his head swells a little bit—

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Let's not get personal.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

I know. I'm just pointing out that he seems to say time and time again that we're trying to attack Monsieur Mayrand of Elections Canada. Monsieur Mayrand himself contracted Harry Neufeld to do a compliance audit on the last election. That's what we're saying here. On the oath-taking process—

1:05 p.m.

An hon. member

He's an external party.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

He's an external party to do the audit, just like Neufeld did on the vouching in the last election. There's nothing different.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Thank you.

Mr. Christopherson.

1:05 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

My point in response to Mr. Lukiwski's point is that you're mandating it. I don't have a problem with his doing it, but I trust that he knows the capacity of his own department to do it, or in the case of Mr. Neufeld, I assume that he had the right to make that decision on his own.

So my problem is not that there's an external audit, it's that the government so mistrusts the CEO that they're going to mandate in law that it has to be somebody else rather than just saying it should be done.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

On amendment G-10, those in favour?

(Amendment agreed to on division)

(On clause 56)

On amendment NDP-37, there are a whole whack of things that happen with NDP-37.

Let me get through this part. It's identical to LIB-23 and PV-34; and there's a line conflict with G-11, LIB-24, NDP-38, and PV-35. They can't proceed if this passes. Is that correct?

1:05 p.m.

A voice

Yes.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

So let's do the fact that they're identical with PV-34 and LIB-23. We're on NDP-37.

Do you want to launch this?

1:10 p.m.

NDP

Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

I'll decline to move it.

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Ms. May.