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.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I know why. It's because it says above it, that this is a subsection of the French version.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Perhaps, Chair, just for assurance we could have PCO clarify.
Marc Chénier Senior Officer and Counsel, Privy Council Office
We'll take a quick look, Mr. Chair.
Senior Officer and Counsel, Privy Council Office
Mr. Chair, we may need to take a few minutes to review this so if the committee feels it should be stood down, it might a good idea at this point.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Okay.
In my thought, then, are we standing down NDP-36, LIB-22, and PV-33 at the same time? Is that our best move, that we just set all these aside for a moment, while you continue to look that up?
Okay.
(Clause 53 allowed to stand)
(On clause 54)
That leads me, then, provided it doesn't hurt at all, to G-9, because we're taking that whole package and standing it down, just for a moment, while we get the best and the most professional answers we can.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Again, I move it, Chair.
G-9 is similar to G-6, requiring poll workers to warn the oath taker and the co-signer of the maximum penalties for swearing a false oath, and again this will ensure that those who use the system are aware of the penalties should they break the rules that Parliament has put in place to protect the integrity of all votes. There's a number, as I mentioned I think yesterday, of amendments that sort of attach themselves. It's all part of the attestation process, so this is one of them.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
I just have a quick question. I think it might affect Mr. Christopherson's intervention, too. We did have a vote earlier on, an earlier version of this, and obviously it passed. We don't really want to hold this up for that reason because it's going to be the same result.
But I was wondering if we could have any clarification on whether it already exists in other parts of the act and in other acts that falsely swearing an oath can be subject to penalties. I'm just wondering, though, about the advising, this specific advising people that when they take the oath in writing, they are subject to penalties. The warning part, is that normal? I'd like to know so that we're aware that when we're voting for this whether it's a kind of innovation or whether it's quite normal to warn people taking oaths that they're subject to penalties. Is there any easy answer to that?
Natasha Kim Director, Democratic Reform, Privy Council Office
There was a precedent in the Canada Elections Act actually, so this same section, subsection 161(1) already existed in the act. It was an oral notification, oral advising about the oath, but this is more clear in terms of the scope of what that advice should be, so it essentially puts people on notice.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Okay, so it actually already exists. So all this is consequential to what's happened, but the advising is no different from what happened before. Okay, thank you.
Conservative
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you.
This deals with a voter coming in and being vouched for by someone in terms of their address, and we're back to the issue of “personally” again: do you know them personally?
I don't think we've heard yet how that's going to be interpreted. Is there going to be guidance provided, or are we going to have poll clerks...? Because here's the thing, if Parliament hasn't sorted out what “personally” means, then common sense would suggest that there's going to be some people, upon hearing, “Do you know this person personally, and remember if you sign this and vouch for them, and you've done something wrong, you're in serious...”. I'm just concerned that all of that would have some people going, “Wait a minute, I don't know what I'm getting into. I see the guy at the store. I know he lives in the neighbourhood. Is that personal?” What's the poll clerk going to say at that point?
Again, there's a whole grey area, and remember that all the while this interaction is going on, there are people in line waiting, and if the line is too long, they're going to go home. So part of what we're supposed to be trying to do is not only to make it easy for people to participate, we're supposed to make it efficient.
So I'm just a little concerned, Chair, and the government can respond on what their thoughts are and what we're going to do with “personally”. Have they given it any thought? Do they know how that's going to be dealt with, and is there any concern? Because as far as I know, that sort of a threatening warning hasn't been given before.
Those are my concerns, so thanks.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
David, in all honesty, I just don't think it will be quite as complicated as you think it might be. It's just as simple as I know someone who's named David Christopherson. I may not know him well. I don't know how you define “personally” either, quite frankly, but I know you are David Christopherson. I don't need you to produce ID to me. I may not have known you well, but I know your name and I also know where you live. You may be my next-door neighbour or whatever, and that's all I'm saying, and I don't want to know where you live, frankly.
It's not meant to be complicated. It's meant to be, quite frankly, just to say, “Yes, this guy can vote, because I know he's David Christopherson; I know he lives here, so he's in a polling station; go ahead.”
Training, yes, obviously Elections Canada, when they begin their training processes, given some of the changes in the new Canada Elections Act, will probably go over that with their poll workers, but it's not meant to be complicated.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I have no one else on the list.
We're voting on G-9.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 54 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clause 55 agreed to on division)
We are on G-10.
Mr. Lukiwski.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I so move, and I'm not sure if you have any comments before I begin, Chair, on G-10.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
This adds:
For each general election and byelection, 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—to perform an audit and report on whether deputy returning officers, poll clerks and registration officers have, on all days of advance polling and on polling day, properly exercised the powers conferred on them, and properly performed the duties and functions imposed on them, under sections 143 to 149, 161 to 162 and 169.
This is just an audit to ensure compliance.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
The amendment states that the Chief Electoral Officer can engage an expert. However, we have already voted to ensure that the Chief Electoral Officer would have to obtain the Treasury Board's approval before engaging any experts.
Will that apply to this specific situation?
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I'd ask our PCO officials to comment on that.