Evidence of meeting #81 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was election.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
No, no, I'm saying this. If someone had lived in Toronto, had been abroad for five years or more, had come back, went to Vancouver, stayed there for a month, and then went abroad again but wanted to change a residency to Vancouver, would that currently be allowed?
12:40 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
He went abroad. Again, there is no test based on duration of your residence. It's a substantive test: did you intentionally and actually resume your residence in Canada? If yes, you're allowed to.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Largely, yes, unless there is other evidence coming up that suggests it could be disputed.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
It's like citizenship in many cases, yes.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Hypothetically, as I suggested, individuals could come back for a month and change their residences by merely going online and indicating their that new residence is now Vancouver and that's where they would like to be able to vote.
12:40 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
They would be able to vote in Vancouver provided they meet the ID requirements. Yes.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
So again, to me, it just seems as if it's somewhat open to abuse. Someone could, if they wished.... I know it may sound elaborate and a bit extreme, but there's nothing that would prevent that from happening. Is that correct?
12:40 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Well, we can't stop people from moving around. It's the same thing whether they move from abroad to here, or whether they move from Vancouver to Toronto, and then specifically move back to another riding for specifically casting a ballot.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I guess what I'm getting at is this. Even though this may seem somewhat extreme, do you consider that there should be provisions that would be a little bit more precise as to what constitutes permanent residency or a change of residency? One provision could be a time factor or some sort of other tangible evidence that the person has actually put down roots and is not just merely visiting and wanting to change the riding in which he can cast a ballot.
12:40 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
We already rule, as an organization, that simply visiting Canada while you reside abroad doesn't interrupt your residence abroad: you're still a resident abroad. That has been our position in administering the current provisions. I leave it to the committee and Parliament to decide whether they want to introduce additional requirements. Be careful about section 3 of the charter.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
We'll go to Mr. Christopherson for four minutes, please.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thanks very much, Chair.
Thank you again, Monsieur, for attending. It's always enlightening to have you here.
I'm somewhat jarred by this one issue, and oftentimes there's maybe a part of it I'm not getting.
First of all, there's the elimination of the International Register of Electors. Bill C-50 would get rid of it. Are you aware of problems? Is it broken and obviously in need of repair?
12:45 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
From what we can see, the register serves its purpose. It allows electors who are residing abroad to register ahead of an election, and it ensures that they get a voting kit early after the writ is issued.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Under the changes, it's going to be eliminated and voters abroad can't even apply until after the writ is dropped. Is that correct?
12:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
That's problematic for a whole bunch of reasons on your end in terms of time, resources, and the ability to get people in a position such that they can vote. But it also makes it more difficult for people to vote, which takes us right back to some of the problems we had with Bill C-23.
So I want to say to the government right now that on these two issues, unless they have a good explanation of why they're here—I'm going to raise the other issue about voter ID—both of these things look just like the problems we had with Bill C-23. The government is doing whatever they can to put in bureaucratic hoops that make it more difficult for people to vote by virtue of the steps that are involved, so that eventually they'll just say, “Aw, to heck with it.” That's what this looks like.
If we're wrong and I'm impugning the motives of our government, then I'm quite ready to hear quickly from Mr. Lukiwski that this is wrong and that is not the case, but so far it's looking like that to us.
Now, on the other one, voter ID, this was an even bigger issue in Bill C-23. We went through this whole thing. This whole issue of voter ID was part of why we had filibusters. Now it looks as if the government's trying to bring in through the back door with Bill C-50 what they couldn't achieve through the front door in Bill C-23.
My understanding is that the language is pretty clear, and you're very clear in your language, sir, and as an agent of Parliament, you folks are always very careful about words you use. You state in your analysis sheet that:
There will be no way for deputy returning officers or those receiving applications for special ballots to readily ascertain whether an entity is incorporated in or otherwise formed in Canada. The restriction is likely to cause confusion at the polls on the part of election officers, candidates' representatives and voters.
This sounds like the makings of a huge problem. I'm trying to understand—and my sense is that you are too—what it means when the law is now going to say “an entity that is incorporated or formed by...an Act of Parliament” or a provincial legislature “or that is otherwise formed in Canada”. That doesn't make any sense to me. What I'm hearing from you, sir, is that you're not clear on what that means either, or am I missing the point?
12:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
It's not clear exactly what that means, so therefore, sir, if we aren't clear as the lawmakers, and if you aren't clear as the one who interprets and applies the law on behalf of Canadian voters, how the heck are they ever going to figure it out at the voting stations with polling clerks and returning officers who don't have half the resources that you do?
12:45 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Yes, and also, I think one thing we should not forget is that we're asking electors to be ready to vote when they show up at the poll. They should have clarity as to what are the acceptable pieces of ID they need to bring. Are we now asking electors to assess whether the originator of their piece of ID has been formed or otherwise established in Canada?
12:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Are you aware, sir, of this language being used anywhere else in any of the legislation you're responsible for?