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.
11:45 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
It's like many, many matters. We rely extensively on the vigilance of Canadians, the candidates, and the campaigns to bring to our attention what they believe are issues.
In terms of monitoring third parties, we'll have a general idea, but again, I'm sure we will see many more third parties than we can imagine. I think those who are in the best position—maybe the returning officer—will be able to detect something and bring it to our attention, but mostly it will be local campaigns.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Do you have directives that you provide to returning officers in terms of doing so? What directives do the returning officers receive or what directives would they receive in order to ensure that they are watching those kinds of activities?
11:45 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Well, they are generally made aware of incidents in their riding, and they get instructions to, first of all, deal with the incidents locally if they can and if not—
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Okay. It's specifically reactive. There's nothing proactive that's being done. It's only if something is being reported that you're—
11:45 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Unless we can identify them, and again, once they have been identified we will contact them, yes.
But again, we will do a few things during the next election. We will, for example, be monitoring the environment generally with regard to campaign incidents. We will be monitoring social media to see whether anything's happening there, whether there's some specific wording and all these things. That may allow us to detect things and trigger an intervention, but again—and I want to repeat it again and again—we rely heavily on candidates' local campaigns and Canadians to bring to our attention the issues they see.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Understood, but I would strongly suggest that, given significant media reports of very large money being spent, you would want to make sure that you're not being reactive but as proactive as possible.
11:50 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
I don't want to give you the impression that we're ignoring the media. In fact, that's why we're coming out with this guideline for third parties: to make sure that the rules are as clear as possible.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you, Mr. Richards.
I'm going to stop it there. That's the end of the round. Unless there are a couple of one-off questions for this hour, we will, if it's the will of the committee, go directly into the next hour.
Great. Let's do it that way. We won't even suspend. We'll just go ahead.
Mr. Lamoureux.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
It's a substantial increase from the 2011 election—from $291 million to $375 million—and my question is about the additional 30 seats. Do you have a sense of what that cost is offhand?
Thank you.
11:50 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
[Technical Difficulty—Editor]...$9.2 million for the election, the 30 ridings....
11:50 a.m.
A voice
And $3 million for implementation.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Great. Thank you.
Monsieur Mayrand, I understand you have an opening statement under Bill C-50. We'll start there and then ask questions in the same order.
11:50 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Thank you, Mr Chair.
BillC-50 introduces a number of changes to the Canada Elections Act that relate primarily to the process of voting from abroad but that also touch upon various other aspects of our regime. I will keep my remarks relatively brief and, as always, will be happy to answer any questions that may assist the committee in its study of this bill.
The first change I wish to underline is the provision that would allow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide information on non-citizens. This is an important proposal. It would improve the quality of the register of electors by preventing the inclusion of non-citizens and by allowing me to remove those who may have already been included.
Over the last few years, my office has had discussions with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, as well as the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, about accessing the department's information on non-citizens in Canada. Unfortunately, in the absence of explicit statutory authority, privacy laws prevent Citizenship and Immigration from sharing this information with us. The amendment proposed in this bill would remove that obstacle.
With access to information on non-citizens, Elections Canada could first match it against persons in the register of electors and contact them to clarify their status. If they are not citizens, they would be removed from the register. Second, we would ensure that on a going forward basis, when individuals wish to be included in the register, they would be checked against information on non-citizens.
The second and perhaps most significant change proposed by Bill C-50 is the elimination of the International Register of Electors. All electors abroad who wish to vote by special ballot, other than military electors, will now be required to make an application after the writs are issued. They would have to provide proof of citizenship, in addition to proving their identity and residence. If they no longer reside in Canada, they would have to prove what was their last place of ordinary residence here in this country.
It is clear that these new rules will make it harder for electors abroad to vote. The requirement to prove citizenship confirms a pre-existing administrative practice for electors who reside abroad.
It would now also apply to people temporarily away, such as snowbirds. These people normally have a passport, and this aspect of the proposed regime is not a concern.
Proving their last place of ordinary residence in Canada, however, is likely to be much more problematic. This is especially true for those who have been away for a number of years and who will not likely have kept any acceptable ID with their former address. Given that their former address will not change until they resume residence in Canada, it is unclear why it must be proven for each election that occurs while an elector is abroad.
Although the bill allows for the attestation of residence by another elector when no documentary proof is available, this procedure is burdensome. It requires attesting electors to provide documentary proof of their place of residence in the same electoral district. It also requires electors and attestors to each take oaths or make statutory declarations administered by a qualified third party. This administrative burden may well be a barrier for some electors.
Another concern for electors abroad, and probably the most significant one, is timing. Currently, once electors residing abroad have established entitlement to be included in the international register, they will automatically be mailed a voting kit after the writs are issued. In this regard, the international register was designed to reduce the number of situations in which an elector is unable to return a completed ballot in time for the election day.
Under Bill C-50, electors would now have to make an application after the issue of the writs and send it to Elections Canada from whatever part of the globe they find themselves in. The application will have to be processed, a voting kit mailed out, and their completed ballot returned by 6 p.m. on election day. While we would strive to reduce the delays as much as possible, the challenge for electors abroad would be unavoidably increased.
Both of these concerns—that is, the problem with having to repeatedly prove a former residence and the difficulty for electors to return their ballot in time—result from the abolition of the International Register of Electors. I see no reason why the International Register of Electors should be abolished or how maintaining the register isn't compatible with the objectives of the bill.
As a third significant change, Bill C-50 proposes to harmonize the voter identification rules by extending to those who vote by mail the rules applicable to those who vote in person.
My concern is not so much with harmonization, which I support, as it is with a new requirement under Bill C-50 that would apply to voter identification, whether in person or by mail. This is the requirement that documents authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer be only documents issued by an entity that is—and I quote—“incorporated or formed by or under an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province or that is otherwise formed in Canada”.
First, it's not clear from a legal point of view what this actually means. Certainly, it is broader than simply entities incorporated under Canadian law, but what exactly is meant by “otherwise formed in Canada”? Does it include entities incorporated abroad but registered in Canada? What else does it include?
I cannot see how election officials, especially deputy returning officers at ordinary polls, will be able to decide whether a particular bank or credit institution, such as Amex or Visa, was incorporated or formed in Canada. This is equally true of a telephone service provider, such as Virgin or Koodoo, or any insurance company, especially when they operate both in Canada and abroad. It is not realistic to expect that election officers will be able to make these determinations or that candidates' representatives will have a clear understanding of what is acceptable ID and what is not. It is also difficult to see how this requirement can be easily communicated or understood by Canadian voters who want to make sure they have the right pieces of ID.
In the absence of clarity, the proposed rules will lead to confusion, inconsistent application, and, quite possibly, controversy at the polls. This begs the question of whether such a new restriction on acceptable pieces of ID is necessary. Documents, including utility bills and bank statements that include an elector's residential address in Canada, will most likely be issued by entities that operate in and have a connection with Canada. But in the event they do not, it is not clear how a communication from a bank or a university abroad is any less trustworthy as a proof of identity and address than a communication from a Canadian university or bank.
I strongly encourage the committee to examine this aspect closely, keeping in mind the fact that election officers will be required to administer these complex requirements. My view is that such a restriction is unnecessary and would not improve the integrity of our system, and that it should therefore be deleted from the bill.
The fourth point I would make relates to a number of more minor, but nevertheless significant, technical and operational concerns I have with the bill as currently drafted. I have brought a table that identifies these concerns and, to the extent possible, proposes solutions. In many, if not all, cases, you will see these are merely drafting adjustments to make sure the bill achieves its intended purpose.
While I do not think it is necessary for me to go through the table with you today, the proposed changes are nevertheless important. For example, with respect to expanding the mandatory procedural audit to include the administration of the special voting rules, the proposed wording may inadvertently prevent auditors from having access to election documents that are critical to the audit of the regular polls. I do not think this is the intent.
Finally, I wish to speak to the implementation of Bill C-50 and the proposed period of 60 days for its coming into force. This is an exceptionally short period for implementing changes to the electoral process.
With respect to receiving information to remove non-citizens from the register of electors, this will take some time to implement. We will need, first, to put in place an information-sharing agreement with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Once this is in place, we will be able to receive and process the data on non-citizens in order to match it with the register. Finally, we will need to write to those in the register who are identified as possible non-citizens and ask them to confirm their status. This is clearly not something that can be done in 60 days.
With respect to implementing the proposed changes to the special voting rules and to the voter identification rules at the polls, this is possible, but not without important challenges and some risks. As you are aware, we have been busy implementing the changes introduced by Bill C-23 and getting ready for a general election.
The further amendments proposed by Bill C-50 would require changes not only to manuals, but also to instructions, forms and public information material for both the special voting process and the regular vote. With respect to the special voting rules, we will also need to develop workarounds for our IT systems, which cannot be redesigned immediately. While we will spare no effort, it can be expected that there will be some confusion, as well as procedural errors.
I will conclude by reiterating that there are aspects of Bill C-50 that I welcome, in particular the new provision allowing the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide information on non-citizens to Elections Canada. I also support the requirement to prove citizenship when applying to vote from abroad. I am, however, concerned with the fact that the bill will make it more difficult for electors abroad to vote, and I expect that many will not be able to do so under the new rules. I am also very concerned with the new requirement that pieces of ID be issued by entities incorporated or “formed in Canada”—a criterion that is unclear and that cannot be administered by election officers. I urge the committee to consider this aspect of the bill, and also to consider other changes set out in the table I submitted that are in line with the bill's objectives.
Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to answer any questions from the committee members.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you for your opening statement.
We'll go to Mr. Lukiwski, please, for seven minutes.
Noon
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you very much.
Again, thank you for your presentation, Monsieur Mayrand.
My first question is about the international registry of voters abroad. How accurate would you consider that to be? How often do you update it? How do you update it? Try to give me a sense here, because we're dealing with a document that currently allows people to cast ballots in Canada even though they may not have lived here for several years. What confidence level do you have that this registry is as accurate as possible?
Noon
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
We should know that there are about 10,000 names in that registry. I've seen other large figures out there, but we're really talking about 10,000 or so Canadians residing abroad who can apply to be added to the register. That's subject to all sorts of procedures and verification.
On the eve of the call of any election, whether it's a byelection or a general election, we will contact all those on the register and ask them to confirm their mailing address. Those who do not confirm their mailing address will be taken off the register. We do that regularly, and normally in the few months prior to an election call.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Let me get this straight. You contact all of the 10,000 people on the registry, say, asking for their current contact information and mailing address?
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
If they do not provide that to you in a reasonable amount of time, then do you strike them from the registry?