Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2015

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

What would be a reasonable amount of time?

[Marc Mayrand]

I think they're given three weeks, but I can get back to you on that. I'm not sure.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Okay. I appreciate that. That clarifies a few things in my mind. Thank you.

Here's something that I have a bit of a problem with in the current system. Correct me if I'm wrong on what I believe is the current situation. It's my understanding that currently for a non-resident elector, regardless of where their prior residence was before leaving Canada, the rules would allow non-resident electors to choose which riding they wish to vote in, on the assumption that they can demonstrate some connection to that particular riding. But that connection is so broad that it could be almost anything: that they have friends or relatives there, that they might have had a business interest there, or that they might have resided there for a period of time but it's not necessarily the constituency in which they last resided.

Am I correct in my analysis of that?

[Marc Mayrand]

You're correct. It doesn't have to be the constituency in which they resided before they left Canada.

The legislation provides alternative options such as a spouse's address, or a relative's, or a dependent's. There are these types of choices. I think there could be a debate as to whether it's proper to maintain that type of selection or those options for those electors. I would point out, however, that once they make that selection, it's frozen. They cannot change it. They could not be shopping, if we can use that expression, at the next GE. . Once they've opted for an address, their last address in Canada, that's the one that remains for the purpose of voting until they resume residency in Canada.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Okay. Thank you for that.

I assume they submit forms. Have you challenged anyone who is known to have had a former address in Canada, but chooses to vote in a separate riding because they've had some connection to that riding? Has Elections Canada ever challenged anyone on that or is it basically on the honour system?

[Marc Mayrand]

It's largely an honour system. They have to fill out the form and indicate what there relationship is to the address they selected. If there's an issue, it could be contested or disputed after the fact, but beforehand, I'm not aware that it's been challenged.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I have a problem with the whole system as it relates currently.... I don't know if it has been abused. I'm not suggesting that people have been abusing the system, but the ability to abuse the system, should a non-resident voter wish to do so, currently exists, simply by filling out a form and saying, “I want to vote in riding X and I have a connection to it somehow.”

If one subscribes to a large conspiracy theory, it's possible that someone could take a look at a riding that perhaps has historically been very closely contested and wants to be able to vote in that riding to try to influence the outcome. They may or may not have any real connection to that riding, but simply by filling out a form and saying they do, it allows them to cast their ballot.

That's certainly not the case in Canada. No one in Canada would be allowed to vote in such a manner. Do you believe that's justifiable, appropriate, and proper for non-resident electors?

[Marc Mayrand]

That was the choice of Parliament many years ago. In this new environment and context, maybe it needs to be reviewed. My point here is that we may require them.... I guess what I'm questioning here is the need to repeatedly prove your address, which is always the same; I don't understand why we would require electors abroad to do that. Once they've done it, that's crystalized. They cannot change it.

I leave it to this committee and to Parliament to decide whether to remove the other option that exists in the current legislation and strictly rely on the last address in Canada and require proof of that address.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I assume you're suggesting that not only the last address should suffice but that once they have chosen which riding they wish to vote in, regardless of residency, that should suffice and not have to be repeated. Is that your contention?

[Marc Mayrand]

They can no longer choose. Their ballots would be counted automatically in their last place of residence and—

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Right, but my question here is, would you be comfortable with that? Would you be comfortable with someone saying that they used to live Thornhill, Ontario, but they wish to cast a vote in Winnipeg, Manitoba, because they had some connection there? Whether or not it's frozen is incidental. Are you comfortable with the fact that non-resident voters have the ability to do such a thing?

[Marc Mayrand]

I suspect that there could be a scenario in which it makes sense. Most of those Canadians residing abroad are doing it either because they work abroad or because they study abroad. I can't think of many students who, when they left Canada, were registered at the place where they study, and then, when they moved to study abroad, decided to bring their residence back to the residence of their parents.

Again, I leave it to the committee and Parliament to determine whether this is inappropriate in this day and age.

Similarly, when the spouse remains behind, if the spouse moves between elections, is it reasonable to allow the one who is working abroad to use the same address as his or her spouse or partner here in Canada? I leave that to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll go to Mr. Scott for seven minutes.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you again, Mr. Mayrand, for being here.

I have three very quick questions to start with, before some of the more complex ones.

First of all, the Frank judgment struck down provision 11(d) in the Canada Elections Act, which said that if you've been outside the country and don't intend to return for more than five years, you can't vote, even if you're a Canadian. But when the government introduced Bill C-50, it presented Bill C-50 in an almost polemical way as being necessary to implement the Frank judgment.

Is Bill C-50 necessary for that purpose? The reason I ask is that my colleague from Halifax had Bill C-575 that would remove section 11(d) from the Canada Elections Act. She felt that was all you need to do to conform with the Frank judgment. Is Bill C-50 implementing the Frank judgment?

[Marc Mayrand]

There may be two things there. I'm not sure I'm the best person to answer that question. That said, we've already implemented Frank. It was implemented for the last series of byelections after the decision was issued. We would apply the Frank decision in the current byelections that are pending

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

That's because you read 11(d) as no longer existing because of the court judgment, correct?

[Marc Mayrand]

Well, we read the decision as saying that the five-year rule doesn't apply anymore.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Exactly. So it isn't necessary. Thank you.

I wanted to clear up a confusion. It wasn't created here in these questions, but it has been in the House. When we're talking about maybe up to 40,000 non-citizens being on the register, people are confusing that with the other parts of the bill dealing with voting of citizens abroad. As I understand it, that's for the national register, not the international register.

[Marc Mayrand]

Exactly: it's for the national register. On the annual lists you're getting, there are a number of non-citizens. There's an estimated number of about 40,000.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Great, and that's something in this bill that we support as a reform. I wanted to make sure it was clear because it's being put out there almost as a way to send a subliminal signal to people about why there's a need for the rest of the bill, which has nothing to do with that issue.

Last, apart from having signalled some time ago in your own report at one stage that this would be a desirable reform—and therefore we have to be thankful the minister has now done it in this bill—were you consulted on Bill C-50?

[Marc Mayrand]

I guess I'm providing today my views on the bill as I read it. That's the latest version I have.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I won't go further. Thank you on that. I think it's very obvious to everybody.

With regard to the international register, you indicated to Mr. Lukiwski how it can be cleaned up for accuracy close to the election. Currently, Elections Canada will mail a special ballot when the writ drops, but even then, as you indicated in your comments—or hinted, anyway—that if people are not registered, they can try to register when they realize an election has been called, which of course they can still try to do under the current system.

Does that increase the chances that they won't receive the ballot or won't manage to get the ballot back in time? Is there any evidence from Elections Canada that waiting to register until the election is called can create some delays?

[Marc Mayrand]

The evidence we have when we look at these things after each election is that, on average, for those who are in the international register, about 8% of ballots are returned late and so cannot be counted due to delays. For those who are not on the register, that number goes up to 15%, and that does not include the potential impact of the additional requirements that are built in here. I expect that number to remain and maybe grow a bit.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

So experience suggests that waiting to register until the election has been called already increases the chances that a ballot won't come in, and that's even before all these additional procedural components in Bill C-50. I think you would agree—and I think you've already said—that the dangers of delay created by having to wait are real. Is that correct?

[Marc Mayrand]

Yes, because the standard campaign is relatively short. It doesn't give much time. When we look at the data, we see that it takes roughly 24 days for the transaction to be processed, so it leaves very little free time in an election period.