Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 12th, 2015

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Correct.

You're familiar with the Frank decision, I would assume.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Yes.

I was the affiant for the Frank....

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Right on.

For the record, I want to get your opinion on the appeal that is taking place right now.... Well, first of all, let me just say that nothing in this piece of legislation goes toward the Frank decision. Can I get your opinion on that?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

In my initial remarks, I said I understood why this is being brought forward. There's a preoccupation with the Frank decision.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Okay, so when you look at the appeal of the Frank decision right now, can I get your opinion on the appeal itself? Have you seen some of the information?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Well, the government wants to appeal. I've not yet seen the documents that sustain the appeal. It is being prepared by the government at this stage.

The stay was not granted. The court said that this was too pressing a matter, the grounds that the government put forward were insufficient to grant that. Therefore, the judgment prevails until the appeal is heard on the substance of the matter. That's all I can say about that.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Okay.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

What am I supposed to say? Is it, “the matter is before the courts”?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I've heard that a fair bit recently.

I appreciate your comments about the spouses of military members not being allowed to undergo the same process that they do. The government has been saying that because military are involved in theatre of operations that's why they are distinct from them.

Do you think that's justified? I get the feeling that you think spouses, family members—no matter where they are around the world—who are eligible to vote should be exempt, as well as the military members.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I wouldn't go that far. As a matter of fact, if one goes that far, then one has to go that far for all Canadians. Because you're the spouse of, does not mean, you know....

What I was trying to say is that the committee should be aware of this. It's going to create problems. I recognize the special place that the military occupies when it comes to voting. This is a tradition. This is one of the reasons that we've extended the right to vote internationally, and all of the favourable things that apply to that. I want the committee to be aware that there's a disconnect there that will hit these service people.

They will see the package come in, and their spouse won't see theirs and they'll wonder why. They'll have to scramble because time will have lapsed. Whether or not they will make it in time to register or they have to register again to get the package is going to be an issue for them. It may not occur all that widely, but I thought you should know.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Thank you for that.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

The current CEO is very concerned about the coming into force...and the time he has to go about doing this. He's constrained by time, in light of what happened to Bill C-23 as well.

Not only should they have held off on this legislation given the Frank ruling, but should they have held off on this legislation because October 19 is not that far away?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Well, I can tell you that when you've been the Chief Electoral Officer, you're sympathetic with the existing Chief Electoral Officer, your successor. I agree; I have no reason to disagree with what he said on that front. If he's concerned, I think you should listen very carefully. He knows what he can do. I don't wish to offer you an opinion on that. I have no reason to disagree with what he said about the timelines, and I think you should take that into account.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Richards, it's a four-minute round.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I know that when you were Chief Electoral Officer, particularly in 2006—and you did mention this in some of your remarks—you spoke quite a bit during that time about non-resident voting limits. I'm sure you're well aware that many other jurisdictions actually do place limits on non-resident voting. There are provinces and territories where most, if not all of them, not only have general residency requirements but also require a minimum period of being an ordinary resident before voting.

I'm just trying to get a better sense here because I think, when you look at Bill C-50, that it's clear that the intent is to fix what we would see as a fundamental unfairness in the system between resident and non-resident voters. I'm trying to get a better sense as to what exactly your issue is here with creating that fairness between resident and non-resident voters.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Obviously my concern is that the “fairness” that is being reintroduced is too stringent in terms of its requirements. What I proposed to you are ways of meeting those objectives but simplifying the process. So I agree, yes okay, let us require people to register every time, but why do they have to produce a piece of ID that no longer exists in their pockets? Why not use what we already have on file, if that's what they're saying is their last residence? You want only the last residence? You have it on the register of electors. That's what I'm saying.

I'm not disagreeing with the objectives of the statute necessarily. I'm disagreeing or saying that there are ways of making it simpler and more acceptable to Canadians. It is not easy to vote from abroad; you have to register.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

You're saying that you do believe that non-resident voters should be held to the same standard as resident voters. What I'm hearing here is that you're saying that you do believe they should be held to the same standard.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I've always felt that they had a little bit more to produce than Canadians living here where their addresses are updated automatically from the drivers' files, from the income tax department, and from other electoral lists from other jurisdictions. I've often felt that it doesn't happen for those people abroad, so the fact that the regime would be enhanced by some of the measures in the bill, the objectives of the bill, I will agree with that.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I want to shift the focus a little bit to the integrity of elections workers. When you were Chief Electoral Officer, would you feel comfortable being able to vouch for the integrity of all election workers while you were Chief Electoral Officer?

As a follow-up to that, was there ever any improper behaviour by election workers that was brought to your attention during your time as Chief Electoral Officer?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

There may have been some instances of improper behaviour, something that happened at a poll, and that would be acted on immediately.

The basic integrity of the Canadians working at the polls was never something in contention. I remember having some preoccupation with some returning officers when the old appointment process existed, but the Federal Accountability Act took care of that, and the Chief Electoral Officer vets them, checks them out beforehand in terms of integrity and political neutrality. That to me constituted a significant improvement in the statute. I think that we have an impeccable system, really, based on the fundamental integrity of Canadians.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

You are aware of some instances of improper behaviour that would have been corrected immediately, but you're not aware of any major improper behaviour. Would you be able to say with certainty that you would have been made aware of any issues that would have existed?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I was made aware of issues as they existed, and we took action as they came to the fore.

One example is someone turning back somebody from voting because the person looked inebriated. Well, looking inebriated does not pre-empt your right to vote in this country. If you act in a way that is disruptive, that's another matter. Those were the types of things. So they would act inappropriately in response to looking inebriated. That's an example that strikes me, but you get an idea with that example.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Richards.

Mr. Christopherson, you have four minutes..

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks again, Mr. Kingsley. It's always good to see you and I appreciate your pearls of wisdom. They help us.

One of the concerns that Mr. Mayrand identified, and I'm coming back to something that's already come up, is the issue of changing the language. What we need to understand in this, and I'm not quite sure that it's out there in the public domain in its fulsomeness, is that the changes to what's acceptable voter ID are not just for voters voting abroad. The changes that are being made in Bill C-50 will affect every single polling station in Canada.

That's why Mr. Mayrand said in his analysis of that particular aspect 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”, because that's the new change. “The restriction is likely to cause confusion at the polls on the part of election officers, candidates' representatives and voters.” His recommendation was that the provision be deleted from the bill.

Again I remind all of us that I'm speaking to the change that Bill C-50 causes, which will affect every single voter, every single polling station, and it's this business of a piece of ID. The CEO may authorize only pieces of identification that have been issued by—and this is one of them:

an entity that is incorporated or formed by an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province or that is otherwise formed in Canada.

Nobody yet can tell us what that means. It'll be interesting to see what the minister says when he arrives, but I assume you agree that this doesn't work and that it's problematic.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

The introduction of that language in the bill allows me to do something I've been wanting to do for a long time, and that's to introduce the notion of provisional balloting, the inability for a deputy returning officer to refuse a ballot on the basis of what he or she considers to be unacceptable ID or proof of address and having that verified after the election.

If the language remains the same, if there's no further clarification, it's going to be problematic, but I think my answer would suffice on that front.