Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 2nd, 2015

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Certainly, but I guess what I'm concerned about in this scenario.... I know that it was raised earlier and our other two witnesses indicated that they didn't believe it would be likely that someone would use a ballot that was sent to them incorrectly or that it would be likely to affect an outcome. It may in fact be true that it wouldn't be likely, but it certainly would be possible. Obviously there would be a concern around that then.

I just wonder what your thoughts would be on that, because it seems to me as though there are two options here. There is a re-registration or there's a permanent list. The potential concern with the permanent list would be, obviously, somebody getting an opportunity to vote who shouldn't be qualified to vote. Do you have concerns about that?

[Prof. Henry Milner]

There are two ways of addressing the issue. One is to make it a longer period, and then obviously it wouldn't apply to premature elections but it would apply to regular elections that would already be part of it; or to have a permanent list—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Sorry, can I interrupt you? I probably don't have a lot of time.

So a longer period, I understand that. Let's say the longer period was established at two years prior to the expected election, but let's say a year into the Parliament the government...so then we'd still be outside. You'd still have the concern of people being treated differently from one election to another.

[Prof. Henry Milner]

No, it's not people being treated differently. It's the same people. It's not like this group of people is treated one way, and this group of people is treated—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I understand that, but it would be that, from one election to another, people would be treated differently.

[Prof. Henry Milner]

If you call a premature election, you're treating people differently than what they normally have a right to expect, which is a fixed election date. It does seem to me it goes with the territory.

I would prefer the permanent list, but if there are serious problems with that—this is not my expertise—the alternative of a longer period is certainly the second best. The current one in which everyone is having to produce the documentation after the writ is called, I haven't seen anybody defend that. I can't understand how it could be defended.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Alexandrine Latendresse]

Thank you, Professor Milner and Mr. Richards.

Mr. Christopherson, you have four minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, all of you, for your attendance.

One thing that's an observation—I'm going to read a quote and then ask for some comments—is that we've been talking about whether or not the registry, the international register of electors, should exist or be blown up, and whether is it broken or not. All of us, including the Chief Electoral Officer, have made the argument that it's not broken. I haven't heard a witness yet come forward and say, “It's broken, please fix it.”

But what I want to point out is that not one government member has taken the floor to defend it, to give the arguments as to why this is a good idea. When it gets to the point where virtually everybody, including the government by virtue of their silence, feels that this is a dumb idea, at some point somebody's got to bell this cat.

What I'd like to do for all three of our witnesses is to read from our Chief Electoral Officer's presentation on May 7 of this year:

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.... It is clear that these new rules will make it harder for electors abroad to vote.

Continuing the quote, he said:

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.

I'd like comments from our guests, please, in whatever order you want to recognize them, Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Alexandrine Latendresse]

Mr. Paterson or Mr. Biggar, there are a few minutes left to respond.

[Josh Paterson]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would agree that there is no evidence that it's broken. To respond to the concern being raised by the previous member, just because in a snap election we're going to be time crunched and there may be some difficulties with that, it doesn't mean that we should create a situation of difficulty for every election.

In any case, that could be dealt with by maintaining a registry. You could even have, as you request, a special ballot—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Exactly.

[Josh Paterson]

Have the elector say, “Here I am, send me a ballot now; it's not a Mexican living in my apartment.”

The minister made a comment that this is just like with special ballots and all that kind of stuff, it's just the same. It's not because these voters abroad are going to have to prove a lot more stuff. They need a longer amount of time, so this system, I agree with the member, does not make any sense.

[Jamie Biggar]

I don't have much to add. That really hits the nail on the head. I'd simply say that when we compare, in part, responding to the previous comment, or the previous committee member, the vanishingly small possibility of fraud or impropriety with the certainty of effective disenfranchisement with voters, what we're entering into is a situation of superficial ridiculousness and fundamental disturbingness when looking at this bill.

I would urge you to strongly reconsider.

[Prof. Henry Milner]

I don't have anything to add.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Do you agree with the statements of the electoral officer, though?

[Prof. Henry Milner]

Yes, I said at the beginning of the presentation that basically—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We like repetition though in politics, professor. You can't say it enough that you agree with our electoral officer.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Alexandrine Latendresse]

We're out of time.

Mr. Richards, you have four minutes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you.

I wanted to follow-up on something that was referred to earlier. Mr. Simms had been asking about the number of expats that you've heard from, Mr. Biggar, and you mentioned that you heard from quite a few. But obviously, you weren't able to provide any indication of where those come from, or even what proportion might have been from the U.S., Europe, or anywhere else.

I'm assuming you must track the contacts you receive from people, whether it be by phone, email, or however you would have received them. Can you give us some sense as to what is “quite a few”? That's obviously pretty broadly open to interpretation. What would quite a few people be, who would have contacted your organization?

[Jamie Biggar]

On this particular issue, we haven't run an active campaign. I haven't solicited feedback from our community on it. In that context, we received several dozen contacts through email, Facebook, and other methods. Without having actively campaigned on it and for an issue that we're not actively working on, it shows quite a lot of interest.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Several dozen you say. That gives us a better indication.

Would you be able to give me some kind of indication as to where those would be made up from, those living in the U.S., or otherwise? Could you give me some percentages?

[Jamie Biggar]

I'm sorry, as I said earlier, we didn't do a content analysis on where they were coming from, so I really can't speak to that.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

That's fine.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Alexandrine Latendresse]

There is no one else on my list. I will give committee members the opportunity to ask brief questions. Otherwise, we will adjourn the meeting.

I would like to thank Professor Milner for being at the committee meeting, and Mr. Paterson and Mr. Biggar for joining us to make their presentation and answer all the committee members' questions.

Your contribution was greatly appreciated.

The meeting is adjourned.