Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2018

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

—of Elections Canada will be happy, I'm sure, to answer on his own behalf, but as is—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Okay. Let me ask about what you do have the ability to commit to.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

—the case right now, with the by-election currently ongoing, Elections Canada recently put out a press release to state that the VIC is not acceptable right now because the elections legislation has not yet been changed.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Would you at least commit to not using time allocation and closure? That is within your jurisdiction to be able to say. Would you at least commit to no more time allocation or closure on this?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

I hope that we can all work together on this committee to get this done in time for 2019.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. Thank you.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I think I can understand what the code word is there as well.

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Let's go to Mr. Graham.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, first all, congratulations. I think we're all very excited for you on the birth of your child.

In 2008 I was a young volunteer on a by-election in Guelph. One morning while I was working in the office we started getting a whole bunch of phone calls that Liberal supporters all over the riding were having their brake lines cut. We started getting reports over the course of the next couple of days that across six or seven ridings in southwestern Ontario people had cut the brake lines of Liberal supporters and painted “Liberal” on their houses.

Then, in 2011, voters in Guelph and a handful of other ridings were phoned with a bilingual message claiming to be from Elections Canada directing them to vote in a different polling location than their voting cards stated. In many cases, these were very far away from their voting locations. A judge ruled that these people were called from the database belonging to the Conservative Party. Only one person was charged and convicted in this case, and there's nobody who believes that this person, if they acted at all, did so on their own.

The investigator, under the auspices of the commissioner, had a very limited ability to conduct that investigation, had to tolerate the Conservative Party's lawyer's presence at every single witness interview, and had no power to compel any testimony or to subpoena any actual materials.

Were the robocalls scandal to happen again in 2019, would the elections commissioner, under this act, have an improved ability to investigate? Do you believe this act will help dissuade the obvious election fraud conducted in 2011? What further powers does the elections commissioner have and why?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

I can't comment specifically on what happened in previous elections, although I can say that I think these powers would definitely enable the commissioner of Canada elections to investigate more thoroughly any allegations or instances of attempting to misdirect individuals to vote at a different polling location.

I've heard compelling recommendations from the commissioner himself with regard to why it would be important, specifically because, as you know, with regard to the ability to lay charges, it's something that's under the office of public prosecutions. He has to get into a lineup, in terms of when that's able.... That can take a long time. Particularly when it comes to elections legislation, the timeliness of being able to lay charges is really important. It's important to demonstrate that the elections law is upheld. It's important to demonstrate that we as a country do not tolerate transgressions of elections legislation, and it's important to be able to actually pursue the case itself.

Number one, the ability to lay charges is very important. Number two, the ability to compel testimony is also very important, because when you have strong party systems and strong party loyalty, which, as you know, all of us who come from different political parties can understand, it can be difficult for individuals, who perhaps know something, to feel that they can say something or would say something. The ability to compel would give the commissioner the ability to further question.

What's important as well within this is that while he would have the ability to compel testimony, you cannot self-incriminate when you're being compelled to testify. When we're dealing with big scandals that have a big impact on the outcome of an election, it is important that there are the teeth to be able to uphold what really is excellent electoral legislation worldwide.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Do you have any idea of what would have been gained or what was the purpose of moving the elections commissioner out of Elections Canada? What purpose was served?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

You would have to ask the previous government. I don't know.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Can you explain the inverse for us?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Explain the reverse...?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Yes, how it helps us to bring it back under Elections Canada's auspices.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Well, it's good for them to be in same area in working on elections issues. They still maintain that independence, but they are also able to pursue elections-related charges in a timely manner.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You have 40 seconds.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I will let it go.

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'm glad to see you here, Minister. Just as I said before in the House, I'm very glad that you're back in the Commons, not just because I like you personally, but also because I think it's helpful with a bill like this—and with any bill, but especially one of this size—to have the minister here, as opposed to a temporary minister. I'm making the assumption that you were involved in the drafting of the bill and that Minister Brison was not. It's just harder, I would think, to defend and to shepherd through a bill that you didn't have a hand in designing compared to one that you did. Having said that, I'm very pleased indeed to see you here.

You've indicated an openness to amendments, and I wanted to ask about one very specifically because, as you know, it is very near and dear to my heart. We discussed it, you and I, before the bill came to the House, when it was in the very early drafting stages and you were asking about suggestions we might have. This is the idea of the provisional ballot.

For the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the term, the idea is that when a person comes in to vote and lacks any ID, they can still vote, but the ballot gets placed into an anonymizing envelope, just as if they had submitted it. On the outside of the anonymizing envelope, they put down their information. In the event that the number of provisional ballots in that kind of anonymizing envelope is large enough to be greater than the margin of difference between the two leading candidates, at that point they're authenticated. Those that are for real are then used to decide the election. This ensures both that nobody who has the right to vote is turned away and that nobody votes fraudulently who does not have the right to vote—or even to vote in error, if they're not citizens and that kind of thing.

This wasn't in the bill. Would you be willing to consider putting it into the final version of the bill? If we introduced amendments to that effect, would you be willing to accept them?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Thank you. I do remember that conversation we had, and I'm glad to be back and glad to be working with you once again.

One of the concerns with that, although I would be open to looking at it a bit more in depth, is ensuring that when individuals come to the polling station, they're not sidelined off somewhere else. I think there is still a question of dignity with regard to casting a ballot, but I would be open to looking into that a bit more. However, I think the reason it was not included was that we wanted to provide as much dignity for an individual as possible when they go to the polling station.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Right. I don't think you'd find there's anything undignified about the process, which is used in a number of other jurisdictions. As things stand, someone who comes in and has to go through a process of either getting a written attestation or vouching does have to step physically to one side, depending on the layout of the station. They vary significantly depending on where they are. As you know, they can be put into church basements, community halls, fire halls, you name it. I must say I literally can't think of anything about this that could be categorized as undignified, but I will ask the Chief Electoral Officer as to his views on the subject when he's here later today. Obviously dignity is of concern to him.

Leaving that aside, I'll just point out that, in the absence of doing something like this, even with the vouching provisions that have been returned to this draft bill and the provisions for voter information cards being used as proof of residence, there's still a hole that's being left here. It's one that was in play during the Wrzesnewskyj and Opitz ruling, in which an attempt was being made at the Supreme Court to decide which of those two had been elected. This is the issue of people who are at mobile polls. Frequently, senior citizens, in many cases who are in residences, don't have identification. There's no one at their poll who can vouch for them because only other seniors in a similar situation—that doesn't include the staff—can vouch for them, and they're unlikely to either have the ID or to, in many cases although this isn't universally true, have a voter information card that would establish residence. They could be in a situation where either they can't vote or they have to vote in a way that is not permitted under this legislation.

What I'm suggesting would cure that problem. Nothing in the legislation as it stands now would cure that problem.

Keeping that in mind, Minister, I wonder if you'd be that much more open to the idea of adopting the provisional balloting suggestion.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

I'm not sure why they wouldn't be able to vote, because for individuals who live in shelters, long-term care facilities, on reserve, and one or two other provisions, the staff can actually write an attestation for everyone who lives there to ensure they have the right to vote.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Sure. In the case of the polls that were in question before the Supreme Court—certain polls were looked at in that ruling—I think you'll find that actually hadn't happened, and there was a technical reason why it hadn't happened. I have to admit I can't recall the details right now, but I do think this would resolve a problem that has not been dealt with through other means.