Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Sept. 27th, 2018

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

This is only on the subamendment.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

It's germane to the subamendment as well, which does state that the chief electoral officer is joining us next Tuesday at 11 a.m. I'm looking forward to that. That is what I've been advocating for since the beginning of the study.

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

I hope you have some amazing questions for him.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Yes.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I wouldn't say “amazing”; I would say they're appropriate questions, questions that are directly related to this bill, particularly as they relate to third parties. That's a major component of this bill, and it's a major component of where the Liberals—provincially—went with their bill earlier this year, and the results of that election....

I couldn't not address the one comment made by Mr. Bittle about one particular witness, that we had the witness here just to laugh at. I don't accept that.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

But you laughed.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

No. Actually, I wasn't here for that meeting. My daughter was born that week. I did, however, read the transcripts.

I believe the person in the comment was Mr. Turmel, who holds the record for running in the most elections. He hasn't won, but the interesting thing that came out of his testimony, actually, was a concrete comment. One was about the audit threshold. That was a worthwhile comment. His observation was that it doesn't take much to reach that audit threshold, and that if you're a minor candidate, an independent candidate, as he is, even though he often runs under the Pauper Party umbrella, that's a significant challenge.

To say that certain witnesses are here just to laugh at, I have a concern with that, and I don't think we need to be diminishing someone in that sense. I have to give credit to anyone who puts their name on a ballot, and for someone who has put their name on a ballot as much as Mr. Turmel has, I mean, credit where credit's due.

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

I thought it was Arthur Hamilton.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

He thinks there was a different witness.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Well, perhaps there were other witnesses as well. As I said, I did miss three meetings that week, I believe, when our daughter was born. I wasn't here, so I relied on the blues and the meeting transcripts at that point.

I'm going to make another comment for no apparent reason other than the fact that it's happening as we speak. The cabinet is currently meeting. I believe they meet until noon, so that's an observation that I'm just going to point out. The cabinet is currently meeting as we speak and, hopefully, there may be some information that comes out of that cabinet meeting when the time comes. That will be right around lunchtime. There might be a nice break at that point for a quick sandwich or something around then.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Do you think it will be in relation to third party...?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I wouldn't want to speculate what comes out of cabinet. I don't get invited to those meetings. I don't know why; I'd love to sit on all of them.

[David Christopherson, Hamilton Centre, NDP]

We'll all go.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

My invite must—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, back to the amendment.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I think it is germane in the sense that we will wait with anticipation for that.

In relation to this, I think it's appropriate that we hear from the CEO of Ontario, and begin the process.

I don't think anyone wants to see us taking up time and wasting our time. There are other matters this committee needs to and ought to deal with.

An order of reference that has come to this committee is a prima facie question of privilege in the House related to Bill C-71. As we take up time with the study of this bill, that is a matter that is being pushed off. We do want to see that come before the committee. Within the House of Commons a question of privilege takes priority over all other matters of business. I believe the same ought to be true in committee, so I am eager to see that come before this committee within the foreseeable future.

Related to this committee study, we all received from the clerk a request to appear before this committee from the CNIB, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. I think it's rather appropriate that we received this request when we did. As members know, this week and earlier last week, we were debating Bill C-81 in the House, known as the barrier-free Canada Act, the accessible Canada act. It was adopted yesterday in the House of Commons shortly after question period by unanimous consent, I believe. I wasn't in the House, but there were no bells, so I assume that either five members didn't stand or it was by unanimous consent. It was nice to see that bill go to committee. I think it's a worthwhile discussion we need to have, although I'm sure there are some concerns.

I think it's appropriate and germane that the debate was occurring when we did receive this request. I would hope that this would be something we might be able to accommodate before going to clause-by-clause.

Ms. Clarke, a government relations specialist from the CNIB, does request to appear specifically on Bill C-76. They mentioned they're celebrating 100 years in 2018. I think 2018 is a special year for 100th anniversaries. It's also the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I. I'm not positive, but I believe there was a connection to the CNIB's founding and those veterans coming home from the First World War with visual impairment because of the war. I do think it's appropriate that we hear from them.

One of the lines in the request.... As someone whose mother-in-law uses a wheelchair—she lost her right leg to amputation about 15 years ago following an automobile accident—I think applying a disability lens to legislation is important, particularly when we're talking about elections.

I was pleased with the efforts that Elections Canada made in the 2015 election to make voting locations accessible, or as accessible as possible, at least for those with mobility issues. There are other disabilities that are not necessarily always as—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Nater, I don't mean to interrupt, but the subamendment is just adding a date to your amendment. Could you just comment on adding a date to your amendment?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Absolutely. I think it's germane, because it does put a date on when the CEO is attending. I think it's appropriate that at that time we hear from the CEO on the matter that is before this committee, which is, of course, Bill C-76.

I would leave it on the record and leave it on the table that we do have this request outstanding from the CNIB. I think it would be worthwhile to hear from the CNIB perhaps for the second hour, and perhaps from some other advocacy organizations related to those with disability issues. I think it's worthwhile. It think it's potentially beneficial.

On the subamendment and on what we're talking about, we're setting a date to hear from the Ontario chief electoral officer. My colleague Mr. Reid expressed his comments on the other components of the subamendment in terms of the effective time and location on motions. I think we will leave that to a further subamendment perhaps from colleagues or from colleagues across the way.

Specifically on the CEO, what we're looking at here is hearing from a gentleman who has experienced so many of these changes first-hand and recently. He has run an election very much based on certain amendments that we are now foreseeing in this piece of legislation.

The direction that was taken by the provincial Liberals in their 2016 amendments related very closely to some of the overlap we're seeing in Bill C-76—not identical—so we hear from the CEO next Tuesday at 11 a.m. and hear him talk about those amendments and where they have gone.

In particular, one of the things we've talked about at this committee on which they could comment exceptionally intelligently is what we're calling the register of future voters. The provincial government also made an effort to go down that route calling it a provisional voter register for those who are 16 and 17 years of age. It would be interesting to hear the comments from the CEO on how that has worked and how they have gone about doing that. Interestingly, in their case, a person who is not yet a voter who is under the age of 18 has the option to withdraw from the register at any point in time. I find that interesting that it's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Nater. We're adding a date to your amendment. Are you in agreement with the subamendment?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I think it's germane that it reflects what he will talk about at that point in time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Everyone has agreed that he's coming, so we can find that out then.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I still think it's worthwhile to expand on what he will be talking about at that point in time. I think the future register of voters is something that is interesting.

On our side, we've expressed some concerns about privacy issues. I think we heard a guarantee from the Chief Electoral Officer last week that information would not be shared with parties. It will be for internal Elections Canada purposes only. I think that's a strong component.

We've heard comments before about whether or not parental consent might be required for those who are below a certain age. That's something to work out to ensure there are proper safeguards on that. The advantage that the CEO will be able to talk to when this is brought forward is how this will contribute to ensuring that those who are 16 and 17 are automatically added to the permanent register of electors of Ontario when they turn 18.

I think it's worthwhile to have that discussion and see how we can go about ensuring that those who are younger.... I remember hearing testimony during the electoral reform committee which said that, when you vote for the first time in your first available election, you are more likely to vote in elections after that. So having an elector vote for that first time when they turn 18 is worthwhile.

Certainly, many who are 18 are still in high school. Some will be in college and university. Depending on the date of an election and when the election falls within the four-year election cycle, they may be beyond that point and in the workforce, in trade school or in some other kind of establishment.

Ensuring that there are options to encourage voters to vote when that point in time comes I think is important. Hearing the chief electoral officer comment on that would be important, and hearing him comment on that at 11 a.m. until noon on October 2 of next week I think would be worthwhile. Interestingly, October 2 is the day after October 1, which is also National Seniors Day, which was something that our friend and colleague Alice Wong, former minister—

Sorry?

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

Are you calling the CEO a senior?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

No, not at all, but a senior is certainly someone—

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

Well maybe.... I have no idea. We'll find out when he gets here on October 2 at 11 a.m.

I could look it up before then.