Evidence of meeting #123 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Is this what we just talked about? Is this the register of future electors again?
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
I assume that PCO has the same response—that it's not necessary because it's already covered, in your opinion, and they're not allowed to share that.
6:25 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
No, actually I don't think it's already covered. The act is currently pretty broad on the agreements with the provincial chief electoral officers that Elections Canada can enter into, so such an amendment would make it clearer that the standards that apply at the federal level should also apply when shared at the provincial level.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Are you saying that without this amendment, Elections Canada could give the list of young voters to the provinces?
6:25 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Yes, there is a provision in the bill that allows Elections Canada to enter into agreements with provincial bodies that manage a list of electors—so yes, if this amendment is not passed, then the information that is found on the register of future electors could be shared. Of course, the Chief Electoral Officer has no obligation to enter into such an agreement, but yes, in theory that could be the case.
6:30 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's enough for me to know. We're collecting this information for a very specific reason. It should only be for that reason. We just had affirmation that none of that information could go to political parties. It only makes sense that we would also imagine that the information doesn't go to provincial electoral officers, who may then also have different rules about how they share information with political parties. Let's just not open up the possibility that information that's offered in good faith by young people trying to get on the register list doesn't stay exactly where it's intended and go no further.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Are there any comments from the government?
Are there any further comments at all?
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Let's have a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay, that was unanimous. The amendment with the reference number—Philippe, make sure I get this right—9952296 is passed unanimously.
(Clause 45 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 46 agreed to)
There is a new clause, 46.1. NDP-2 has already been defeated, because of amendment NDP-1, and amendment NDP-3 was also a casualty of amendment NDP-1, but we'll have amendment CPC-14 introduced now. This is about protecting the list of electors.
6:30 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Yes. I guess it's interesting to me because it would seem that reference number 9952296 would be included with this amendment if it were passed. It does also seem eerily similar to amendment reference number 9950142, although I guess 9950142 expresses the prohibition to the specific entities of parties, candidates and MPs, whereas this is on sharing information outside of Elections Canada.
Maybe our witnesses could say if there are ever situations now of the information being shared outside of Elections Canada. Could they could see it in any circumstances, such as if Health Canada or whatever requested this information? I can't imagine scenarios. Would there be a necessity to share this information outside of Elections Canada?
6:30 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
I do not think so.
I would refer you to the bill on page 26, line 11, in English. I think that the new proposed subparagraph 56(e.1) would provide for what you are trying to achieve here.
6:30 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
It says that no one can
knowingly use personal information that is obtained from the Register of Future Electors except as follows:
(i) for the purposes of updating the Register of Electors,
(ii) for the purposes of the transmission of information in the course of public education and information programs implemented under subsection 18(1),
(iii) for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of this Act or the Referendum Act, or
(iv) in accordance with the conditions included in an agreement made under section 55, in the case of information that is transmitted in accordance with the agreement;
Therefore the act is already quite clear on what—
6:35 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Did we ever have an example of something being used outside Elections Canada?
Okay, we'll go to a vote, please.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Elections Canada was saying this was already covered in the clause just read, but do you want to call the roll?
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Clause 46.1 disappeared because of the various decisions already made.
(On clause 47)
We'll look at CPC-15. This is related to the timing of when the election is called.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Mr. Chair, this is just in cases when the election writ is issued at a certain period of time close to the Christmas season. It provides the added writ period for that period of time so that we'd not necessarily have polling days on Christmas Day.
It's between November 12 and November 30, and then it's extended up to a 57-day writ period.
As a quick commentary, the 2005-2006 election is an example of how that could have been a significant issue. I wasn't here. Mr. Cullen was here in 2005. The Paul Martin government was defeated in late November, so if he did the 35-day writ period, there would have been advance polling on Christmas Day. At that point, the prime minister of the day called the election for January 23, 2006. It was a longer writ period, falling over the Christmas season.
I can't remember the result of that election off the top of my head, but I think it was a good one.
6:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The scenario was in a minority Parliament. The whole preview to that was the Stronach crossing. I guess what I'm saying is the circumstances were somewhat exceptional, the outcome less so.
I understand the intention of it is not to have government locked into an election cycle. If there was another unusual circumstance that led to an election call and then it couldn't be extended beyond the holiday season, voters would be pretty ticked off. They were ticked off anyway. It was a 60-day campaign. It was horrible.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
The present act limits it to 50 days, so if it were November 30, that would take it to about January 20, and this would make it January 27.
Why do you end it November 30? Wouldn't it be more problematic if it were in December?
6:35 p.m.
Conservative