Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 16th, 2018

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Exactly.

[Stephanie Kusie]

We have to remember that we are considering the potential addition of a million voters, non-resident voters, given the new rules. I mean, 10% is a significant amount. I think there may be people around the table who won by 10% or less. Thank you, Jean. I think those things come into consideration as well. Certainly we want to respect the privacy of Canadians, but the main purpose of this bill, where this is concerned, should be to protect the legitimacy of the electorate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Graham, go ahead.

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

Yes, I agree with the privacy concerns expressed by the officials, and if we're going to single out.... How many foreign electors voted in the last election? Something like 12,000?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

As I said, we cannot know exactly how many foreign electors voted. The numbers I have here indicate that 60,000 electors voted under group 1—Canadian Forces electors, electors residing abroad, and incarcerated electors—and the numbers can be quite low. For example, in Prince Edward Island, the number was only 317, and in Yukon, it was only 97 electors.

So, if you remove group 3 from that, which is electors residing abroad, you end up with groups 2 and 5—Canadian Forces electors and incarcerated electors—that can be quite low.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you for referencing the Yukon.

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

My question is this: If we're going to split out the foreign electors, why wouldn't we separate the prisoners from the military, just to see how they're voting? I'd be curious as well.

I think the privacy issues are too important to do this. I cannot support this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there any further discussion on CPC-62.2?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

There are no amendments to clauses 183 to 189.

(Clauses 183 to 189 inclusive agreed to)

I apologize for carrying on so long without a break, but I think people would rather finish earlier in the week rather than later, so we'll do it. However, if someone needs to have a break, let me know.

CPC-62.3 proposes a new clause, 189.1. Stephanie, do you want to present this?

[Stephanie Kusie]

I don't think there's anything more to state. It's very similar, if not identical, to CPC-62.2, the separate reporting of results of special ballots cast by electors...perhaps in the advance poll.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, so it's the same concept here. We'll vote again. It's on CPC-62.3, which proposes a new clause, 189.1.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 190)

There are about 15 amendments.

LIB-18 was first. That passed because it's consequential to LIB-1.

We'll go to CPC-63. Stephanie, could you present this one, please?

[Stephanie Kusie]

This is in regard to requiring the election officers to write an elector's polling division in the space provided for it on the back of the ballot.

This is similar to the previous one, where we had a similar situation.... In fact, I'm struggling to see a difference.

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

May I build on that, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead.

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

This has to do as well with destroying a ballot, defacing it, and altering what's been written on it. That's the added element of this. You don't want to be scrubbing out the polling number after it's been written in by the elections official. This is a matter of defacing the ballot.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do the officials have any comments?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

That would actually complete the prohibition in a way that is consequential to the amendments that have been brought already. The number should or should not be added at the back of the ballot, depending on the situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Are you saying it's a positive amendment?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We'll leave it at that.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

CPC-64 cannot be presented because LIB-19 was adopted, and it is related to the same line.

The next amendment, LIB-19, is already adopted because it was consequential to LIB-9. Therefore, NDP-16, which deals with the same line as LIB-19, cannot be considered.

We go on to CPC-65.

Stephanie, go ahead.

[Stephanie Kusie]

This is extending the prohibition on undue foreign influences to the pre-election period.

If we are truly trying as a government—and I say that in the little “g” sense, not the big “G” sense—then I think we have the obligation to put in every safeguard possible for Canadians, to absolutely make certain we do everything possible to ensure that these influences do not have the opportunity to enter our electoral processes. This amendment does that.

Why would the big “G” government be opposed? Why would they not want to extend this prohibition to the pre-election period?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Nater, go ahead.

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

Chair, could I get clarification from you on whether or not CPC-65 would conflict with CPC-67? If it does, then I would move a subamendment to ensure that they don't conflict.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

CPC-67 could not be moved if CPC-65 was adopted.

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

I would then move a subamendment that amendment CPC-65 be amended by deleting paragraph (b). That way it wouldn't conflict with the same lines that are in CPC-67 and it would allow us to deal with both.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I'll ask the legislative clerks: Does that mean we could then debate CPC-67? Okay.

(Subamendment agreed to)

Now we can debate CPC-65 as amended.

Mr. Cullen, go ahead.