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

[Stephanie Kusie]

Essentially as it reads, it is to establish deadlines for the Chief Electoral Officer's decision to extend deadlines for special ballot applications. Basically a deadline should be established in an effort to have sort of decision as to the deadline for special ballot applications. The way it is right now, it's open-ended, and we feel that a deadline would just provide more clarity to the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead, Mr. Nater.

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

I think, just to clarify, this does not set the date itself, but requires that the CEO set a date by 17 days before that. That way there's certainty for all participants in the system. There's no uncertainty among those participants. We'd know that by 17 days before polling day, a date has been set by the CEO, and it would be well known to those participants in the system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there any discussion?

Do the officials have any comments?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

This would remove some discretion from the Chief Electoral Officer, and as this applies to applications for registration in the special ballots that are received after 6 p.m. on the sixth day before polling day, this could defeat the purpose.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I don't doubt Jean-François. He can't take our amendments anymore. That's understandable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Leave it in those words.

All in favour of amendment CPC-61?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 157 agreed to on division)

There are no amendments from clauses 158 to 162.

(Clauses 158 to 162 inclusive agreed to )

There's a new clause 162.1 proposed in amendment CPC-62.

Could you present that, Stephanie?

[Stephanie Kusie]

It's clarifying that no polling division is to be written on the back of the ballot cast under the special ballot process. I think this is similar to the previous oversight that we identified.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead, Mr. Nater.

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

I'll expand a little more. This is a privacy issue as well. By adding a polling division on a special ballot, a person's identity could be ascertained. Given the relatively small number of people who would vote by special ballots, having the polling number could potentially identify how an individual elector voted in a lot of cases. This is a privacy issue. It's to ensure their votes are anonymous, as they ought to be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead, Mr. Graham.

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

Would that ballot ever be correlated back to its poll? There's a separate box for them in the end.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

No. It would never be reconciled. It would never be sent back to the ballot box used on polling day. These ballots are the ballots counted under division 4 of part 11. They would be reported on within the votes under the special voting rules.

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

It would be in aggregate.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

In aggregate, yes.

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

All right. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do you have a comment on the privacy concern that Mr. Nater just raised?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

I think that is a valid concern.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That was my question as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there any further discussion?

All in favour of CPC-62?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 163 to 181 inclusive agreed to)

There was a new clause, 181.1, under NDP-15, but unfortunately it was lost with NDP-1.

We go on to clause 182. It had amendment CPC-62.1, but that was consequential to CPC-60.1, so it was negatived.

(Clause 182 agreed to on division)

There is a new clause, 182.1, proposed in CPC-62.2.

Do you want to introduce this, Stephanie, please?

[Stephanie Kusie]

It's requiring separate reporting of results in special ballots cast by non-residents. We're concerned about the possibility of irregularities within the special ballots cast by non-residents, so we would like to see a requirement that they be reported separately.

It's very clear which electors belong to which polling stations. This is not the case with non-residents and with special ballots, outside of being their own large conglomerate at a single polling station. We think that separate reporting adds another safeguard in terms of the ballots that are received, because there are two layers of specialness: They are special ballots, and they are cast by non-residents. Better and specific reporting, we think, is necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do the officials have any comments on that?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Yes, please.

As it currently stands, just for everybody's understanding, these are the divisions that are in the motion. Division 2 is for Canadian Forces electors. Division 3 is for electors residing outside Canada. Division 4 is for electors residing in Canada, and division 5 is for incarcerated electors. Currently, these results are disclosed by Elections Canada in groups. The results for division 4—electors residing in Canada—are disclosed under group 2, which at the last general election represented approximately 90% of the votes cast under the special voting rules.

As for divisions 2, 3 and 5, they are reported under group 1, which at the last election represented approximately 10% of the votes cast under the special voting rules. I would caution the committee against—again, for privacy reasons....

Of course, the provisions of Bill C-76 might have an effect on the number of votes cast under division 3; this number might increase. However, by grouping divisions 2 and 5 together—Canadian Forces electors and incarcerated electors.... Proportionally to the number of ballots cast, there is a very low number of electors voting under these divisions, and because they are released per electoral district, that's why I'm urging the committee to consider some privacy concerns. It could be easier to identify which elector in the division has voted for which specific party or candidate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

So, if you had 10 of them and they all voted one way, you would know how some individuals voted.