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

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

If you go to page 186 of the bill.... In the English version, I'm at lines 13 to 16.

Every entity is guilty of an offence that

(a) contravenes subsection 91(1) (making or publishing false statement to affect election results); or

(b) knowingly contravenes section 92 (publishing false statement of candidate’s withdrawal).

Do you see the difference there, where 92 speaks of “knowingly” and 91 doesn't? If you go back to the two substantive provisions, the two prohibitions, proposed section 92 only says “No person or entity shall publish a false statement that indicates that a candidate has withdrawn.”

Each of these words refers to an essential element of the offence. In order to be found liable of this, of course you need to know that the statement is false. That's where we need the “knowingly” and the “offence” there. You knowingly published a false statement. This appears unnecessary at section 91, because at section 91 we already have the requirement to intend to affect the results of the election with false information.

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

Okay. That satisfies me.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

If you add a “knowingly” there, then it's an additional element of the offence that needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It could lead to a judge saying that not only did the person need to want to affect the election with false information, but the person also needed to know that he or she committed this specific infraction.

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

I see. The “knowingly” is not about the false information; the “knowingly” is that the person knew they were committing crimes. That helps.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Are we ready for the vote on CPC-22?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 61 agreed to on division)

On clause 62, there was LIB-3, but that was passed because it was consequential to LIB-2.

(Clause 62 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 63 to 67 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 68 agreed to on division)

On clause 69, there was a Liberal amendment, but that was approved consequential to LIB-2.

(Clause 69 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 70)

LIB-5 suggests that the polling division be on the electors list. Because there is a bunch of polling divisions mixed into a polling station and they go to different tables, you need to know which table they went to.

David, are you going to introduce this?

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

It's a technical fix, because there's an omission in indicating the polling division on the electors list in one circumstance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there any discussion on that?

[Stephanie Kusie, Calgary Midnapore, CPC]

Our amendment 10008479 is very similar.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We'll vote on LIB-5.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Do you want to introduce the new one? It's 10008479. It's the first new one. You should have it on the stack of your new ones.

[Stephanie Kusie]

It's similar in spirit to the previous one. Since we've passed LIB-5, I think it's fine. We don't need to move it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is it withdrawn?

[Stephanie Kusie]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, thank you. That's very helpful.

LIB-6 was consequential to LIB-2, so that was approved.

(Clause 70 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 72)

Clause 72 had amendment LIB-7, which was consequential to LIB-2, which was passed.

(Clause 72 as amended agreed to)

There are no amendments for clauses 73 to 75.

(Clauses 73 to 75 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 76)

On clause 76, we have CPC-23. The returning officer already has to give the names of election officers to the candidates, and this would suggest that he has to give not only the names but also the addresses of election officials to the candidates.

Do you want to introduce that?

[Stephanie Kusie]

Sure. This is something that has historically occurred, and I guess we are uncertain as to why the candidates would no longer receive the addresses. What is the problem in their receiving the addresses in addition to the names?

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

Can we ask our officials?

[Stephanie Kusie]

Sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I think that in the debate we had there was some concern about giving women's home addresses to people, but go ahead.

[Manon Paquet, Senior Policy Advisor, Privy Council Office]

It was removed from the bill following a recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer in his report following the 42nd general election. It's a matter of privacy. The CEO didn't feel that it was necessary anymore to provide that information. I would add that parties also receive a list of electors that includes addresses. If necessary, candidates could cross-reference this with that information.

[Stephanie Kusie]

If they're already receiving the addresses, what's the problem with giving them the addresses once again? If the information is publicly out there, why would we create another obstacle in terms of obtaining the information? If it's out there, then it's out there.

[Manon Paquet]

At this point, it's a policy decision. As I mentioned, it's based on the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer that this was no longer necessary.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Just because it's no longer necessary, that doesn't mean that.... I mean, one would argue that there are a lot of things that are no longer necessary that are still completed anyway. To me, this just seems like another obstacle if there's a discrepancy after the fact or after the election. As I said, if the information is already out there, it seems silly to me that we would not provide that information as well.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

The list of addresses of election officers used to be provided also because election officers needed to reside within the electoral district. Because that requirement has been removed, there is no longer a need for candidates and parties to confirm that the person actually resides in the electoral district.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Now I have a list: Mr. Nater, Mr. Graham, and then Mr. Cullen.

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

Very briefly, that was the point I was going to make. Now that we've removed the requirement that officials have to live in the riding, we won't have access to those addresses based on the voters list, the private voters list with all the addresses but not for the officials, who may no longer reside in the riding. I think that's why this amendment would be necessary.