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

[Anne Lawson]

As you know, we are not proceeding at the next election with a vote at any table model. That means the finer points of issues such as what the prescribed forms will look like, or how to count the votes in that situation, haven't been determined.

What I can say is that there is no question the statement of the vote, which requires the consolidation or the full count to be recorded and reconciled, as I was saying earlier, among all of the different polling divisions, continues to apply. We will develop procedures to make sure that this reconciliation takes place.

I'm not sure if I'm answering the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Nater, can you explain what this amendment does, in simple English?

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

Basically, what is currently noted is to make a note on the tally sheet beside the name of the candidate for whom the vote is cast with the purpose of arriving at the total number of votes cast for each candidate. We're proposing to change it to make a note on the tally sheet in respect of each polling division assigned to the polling station beside the name of the candidate for whom....

It's going back to the multiple table vote at any table who wanted the tallies for each individual polling division that's happening at that location.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's not doing anything.

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

It will for the next election. We're doing the legislation now.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We're getting it approved, but not for this election?

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

It will be after the next election, so let's deal with it now rather than coming back.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I want to underscore, since I've been here from the beginning of this process, that I'm just finding out now—because my friend Nathan is the lead on this—that the idea of walking in the efficiencies....

We had a whole presentation on it a long time ago on how this was going to make it easier for voters. It was going to make it easier for Elections Canada. It was going to give us faster results. It was going to save money. If I'm wrong, I'm going to give the time to the government to tell me how I'm wrong, but my understanding is that because the government dragged its heels in getting this bill properly through the process with a strong majority government, we can't have it for this election. The best we can do is for the next one. That's better than nothing, but it does again underscore the ineptitude of the government on a file that it said was a major platform plank.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there any more debate on CPC-71?

Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I would like to speak to that point.

The CEO was here and talked about the issue with respect to the procurement of poll books, which the CEO didn't feel was secure, so it was an issue related to procurement at Elections Canada.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

When did we find that out?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

When the CEO was here last.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Was that recently?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

He has been here a lot.

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

It was last week or two weeks ago.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

My point is it doesn't change the fact how late it was in the process. I'm sure that had we given them enough lead time, they could have done something about this. This is a big deal, and it has to be emphasized that the reason this is being done the way it's being done is that the government screwed up the file.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there further debate on CPC-71?

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

I would like to remind the committee that it is specifying that when we're voting at the table, it's for each division within that location.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Is that consistent with everything else that's being proposed by Elections Canada?

[Anne Lawson]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure. Was what consistent? Is it the amendment?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, the amendment.

[Anne Lawson]

The amendment provides more specificity. We were looking for flexibility in terms of figuring out exactly how we would deliver on the issue. We wanted to make sure that all the votes were properly counted and recorded appropriately by polling divisions, as well as by polling stations. As we were discussing earlier reports, the votes need to be reported at the PD level and that continues in the act.

It's also clear at a polling station that the statement of the vote needs to tally up all the votes in an effective way, indicating if there were several different boxes, and how those boxes together would makeup the full total in the polling station.

That's absolutely the way we will proceed. The very specific mechanics of how that will be done, with which forms and in which manner, we haven't yet made those decisions, because we haven't been required to for the next election. I'm sure that when we do move forward with vote at any table, the Chief Electoral Officer would be very happy to come back to this committee and explain in great detail how he's going to be proceeding with all of the different mechanics that will be necessary to put in place at that time.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That makes sense. I hear what Mr. Nater is saying, but there is an argument, through you, Chair, that we have the benefit of Elections Canada thinking this through, and having a chance to get the results of this last election and then come to the committee.

Mr. Nater, I don't see the benefit to Parliament jumping ahead to a level of specificity when their thinking, Elections Canada, and they're our partners in this, that they would like the time to do that.

My first gut reaction is we're jumping ahead with a level of specificity that is not necessary and may not necessarily be helpful.

Mr. Chair, if we could do a version of the Simms protocol, perhaps Mr. Nater could respond, if you're open to that, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

All right.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

My thinking is that when we're dealing with the act now, we can deal with some of these issues. Perhaps I pride myself with more information as well. Perhaps, Ms. Lawson, this is jumping ahead a little bit as Mr. Christopherson noted, but in envisioning the vote at any table method, when would the results from a polling division be provided?

Would that be something that's available on election night, which is what we would like to see with this amendment, or is that something we're going to see some months later when all the final reports come back to the parties?

Again, we're jumping ahead.