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

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Morin.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

I would encourage you to look at page 94 of the bill, line 14, in English. There's already a prohibition related to the secrecy of the vote: “Every person present at a polling station or at the counting of the votes shall maintain the secrecy of the vote”.

Then, on page 95, at line 1 in both English and French, it says, “No person shall, at the counting of the votes, attempt to obtain information or communicate information obtained at the counting as to the candidate for whom a vote is given in a particular ballot or special ballot.”

The provision that talks about the secrecy of the vote is sufficient to cover this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Nater.

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

Again, I believe the provisions that were cited just now apply to the marking of the ballot at the time the ballot's marked, not necessarily to the counting itself, as happens here before the polls actually close. This is a bit of an anomaly in terms of vote counting. You typically don't count votes until polls are closed. In this case, with these advance polls, you count them before a poll has closed.

The provisions cited are for when a ballot is being marked. This is for an actual counting of the vote, not secrecy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Morin, can you confirm that?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

There's already also another prohibition at subsection 289(3) in the bill, page 104, line 10.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The part you read didn't have any limitations such as Mr. Nater just suggested, did it?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Sorry. In the provision itself, which allows the counting of the vote at an advance polling station one hour before the close of the votes, there is already an obligation to make sure that the counting of the vote is done in a manner that ensures the integrity of the vote.

I would think this provision is sufficient to cover this proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Nater.

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

If we agree to this, there's another amendment that it would be an offence if you were to break your confidentiality on this. Obviously, this one goes with the one that we'd vote on later.

Also, citing the previous things, if we rely only on the secrecy of the vote, where is the point at which someone is relieved of that duty of secrecy? Reading the other points you cited, conceivably it would follow that that person is now almost bound for life, whereas here it's clearly stated that once the voting is closed, then you can be relieved of that responsibility of secrecy.

Based on what was cited earlier, there is no provision for that relief of secrecy, which is obviously not the intent. Going back, you can call this redundant if you like, but a certain level of specificity is needed. When you're counting votes an hour before polls close in an electoral district, having it clearly stated that thou shalt not be releasing these numbers before polls close is important.

Then, of course, our further amendment 140-something, to make it an offence, I think is a worthwhile endeavour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Can you reread that very first one you read, where you said it's already protected?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

I'm at page 94 of the bill, subsection 281.6(1), “Every person present at a polling station or at the counting of the votes shall maintain the secrecy of the vote.”

I would posit that this secrecy obligation lasts a lifetime. Of course that's not to the extent that official results have been made public. However, if an elector were able to be identified during the count of the votes, of course the person noticing that would be bound to secrecy for an extended period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

He did say it includes the counting, which you had suggested earlier it didn't.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

They wouldn't be bound for life, because it's not a secret once it's made public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Are we ready to vote on this? Do people know what the issue is?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I think half the stuff we've already done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We're going to vote on amendment CPC-77, and the result of this vote will also apply to CPC-146.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 197 agreed to on division)

We're going to jump ahead to clause 205. There was amendment CPC-79 but it was consequential to CPC-71.

(Clause 205 agreed to on division)

That's good catching up.

(On clause 222)

Now we will go back. I think we've done everything now. We're at clause 222. We've done the first amendment. There are two more amendments, starting with CPC-83.

Would the Conservatives introduce that amendment.

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

This is referring to opinion polling in the pre-writ and election period. This kind of gets to the heart of the idea that if you do a poll on June 28, it will guide your work on July 2. Basically, it captures that you are paying in advance for the information you're going to be using during the writ period. This section specifically refers to public opinion polling, so it captures polls that are done immediately prior to a writ or pre-writ period, which will be used for the purposes of the writ or the pre-writ period. It captures those expenses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Are you adding something to the expenses?

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

We are, effectively. It's including this expense within the writ and the pre-writ period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That's for a public opinion poll.

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

That would be used during the writ and pre-writ period, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That's during the writ or pre-writ?