Evidence of meeting #125 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was election.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Does the CEO not already have discretion to figure out how to do this without having it so prescriptively assigned to him?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
We want to ensure that there is a reconciliation report that is provided to parties. I think this information is important.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Under section 283 of the Canada Elections Act currently, the deputy returning officer shall establish the statement of the vote on the form that is prescribed by the chief electoral officer. Bill C-76 would remove the mention of the “deputy returning officer” and would change it to “election officer”, as we've discussed on a few occasions.
The statement of the vote needs to say how many ballots were received at the beginning of the day, how many unused ballots are remaining at the end of the day, and how many electors voted. Eventually, the results are reported on the statement of the vote.
As I mentioned yesterday, the Chief Electoral Officer still has a requirement under section 533, I think, of the Canada Elections Act, to report the results of the vote by polling division. This is one of the reasons that election officers will have to write the polling division number at the back of the ballot when each elector votes. Under his power to prescribe forms, the chief electoral officer will likely prescribe a form for the statement of the vote that will allow the votes for each ballot box for each polling division to be recorded. Then these numbers will be amalgamated also for the polling station.
In the end, remember that the chief electoral officer always has to report results by polling division, so results will always be available by polling division. Even if the ballots for a single polling division are deposited in, for example, 10 different ballot boxes at a polling station, these results will be combined at the end of the polling day to make sure that the results are available for each polling division.
Was that clear?
3:45 p.m.
Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Regulatory Affairs, Elections Canada
No. What was just described is absolutely correct. The statement of the vote provides the reconciliation currently and it will continue to do that under any new system. Even if we're having several polling divisions at the polling station, the statement of the vote is what provides that reconciliation at the end of the day. As my colleague said, the vote would continue to be reported by the PD, the polling division, as required under the law.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
It's actually in the Canada Elections Act itself. It's not in the bill. It's a provision that is not being affected by the bill.
3:45 p.m.
Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Regulatory Affairs, Elections Canada
The statement of the vote is in the bill, in regard to section 287.
3:45 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
I mean the requirement to publish the results by polling division.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
It's counted by polling division. What we're looking for here is the reconciliation by polling division.
I'm curious, perhaps through Elections Canada, what assurances Parliament can be provided that with this vote, at any table model, there will be a reconciliation of the votes cast with the ballots issued. What assurances can we be provided of that?
3:50 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Elections Canada
The statement of the vote will require a reconciliation for the entire polling station, so the entire school gym. To feed into that, there would need to be documentation to ensure from each count that there is a reconciliation. That isn't provided in itself, but the statement of the vote is there for the purposes of reconciling for the whole polling station.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The question sounds as though this is maybe additive in terms of more accounting and clarity. What we don't want to do is make things so burdensome as to affect the process of counting, reconciling and then announcing voting at any point.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
It sounded as though you said to me it's already done. This doesn't add anything.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
What I'm hearing John suggest is that it's also reconciled at a more narrow level. Is that right?
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Then does that become overly onerous for Elections Canada simply to be able to count, reconcile and then produce daily results?
3:50 p.m.
Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Regulatory Affairs, Elections Canada
I'm not sure how to answer that question exactly. We're talking about the future, so we don't have forms developed at the moment. There's no question that these prescribed forms will be developed to enable what you're describing, which Trevor described, which is a proper count that's reconciled at the polling station level with the granularity that comes from having all of the ballots with their individual polling division numbers on them. As Jean-François said, that granularity will allow for the reporting by the polling division level.
The act provides a framework for that to happen necessarily, in and of itself. There's a certain amount of flexibility allowed for the Chief Electoral Officer to determine how that happens, but that's true in many other places in the act where the CEO is asked to prescribe forms to enable certain things to happen.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Let's vote on new clause 191.1, which is amendment CPC-72. That also applies to CPC-73, CPC-75 and CPC-78.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 192)
We will go to clause 192 and amendment LIB-22, which was consequentially already passed. Wait a minute. No.
Sorry. We will go on to discuss LIB-22.
Mr. Graham.