Evidence of meeting #134 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was elections.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Just to clarify that, would the vote count or not?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
If it only mentioned the party, it would count.
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
If it mentioned the party and the name of a candidate who was not a candidate of the party, then the intent of the elector could not be understood, and it would not count.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Right now, if someone were to vote by way of special ballot and they marked in candidate A because they were required to specifically write in the name of the candidate, and then if candidate A were not the candidate who made the final ballot because someone else stepped in and they met the filing deadline, that vote would not count. Is that right?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
That's correct.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Okay.
On another matter, we've seen in a few by-elections this protest movement you've alluded to in which there have been 40 or 50 candidates on the ballot in Winnipeg, Montreal and Toronto. You've proposed some potential amendments to the act. I welcome those suggestions. I would note, as well, that I think in each of the three ridings, the same official agent represented all of the candidates.
What are your thoughts on potentially making an amendment so that an official agent could only act for one candidate in a riding?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
That's something that I've considered.
These are all nil returns for all of these candidates affiliated with that movement. It is such a small task to sign a nil return that I think it could easily be done with different official agents.
I'm not sure what the policy rationale would be. In the case of the signature, there is a policy rationale for electors supporting the nomination of a particular candidate—not for any person in the world who wants to be a candidate. I think allowing a person to put on the table a series of 75 nomination papers and allowing people to sign them in a string does not conform to the idea behind candidate signatures. That's why i proposed this measure.
In the last four by-elections, I've had to adapt the prescriptions of the act to accommodate the number of candidates. That means I'm setting aside the will of Parliament, and I do not do that lightly. Parliament has designed the ballot in a certain way, and there can be conversations and debates on amendments as to whether this is the right way, but for me to set it aside is a significant gesture. I do not do that lightly, but there is no other way of allowing so many candidates. I do think that's an issue.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Thank you very much, Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Duguid, you have the floor for five minutes.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank Mr. Sampson and Mr. Perrault for coming to see us and for all of the hard work they're doing on modernizing the Canada Elections Act.
I want to take us back to 2014 and the Fair Elections Act, which I'm sure you studied before you took your new post. It was widely criticized for restricting voting. Voting is essentially the fundamental right in a democracy. It had inflexible ID requirements, and there's certainly evidence that it made it more difficult for indigenous peoples, seniors, northern residents, rural residents and, particularly, youth to vote.
I wonder if you would offer the committee a few reflections on how far we've come in the intervening 10 years with some of the first amendments made by Minister Gould when she was democratic reform minister in the Liberal government, and where we are now.
Perhaps you could also make some closing comments on campus voting and what you anticipate in the way of increased youth participation in voting. Mr. Gerretsen and I are representatives of large campuses where this is really going to be appreciated and I think will help increase voter turnout.
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
In any piece of electoral legislation, there will be aspects that Elections Canada supports and others that we feel less comfortable with. Our role is to support the work of parliamentarians in examining those pieces of legislation, and that's what I'm here to do today.
Back then there were points of concern. Some of these points were addressed later on in the Elections Modernization Act of 2018. There were things done in the Fair Elections Act like the provisions for guidelines and interpretation notes that were considerable improvements over the regime. There is not always a perfect piece of legislation.
I think that over time one of the virtues of the Canadian system is that we regularly revisit the act and draw lessons and improve upon it. This is another example of that.
Right now, whether the legislation passes or not, we will have campus voting in the next election. We are currently working with 119 campuses of post-secondary institutions. That is the same number we had the last time in 2019. It's largely the same, but with some minor changes; the number 119 is significant. In the last election in 2019, the uptake was not that high. There were 70,000 young voters who chose to use that system.
Nonetheless, it's an important first experience for voters. We know that voters who vote when they're young will vote for the rest of their lives. We certainly heard the disappointment of not having campus kiosks at the last election. I'm very happy to be bringing that back. As I said, this will happen whether or not it is reflected in the legislation.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, I think I have about a minute and a half left.
Mr. Perrault, we had some of our union representatives come to visit us who had concerns about their ability to interact with their members. The amendments you've proposed would prevent them from freely interacting and informing their members in a writ period.
Would you have any comments on that?
November 21st, 2024 / 11:45 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
With all due respect, I do believe their concern is about the provisions in the Elections Modernization Act of 2018 and not in any amendment either in the bill or that I am proposing.
As I indicated, none of these provisions prohibit any engagement or conversation or partisan promotion by unions. However, like any other group, if they spend more than the threshold amount, they have to register, and then they can spend up to probably around $1.2 million or $1.3 million in the pre-writ period, with inflation, and probably $600,000 in the writ period—I'm rounding it up here with inflation—so they have considerable latitude to do surveys and partisan activities, but they must register.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Thank you, Mr. Duguid.
Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Perrault, I'm concerned about the vulnerability of people living in residences and long‑term care facilities. Let me explain. In my personal life, I spent five years with my father, who suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. He could no longer use his limbs. However, he could still speak, which other people with this disease can no longer do.
During those five years, there was one election.
Subsection 243.01(1) of the Canada Elections Act currently reads as follows:
If an elector requires assistance to vote, one of the following persons may accompany the elector into the voting compartment at the office of the returning officer and assist the elector to mark his or her ballot: (a) a friend of the elector; (b) the elector's spouse or common‑law partner; or (c) a relative of the elector or of the elector's spouse or common‑law partner.
Subsection 243.01(2) of the act reads as follows:
A person described in subsection (1) who wishes to assist an elector in marking a ballot shall first make a solemn declaration in the prescribed form that he or she (a) will mark the ballot paper in the manner directed by the elector; (b) will not disclose the name of the candidate for whom the elector voted; (c) will not try to influence the elector in choosing a candidate; and (d) has not, during the current election, assisted another person, as a friend, to mark a ballot.
Subclause 38(1) of Bill C‑65 proposes to replace subsection 243.01(1) with the following:
If an elector requires assistance to vote, a person may accompany the elector into the voting compartment at the office of the returning officer and assist the elector to mark their ballot.
In addition, subclause 38(2) of the bill proposes to repeal paragraph 243.01(2)(d).
I'm concerned about these proposed changes. I want to know your thoughts on the fact that the people who may accompany electors into the voting compartment could be in positions of authority. They could be members of the nursing staff, for example.
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
This clause of the bill reflects a recommendation that I made at the request of groups of people with disabilities. They find it insulting and humiliating to need to declare that an employee who helps them each day and who accompanies them into the voting compartment is a friend, because that person isn't a family member. Under the current Canada Elections Act, they must say that the person is their friend, which isn't the case.
They want the oath to be taken. It's important to them. We talked about it. However, they don't want to need to say that the person accompanying them is a friend. That's the main thrust of clause 38 of the bill. Subclause 38(2) would also allow an individual to help more than one person vote.
Basically, these provisions reflect the comments heard from groups of people with disabilities.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.
Ms. Mathyssen, the floor is yours for two and a half minutes.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you.
Just to build on that in terms of the empowerment, enfranchisement and making it easier for people living with disabilities to vote, there are other systems in place.
Do you have any concerns about any of those recommendations going forward?
I know that the phone voting is indicated. The alternatives to paper ballots are indicated. Could you talk about those changes and how important they could be?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
For any significant change to the way people vote, I think there has to be a general buy-in from the population as to the integrity of the process.
In terms of phone voting, I think it can be done, but I know it's not necessarily seen as having the same degree of integrity, so this is a difficult question. It's quite possible that we could contemplate a variation on that, which is Zoom voting or Teams voting, where the person shows their identity and their face so that there is greater clarity as to who that person actually is before they move to another room and vote anonymously.
There are ways that technology can help us increase the perceived integrity of these kinds of remote voting, and that's something I think should be examined.
I know that in the U.S., curbside voting, as they call it, is very common and very well accepted. People with disabilities will be driven up or drive up next to the polling location, and a ballot box and representatives will come there. That's something we have recommended in the past that has not been accepted by Parliament, but I believe it's something that should be considered.
I think we need to always be exploring new ways of better serving electors with disabilities.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
With regard to that voter turnout, you discussed student on-campus voting and these increases. What does voter turnout look like? There's been a lot of discussion about how that continues to go down. Do you believe these changes will help with that? Are we on the right path in this regard?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
The turnout is a very complex factor. It's driven by motivation, things in the environment and how parties and candidates drum up support and interest in the election. The role of Elections Canada is to remove barriers, not to generate turnout. I think we each have our own role.
There are a number of elements in this bill that do remove barriers, in a way, or make it easier to vote. Now, whether people have the motivation to go out and vote, that belongs to them and the political conversation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Thank you very much, Ms. Mathyssen.
Mr. Berthold, you have two and a half minutes.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll be brief.
Mr. Perrault, I would like a clarification. During any of your meetings with the NDP and the Liberals regarding the drafting of Bill C‑65, did you discuss postponing the election date?