Procedure and House Affairs committee  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.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Of course, all election officers need to be electors. Yes, they will be on the list of electors in the electoral district where their ordinary residence is located. Parties have access to the list of electors for all electoral districts where they support a candidate. Parties would definitely have access to that.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  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.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Well, we'll get to that when we study part 19 of the act, which includes the offences. However, you will see at this point that all offences that relate to part 6 of the act are offences for which an intent is required, so there are no strict liability offences for part 6 of the act.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Just give me a second.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  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).

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Thank you for your question, Mr. Bittle. This motion would amend section 91 of the act. Section 91 is a prohibition. We're not yet at the offence stage. The offences are in part 19 of the act, so this is the prohibition associated with it. Although you will see “knowingly” many times in prohibitions in the act, it's often considered bad practice in criminal law to include an intent provision such as “knowingly” in the prohibition itself, especially where there's already an element of intent that is expressed.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes, that's why I was saying.... Don't get me wrong. We know that there are other places, other prohibitions in the act where we say “knowingly”, but it's bad practice.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  The “knowingly” is a mens rea element that is associated with the offence. When we try to craft legislation, we want to make sure that every offence that Parliament wants a mental element associated with has at least one of those mental elements—so it's those dual procedure offences versus strict liability offences, which don't have a huge intent criterion.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Indeed, the Quebec Election Act contains an obligation to present photo identification; only five pieces of identification are permitted. However, there is a major difference between the Quebec and federal systems: in Quebec, voters only need to prove their identity, while in the federal system, voters need to prove their identity and place of residence.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  No, of course. Bill C-76 would lift the prohibition on identifying the voter information card as one of the potential pieces of identification that can be used, but if these amendments are passed, someone presenting himself or herself with a voter information card at a poll will always have to show at least a second piece of identification to prove his or her identity.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  It's a policy choice, Mr. Chair.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Section 65 of the Canada Elections Act currently provides ineligibility criteria for candidates, and paragraph 65(i) says that a person who was a candidate or an official agent and basically failed to provide his or her returns is then ineligible to be a candidate again in a future election.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  No, no—

Procedure and House Affairs committee  No, I'm just saying that the amendment would create the situation that, for example, the financial agent of the party who did not file on behalf of the party would be able to run as a candidate, but the financial agent of a third party, which is more remote from the election process, would be ineligible to file as candidate.