PROC Committee Report

Dissenting Opinion from the New Democratic Party of Canada

Notwithstanding our opposition to the majority decision on the three following recommendations, the New Democratic Party would like to express its support for the rest of the recommendations in the report and thank the witnesses who appeared before this committee who provided clarification and assistance throughout the process. This study was a thorough review of the Chief Electoral Officer’s Recommendations for Legislative Reforms Following the 40^th General Election and was conducted by members from four political parties over the course of two parliaments. We would be remiss if we did not commend the committee for its many hours of hard work and deliberation guided by the best interest of the public and the integrity of the electoral process.

With regard to recommendation II.1 Documents Supporting the Parties’ Financial Returns, the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) provided the committee with two possible solutions that would strengthen the Canada Elections Act by increasing the oversight and accountability of the financial returns submitted by the political parties. It’s important to note that public subsidies are provided to parties based on their election returns. Therefore, in order to maintain the highest level of accountability and transparency it is critical for the CEO to have the necessary means to fully verify returns. The majority of the committee supported the second recommendation, which would expand the responsibilities of parties’ external auditors to include performing financial and compliance audits. Although the CEO has stated this solution would increase accountability, the increased costs would have a detrimental impact on smaller political parties and, at present, it is unclear whether or not external auditing firms have the expertise and understanding of the Canada Elections Act to conduct compliance audits.

The NDP concurs with the CEO’s preferred solution and believe the most effective, least costly, and simplest means to address this issue is solution 1, to authorize the Chief Electoral Officer to request any necessary documentary evidence supporting the parties’ election expense returns. It would allow for the CEO to request only the documentation he/she deems necessary to verify that a party is in compliance with the Act with respect to electoral expenses. The solution would ensure that the CEO has the information required to meet his/her legislative obligations under the Act.

NDP Recommendation: With regard to Documents Supporting the Parties’ Financial Returns, that the Chief Electoral Officer be allowed to request only the documentation he/she deems necessary to verify that a party is in compliance with the Canada Election Act with respect to electoral expenses.

Concerning recommendation III.4 Right to Vote of Prisoners Serving a Sentence of Two Years or More, the Chief Electoral Officer has stated that the voting process for electors who are serving their sentence in a federal institution should be the same as for electors incarcerated in provincial facilities. The NDP is in full agreement with this position, as was the majority of this committee as documented in its report Improving the Integrity of the Electoral Process: Recommendations for Legislative Change[1], tabled in the House in 2006. The right to vote is a protected democratic right under s. 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and was further upheld in the 2002 Supreme Court of Canada decision in the case of Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer)[2]. As the Court mentioned, “the right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and the rule of law and cannot be lightly set aside.”

Since Sauvé v. Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer has been using his authority under section 17 of the Act (Power to adapt) to allow federal prisoners to vote in every general election and by-election. While the Act sets out the process by which electors in provincial prisons can exercise their right to vote, no process has been established since the Supreme Court decision to allow federal detainees to exercise their constitutional right. The NDP supports this recommendation to reflect the Sauvé v. Canada decision and to establish the necessary process to address this inconsistency. Although this recommendation does not address the right of prisoners to vote in a referendum, this should not be reason enough to continue to deprive prisoners of their democratic rights guaranteed under the Charter.

NDP recommendation: With regard to the Right to Vote of Prisoners Serving a Sentence of Two Years or More, that the committee accept the Chief Electoral Officer`s  recommendation to allow federal detainees to exercise their constitutional right to vote in a manner consistent with provisions for electors in provincial penitentiaries.

Finally, the New Democratic Party cannot agree with the majority of the committee’s support for recommendation III.6 Right to Strike of Elections Canada Staff, which would withdraw the right to strike for unionized Elections Canada workers. The right to strike is an essential part of the collective bargaining process and the removal of this right should not be undertaken without cause.

While it is understood that a strike by Elections Canada employees during an election period would be detrimental to the democratic process, the Governor in Council currently has the ability to make an order deferring a strike during the period beginning on the day on which the order is made and ending on the twenty-first day following the date fixed for the return of writs[3]. The NDP believes that this power is sufficient to ensure that a by-election, general election, or referendum can be undertaken without overly impinging on the ability of unionized workers to exercise their right to strike, a position reinforced by the decision rendered in 2009 by a Public Service Labour Relations Board adjudicator[4].

NDP Recommendation: With regard to the Right to Strike of Elections Canada Staff, that the status quo be maintained.  

In conclusion, the New Democratic Party would again like to thank the members of this committee, both current and past, who worked diligently on producing this report. The co-operation and respect for differing opinions shown by these members should serve as an example of how a parliamentary committee can work effectively in the best interest of all Canadians.