Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Sergeant-at-Arms, if you could please escort the witnesses into the House, please.
Mr. Bouchard, if you would be kind enough to introduce your witnesses to the House.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To my left I have Chief Electoral Officer Mr. David Brock and to my right I have Ken Chutskoff, legislative counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chutskoff, Mr. Brock, for joining us here today. Committee, I’m going to now open the floor to general comments on Bill 26.
Detail.
Does committee agree to go clause by clause?
Agreed.
Committee, because of the length of this bill, does committee agree that, as chair, I can call these clauses in groups of five?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Bill 26, An Act to Amend the Elections and Plebiscites Act, clauses 1 to 5. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under clause 4, the addition or change where we’re requiring to provide names and addresses, in some cases, for example, in a prison, how would this work conversely? How would it work, for example, in a shelter of some sort where people are staying there for a long time? Thank you
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. For that response we’ll go to Mr. Brock.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the Member for the question. To the particular provision, this only enables the Department of Justice to provide the names of eligible electors who are also incarcerated persons to the Chief Electoral Officer in order to make the list of electors more accurate and complete. With respect to those individuals who may be resident in shelters, those individuals would be expected to register in the electoral system like any other elector and make sure that their name is on the list during the revision period before the official list of electors is issued to candidates. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Perhaps we can get some enlightenment on how we can have access during the election process. How would a candidate have access to the names of members in shelters, and if it’s a men’s shelter I suspect they don’t allow women candidates in there, and if it’s a woman’s shelter I suspect that there’s challenges of men going there. So if we’re adding requirements to provide names and addresses, how do we assure that we have the fulsome voters list supplied to all candidates so everyone is on the same footing? Thank you.
Thank you. I believe perhaps there are two issues there. One is an issue of the accuracy of the list and the other is with respect to access.
With respect to the accuracy of the list, for those individuals who may be inclined or may be staying at the shelter for a longer period of time, it is hoped that they would either be registered through the normal process or during the revision period would be added to the list and, therefore, would be reflected on the official list of electors on polling day or during another polling opportunity. If that is not the case and you can see how that could arise, especially for a shelter where a stay may be for a shorter period of time, then those individuals would be eligible to register to vote at the polling station and in those cases they would be expected to complete an Oath of Elector. That is to provide their name, address and swear to an oath that they are who they say they are and they reside where they say they reside. So we have a sworn affidavit essentially of their eligibility.
To the issue of access, I think that’s a different question. I think there may be value in pursuing the Member’s question with those shelters to ensure that where they are of a single sex, the candidates of the alternate sex do have some opportunity if it meets the security requirements of the shelter so that all candidates would have the opportunity to provide their message as candidates so that those individuals are just as fully informed as any other elector before they cast their ballot. Thank you.
Thanks for that and I want to extend my appreciation to the Chief Electoral Officer for those answers. Just to continue slightly further, I just want to determine, of course, this is a requirement to provide names and addresses. How do we determine residency? In an incarceration situation I believe we determine their residency issue by their home, generally where they would define their home, I guess, and in the case of an emergency shelter when you’re requiring names and addresses, how do we determine that, because normally the shelter wouldn’t be their normal place of residence. We’re not here to discuss what circumstance may or may not have brought them there, I’m just curious on how we determine residency. Thank you.
Thank you. With respect to the determination of residency, residency is defined in Section 1 of the act. Generally speaking, so long as an individual meets all of the eligibility requirements, there are general tests the courts use to determine residency where residency may be in question and those apply both to candidates as well as to electors. It’s important to note that an elector may only have one residence at one time and so where that person claims to be a resident is certainly germane to how a court would consider that, but there are other factors to consider. For example, where are their possessions, where they might have other family members residing, where their mail is sent to, there are a variety of factors the courts have determined and used in the past to determine an individual’s residency and those would, I believe, also apply equally in the Northwest Territories.
One could say if a person is incarcerated, all of their things are there at that moment and one would assume then, by that logic, that they’d all become Kam Lake voters, all 200 or whatnot added to the roll.
That said, following that logic, would a shelter be determined as the residency of any resident present?
Thank you. A brief correction to what I stated, it’s actually Section 2 of the act, not Section 1 that speaks to residency, but Section 2 of the act also speaks to the residency of incarcerated persons and I believe in general terms there’s an understanding that though the person may be ordinarily a resident in a prison from a general perspective, the act contemplates the reality that the individual is incarcerated for a brief and defined period of time and that there’s an intention, at least as the law contemplates it, that that person will return to the place where they were resident prior to the period of their incarceration.
Thank you. Would the Chief Electoral Officer consider it a continuous definition in a similar manner for an emergency shelter, which is not defined as a permanent residence but more of an emergency situation? Perhaps if I may liken it somewhat like a hotel room or a longer stay. Now, generally speaking, people tend not to stay there as a long-term solution.
Thank you. Perhaps I’ll submit that it’s less, with respect to my interpretation of residency and more with respect to the provision in the act. Section 2(5) speaks to those individuals who are resident at a shelter or hostel and states that a person who has no dwelling place, this is the person’s place of ordinary residence. So it certainly contemplates that where a person is on that day, resident in a shelter or hostel, that becomes their place of ordinary residence in accordance with Section 2(5) of the act.
Thank you. I’ll have to revisit Section 2(5). I’ll have to revisit that section.
Would that determination – back to names and addresses – be determined on polling day or whatever day throughout the election period? Thank you.
Thank you. Speaking directly to the question, the determination would be made on the day in which the individual is registered to vote or, should that information change, on the day in which they are casting their ballot, in which they would need to provide that information to the polling official, and in that sense their registration information would change when they complete the Oath of Electorate that I had spoken to previously. Thank you.
Is it conceivable and how does the Chief Electoral Officer see or manage this particular issue? Is it conceivable, for example, that a 10-bed shelter has 10 different people each day and each person during the voting period could vote each time? So 10 new votes times 28 days type of thing? The example of expanding it, if the Chief Electoral Officer needs a better description, I think that’s probably not per se. I’ll give him a shot at that question.
Thank you. I think I’ll just preface my remark by stating that I’m going to answer the question as I understand it. So if I understand incorrectly, perhaps the Member can clarify for me, but it’s important to state and the law is very clear on this matter and I think it’s well understood in Canada that an individual may only cast a ballot once. A general principle of Canadian election law is that it’s better to err on the side of allowing individuals who are qualified electors to cast a ballot and then if we determine, after this takes place, that indeed is not the fact, we have various enforcement measures in the act to ensure that the letter of the law is enforced. But again, it’s important we expected those individuals who say they are qualified electors are qualified electors and we use devices such as the Oath of Elector to ensure that we have evidence to support that claim.
I’m just talking about… I wish to ensure that it’s clear that I enjoy the principle and certainly would support the principle of franchising voting opportunities by all extents. I just wanted to be clear on that someone is not taking advantage of a situation where we have, for example, 10 beds one day and then 10 new people come in and they get to vote under that address, and then the next day 10 new people get to vote under that address and then so on and so on and so on. In theory, in a 28-day election if it was 10 beds, 10 new people every day, you could have 280 votes out of one address that really is defined by 10 beds, which… I’m just trying to get the sense of it to ensure that we franchise people properly and that the availability for people to be candidates and share their views and work with the electorate is fair, open, transparent and consistently reasonable. That’s all.
I’ll take that more as a comment, but if Mr. Brock wishes to respond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the clarification. I can’t speak to the rates of turnover at shelters or hostels in the Northwest Territories, but I can say that the law provides and the system provides that a qualified elector votes once and only once, but if more than, for example, 10 individuals need to claim that shelter or hostel as their residence during the overall, roughly 28 day campaign period, then that would be acceptable under the law.
Thank you, Mr. Brock. Mr. Hawkins, your time is now up. If you have any more questions, let me know. Committee, just to rekindle, we are on Bill 26 and we agreed to do in groups of five. I’ll commence again. Clauses 1 to 5.
---Clauses 1 through 45 inclusive approved
Does committee agree that Bill 26, An Act to Amend the Elections and Plebiscite Act, is now ready for third reading?
Agreed.
Bill 26 is now deemed ready for third reading.
---Bill 26 approved for third reading
I’d like to thank Mr. Bouchard, sponsoring from the Board of Management, and Mr. Brock and Mr. Chutskoff for joining us here today. Sergeant-at-Arms, if I can have you escort the witnesses out of the House.
Committee, as agreed upon earlier here this afternoon, we are going to now turn our attention to Committee Report 8-17(5), Standing Committee Report on Rules and Procedures on the Report on the Review of the Auxiliary Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on Issues Arising from the 2011 General Election. I’ll turn over to the chair of that committee to introduce it. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures has presented its Report on the Review of the Auxiliary Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on Issues Arising from the 2011 General Election.
The report contains 13 recommendations which, taken together, will help clarify, modernize and strengthen the NWT’s electoral system. These are important incremental changes to ensure the continued integrity and fairness of our elections.
The committee advises that these changes should be made in advance of the next election.
The committee thanks the Chief Electoral Officer for his diligence and everyone who provided public input or attended the committee’s hearings. I also have a number of motions.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. We’ll now open up the floor to general comments. I’m hearing detail. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that the Elections and Plebiscites Act be amended to increase the number of times an elector may vouch for another elector from one to five. This is in recognition in some of our communities where more than 50 percent of the residents eligible to vote do not have government issued identification.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. I have a motion on the floor. It is not debatable. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that the Elections and Plebiscites Act be amended to prohibit candidates from vouching for another elector.
The motion is on the floor. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. Motion is carried.
---Carried
Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that the Elections NWT and the Government of the Northwest Territories work together to expand the coverage of government issued photo identification among residents of the Northwest Territories.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Agreed.
Question has been called. The motion is now carried.
---Carried
Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that Sections 104 and 299 of the Elections and Plebiscites Act be amended to prohibit election advertising on polling day and the day prior.
