He's like the Kevin Page of elections! Liveblogging the Chief Electoral Officer at Procedure and House Affairs

by kadyomalley on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 10:20am - 27 Comments

ITQ has had this particular meeting circled on her calendar for weeks now – yes, in case y’all wondered, in red, surrounded by exclamation marks and little happy faces. Bring on the only-tangentially-related-to-the-official-order-of-business-yet-oddly-pointed questions!

10:51:48 AM
Eeee! It’s Marc Mayrand!

Okay, now that I’ve gotten that out of my system, I made it to committee just in time to miss out on the last seat at the media table – damn you, Colleague McGregor and your uncharacteristic punctuality – which is why I’m now sitting in the staffer section, but on the *government* side of the room for a change.

Along with Marc Mayrand, by the way, we have various other Elections Canada luminaries, including Rennie Molnar,Stephane Perrault and Belaineh Deguefe, and there is no way on earth I’m going to be able to spell that with any consistency once the meeting starts, so let’s call him BD, shall we?

The meeting is about to get underway – Yvon Godin is, adorably, greeting the witnesses – and most of the MPs are already at the table. I see that Kelly Block is stalking me — well, or I’m stalking her – as is Guy Lauzon, but as yet, we are short one pixie dancer. Where are you, Pierre?

10:58:36 AM
With an odd sort of vaguely nervous warning to his colleagues that “we’re in public today,” Chairman Joe hands the floor over to Marc Mayrand.


Also, I’ve been joined in temporary honourary Conservative stafferdom by another journalist – CanWest’s Andrew Mayada, and really, wouldn’t you think they would have realized there might possibly be more than two reporters interested in hearing about the last election? Not to mention anything else that may come up?

11:01:01 AM
After an initial overview, Mayrand moves to one of the few potentially contentious areas of his report – the so-called “visual identification of voters” – and then moves onto the “procedural burden” involved in the administration of political financing, which should make the Conservatives at least a *little* bit happy with his work, and then opens it up to question, starting with Marcel Proulx.

11:03:25 AM
Wow, that was a really succinct opening statement, wasn’t it? Not that this is a bad thing – I’m all for short and sweet. More time for questions! Proulx goes straight to the issue of voter identification, and suggests that the three hours of training provided to employees was inadequate.

11:05:50 AM
Marcel Proulx is going on and on about the voter id-related problems that surfaced in *his* riding during the last election – elderly, and not even all that elderly people not being permitted to vote and that sort of thing. This is clearly a very sore spot for him; he seems to have a lot of rant stored up, but if he doesn’t wrap it up soon, Mayrand isn’t going to have any time to reply.

11:08:57 AM
As Proulx keeps going – really, he’s got to be down to his last minute – Kelly Block and Harold Albrecht are giggling behind their respective hands. Proulx having finally run out of gripes, the chair points out that Mayrand has approximately fifteen seconds left to answer, but gives him a bit longer; apparently Chairman Joe just can’t say no to that face. Anyway, Mayrand pretty much agrees with Proulx’s complaint that there just aren’t enough returning officers and other election workers, and tells the committee that Elections Canada plans to look at compensation rates and other issues that could be discouraging recruitment.

11:12:34 AM
Tom Lukiwski is up now – really? Shouldn’t it be the Bloc Quebecois first? I guess not. Anyway, he wants to talk voter turnout, which continues to fall – under 60% last time out – which he ties to the government’s ill-fated effort to increase advance polling days. Would that bring out more ballot-casters? Mayrand notes that there are many factors that lead to dwindling voting rates – including, he doesn’t add but could, many that have little to do with the mechanics and everything to do with the quality of candidates and parties being offered up – before telling Lukiwski that there is no evidence to suggest more advance polling would increase the numbers. Ah, Lukiwski points out, but there is also no evidence that it *wouldn’t*!

11:17:39 AM
More on turnout rates and advance polls, particularly in rural areas; Lukiwski “applauds” Mayrand’s aside that Elections Canada plans to look into the “root cause” of the dropoff, and urges him to spend more time in schools, haranguing students to be less apathetic, which sounds like an exercise in expensive futility, but maybe things have changed since ITQ was a girl.

11:21:07 AM
Over to Michel Guimond, who is resplendent in rose – well, his shirt, at least – and who is *also* concerned by low voter turnout, and really, guys — isn’t this like blaming the car for a traffic accident? Guimond, however, has whipped himself into an elegant Gallic frenzy; he suggests that inaccurate or out of date voter lists may be to blame. He also likes to shake hands with every single election worker at each and every poll in his riding. That must be such a thrill. Oh, but long lines in the cold — that definitely has a deterring effect.

11:25:54 AM
The look of adoration with which Claude deBellefeuille is gazing at Guimond, waving his arms as he delivers what is truly a tour de force, is either very sweet, or deeply sarcastic. Oh, look – he’s done. At least that was a far more animated performance than Proulx. Anyway, Mayrand is somewhat mild and mannerly in response — I think he figures that MPs, being ultimately subject to the cruel hand of electoral fate, see him as a sort of proxy for everything that bugs them about democracy, so he just let’s them go off.

Oh, the missing boxes! Remember those missing boxes in Quebec that turned up in the returning officer’s car? Anyway, Guimond certainly does, but Mayrand assures him that in this case, the boxes weren’t compromised in any way, although he agrees that it was unfortunate. He’s not sure if that can be addressed through legislation, but is willing to look at it.

11:31:59 AM
On to Yvon Godin, who also has his share of complaints about the last election, many of which echo those of previous speakers – not enough workers, time delay, British Columbians who found out who was elected PM before the polls closed – and particularly voter identification. He reads a letter from caucus colleague Libby Davies that goes into gory detail of some of the hangups that occured in *her* riding, and then meanders off to another issue – handshaking at a federal building, which provoked someone to threaten to “call the cops” and prompted an hour long fight on the sidewalk.

After he winds down, Mayrand gamely tries to put a new spin on the same answers he has given to the last few questions – a tricky job, what with the questions being pretty much exactly the same once you cut through the rest of the chest-off-getting rantage. Recruitment of more returning officers? They’re working on it. Voter identification? Still waiting for the results of the full survey from the last general election. Yes, he got the letter from Libby, and he’ll answer it – and as for access to public buildings, he notes that Bill C-31 increased access, and suggests that a public awareness campaign might not be misplaced.

11:42:37 AM
After another gentle warning from Chairman Joe – this time, reminding members that as much as we love hearing their thoughts on matters electoral, the Chief Electoral Officer came all the way here to *answer questions* – Marcel Proulx begins his second round with – actually, that’s an interesting question. Apparently, in one riding, a candidate for the Green Party dropped out of the race but remained on the ballot. Did the party receive “financial consideration” – oh, you scamp, you didn’t think we’d notice that choice of phrasing? – on her behalf?

Brief interlude of utter chaos when the simultaneous interpretation goes out — lots of running back and forth from the booth and confusion on both sides of the room — before Proulx is permitted to continue, and he brings up — hey, I remember this! The Borys W. pamphlet! He summarizes what went down, which I’ll spare ITQ readers; if you google the site, you should find our posts on the subject – and asks if this matter is under investigation by Elections Canada.

Mayrand reminds him that this would be handled by the Elections Commissioner, not his office, and notes that he can’t confirm or deny that he’s looking into it. As for the Green candidate, apparently the party *did* get public financing credit for the votes that were received. Really? Huh.

11:52:12 AM
Oh, bother — more technical difficulties with the French interpretation, which unfortunately means that the meeting has to pause as people fiddle with the wiring, and really, Chairman Joe is relentlessly cheerful despite the misfortunes that constantly seem to befall him.

11:54:09 AM
Back to Harold Albrecht, who is up for the government, and wants to quibble about a survey in which he chose to take part, which sought the views of candidates on the electoral process, but which he found too technical, and would have better been put to campaign managers and administrators.

He also wonders about the decline in special ballots, and whether Elections Canada may not be making sure that people know they can vote at any time up until election day. Mayrand points out that this time, that fell in October, as opposed to January, which meant fewer Florida-ensconced Canadian snowbirds needing to make use of the special ballot, which makes sense.

12:00:49 PM
Oh, right – this is Claude deBellefeuille’s first chance to speak — that’s why she’s been asking her question for the last six minutes or so, and shows no sign of stopping. Access, returning officers, lack of training – usual litany o’ election day grumbles.

12:04:16 PM
Hey, I wonder if anyone will ask about that whole re-recount debacle in Vancouver last year.

In any case, we’ve gotten back around to Yvon Godin, who is still fretting about voter identification requirements, particularly for students, soldiers and various other transient types – at least, as far as staying in one place long enough to make it onto the voters’ list. Mayrand notes that the student vote is a perennial issue during elections; students have to choose where to plant their residency flag, as far as voting – at home or at school, it’s up to them.

12:10:43 PM
Give Mayrand credit for not just shrugging off Godin’s worrying over student votes; he’s giving an incredibly thorough, thoughtful reply and not just trying to fob him off with cheery platitudes about raising public awareness. He suggests that for some electors – like students – an “elector card” might make sense, and I can just imagine how well that would go over with the privacywonk crowd. Yvon Godin, however, is not happy that his time has expired.

12:14:02 PM
Marlene Jennings wonders why Elections Canada spent *less* on public education and awareness than expected – Mayrand promises to get back to the clerk with the details – before moving onto students. Again. What about polling stations *inside* the university residences and buildings, staffed by students? Actually, that’s an interesting idea – and apparently, it comes from Jennings’ parliamentary intern, who is either not here, or cool enough not to blush violently at the shoutout.

12:18:23 PM
If Scott Reid doesn’t eventually take the mic for a round of questions, I’m going to be deeply disappointing. He’s so entertaining. It won’t be *this* round, however, because Kelly Block, it turns out, has issues – issues that have to do with advance polls, particularly the “clustering” – and worries that a malevolent-minded voter could breeze from one advance poll to another during the window, casting ballots hither and yon with no recourse.

Mayrand reminds her that it’s an offence to vote more than once, period – and agrees that someday, electronic lists might be possible – but there’s “a way to go” – probably five years. “In time for the next election,” pipes up Harold Albrecht, to much merriment, except from Kelly Block – who, it turns out, didn’t realize that you can’t just show up at a random advance poll, thus rendering her line of questioning embarrassingly moot.

12:25:56 PM
Michel Guimond, who never fails to be as entertaining as questions about student voting are dull, demands that Elections Canada investigate an alleged translation error – well, inconsistency – in the guidelines, which are far clearer in English than French, followed by a question about proxies that I didn’t quite get, and finally, on the subject of leaders voting in front of the cameras, the only one who didn’t make the news was – you guessed it, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, because *his* returning officer stuck to the letter of the law, and refused to allow it. First the Plaines d’Abraham, now this.

Anyway, Guimond, of course, is in full rhetorical flight at this point – we saw Obama vote! McCain! Karzai, for heaven’s sake! This is indeed a humiliation sans parallel!

Mayrand actually seems sympathetic, but reminds him that the law is the law; it’s up to the legislators to change it if they don’t like it.

12:33:29 PM
You know, I think I’m the only reporter left. Even Colleague McGregor is gone. Committee amateurs. Oh well – all the more Rodger Cuzner for me, right? Speaking of which, he’s up – and he wants to know if the surveys on voter participation focus on those who don’t tend to do it – vote, that is – or a more general sample. Mayrand notes that there is some weighting, but doesn’t target non-voters specifically. It does ask about technology – e-voting, particularly – but Cuzner just can’t really hold back his confusion, and what seems to be barely contained anger, over those people who bail out on their democratic right/duty.

12:39:33 PM
After an intriguing, if slightly tangential, explanation from Marlene Jennings on the so-smart-it-actually-sounds-a-little-unsettling voter tracking software that her campaign volunteers developed, Guy Lauzon points out that, speaking of software, the program foisted upon his poor official agent – an accountant, no less – for financial reports was downright user-hostile. Mayrand sort of gives him that look – the “I know, but what can we do?” look of longstanding patience, and Lauzon then switches to a new complaint about the need for receipts. “Don’t worry, you have enough money,” Proulx reminds him from the other side of the table.

One more round! And look – it’s Scott Reid at the microphone, who seems to have entirely gotten over any misgivings he may have harboured towards Mayrand: he thanks him for going out of his way to meet with committee members, individually, before this meeting. He notes that advance polls do seem to make a difference, particularly in remote and rural ridings, and suggests a special public awareness campaign for truly isolated communities to use mail-in ballots and other alternate measures to boost voter participation.

12:49:51 PM
Proulx – yes, he’s up again – isn’t terribly keen on the idea that candidates would try to influence the placement of advance polling stations, as described by Reid, who waves himself onto the field briefly to clarify that these discussions with the returning officer were open to *all* candidates. Reassured, Proulx reiterates his discomfort with the permanent voter list – he just doesn’t think it’s accurate, really – and suggests that an election card would open up still more possibilities for fraud.

12:55:22 PM
Chairman Joe decides to give deBellefeuille the last few minutes to make up for the trials and tribulations she endured with the simultaneous interpretation system earlier in the meeting, and she repeats her concern over access and all that stuff. Guy Lauzon, meanwhile, finds it “incredible” that 98% of the addresses on voter cards were correct – I mean, not in the sense that he is impressed with Elections Canada’s recordkeeping skills; he just doesn’t seem to believe it.

Chairman Joe points out that just because the cards weren’t returned doesn’t mean that they made it to the right recipient – they could just get thrown out – and then brings the meeting to an entirely good-natured close.

Lunchtime! Must gather strength for this afternoon’s adventures in nuclear science!

Bookmark and Share
  • Pundits’ Guide

    I’ll be looking forward to read this one, for sure.

  • Sean S.

    Kady:

    Is Kelly Block on the committee or just in the crowd?

  • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

    If MPs are so worried about declining numbers of voters, they should reduce the number of things government is responsible for now. The number of people voting has been declining since the late ’60s/early’70s, right when governments started to expand their areas of influence and control.

    • Sean Stokholm

      A completely air-tight assertion of causality.

      • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

        I know. :)

        Was going to put a comment about causation/correlation but couldn’t be bothered. However, I think it’s something to consider, which our MPs aren’t. I believe people aren’t as engaged in politics anymore because we are no longer responsible for our own well-being, the government takes care of everything from our birth to death, and so we tune out. People are happy to let bureaucrats decide life and death issues while they focus on whether Aniston looked at Pitt/Jolie while she was presenting awards.

        • Sean Stokholm

          I think it has a lot more to do with what Max Weber described as the “atomization” of our society (short version: we are increasingly less enmeshed in meaningful social networks that rely on social solidarity by interacting with ‘whole’ people, versus ‘partial’ and task-specific connections).

          We have a heck of a time getting parents to come out to parent council meetings and events and my kids’ elementary school – yet this is a case where they can have great influence and meaningful participation in their childrens’ educational experience.

          I think there’s broader social and cultural trends at work here, of which politicial participation is but a symptom.

          • http://macleans.ca kc

            We may not want to look too closely at these questions, as our whole economic architecture would seem to reinforce, if not actively encourage these disconnections. Almost a viscious circle or self-fulfilling destiny scenario. Not to suggest this is all inevitable. If we built it, presumably we can still fix it.

          • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

            I think civil society is slowly disappearing because various levels of government are responsible for most things in our lives now and bureaucrats don’t give a toss about what the proles want, they are only concerned about their rules/regs.

            There is no reason to interact with your neighbours anymore, when it comes to how tidy your street is for instance, because the city is responsible for its maintenance and people are happy to pass the responsibility or they think there is no point in getting involved because the city will do what it wants without regard to residents wishes.

          • Sean Stokholm

            I see what you mean jwl, but I just don’t buy that Government is some sort of cancerous entity that has – in its myriad manifestations – created the modern non-citizen you describe. (That said, I’m a libertarian about most things.)

            Beyond the trend of atomization I mentioned above, we need to consider a whole raft of complex social shifts, including:

            - a generally shared ethos that places primacy on the individual’s satisfaction, rights, and unique make-up (everyone is a snowflake – worthwhile and special in his or her own way!). This is a relatively new way of constructing the world (most of human history was characterized by a focus on the community or collective), so we don’t have a lot of comparative historical evidence to help see what sort of society such a philosophical underpinning tends to create.

            - the shift in our expressive/emotional lives from broader kinship and community relationships to the nuclear family.

            - the adoption of consumption as a symbolically valued activity (see kc’s thoughts on the economy)

            - the identity and defining characteristics of an individual shifting away from kinship networks, toward vocation, wealth and geographic location (perhaps a subset of my first point, to some extent).

            -the sheer scale of social collectives we have constructed – largely unprecedented and untested in human history (there are some notable cases to look at, but I think communications have sufficiently changed to make comparison dodgy).

            Anyway, I could go on, but the point I’m trying to make is that there’s a lot of factors we ought to acccount for before we call out Government as much more than a bellweather of other changes.

          • http://macleans.ca kc

            JWL
            The gist of what you say has some validity, but it’s no magic bullet. I rarely believe that things were always better in the old days, at least as far as human nature goes. I don’t think for instance that people were lining up to clean their streets and or neighbourhoods. I suspect, like now, only a few dedicated folks carried most of the load. Not to say that the govt helps that much. On the BC coast – where i live summer-time – there’s a fascinating history behind the settlement of the coast by an extrordinary generation of independent settlers. They’re almost all gone, but the changes are due to economics not the govt’s nannyism. In fact the govt did a lot to improve their lives with services that releived some of the brutality of their lives – and that interference was clearly desired by the settlers. Still its all gone. Unfettered technological change and vorarious foreign ownership played its part – paradoxically none of it may have not been possible without that foreign investment. It’s argued that the model was not sustainable anyway, everyone wanting to take it all without a thought to the future. Back to personal responsibility again – not just the govts either.

          • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

            I think most of the things you list can be ascribed to government and its policies.

            Schools have been telling children that “everyone is a snowflake – worthwhile and special in his or her own way” for years now. This makes my sister, who has two young children, absolutely bonkers. She’s trying to teach her kids that the world does not revolve around them and their whims/desires but schools are teaching otherwise.

            The break down of families – people don’t have to rely on their extended families anymore when times are tough because now we have welfare, ei, food banks, homeless shelters, free medical … etc. And politically correctness also has a role in that shame has disappeared and now people do whatever the hell they want. Which I like, people should be free to choose, but there are consequences.

            I am not arguing that all the changes over the past 40 years are necessarily bad but I think people/society react to policies and incentives that governments implement.

          • http://macleans.ca kc

            SS
            Thanks for the anaysis. Some challenging pts that’s for sure. It’s hard for anyon to know if thins are getting better or worse, whether we pushing or pulling and so on. Of course it’s more then likely all of those things are true at the same time. While essentially a libertarian myself – with strong reservations which probably disqualifies me – but i do have a strong attachment to the community/ collective, enough that on some days i am willing to sacrifice my libertarian tendencies.

          • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

            kc

            I don’t think the old days were better than now. I am glad to be living in this day and age and not 100 hundred years ago, no doubt about it. All I am arguing is that the more government takes care of things for us, civil society becomes less important and there are consequences.

          • http://macleans.ca kc

            jwl
            Generalizing is better avoided even if we all indulge in it from time to time. You mention the difficulties yr sis has with her kids. I’ve got one of my own and believe me i empathise. My wife’s a teacher, so i can see both sides of the arguement. I honestly don’t see the schooI enabling self-centred attitudes. To the contary i see teachers battling the bad attitudes the kids are bringing in from home.I also work in my local HS and there the problem is acute – but it isn’t the fault of the hard workng and dedicated staff i know.

    • http://macleans.ca kc

      All those schools, hospitals, highways, uic and so on…nobody voted for them eh! Govt just imposed thm on us all?
      i suspect it’s a little more complex then that. Can you pt out a jurisdiction where govt has reduced its reponsibilities and the voter turn-out has shot up?

    • A reader

      Gosh, I would have argued the complete opposite … that as the federal government is shedding responsibilities and sovereignty, turnout has gone down.

      • http://macleans.ca kc

        I’m a strong federalist myself. But i don’t think yr right as provincial turn outs are also down.[ i think there's some logic in my statement - maybe not? ]

  • Wayne

    You ever notice that there is a reasons voter turn out is low and no one ever talks about it. Maybe if you actually ask a few people who didn’t vote you actually might find an answer! I have asked a few people and have received the same answer way more often than not = (1) it’s all the same (2) doesn’t matter who you vote for (same as last answer really) (3) my favorite though = it only encourages them (okay … okay …. that was my invention, but you get the drift) (4) I’m just not not politicial or don’t care – (this one gives me the heebie jeebies but then I’m a political junkie) .

    • Just visiting

      Most people who don’t vote wouldn’t be able to cast a thoughtful ballot if their life depended on it. Because of this, I consider their non-voting to be an act of responsible citizenship. Their self-imposed disenfranchisement also enhances the relative importance of those of us who do vote.

      • http://macleans.ca kc

        I would guess the reasons for not voting are more likely to be [ these days anyway as education is mandatory] a function of changing or declining – yr pick – public attitudes. This is not simply the govt’s fault – see jwl – its genisis is debateable, it’s consequences less so ie: me first, inability to take personal responsibility, apathy etc. I’m not suggesting people don’t have legimate gripes either.

      • madeyoulook

        With you 100%, JV. Well, maybe 90% (can we amend “Most” to “Many”, and “if their life depended on it” to “because they can’t be bothered”?).Which is why I was flabbergasted that Coyne went with the mandatory voting canard shortly after the last election.

        • Wayne

          My idea it to have a 100 dollar tax credit – when you vote you get a deduction worth a 100 bucks = why not ?

          • http://macleans.ca kc

            Why not! Maybe we could give blood too! Maybe it”ll work, although i doubt any of the folks who don’t vote can use a tax credit [ oops was that pc? ] Anyway we are already being bribed with our own money, so what’s a 100 bucks more. I hope they make them stay behind at the polling station and clean up at least.
            Don’t know what’ll work. When i lived down under voting was manditory, which sounds good. Only i heard due to their preferential system folks simply threw their extry vote to the commies. Hilariosly there, for a while at least, they polled in the double digits. I guess that last pt’s not necessarily an arguement against manditory voting – or is it??

          • madeyoulook

            Because once every few years, maybe a citizen could take a few minutes out of his or her life and contribute his or her vote. Period. Full stop. No coercion, no obligation, no bribe… just a small price to actually pay for living in a free country ruled by a parliamentary democracy.

  • madeyoulook

    Hey, I wonder if anyone will ask about that whole re-recount debacle in Vancouver last year.

    That would be Vancouver South, where the required “mandatory recount” seemed to temporarily lose all meaning of the words “mandatory” and “recount.” IIRC, the assigned judge chose to sample only a certain number of ballot boxes, rather than actually do a recount. There was confusion over whether the CPC candidate threw in the towel early or not, but there was not nearly enough discussion (for my taste, anyways), whether she should even have that authority (see again, “mandatory” and “recount”). Eventually, the judge decided (was convinced he had?) to go whole-hog and re-count every vote in every polling station, and presumably to review all rejected ballots to discern voter intent, in order to certify that some initially rejected ballots were indeed valid. Ultimately, Ujjal Dosanjh (sp?) was certified as the winner for the Liberals, confirming the narrow-margin result on election night. How’d I do, Kady?

    I have been an occasional pest here at ITQ on this point, eager for more info on what went down. Kady, you have appeared interested in pursuing this, to shine disinfecting sunlight on this story. Either I missed your update, or there was precious little to update. But I join you in continuing to wonder what happened.

  • Anonymous

    FYI Kady, the “electoral card” that Mayrand referred to is the voter registration cards everyone receives in the mail prior to e-day. He was proposing that certain groups (e.g. students) be able to use them as proof of residence at the polls.

    So yeah, the privacywonk crowd needn’t worry about nefarious plans to introduce a new voter card…

  • LeslieE

    I believe people don’t bother to vote because the campaigns are all about the party leaders, very seldom about the local candidates. And the ‘leaders’ and campaigns we’ve had in the last few years have been … mainly disrespectful.

From Macleans