EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
On this one it talks about, I believe it is for contributions. It deals with that.
I just want to get an explanation if it is for contributions or candidacy eligibility or something? I don’t know; if I could just get an explanation.
Ms. Kusugak: This clause refers to financial agents and it restricts the ability to be a financial agent to those people who are residents in Nunavut. It also reflects the administrative difficulty we ran into in the past election when the wording of this was different.
We hope to avoid the problem we had last time by making a change.
Chairman: Clause 11. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 12. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 13. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 14. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 15. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 16.
Chairman: Clause 18.
Chairman: Thank you. Clause 19.
Chairman: Clause 20.
Chairman: Clause 21.
Chairman: Clause 22.
I think this amendment deals specifically to the uniqueness of our territory and I think it is important to highlight that.
I would just like to ask officials if they could explain why an amendment like this is brought forward.
I know that you know the objective of any election is to maximize participation.
Could I just get a quick explanation of this from the officials?
The change here is to expand the current provision which allows emergency voting if the person is out of the constituency, if they are out of the community, out on the land, perhaps in an outpost camp or some work site and they have no way to get to an advance poll or mobile poll.
The changes to allow a person to vote by phone or radio, which may even be a fax machine in the office, the way it is worded now is if there is any communication device it would preclude a person from using this method.
So the change is quite small but it allows people in offices where there is a fax machine to still use a radio, communicate, and record their vote.
I’m sorry. Madame Minister Aglukkaq.
Under the method of voting I had raised this concern last year as well during our meetings.
Where there is a Member who has more than one riding, more than one community I should say. The issue around voting in advance polls only applies to communities where there is a returning officer. In using the Nattilik riding as an example, in Gjoa Haven the returning officer was from Gjoa Haven.
In Taloyoak, there was a deputy returning officer and the wording of the legislation reads in order to vote in advance polls people can only vote in an advance poll where there is a returning officer from what I understand. Individuals in a community where there are deputy returning officers, that same privilege does not apply and I don’t see that revision being made in the legislation again.
For ridings with more than one community there are two inconsistent options available to citizens.
I wonder if one of the staff or the legal advisor can explain why that is and what is in place to address the inconsistency in that option to Nunavummiut.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Madame Minister Aglukkaq.
Ms. Kusugak: In fact advance polling is something that is available in every community, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Just to clarify.
In the legislation where there is that seven-day period where people can vote, not so much the advance poll.
Ms. Kusugak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question was referred to me the other day by the Law Clerk. At the moment as it stands the voting in the office of the returning officer of course happens because of course there are 19 returning officers, so it happens there.
And it’s, generally speaking; the returning officers are in the larger communities of the ones that are available, of the ones that exist. So it’s a method that allows people over a longer period of time to take advantage of being able to vote ahead of time and was very widely used in a lot of constituencies, particularly in Iqaluit and Cambridge Bay, where almost half the voters in Cambridge Bay voted prior to the Election Day.
What I would like to do; we still have a few issues outstanding from Management and Services Board that have not appeared in these particular amendments, things that they wanted us to consider more.
So I’d like for us to present various options and work through that process as there will be a few more amendments coming forward, suggested amendments in the winter or the spring session.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. Aglukkaq.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Sandy for that response.
Will the amendments be made before the next general election?
We are preparing our research for the Management Services Board meeting in January, and if it met their satisfaction, then they would be ready to proceed at the next opportunity.
So, I certainly, whatever changes we’re proposing will be long in advance of the next scheduled election, or the next predicted election for Nunavut.
Chairman (interpretation) Thank you.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank Sandy for that response.
I think, just in closing, it should be noted for the record that there are inconsistencies in that option being available to Nunavummiut in voting. The larger communities have the option to vote in advance, and again, the smaller communities are penalized of that option, so I really hope that efforts will be made to address this issue before the next election.
And, I thank you for that and I thank the staff for following through.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. Yes, that is noted.
Chairman (interpretation): 22.
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 25?
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 27?
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 28?
On this one here, Clause 27, it talks about striking out agents of the candidates to candidates or their representatives.
Maybe we could just get an explanation as to why that change was made.
Ms. Kusugak: That change was made really to correct an inconsistency in wording in the Act, and it refers to those being present during the voting, etcetera, and agents of the candidates would seem to indicate to people that you meant your financial agent, when in fact it meant it means any person delegated by the candidate to be their representative at that time.
So it really makes it clearer what we’re talking about.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Clause 27.
Chairman (interpretation): Oh, I’m sorry. Mr. Picco.
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just quickly on what the witness replied to.
When we speak about the candidate or the candidate’s official agent, there was a concern I know in the last election. There were a couple of cases where a candidate was seen to be in, or near, or around the polling station.
There were some concerns that the candidate should not be seen to be intimidating voters, or actually being around the actual poll itself.
Is that what you’re referring to here in your response to the member?
Ms. Kusugak: No, that particular change was only meant to clarify this business so that candidates would understand that their representatives weren’t limited to their financial agents, that it could be any person that they chose to be their representative at the poll.
It’s an administrative clarification, really.
I wonder then if the witness could tell me if the issue around candidates being in or around the polling station, not necessarily the candidate’s agent but the candidates themselves being in and around the polling station; is there anything in the Act that supersedes, or prevents that from happening, or prohibits that from happening?
Mr. Orr: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There’s nothing to prevent a candidate from appearing in the polling station, if he or she doesn’t have something like a scrutineer to be there. However, there is no campaigning in the polling station, or any other polling station.
So the candidate wouldn’t be allowed to wear buttons or to try to campaign in that place, but would be entitled, as their agent will also be entitled to observe for the counting of the votes to be present.
I realize that the candidate is not to campaign when you are in the polling station, but I’ve had a opportunity to be in a couple of these elections there have been concerns raised where candidates would actually show up at a polling station where they actually would have a scrutineer, and they were told to leave the polling station area, but hang out around the door.
That could intimidate people going in because in a small jurisdiction we know who the candidates are and you see someone going in and out.
I know it’s been brought to the chief electoral officer because, indeed, there were complaints made in the last election.
My question to the witnesses would be: have you reviewed that, and indeed, do you see that you actually want to bring forward some changes to reflect the concern that has been raised by the public in the past, with an actual complaint on issues like that?
It hasn’t been contemplated by any of these amendments. In actual fact the only complaint that we’ve received during the last election that could be even related to that was somebody wearing clothing that could be considered to be promoting one candidate over another.
As far as I know there is no jurisdiction in which this is a prohibition.
Candidates cannot appear as their own agent. There’s nothing to prohibit a candidate from actually sitting and being his own scrutineer if he has no one else for the day.
If the members wish us to consider this, we certainly will because it is your legislation. It has not been considered by us at this time.
The witness, to be very clear, I said, and I suggested to you that when a candidate has a scrutineer, not acting as a scrutineer, when a candidate actually has a scrutineer in the polling station, and then shows up and is either going in and out of the polling station, or hanging around the polling station, there is a concern with that. I do know in other jurisdictions that there are pre-requisites to doing that.
So I’m suggesting to you, and I know it was raised in the last election, because I was privy to one of those concerns.
So I’m suggesting to you, if you haven’t looked at it, then maybe that’s something that could be reviewed by the returning officer for elections. So it was a concern raised and it is not just the last election. In the previous election I remember going back to the general election of 1995 where it was also raised at that time.
Now, whether it was raised officially or unofficially, the issue was still raised on several different times. So I want to be clear.
I am not talking about when a candidate shows up and wants to be their own scrutineer, I am talking about when there are actually scrutineers that are appointed by the candidate, and on top of that, the candidate is coming in and out or could be dropping off people to the polling station. That was my concern.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Picco. Ms. Kusugak.
The current legislation allows a candidate to have one representative at a poll at a time and as well allows for election officials to maintain peace and order. And certainly, candidates going in and out of the polling station is, I would consider if I was working at the poll, to be not contributing to the order of the poll because, at least there if nothing else, that is making life confusing. So the candidate can have one representative at the poll at the time.
And I would think probably the concerns are contained within that and a voter or another citizen could make a complaint based on if a candidate was causing that disruption. The poll officials have the right to ask them to leave and they would only come in to vote if they are causing a problem.
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you. Again I don’t want to prolong the debate, all I am suggesting to you is when a candidate for an election you know they are dropping someone off and they go into the polling station and they look around and they have a scrutineer there and they may be talking to the scrutineer and when you start off with an election eight o’clock in the morning and goes to six or eight o’clock at night depending on the hours of the poll. That is a long period of time.
So I am suggesting, and the candidate might not be causing insurrection, but the fact is that the candidate continues to come in and out four or fives time during a 12-hour period might cause some area of concern. If you are a candidate and if you are a high profile person, sometimes the staff working may not feel comfortable telling you to leave. That had occurred in the past.
So I think the area covered by the returning officer is not in the exact line of what I am talking about.
What I am asking is: is there any type of mechanism that allows a candidate with a scrutineer in place to come into the polling station at different times?
I know it has been raised at least, almost in every election that I am privy to going back to 1995.
So if it hasn’t been contemplated here maybe that is something that we can look at. I believe firmly Mr. Chairman; it does cause some areas of concern.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Picco. Ms. Kusugak.
Ms. Kusugak: Well, technically, a candidate going in and out would be being his own representative again which would be making two representatives at a time.
And it could be handled in that way. I suspect, I’d like to try handling this by writing a guideline for candidates and their representatives at the poll and also to include it in a manual or the guidelines for the poll officials at the time, to be aware that this is a possibility and if we see it in the next election that it is still a specific problem and has not been apparently handled by these kinds of administrative items then I guess we can look at further legislation on it.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I have a bit of a concern on that, too.
Now, we are opening the doors with a very simple amendment. Currently, what the Member from Iqaluit just stated as a concern will now be allowed in the amendment in the new Act. It will now allow the candidates I believe throughout, 200-odd some candidates, to be allowed to enter into polling stations.
This is what I understood, and I would like to ask our Legal Counsel of the Assembly exactly what the current wording is.
I believe the old wording prevented candidates to enter polling stations or act as their agents; only the agents were allowed to enter a polling station.
Now, with this new version, the amendment allows those who are interested in being a candidate, including the agents that they have, they are allowed to enter into polling stations.
The current section, the amendment is to section 132 of the Act and that deals with when the ballots are being looked at and things of that nature and it currently provides for the presence of the poll clerk and agents of the candidates to affix their initials to the ballot paper if there’s an issue over it.
There’s nothing in the Act as I understand it that prohibits the candidates, as the chief electoral officer has said, as acting as their own representative and/or from entering the polling stations.
So, right now, you could have a scrutineer there, but that wouldn’t prevent the candidate, during the course of voting, from going in and out of the building itself. I think that that’s the concern that has been raised by Mr. Picco.
Mr. Curley: Yes, they were allowed, but it didn’t appear to be all that clear in the old Act of whether the candidate was allowed to go in.
I think it’s quite silent on whether the candidate could come in and go out. Now, it’s going to be explicitly clear that they will be able to enter, as well as their agents. Is that what it’s now specifying?
Previously, it has been practiced where the candidates have been allowed. Now, it’s going to be much clearer that in fact candidates will be able to enter polling stations, as well as the candidate. Is that the way I understood the new amendment?
No, I think the Act, even with the amendment, will remain silent, essentially, on whether or not the candidate can enter the polling station while the polling is going on.
So without an explicit prohibition on him coming in, you wouldn’t be able to prohibit him unless you were to use the guidelines as suggested by the chief electoral officer.
Mr. Curley: One last point.
I think it’s a real concern because nowadays, we have a lot more active press covering elections and everything else.
If the candidates could also have that privilege of entering as well as their agents, then the candidates already have a pretty good ability to appoint agents to enter into the polling stations.
So, I think we should address that, if not now but quite soon in the New Year.
Just a clarification, section 92 of the Act actually specifically authorizes a candidate and his representative to be present in all operations relating to the poll and to remain there for the counting of the ballots.
Supplementary, Ms. Kusugak.
Ms. Kusugak: I just wanted to be specific, Mr. Chairman, that 92 says the candidate or his or her representative may be there and further, subsection 3 of 92 says that a candidate may have a different representative at a polling station at different times, but may not have more than one representative present at any given time.
I don’t know if there’s a little confusion, but I think there are two different issues being talked about. One, you are calling it a polling station, which addresses after the doors are closed and they are counting the ballots.
I just want to have it clarified whether it is specifically addressing whether or not a candidate or their agent should be able to be at the poll when the ballots are being counted or, is it dealing with a candidate being present at a poll during the time when voting is happening?
I just want to have it clarified on that. What this is addressing, because I think I’m hearing two separate things here. I just want to get it clarified.
Perhaps if I read the whole sentence under 92(1), a candidate or his or her authorized representative may be present at all operations relating to the poll, and may remain for the counting of the ballots.
That is the current wording of the first section.
The other thing that has been raised is one thing that anyone participating in an election wants to be free from, and that is intimidation.
I am just wondering if, I think that’s what we are getting at if voters, by the presence of anyone in particular, whether it be a candidate or someone else at the polls, it can be deemed as intimidating the voters when they are going in to vote.
Are there provisions or ways in which this can be addressed, the intimidation factor, if you want to call it that, of being addressed at the poll by the election staff that are there, or by the current Act?
Ms. Kusugak: We have a provision in section 247 that says a person’s guilty of an offence by intimidation, duress, or pretence, or contrivance, he compels, or induces, or prevails upon a person to vote, or refrain from voting at an election, or represents to the person at the ballot, or the manner of voting in the election is not secret.
It certainly is an offence to do so. Thinking it would be pretty hard to understand what one person would find intimidating in terms of the mere presence of another human being, we could certainly explore this more. That’s what my first thought is.
I wouldn’t know who was intimidating to Ms. Brown, for instance. Who was intimidating to me might be different people and you certainly might not know that just by looking at them. Or maybe it’s something that legislation cannot address.
Maybe it can. This is my first thought on the matter.
I think that everyone deserves to have, this is a democracy; people have the right to vote of their own free will.
It is very important that people are not intimidated in any way, shape or form at the polls.
If I could ask the chief electoral officer to look at this issue and see if it’s addressed adequately within the existing Act.
If not, I don’t even know if it’s possible, but like you say right now any candidate can drop people off at the polls, or someone may consider a candidate being within a visual distance from a polling station to be intimidating.
And others could care less if that person sitting there and putting their x down when they vote. It is a hard one to judge and I appreciate that. And I think to make it clear because sometimes a lot of concerns are raised by individuals, as Mr. Picco pointed out.
So maybe it is something the chief electoral officer can look at and bring forward for clarification or suggestions to the Management and Services Board when the next set of amendments is going to take place.
Mr. Kusugak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We will look at this for the Management and Services Board. I suppose some of it also speaks to further education to ensure that people know no matter who says what to them when they go to the voting place with their x that is theirs and it is secret and no one will know how they voted. So there are both aspects of it.
There is sometimes confusion between a federal election and a territorial election with different rules. Just as an example Mr. Chairman, we had rules in place, for example, where you are not allowed to place a sign within a number of feet or X number of meters of a polling booth or voting station.
There were rules in place where candidates should not be taking the voter to the poll because of the issue around intimidation and so on and so forth. Some of these may be in the federal domain and sometimes they influence the territorial domain.
In the case of an actual election where a candidate is driving a voter to the poll and gets out of the car, brings the voter into the polling station and hangs around the front door and is walking around and talking to different people. That is what Mr. Curley was raising and that is what I was trying to explain. That is what Mr. Tootoo was saying.
So I would agree with Mr. Tootoo that at some point, now that the issue has been clarified, the chief electoral returning officer should have an opportunity to make some suggestions to the MSB and maybe bring something forward for the next election. That is in 2008 and it gives us some time.
I like the idea of bringing forward a bill and getting all members having an opportunity to speak to it. I believe there have been some benefits this morning for raising some of these issues.
Ms. Kusugak: I’ll take that as information and we will look at them further.
Chairman: Clause 28.
Chairman: Clause 29.
Chairman: Clause 30.
Chairman: Clause 31.
Chairman: Clause 32.
Chairman: Clause 33.
Chairman: Clause 34.
Chairman: Clause 35.
Clause 35, I think it deals with group contributions in the first part and maximum contributions in the second part.
I wonder if we can get an explanation on that on why amendments are brought forward in that area by the chief electoral officer or any of the officials.
The change here is to make it less bureaucratic to have a group contribution. The current rule is that a list of all the members of the organization has to be attached to the contribution. Because some of organizations have large membership lists, this was seen to be unnecessary.
The idea is to attach the names of the members if it’s up to 25 and if it’s greater than 25 members, then the list just has to be available so it can be looked into. It doesn’t have to be attached to the contribution.
Perhaps I can ask for clarification, if the second part of the amendment on the $2,500 is included in that question.
The member is nodding. This is to raise the limit on individual contributions to $2,500 from $1,500.
It was felt that the number of people able to contribute to local campaigns in Nunavut is not great so, the limit for individuals and also corporations should be increased by $1,000 to $2,500.
Clause 35. (interpretation) Agreed?
Mr. Curley: Yes, I would like a definition of a charitable organization, referred to and A) my point A) is that: many of the local charitable groups in our communities are normally not registered, this reference, does that mean the charitable organization has to be registered as such and able to provide taxable receipts?
Could you advise us Mr. Orr, explain to us exactly how the charitable organizations are defined?