Electoral Reform Committee on July 7th, 2016

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the committee in its wisdom by majority decides to go with—I mean PR is the big thing that we're looking at, so let's just call it that for the sake of an argument—a PR system of some sort and you feel that you're going to need most of the 25, 26, 27 months at hand, is it fair to say then that you need some kind of indication by the end of this year that the committee by majority will, or I guess the House ultimately, would trigger to you in order to.... Do you see what I'm saying? If you need six months to do the referendum and you need 25-26 months to do a complete makeover if we go to PR, then is it not reasonable to say that if you don't have that signal from Parliament by December of this year, there's a good chance that Mr. Reid is correct that Parliament, whether they want to or not, have perhaps missed the point at which they could hold a referendum where Canadians would then make that decision that it goes forward?

[Marc Mayrand]

I see the process as somewhat evolved and progressing. A few weeks ago I didn't know if a parliamentary committee would be created and when. Now we know. Now I know that December 1 is the deadline for a report. I expect that I will get some sense of the level of consensus, some sense of direction that will help me in starting to at least plan for what needs to be done. I expect that the government—given their commitment to May 2017—will respond rather quickly to the committee report. So, again, more precision will come. This is all speculative at this point in time, I'm not saying it's anything else.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I'd like to know whether you've done any studies in the past on online voting. You are aware of the problems Quebec experienced with that in 2005. I imagine that, even under the current voting system, you would be able to further automate the process or offer online voting. That was my understanding.

Is that correct?

[Marc Mayrand]

We did a fair number of intensive studies for a few years, at the beginning of the decade, and we do indeed have a solid grasp of the issues, the barriers, the possibilities, and the associated risks. I can share that information with the committee.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

That would be helpful. Thank you.

I know politics isn't something you're involved in. We, on our end, have a mandate that you do not. However, your job is heavily dependent upon what emerges this December 1. I'm drawing on your vast experience, as far as the institution and the administration of electoral events goes. I'm also relying on your wisdom as someone who will be leaving their position soon.

You talked about New Zealand's experience. You talked about education and information. I'm not familiar with the penetration rate or effectiveness of your campaigns, but do you not think that an election involving a referendum question is one of the best ways to guarantee a clear penetration rate in terms of the issues and choices facing voters?

I, personally, have no problem with amending the legislation in order to hold a referendum the same day, by adding an extra box to include the matter of the new voting system, especially since the price tag of holding a one-off referendum is said to be $300 million.

Wouldn't it make more sense for parliamentarians and society as a whole to take the time to do that? That would help move us toward a decision that would be in effect for the next election.

[Marc Mayrand]

I'm not in a position to advise you on the timetable. I think the committee will quickly understand the challenges and its ability to meet the deadlines. I'm not in a position to comment on that.

You talked about a combined referendum-election, which would require legislative changes. It's not impossible. I would say, however, that, more and more, referendums are being conducted by mail, and that significantly reduces the cost. As I said, all sorts of scenarios are possible, but it will be necessary to revisit referendum legislation.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Did you understand my question? You said it would be possible if you had clear direction. Given the scope of the task, coming up with clear guidelines in such a short amount of time is a whole mandate unto itself. You did say “if”. It's entirely possible that we won't come up with clear guidelines.

It's difficult to recruit elections staff. What's more, under our current voting system—which has been in place for decades—it's also difficult to properly train those people from one election to another. In light of that, do you not think it would be smarter to take the time necessary in order to make the right changes?

Wouldn't Elections Canada be better equipped if the matter were dealt with as part of a future mandate?

[Marc Mayrand]

Without knowing which scenarios are being considered, I can't answer that. As I've already said multiple times, I believe that, with a specific scenario in May 2017, I would be able to run an election based on that scenario in 2019.

If, however, neither the committee nor the government is able to provide a scenario, then, obviously, I would have to revise my—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, the clock is giving me clear direction: I have to turn the floor over to Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, and it's an honour again to get to ask a few more questions of you, Mr. Mayrand.

On the online voting question, I've seen in some commentaries that there's a societal benefit in the social cohesion of people collectively experiencing voting, even the lining up—I think we've all had great experiences as voters before we became candidates—and what happens when you're standing in line. Is there any literature on this? Is this a concern to be weighed against the convenience factor of online voting?

[Marc Mayrand]

I've certainly heard about it. I don't recall reading about it. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. We can see if we can find anything about it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Elections Canada hasn't done research on it though.

[Marc Mayrand]

On that aspect specifically no, but it is an issue that has come up in various focus groups or discussion forums.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I would like to get to this question about timing that's come up a few times; David Christopherson mentioned it. Under current law you can't hold a federal referendum during a federal election. On the other hand I know that the New Brunswick Referendum Act specifically says you can only hold a referendum when you're having a general election. Is that a change that could be made in the Elections Act, to allow a referendum at the same time?

[Marc Mayrand]

It would be in the Referendum Act.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

We know the current Referendum Act doesn't work in any event for electoral reform because it's quite limited to the constitutional question. We'd have to amend the Referendum Act to allow it to take place at the same time as a federal election.

My next question is a Twitter question from David McLaughlin. I think a lot of us know because he was the chief of staff of the late Jim Flaherty and the last CEO of the national round table. He has asked me to ask, what would be the cost of a referendum? If a stand-alone referendum was $300 million what would be the cost of a referendum, if you could speculate, if the law were changed, and it was in conjunction with a federal election?

[Marc Mayrand]

In conjunction there would be additional incremental costs, but of course we're not talking of the same order obviously because most of the costs still have to be incurred. It would probably mean a second ballot, and would probably need a few more staff to handle the thing and especially the count in these matters. It would be marginally more expensive.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

That's helpful, thank you.

I have a question from someone watching us in Langley, B.C., who sent this question from Twitter. Given your experience at Elections Canada in monitoring the level of communications that go out in a general election, I don't know if it's possible. Will Breeze from Langley wants to know, can all referendum ads and publications—and this is hypothetical because we're not planning a referendum—be subject to fact-checking and/or fines?

[Marc Mayrand]

That's an interesting question. That's truly a public policy question. It's less a feasibility matter than whether it's a desirable matter. On this point I trust parliamentarians to give us direction in that regard.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I'm going to go to something that I'm interested in, again along the lines of my last question in the last round, about if we combined existing electoral districts would that make things any easier. It certainly was a difficult exercise before the 2015 election to add 30 seats to Parliament. We had very specific working groups right across the country and we carved out 30 new ridings. This is a hypothetical, but if the committee were to lean toward a system that required creating new seats such as in a mixed member proportional system, would there be any logic or benefit to looking at returning to the electoral districts we had in 2011 and adding the 30 seats that way?

[Marc Mayrand]

Everything is possible. That's an interesting question. I'll need to think about it. Again it would require all sorts of changes to the readjustment act because it sets a quota of population per riding. We need to change all that. If I understand your question it's whether we could go back to 308 ridings and add 30 based on proportional representation. It sounds very attractive, but I'm not sure you entirely escape the need for redistribution.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

You're the expert, that's why I asked you.

[Marc Mayrand]

Those 30 seats now have to be redistributed across the country, by province.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We understand fully. That becomes very complicated.

It is now Ms. Romanado's turn.