Electoral Reform Committee on July 7th, 2016

[Marc Mayrand]

Twenty-six months is how long the last redistribution of electoral boundaries took. What I said before and would like to make clear here again today is that, if the appropriate legislation is in place by May 2017—as was my understanding—it should be possible to implement all of the changes by October 2019.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Stéphane Dion, called for a proportional, preferential, and personalized voting system. He's not just anyone. Clearly, he's a man of the highest intellect, with a Ph.D. I'm not convinced that many of the people around the table today would be able to explain that system.

Do you think such a brand new voting system could be implemented and understood by Canadians within a 26-month time frame?

[Marc Mayrand]

As I said, regardless of the changes to the voting system, it's crucial to fully understand the importance of the public education campaign. The more complex the change, the more intensive the campaign must be and the sooner it must start.

I don't want to suggest that Elections Canada is the only authority responsible for that education. Concerted efforts will be necessary to make sure voters fully understand the methods and options available to them at the polling station.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Mayrand, how long does it take to hold a referendum? You spoke of six months when you appeared before the committee back in April or May.

What steps would you have to take during those six months to hold a nationwide referendum?

[Marc Mayrand]

The same logistical elements always come into play. Obviously, we would have to prepare the ballot setting out the question to Canadians. We would need to revise all the material that hasn't been reviewed since 1992 and redo all the training manuals for elections staff. Basically, we would have to prepare the materials to train the 255,000 Canadians who help administer elections.

We would also need to review all of our systems that are not yet tailored to a referendum. We estimate that about 15 computer systems would need to be adapted. What's more, certain contracting arrangements would be necessary as far as supplies and equipment were concerned.

All that to say that those six months would be a period of intensive preparation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Deltell, you have 10 seconds left.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

The word “intensive” is a euphemism in that case.

Do you really think six months is enough time? You don't think you'll need a bit longer?

[Marc Mayrand]

Six months is the minimum. The time frames I'm giving you today aren't generous; they are the minimum periods of time required. It will be necessary to take into account the context in which a possible referendum would be held. I can't predict what else might be on the agenda at the same time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

It is now Ms. Romanado's turn.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Mayrand.

Would you mind speaking to the use of technology to improve voting?

You mentioned the tabulation of election results. I volunteered as an elections worker for a number of years. When ballots are being counted, human error can enter into the mix. Things can be lost, and the process can take time.

Could you elaborate on that?

[Marc Mayrand]

As a volunteer, you no doubt noticed all the physical documentation in polling stations. There's some work that needs doing as far as automating procedures is concerned. There's no real reason why record books and forms shouldn't be automated. We think that would contribute to better compliance. We would see fewer errors, and those that were made would be detected by the devices being used.

Another option is making the list of electors available online, across the country. It would be available to campaigns all over the country and make it possible to determine whether those individuals had already voted.

Technology would give us multiple opportunities to simplify and improve the service and, I believe, enhance the integrity of the process. Some of the things I'm referring to would require legislative changes, and I'll talk about that in my September report. No matter which electoral system is in place come 2019, I think we need to make these changes and leverage technology.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Very good.

Many of us talked about online voting as a way to increase voter turnout among Canadians. We already have the option of filing our tax returns online or on paper, which isn't too difficult.

[Marc Mayrand]

Let's just say it doesn't seem too difficult.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I'd like to know whether you're considering giving Canadians the option between voting online, similar to electronic tax return filing, and going to the polling station and showing identification.

[Marc Mayrand]

In terms of any future work on the issue of online voting, I would say it's a fact. To my mind, there is no question of replacing traditional voting methods with online voting. We aren't able to do that. Similar to the voting options currently available to Canadians—voting at advance polls, by mail or by special ballot—online voting would simply be an additional way for electors to vote.

Canadians would choose the best option for them. Approximately 25% of voters prefer to vote at a time other than election day, and we are seeing a steady increase in that trend. That may suggest that some groups see a clear advantage in voting online, if it were an option. But that needs to be tested. As I already said, we are going to have to take a cautious, gradual approach.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

In terms of accessibility, instead of selecting a specific group to pilot online voting, could we not leave how they would vote up to Canadians? I can order a pizza online, a Starbucks coffee, or charge up my bank account. I can do everything online. The day of the vote I may be busy. It may be raining, or maybe I don't want to go out that day. If I can do it from home, it gives me that option so I don't lose my opportunity to vote.

As I said, as someone who's worked a lot in elections, and also as a candidate trying to get out the vote, convincing Canadians to go out and vote and making sure they have the accessibility, whether being offered transport or making sure they are on the list and that they're able to see the vote, could really change the way we do our electoral process. I would hate to wait another two, three, four elections before we go that route.

[Marc Mayrand]

That's where we start going. We have to be careful. We also need to look at security. We want to preserve certain characteristics of the vote: confidentiality, secrecy, reliability, and integrity. When we start looking at moving online, I would point out the big difference currently in our system compared to any other services you get online: the risk of online services currently is the provider's. If you go online at a bank, you use your MasterCard, and somebody misuses it or accesses your account, the provider will cover that. That's one aspect that does not exist in the voting process.

The other aspect is that we lack a universal identification system in Canada. Without such a thing, it's very difficult to find some alternatives. The problem we have is that if you get a code with Revenue Canada, with the bank, or your PIN, everybody tells you to keep it secret, you have a personal interest in keeping it secret. I'm not sure we can say the same when it comes to voting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. We'll have to move on.

As long as we don't need a tax accountant to do it.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll go now to Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Mayrand, for being here today. I want to add my voice, and I'm sure we'll also get a formal opportunity down the road to do so, and thank you so much for your contribution.

I have spent a fair bit of time in the last few years working internationally as part of observer missions for elections and on anti-corruption issues relating to the work of the Auditor General and the public accounts committee. Every time I go out and then come back to Canada, I'm so appreciative of what we have. I understand more than ever that one of the strengths of our democracy is our institutions and the calibre of the people we appoint to run those institutions. Sir, Canadians from coast to coast to coast owe you a huge debt of thanks for the work you have done on behalf of those citizens in ensuring that we have the fairest elections we can.

I would like to pick up on something that I tried to sneak in at the last meeting. Our eagle-eyed Chair jumped on me, rightly so, and said I could raise it in the usual discourse, so here I go.

It has to do with the amount of work that we're doing here, in particular on online voting and mandatory voting, that's specifically spelled out in the mandate. I've gone through these things as you know with your reports before, and what I wanted to raise with the minister and now with you is my concern that we can spend an awful lot of time getting into a whole lot of important details just on those two issues alone. My concern is that if we get too distracted from this very large macro picture we have of the overall voting system, we would get lost in these other issues.

Now on online voting I noticed that you recommend to us, or at least spell out, that one of the things that you would find helpful is some direction so that you can move forward on research with regard to Internet voting, given all the reasons you've just mentioned why it's not going to happen right away.

That's an easy one we could do by a quick motion, Chair, and boom that would send it off to the right place.

That leaves us with mandatory voting. I won't ask you about the details of it because that's not why we're here, but I will ask you this. You understand the procedure and House affairs committee as well as anybody, so would anything be lost in your opinion if we took the question of mandatory voting from this committee and referred it instead to that committee as part of your overall recommendations? Would something be lost in terms of timing or substance?

[Marc Mayrand]

It's very difficult for me to really respond clearly and directly to your question.

I think the one thing that comes to mind first of all is that this committee has a mandate. The other aspect is that these issues require, I think, assessing what the social acceptability of online voting or mandatory voting. I understand that this committee will undertake extensive public consultations over the next short while, looking at these matters and voting systems.

I'm not aware if the procedure and House affairs committee has by tradition undertaken such broad consultations. That's the one caveat I would put out there. I think it's important to have significant consultation on these matters. They are important and directly affect electors.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's a good point.

Mr. Reid also sits on the procedure and House affairs committee, and I don't know whether that's something we want to take up to clear the path for this committee, or leave it in here.

However, I'll move on to another issue. Just circling back to the issue of the amount of time necessary, I want to be crystal clear.

Regardless of whatever option we're looking at, so far you're keeping an eye on what we're doing and looking in your crystal ball, trying to determine where we're going and getting out in front. Does that include a complete rework, not just a redoing of the boundaries, but actually a whole different approach in terms of regional ridings? I understand that clustering would save some time.

I just want to be absolutely clear that as long as we give you this period of time, if we have that law in place by May 2017, regardless of how ambitious a recommended change we'd like to make, you feel that it would give you adequate time to do that, sir.

[Marc Mayrand]

I would have to.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!