Evidence of meeting #106 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was elections.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Andre Barnes  Committee Researcher
Allen Sutherland  Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
Manon Paquet  Senior Policy Advisor, Privy Council Office
Jean-François Morin  Senior Policy Advisor, Privy Council Office
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Andrew Lauzon
Stéphane Perrault  Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Anne Lawson  General Counsel and Senior Director, Legal Services, Elections Canada

7 p.m.

Some hon members

Agreed.

May 28th, 2018 / 7 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

[See appendix—Remarks by Stéphane Perrault]

Monsieur Perrault.

7 p.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to be back before the committee. This is a bit unusual, but I didn't want to repeat what I said on Tuesday. My remarks are now on the record, with my statement appended to the evidence. As for what I didn't talk about on Tuesday, I focus on that in the table of proposed amendments to improve the bill. That way, you will have more time to ask your questions.

I would like to start by expressing my support for this bill. I think it is an important piece of legislation that will go a long way towards modernizing the Canada Elections Act and improving the integrity of the electoral process. The bill contains some 100 of the 132 recommendations made by Elections Canada, so it's no shock, then, that we generally support the bill.

As I indicated, I'd like to speak to a few specific issues, and they appear in the table, which I will get to shortly.

Generally speaking, the two issues I feel require further examination by the committee are privacy, which we discussed last week, and the rules governing third parties.

7 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Everyone at this table should have what was just handed out. This is what he's talking about: suggested amendments to the act by Elections Canada.

Sorry, go ahead.

7 p.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

That's okay.

Again, on privacy and on third parties, these are two areas that may warrant, in my view, some further discussion and examination by the committee.

Before I get into the table, I just want to say a few words about the third party rules.

Overall, the proposals in Bill C-76 are a major improvement on the rules governing third parties. They expand the scope of the rules to include not just advertising activities but also all kinds of partisan activities. The scope is expanded. They also provide for rules that not only apply during the writ period but also the pre-writ period. They contain a number of measures to deal with foreign funding.

I want to note that there is some imbalance between the rules as they apply to third parties and parties in the pre-writ period. Parties would be limited only in their advertising expenses. Third parties would be limited in all of their partisan activities. They would have to file up to two pre-writ reports, and parties don't have to do that. I just note that. I don't have recommendations to that effect, but I did want to bring that to the attention of the committee, when you consider the overall regulatory burden on third parties.

While there are some important rules to deal with foreign funding, there is in my view a residual opening for foreign funding through third parties. There are some ways that this can be addressed. I will be making one particular recommendation in that regard.

I've not made a recommendation on the table in terms of the contribution rules to third parties. I think this is an area where there are a range of options. You need to balance Charter of Rights considerations. You need to look at the overall regulatory burden. I'm quite prepared to have a discussion on those topics with the committee, but I have not made a specific recommendation.

If you turn to the table, I'll take them in the order they appear on the table.

The first issue is a narrow but important issue. There is now in this bill a solemn declaration for voters. Voters would be required in some circumstances to say that either they are 18 or will be 18 on voting day. That's quite correct. However, they also are required to say that they are citizens or that they will be a citizen on polling day. That's something that they cannot make a declaration for. They do not know whether in fact they will become citizens on polling day. They don't control that. The ceremony has not taken place. It may not take place. My view is that certainly only citizens should be able to vote, even in the advance vote or special ballot. The oath should be amended to reflect that. Someone should not be called upon to say that they will be a citizen on polling day.

The second point is one of the issues related to foreign funding of third parties. One of the ways in which the bill improves the regime is that not only does it ban contributions made by foreign sources for the purpose of regulated activities, but it in fact bans the use of foreign funds. In some cases a third party may receive foreign funds and not be able to use them. They could have turned around and passed it on to another third party. That third party could then spend it. I would recommend that there be an anti-avoidance clause in the bill. There are other examples of such clauses in this bill, and the Canada Elections Act. That would deal with those kinds of situations where a third party is turning around and passing on foreign funds to avoid the restrictions in the act. That's an improvement that I'm recommending on the bill.

The third point relates to convention fees. The rule right now is that when a person buys a ticket to participate in a convention, the contribution that this person makes is then determined by looking at the price of the ticket minus the tangible benefits that he or she receives at the convention, such as the meals, beverages, and so forth. The bill recommends to also deduct from the ticket price a reasonable allocation of the overhead costs of doing the convention. It also allows for another individual to not only pay for that ticket but also deduct from the amount the overhead costs. The effect of that is that a wealthy person could, by buying all or most of the tickets, essentially pay for all of the party's convention costs.

There are number of ways to deal with that. The first way would be to simply not accept that there be a deduction of the overhead costs from the amount that constitutes a contribution. That is my preferred approach. In the alternative, one could say that this deduction only is allowable for a single ticket, not multiple tickets. It's a bit more complicated to administer. If that is not acceptable to this committee, then perhaps the law should be amended so that the party's annual return reflects the fact that a person has paid for tickets for more than one person to attend a convention, so that if a person buys a slate of tickets for a convention, that is simply reported in the annual report. At least there is some transparency in this regard.

The fourth point I want to raise is in regard to the issue of privacy that we have discussed. As I indicated last week, I am concerned by the fact that there are no minimal standards. Each party would decide which standard is appropriate for them. Perhaps more importantly, I'm concerned about the absence of oversight. On the first issue, the standards adopted by the parties in their policies should be consistent with those set out in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which is usually referred to as PIPEDA, and I do believe that the Privacy Commissioner is the appropriate person to provide oversight. I have discussed this with the Privacy Commissioner and he is in agreement with that.

The fifth point that I want to raise is.... This is actually a recommendation that came from Elections Canada. It's reflected properly in the bill. It's a recommendation to deal with the possibility of disinformation in cases where there's a publication that claims to be made by a party or a candidate, but it is not. In our recommendation, we should have made an additional element to that, which is that publications, whether electronically or traditionally made, that are claimed to be by Elections Canada, but are not, should be covered by the same prohibition. That's just an expansion of that same rule to cover false Elections Canada material.

The sixth one relates to an important clause in the bill dealing with cyber-attacks. I believe that is an important issue. There is a proposal in the bill relating to the misuse of or interference with a computer. However, in order for an offence to be committed, there is a requirement to show that there was an intention to affect the result of the election. In some cases, a foreign state or a third party may wish to interfere simply to disrupt the election or simply to undermine trust in the election, so the requirement to prove an intent to change the result goes too far. I think it needs to be expanded to cover other intents, which I've just mentioned.

Finally, the last one is a really technical one. It's a transitional provision regarding the reporting obligations for candidates. There should be a clause in the bill that says that if the rules come into force midway into the campaign or after the campaign, the reporting obligation at the end of the campaign should match the substantive obligations during the campaign. That's sensible. The drafting of this clause can be improved and should be improved. There are similar clauses in the bill that we feel are better drafted in that regard and we refer to those in the table. That is strictly a technical amendment.

Thank you.

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

We'll do at least one round and then we may go into more informal questioning of people. We'll see how we do, after the first round.

We'll start with Mr. Simms.

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

First of all, it's good to see you again. I have a couple of questions on what you provided.

First, let's go back to the convention fees part of it again, just so I get it straight. What you're recommending is that it goes a little too far, in that it prescribes the overhead of a particular convention to be taken away from the contribution part of it. Is that correct? You're okay with the tangible benefits of this thing, like a meal served at such and such. That's included in there. I suppose the intangible stuff is the overhead.

Do you care to comment on that?

7:10 p.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

That's perfectly correct. It's the overhead.

A party convention is part of a party's natural activities and defraying for a party's activities normally is a contribution. That's how I see it.

I'm particularly concerned that, if a person is allowed to pay for the entire convention by buying all of the tickets. You have a single, wealthy individual, who would then be buying the party's convention, yet that would not even be reported as such.

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

It would not be part of the campaign or election expenses; I get that.

The other one is about the unauthorized use of a computer. You're saying that it's—I'm paraphrasing here—a little too focused in its implications. Is that correct?

7:10 p.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

That's correct. I think that the act should contemplate situations where a person tries to interfere with the conduct of an election, a leadership contest, or a nomination contest, by interfering with a computer system.

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

Just for the sake of generating chaos, in other words—

7:10 p.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

—as opposed to it being for a specific end. Okay, I see what you're saying. Right now, in its wording, it's with regard to a certain outcome of an election.

7:10 p.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

It goes to changing the results. What I'm saying is that it may not be the purpose, but it may be just as nefarious to actually disrupt the election and undermine trust in the election.

I'll give you an example. If someone tries to penetrate the national register of electors and shows that they've been able to do that.... Let's say a foreign state wants to do that. That's what happened in the United States from my understanding. They penetrate, they leave a mark, and then they don't do anything. However, they've undermined trust in the integrity of the election, and that is not covered.

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

Very quickly for my own purpose.... I have wanted to ask this for some time, and now I'm getting around to doing it. Clause 70 of the bill changes how the official list of electors is prepared. It talks about having it prepared by polling station, instead of by polling division.

For people who are watching this right now and aren't familiar with elections, we all call these lists the “bingo cards”, as it were. I call them “bingo cards”, “bingo sheets”, whatever you want to call them.

Is that going to change here under clause 70? In other words, is it going to be a long compilation of the names for scrutineers who are in the polling stations on that day?

7:10 p.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

As part of the modernization effort, the act will now refer to polling stations as what was traditionally a number, in some cases, of polling divisions. That reflects that change.

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

If I'm there as a scrutineer, no matter what station I'm at, I just get a full list—

7:15 p.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

You do get the full list.

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

—of the polling division, instead of what was formerly the polling station.

7:15 p.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

Correct, except administratively, this election will continue to operate—for the regular polls—in the same old way, by polling division, because we're not going to be able to go to the new voting model at the next general election for the regular polls.

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

So for this coming election, it will be as it was before.

7:15 p.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

The authorization of signatures, electronic signatures, in particular, is fairly new. I understand that it wasn't ready for the last election. Can you assure the committee that a system will be in place to receive electronic signatures for campaign documents and so on?

7:15 p.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

Absolutely. That is something that was done in 2014 in the legislation. We did not have time to implement the systems to facilitate electronic submission of candidate returns. That is being done as we speak, and the work is progressing well. I fully expect to have full online submission of returns at the next election.

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

Okay, so all electronic signatures for the campaign returns will be accepted by Elections Canada this coming election.