Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 4th, 2018

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you. It is voluntary as well, which further supports that.

You also mentioned people with disabilities. This is another area that's close to my heart. How do you see this legislation promoting voting by people with disabilities, making it more accessible for people with disabilities to vote?

[Marc Mayrand]

There is more flexibility in terms of picking the location where they can vote, making sure it's accessible. There are also provisions in the act that allow introducing technology to serve electors with disabilities, to remove barriers there. When I was at Elections Canada, we were working closely with various disability groups. We had a committee there that met regularly to discuss some of the challenges there and how we can use technology. It's important to understand that they are looking at technology that's adapted to each peculiar situation. They are not looking at generic technology that they never use, with which they are not familiar, like those voting machines that exist in some polling sites, which are rarely used because they are not familiar with them.

Through this ongoing discussion with those groups, I'm confident that the bill will allow some breakthroughs in allowing technology to be used to better serve electors.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Do you have any comments with respect to expanding the definition of “disability” to go beyond physical disability?

Could we have your comments on that?

[Marc Mayrand]

That's another welcome change. I think it is something we had proposed in 2016. Again, it avoids the distinction that sometimes is quite difficult to make in reality.

I would also note that candidates will also benefit from the provisions. They will have a greater rate of reimbursement, an important measure, which I believe is an incentive for candidates and parties to reach out to disabled electors with the tools they use to understand the communications. These are important measures. Again, that's what I mean when I say it makes the system more inclusive.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Very good.

With respect to the voter information cards, you've commented that, in your view, there is absolutely no issue with respect to those being used for fraudulent voting.

For me, in particular, I look at seniors and students, because they are probably the two groups that use the VIC most. Can you speak from your experience about how those groups and others have relied on the VIC, how voters rely on that as a piece of identification that can be used, and the consequences of the Fair Elections Act having taken that away as a piece of identification?

[Marc Mayrand]

There are a few points.

We have an interesting regime in terms of identification in Canada. We have a requirement by federal legislation with regard to identification and proof of address, but we don't have a national card. That I find quite striking. We don't have a national card that meets all the requirements for identification. That forces us to adopt a system that's rather complex. It leads to, I believe, 32 or even more pieces of ID that are to be accepted.

At that time, in 2014, given what we knew about youth and seniors mostly, and also, I must say, aboriginal people living on reserve, we thought those groups were facing unique challenges in terms of proving who they were and where they lived. We ran pilots in by-elections and also in the GE. We allowed the use of the VIC in very specific circumstances, such as in student residences, where they're not likely to have a document establishing where they live. If they have a driver's licence—many don't—it probably has the address of whatever place they live with their parents.

We used it for this group and we used it for seniors. Nowadays, seniors often don't have access to their personal documents. Many of them don't have any bills that come in their name, so there's no address; similarly for aboriginals. In those cases, which were all closed environments, I did allow the use of the VIC, and it was a success, a real success. It allowed people to vote who may not otherwise have been able to. It also allowed them to vote independently, which is important, and to vote expeditiously.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you much.

We now go to Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Mayrand, for joining us today. It's always a pleasure to hear your commentary and your learned experience on this matter. Forgive me if I seem to jump around to a few different topics, but I do want to try to get to as much as I can in my five minutes.

I want to start with the foreign influence idea and the suggestion of the commingling, the laundering, of funds. I'm wondering if you could just confirm my thinking here. What you're looking at here is that where an organization, a third party, may receive a total of $100,000 of funding, $50,000 domestic contributions and $50,000 foreign, conceivably that organization could use that $50,000 from foreign money to allocate on its activity outside of an electoral period, thereby freeing up the other $50,000 to spend on elections and election purposes.

Is that where you see the challenge with the laundering type of idea?

[Marc Mayrand]

No, sorry, the laundering was the foreign entity providing funds to a Canadian one, and the Canadian one turning around and setting up a subsidiary, for example, or a subgroup, let's say, and providing them funds from their general revenues now, so you've lost the foreign nature. At that point, it is arguably Canadian money. I think that should be prevented in the legislation. There should be an anti-collusion or anti-laundering provision in the bill.

With regard to commingling, at the end of the day, I understand the point being made. In my view, the only solution about this would be to set up a contribution regime. That's the only way. Again, if third parties want to influence a campaign to a significant financial level, they should be subjected to a regime of contribution, making sure that the funds they use come from Canadians.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Conceivably, then, they'd be disclosed online, as we do for $200-plus donations as well.

[Marc Mayrand]

Absolutely, yes.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

We talked a little bit about the audits that would have to be undertaken on these organizations. Those would all be occurring after an election, so any challenges that would arise, any indiscretions, would likely be caught after an election. Do you see any concerns with how this might operate in reality in terms of when these breaches may occur and how they're caught?

[Marc Mayrand]

It's no different from what exists for candidates or parties in that regard. Audits always take place after the fact, so I am not sure how we can cure that, except eventually moving towards a system in which we have real-time disclosure of contributions. Technology probably allows for that. I'm not sure it can be done. Elections Canada would have to answer that, but it's doable and you could verify a contribution amount and sources in real time, with an address. That can be achieved.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you.

I want to jump a little bit and talk about the concept you mentioned of having, perhaps, a repository of digital advertising. I was hoping you might expand on this a little bit. I'm assuming that if a candidate were to buy Facebook ads, or a party were to buy online advertising, that would already be caught in terms of declaring the expense during a return.

Are you looking at going further and having something encompassing third parties, individuals, or those not directly involved in the electoral process itself but who would still have an impact on the electoral process? Is that...?

[Marc Mayrand]

There is a bit of that, but it goes beyond that. It's really a matter of being able to observe, for any citizen, what kind of advertising is going on, who is being targeted, what the messages are, and whether or not they are consistent.

Also, it is a way of looking at whether or not these are legitimate advertisements. That's another issue that could be illustrated by that sort of a repository.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Currently—

[Marc Mayrand]

From what I understand, Facebook is looking at something like that, but I am asking why we wouldn't have a national repository somewhere of all the ads on all platforms, rather than having to rely on The Globe and Mail approach that probably seeks to track those ads. It seems to me it's getting very complex to be able to track which ads are taking place regarding the common public good, which is the election.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I appreciate that.

Just very briefly, because I know my time is nearly up, traditional advertising, whether print media or television, is subject to a number of different rules, with, for example, the Competition Bureau, requiring a degree of truth in advertising. Currently we don't have as strict or as enforceable a regime for that for online dealings, if you will. Are you suggesting perhaps we should apply similar—

[Marc Mayrand]

It's something we should explore.

Interestingly, social media seems to be totally exempt from the general rules that govern public discourse, and yet it is public discourse. Some would argue that it's not that public, but in my view it is public discourse. Anyway, it goes well beyond elections. It may give them an unfair advantage over traditional media from time to time, and I think you as parliamentarians have heard of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay.

Thank you very much.

For our last intervenor, we have Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much.

I'd like to follow up on the social media. I've seen the negative impacts in terms of misinformation being out there and it coming back. I've learned the term “brigading”, which involves a large number of people—trolls—getting together and attacking.

Is there any jurisdiction that, to your mind, has had any success in legislating in this area or in attempting to get a handle on social media in the context of an election?

[Marc Mayrand]

It's a truly emerging issue. I think everybody is looking at it. There is enough evidence now of interference, mostly foreign but also other types of interference, that it is becoming an issue of concern for many governments around the world.

The U.S., as you all know, is certainly looking at things. I don't know that they have made any new regulations yet. I think there has been a lot of focus on Facebook, to name one, but again there seems to be a general reluctance and certainly caution—maybe it's not reluctance but great caution—about introducing a regulatory regime. Yet I think the trust in our democracy depends on sound regulation here, because these platforms need to be made accountable for what's going on there.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you.

You mentioned vouching, and I'm interested in this in terms of an amendment for nurses in a long-term care facility. Are there any other types of niche vouching—maybe “niche” isn't the right term—or items like that where you would recommend that there be an exemption similar to that one?

[Marc Mayrand]

Certainly, seniors homes, long-term care facilities, come to mind. Possibly—I'm not sure—it's workable in the area of students living in residence. They should be well served by the VIC now, if that goes through. Probably aboriginal people living on reserve.... This is a real issue in those areas in terms of proving who they are and where they live, yet they vote mostly on their reserve, so we know where they live.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you.

In terms of PIPEDA, I know that's a standard that people point to as something that political parties should strive for. Have you done any analysis in terms of whether the principles within that legislation would apply well to political parties? They're a different type of organization. I'll give you one example. In terms of an individual being able to access their own information, that may seem logical, but in the realm of politics, if there then are thousands of individuals from another party calling up and we don't necessarily have large organizations, it may not be effective.