Evidence of meeting #118 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 information.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Stéphane Perrault  Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Michel Roussel  Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Electoral Events and Innovation, Elections Canada
Stephanie Kusie  Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Anne Lawson  Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Regulatory Affairs, Elections Canada
Linda Lapointe  Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Good morning. Welcome to the 118th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Welcome, Mr. Cullen. Welcome, Ms. May. It's great to have you here.

We will continue on Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments.

We're pleased to be joined by Stéphane Perrault, Canada's Chief Electoral Officer. He is accompanied by Anne Lawson, deputy chief electoral officer, regulatory affairs; and Michel Roussel, deputy chief electoral officer, electoral events and innovation.

For the information of members, we invited the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario to appear today, but he declined due to prior commitments.

Thank you for coming. You probably have better attendance than some of us; you've been here lots of times. It's great to have you back.

Mr. Perrault, we'll let you make some opening remarks, and then we'll go on to some questions.

11:05 a.m.

Stéphane Perrault Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's always a pleasure to be here and to support the work of the committee. Hopefully this morning my colleagues and I will be of assistance to the committee as it reviews Bill C-76.

I don't have any written remarks. I would like, though, to briefly touch upon three points before turning to questions.

The first point relates to the importance of this bill, in particular for the next election. The second point touches upon a technical amendment, which I did not bring to the attention of the committee when I last appeared, so I want to bring it to your attention. The third point relates to the work that we need to do to prepare the implementation of this bill and to be ready for the next election, as well as how that fits into the work of this committee, and of the Senate, of course.

On the importance of the bill, again, I don't want to repeat what I've said. Overall this is, in my view, a very strong bill, albeit not a perfect one. I've made some recommendations to improve that bill.

What I would say, though, is that the bill brings some long-term benefits to the electoral process, and it brings some much-needed short-term remedies to some of the concerns that many share regarding the integrity of the electoral process. Of course, that's a very important part of our mandate.

For the next election, given the environment, I very much look forward to having this legislation passed. It includes measures to deal with third parties and foreign influence. It also includes measures to deal with cyber-attacks and disinformation. It is an important piece of legislation from that perspective.

Also, it significantly reinforces the powers of the commissioner in terms of his investigations, so, from an integrity point of view, I think it's important to have this bill passed.

If there is one area where the bill failed, it is privacy. The parties are not subjected to any kind of privacy regime. I have pointed this out in the past and I want to mention it again today. The Privacy Commissioner has talked about it, and we are in agreement on this issue. I simply wanted to reiterate that this morning, without going into detail.

As for the technical amendment I talked about, the committee unanimously approved a recommendation that had been made by my predecessor. The recommendation pertained to situations where, as required under the Parliament of Canada Act, a by-election must be held late in the election cycle, shortly before a fixed-date election. It was agreed that it was inadvisable in such cases to hold a by-election, because these elections are generally cancelled when a general election is held. The committee had unanimously approved that recommendation, and the government agreed.

The bill includes a provision on this matter. Unfortunately, as it is currently drafted, in the case of a vacancy, a government could decide not to hold a by-election during the last nine months of the cycle, and on top of that, there would be an additional period of six months less a day. Thus, there could be a period of 15 months less a day without a by-election to fill a vacancy. I am pretty sure that was not the intention of our recommendation, nor is it what the committee or the government wants.

I noticed the flaw this summer. We brought it to the government's attention, but my role is to report to the committee. If you would like us to propose some new phrasing to correct the problem, I would be happy to do so.

The last point I want to touch upon relates, as I said, to preparation for implementing Bill C-76 and our readiness efforts, and how that fits with the work that Parliament needs to do.

As you know, I would have liked this bill to have been passed last spring. It would have given us more time to work toward its implementation.

When I met this committee, I indicated that we would need to start the summer, first of all, by having a two-track approach to the training and the guidebooks for poll workers so we're prepared. We have prepared guidebooks on the current legislation, as well as the potentially amended legislation. We have not printed that material, of course, and we may adjust it further as the committee and Parliament do their work. However, that's been done.

The other part, and perhaps the more challenging part, relates to the IT systems. The bill would affect, at a minimum, 20 of our IT systems, some in small ways and some in large ways. What I said last spring was that we would spend the summer completing the work that we have to do on our side with our systems, and then start in the fall to look at the coding for the new system changes for Bill C-76. That's largely what we've done.

As you may recall, I indicated that we were then building a new, much more secure data centre, which is really the bedrock of our election delivery. That data centre has been built successfully and we've done the migration. It was scheduled for September 1. We did it on September 15, so it was a two-week delay, which is not bad. We're fine-tuning that, but it's going quite well. We still have a bit of IT work to do, but overall we are progressing well.

We now turn our attention to this bill. We will need a window to do some of that coding and then some of that testing. The coding window is, essentially, between October 1 and early December, when the House rises. That's when we need finality, basically, in terms of how this bill will impact our systems, because after that we go through a very rigorous testing in January, and then we do bug fixing. Then we roll out the systems in a field simulation in March.

That's our timeline to make sure that everything works well for this election. That may be useful for the committee to understand in terms of the time that we need.

I have one more point, which is not directly related to Bill C-76. Perhaps if there's time at the end I'd like to come back to it. That's the issue of electronic poll books, which we have discussed before this committee a number of times. There were some changes just last week in our plans in that regard. If there are questions I'll be happy to answer them, and perhaps at the end, if there's time, I could speak to the changes that we're making to that project.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Maybe you should do that now, if you could do it briefly.

11:10 a.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

Sure. You will recall—and some of you here were not members of this committee—that over the last couple of years we talked about introducing electronic poll books, which is not electronic voting and it's not electronic tabulation, but it's essentially the electronic lists and the poll books that assist the poll workers in processing voters.

We planned to do that because it improves the integrity of the record-keeping. It reduces the errors and speeds up the process, especially at advanced polls. It's one of several ways in which we're improving services for the future.

We've seen that kind of technology being used increasingly at provincial levels. In order to roll that out for the next election, I need to be satisfied that the systems meet the highest standards in terms of security. You will remember that the Communications Security Establishment Canada issued a report in 2017 saying that the threat to elections is highest at the federal level, and that's not surprising. Our standards are commensurate to that threat, and we've been working with them to set those standards.

In order to roll out that technology at the next general election in any significant way, I need to be ready to pilot that technology in by-elections this fall. Last week, despite a lot of hard work that has gone into this, I was not satisfied that the technology was sufficiently secure and mature to be rolled out in a by-election. So, it will not be piloted in a by-election.

I remain absolutely convinced that this is the way of the future, but it will happen only if and when I'm satisfied that it is robust and flawless. Those are the conditions under which we set out to do this project, and those are the conditions under which we are pursuing that project.

This has implications for the general election in terms of the rollout. We planned to roll out that technology in 225 advanced polls. That will not happen.

Will we do some testing in some polls? I think we still have to explore that. I am still committed to the future of that vision in terms of serving electors and assisting poll workers, but I have to be satisfied, at this point in time, a year ahead of the election, that it will succeed and that it meets the highest standards; and at this point I don't have that degree of assurance. So I have pulled the plug on this for the by-elections. That will have impacts for the general election.

It has no bearing on this bill, but the bill does provide long-term flexibility to better leverage that technology. The bill and that project have some connection and, as I said, I remain convinced of a future. It just has to be ready, to be safe and flawless, as I said.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you very much.

We will now move on to questions and comments.

Mr. Simms, go ahead.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our guests. I have a very important question off the top. How was your summer?

11:10 a.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

The summer was hot.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

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

All right.

There are two overarching issues I wanted to deal with when it comes to the time complexity of going through with the major measures. One was with the commissioner moving office, as well as administrative penalties. I'll get to that in a moment.

First, I want to follow up on some of what you said: October to December, that is the window that is required for the coding mechanism. Are you confident that within that window you can get that done and ready for the next election?

11:10 a.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

I am confident that within that window I can get that done, yes.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

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

But you need to start in October.

11:10 a.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

I do need that.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

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

And starting in the new year would not be advantageous.

11:10 a.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

Once we do the coding, then we do what we call “user acceptance” testing. The users of the system test it. Once that is done, we integrate that into the other system. Then we do a second round of testing. That has to take place in January.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

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

Okay. Thank you.

Now, poll books are also very interesting. Thank you for bringing that up as well.

I'm glad we dealt with that at the beginning, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

You talked about the future, improving integrity, and all that stuff. I won't reiterate what you said. Unfortunately, you won't be able to test-run it through the by-elections that are coming up soon. You said it's not mature enough yet, at this point.

Once you have this and are confident to test it, wouldn't you require the approval of both houses to do that?

11:15 a.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

I do not, because it does not detract from the rules in the act. It is currently allowed. It provides for mechanisms of crossing names on a list, or writing down names of people who need to register at the polls. Everything that they would be doing using the poll book would be in accordance with the rules, even under the current legislation, notwithstanding Bill C-76.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

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

Thank you very much for that. I appreciate the clarification.

Let me go back now to the other two issues. First, the commissioner: this was a huge issue for us in Bill C-23. We thought that the commissioner being taken out of the building, the atmosphere, of Elections Canada head office and brought over to the Director of Public Prosecutions was a flaw. We thought it was flawed because they weren't surrounded by the information they needed to do a proper investigation—ROs across the country and all the information coming in from across the country. It must be very hard to be in touch with all ridings across the country if you're out at DPP.

However, in this bill, are you satisfied with the move? I believe you said you were. As well, what will be the relationship now between the commissioner and the Director of Public Prosecutions?

11:15 a.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

In terms of the bill, as I've said before, I think it's a good change. We're not physically moving yet. Whether or not that'll happen, we'll see down the road, but we are legally becoming one team—again, with the continued very clear separation and independence of the commissioner in terms of how he conducts his investigations. I want to reassure everybody on that. That line remains a firm line.

What it does facilitate is a better understanding of how we interpret the legislation and the challenges we have when we provide guidance to parties and candidates. Most importantly, there's the exchange of information on political financing—for example, the returns and so forth. It makes for an easier working relationship.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

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

Right. So for any investigation that's going on, can the returning officers and any other pertinent election officers from the past election be brought in, such as poll clerks or deputy returning officers?

11:15 a.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

Quite frankly, it's mostly been with headquarters in terms of having access to the register information and having access to the political financing information. That's the key. That's the most volume. That's the centre of it.

In terms of his relationship with the DPP, I think I'd rather let him speak to that. There is a change in the bill, if I'm not mistaken, that he would have the power to lay charges.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

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

Right. That's one I want to get to.

11:15 a.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

Then the DPP would continue to carry the prosecution. The DPP would continue to have responsibility for actually conducting the prosecution, but the commissioner would be the one deciding whether to lay charges or not.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

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

And the Director of Public Prosecutions goes forward with that charge to see it to its end.

11:15 a.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

Correct. I believe he would have the authority to drop the charges, but that's quite unusual.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

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

I believe Ms. Lawson is agreeing with you.

I just quickly want to go to administrative penalties, because I think this is long overdue. I think we've taken it upon ourselves to do this. I'm not patting us on the back here; I'm just saying that it was recommended by you over a period of time to keep it out of criminal prosecution, obviously.

Are you satisfied with what's in the bill, in the sense that there are some sections in here...? Obviously, you have a maximum fine of $1,500, or, if it's a corporation entity, up to $5,000. But there's also something in there that if you go beyond sections 363 and 367, which talk about contributions or contribution limits, then you can go even further and charge even more if the contribution in question is substantial.

11:15 a.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada