Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Sept. 25th, 2018

[Stéphane Perrault]

Absolutely.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Should we?

[Stéphane Perrault]

I think that's where we hit difficult spots in terms of the balance of how far we regulate people posting their own views on the Internet.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I understand that, but this is not somebody posting their own views. These are coordinated efforts we've seen out of Russia and other places, and it feels like we're kind of sleepwalking a bit into this thing. We have recent and meaningful examples of partner democracies in which there has been a coordinated non-paid advertising attack on certain candidates or parties.

[Stéphane Perrault]

Let me nuance what I just said. The bill we have before Parliament does include rules for campaigning partisan activities that go beyond advertising, so partisan activities would be regulated, but it doesn't mean that the content is prohibited.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It would be regulated.

[Stéphane Perrault]

It would be regulated as part of the spending limits. It's part of how it's funded. Where does the money go to pay for that? It cannot be funded by foreign funds. If it is, then that's an offence, and the commissioner may investigate that.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That's if it's partisan, if it's pointing at a political party.

[Stéphane Perrault]

That's if it's promoting or opposing, yes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm not suggesting this is easy or casual or light, but the threat has been identified by our own spy agencies, and we look through Bill C-76 to ask how we are addressing the threat. This is at the core of our democracy and is influencing voters. I'm not saying it's easy. If it were easy, we would already have done it. We have just not caught up to the sophistication of those who are looking to influence and, in some cases, corrupt our elections.

[Stéphane Perrault]

I think it's a challenge that every democracy is facing. We've certainly been following the discussions around the world—in Europe, in the United States, and in the U.K. around Brexit. Nobody has a silver bullet for that, so there are a range of measures.

One of the things they are concerned about in the U.K. is foreign funding of third parties. One of the recommendations they're making is to create a contribution limit, simply because it's harder for a foreign entity to sprinkle money around in small amounts and not be caught, rather than giving a large amount.

Well, we already have that in Canada. They're also recommending tag lines, but we have that in Canada as well. We already have a number of measures that other countries are looking into—which doesn't mean we have all the answers. It means that we are struggling to find the right balance and exploring that. I think the bill has a number of measures in there.

On our side, we have been collaborating and coordinating our work with security agencies, security partners in Canada: the Communications Security Establishment, CSIS, PCO security, and the RCMP. Starting this fall, we're doing round table exercises to look at various scenarios—working, of course, with the current legal framework.

It's a whole-of-society challenge, however. This is not something that one entity—be it Elections Canada, CSE, or CSIS—can tackle. I suspect we'll be struggling with that for a little while.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Reid has the last intervention.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you.

I enjoyed the last exchange. I always appreciate the naive optimism of my colleague from northern British Columbia, who has floated the hopeful thought that the Chief Electoral Officer will be able to solve the problems associated with untrue things being said on the Internet. Once he's done that, I would appreciate his conveying a message to Ukrainian supermodels that I'm not actually interested in dating them and that they can stop sending me information about how to contact them.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I probably shouldn't have shared that information.

A previous committee that both Mr. Cullen and I served on was the electoral reform committee, and we had some fascinating testimony. Mr. Cullen will remember this. We were in Vancouver at the time, and we had an American expert on how elections can be interfered with. I forget the name of the professor, but she made the observation that when a well-funded foreign actor interferes—it could be the Russian government, the Chinese government, or maybe a non-state actor who is willing to flout our laws—it's not with the goal of electing candidate X or candidate Y; it is with the goal of making it unclear whether whoever wins has legitimate authority to govern.

This was an argument against electronic voting. If it's no longer clear whether candidate X or candidate Y actually won, if it's no longer clear whether that person has a clear mandate, then they've done their job. That was one of the things that made us decide not to go for electronic voting, which, as you mentioned, is not the same thing as the vote tabulation you're proposing to do.

In looking at your mandate, I don't believe it is trying to resolve the problem of fake news on the Internet. I don't know if anybody can do that. Culturally, I think maybe we have to learn to just do fact-checking on our own, as if we're going through a cultural learning process in that regard. It seems to me that the real danger, from your perspective, is somebody illegally personating Elections Canada and advising people to go to the wrong voting stations, or telling them that the voting times have been changed. I can imagine a number of other things where the true information you're trying to convey is replaced with untrue information, or alternatively, someone is trying to prohibit the true information that you are mandated to provide—how to vote, where to vote, what the voting times are, how you can have access if you are a person who has a disability, and so on.

I just wanted to hear you indicate whether you feel that more needs to be done, or whether you feel that you have the tools you need to make sure those dangers are being minimized at this point, not perfectly but to the extent realistically possible.

[Stéphane Perrault]

If I may, I have two points on that. On the fact-checking, it's a very important point. There, I have the tools. One of the things I said we will be doing is have an online repository of all our communications, so that people—including the media and the parties—can check if they're not sure whether something is coming from Elections Canada. It will be on our website. You talked about fact-checking. We need to be the authoritative source, and all of our communications will be transparent. I have invited parties to do the same, because if somebody is passing a message on your behalf as a candidate, and it's not you, you may want to be able to point to your website and say, “Here are my communications.” There, I think I have the tools.

I think the point that you mentioned about foreign interference is very important, and this is in the Communications Security Establishment report. Foreign interference is not necessarily about changing the results; it's about sowing doubt as to the results, sowing doubt as to the integrity, and showing that they can play with the integrity of the process, not necessarily changing anything.

That's where I am concerned with the bill as it stands today, and I did make a recommendation in that regard. There is an important provision in the bill that names a new offence, essentially, of cyber-interference with systems that are used in the conduct of an election. However, it requires a demonstration of an intent to affect the result of the election, and that may not be at all the intent. I think that's not adequate. We need that provision to be broader. There is no legitimate excuse.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

If it was “to subvert or change the outcome of the election” or “to delegitimize the result”, would that cover your concern?

[Stéphane Perrault]

When I last appeared, I made a recommendation. My view is that if there's no lawful excuse for interfering with a computer used in the delivery of the election, that should be the end of the case made by the Crown. There is no good reason to interfere with a computer unless you're the maintenance person and there's a lawful excuse to be in that system. If you don't belong there, that should be enough to complete the offence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much for coming. It's been very helpful to get more questions out.

We'll suspend for a few minutes while we change the witness, and then we'll finish our business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Good afternoon. Welcome back to the 118th meeting of the committee.

For members' information, we are in public.

You'll recall that at the last meeting we decided on a date to commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-76. I open the floor.

Ruby, go ahead.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

To say 118 meetings doesn't do us justice. Unfortunately, some of our meetings were prolonged.

I'd like to start by proposing a motion to advance the legislation for which we just had the Chief Electoral Officer here, Bill C-76 and, where appropriate, to propose and approve amendments.

The motion that I propose is this:

That the Committee commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-76 on Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.;

That the Chair be empowered to hold meetings outside of normal hours to accommodate clause-by-clause consideration;

That the Chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party, per clause; and,

That if the Committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill by 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 16, 2018, all remaining amendments submitted to the Committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, as well as questions necessary to report the Bill to the House and to order the Chair to report the Bill to the House as soon as possible.

I'd like to comment on the motion a bit and explain where it's coming from.

In the discussion with the CEO today, it was brought up by the Conservatives that whatever legislation comes forward, when it affects our elections, we should have cross-party support. I would like to point out that we had Elizabeth May here with us today. She put on the record that she is supportive of Bill C-76. We know that the NDP is supportive of Bill C-76. Of course, the Liberals in this committee are extremely supportive of the bill.

The Chief Electoral Officer has been here three times prior to this, regarding this study of the legislation, not to mention the report of the Chief Electoral Officer that we spent numerous hours on. I believe he's probably been here 30 or 40 times on the recommendations. He was here every single day, in his capacity as acting chief electoral officer, to guide us through all of the recommendations that were made.

I also want to give a bit of background as to how we got here.

On May 23, Bill C-76 was given second reading in the House and referred to committee, so on May 23 this bill came before us. As of September 17, the committee had held seven meetings and heard from 56 witnesses on the study of the bill. We had all parties submit hundreds of names of witnesses, and many witnesses declined to appear. The list was quite exhaustive—basically anyone who had any kind of opinion, even down to those who had just run in the various elections, to come before this committee and present. Therefore, we've exhausted quite a bit of our witness testimony here, and of course the person with the most knowledge on the subject matter, the Chief Electoral Officer, has been here several times.

I'd also like to point out that the Harper government's so-called Fair Elections Act made it harder for Canadians to vote and easier for people to evade our elections laws. The Globe and Mail even said, “This bill deserves to die.” The Chief Electoral Officer has also been quoted—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I'm assuming that your reference is not to this bill, but to that bill.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I'm referring to Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Okay. I didn't want you to get left there saying something that you weren't trying to say.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Bill C-76 has revised a lot of Bill C-23, which was passed in 2014. I will give some context regarding why we are up against some opposition.

The Chief Electoral Officer at the time when Bill C-23 was passed was quoted as saying, “I certainly can’t endorse a bill that disenfranchises electors.” The government was encouraged, through the many recommendations, to improve and modernize its election law so that more people could vote.

There are many reasons why this legislation has been brought forward, and we've done so in a way where we've continued to work with the Chief Electoral Officer. A lot of the recommendations that have come from the experience of the 2015 election have been inserted into this legislation.

In order to repeal and improve laws to modernize our elections, it was necessary to bring Bill C-76 forward. I know the NDP has been quite eager, like us, to move this legislation through, but many obstacles have gotten in our way. Perhaps some members don't want those disenfranchised by the previous bill, Bill C-23, to participate in this election.

However, I have to point out that although we have a strong democracy, one of the most stable in the world, we have seen, through the recommendations brought forward to us, that there are a lot of improvements to make. A lot of damage was done through Bill C-23, the so-called Fair Elections Act, which has to be corrected.

After the 2015 election, the Chief Electoral Officer made about 130 recommendations on ways to improve how our democracy functions. We did a careful study of those recommendations through consideration by this parliamentary committee and by both houses. We also received input from several experts across the country. After all of that work, the government proposed Bill C-76, the elections modernization act.

As we just heard from the Chief Electoral Officer, this act is really necessary. It's essential that they have this in their hands come October.

Although certain people around this table may feel that the motion I'm bringing forward is halting democracy, I would argue that it's the complete opposite. There is a vital need to modernize our Elections Act and repeal some of the things that have disenfranchised people from voting and completely participating in our democracy. We need to do this as soon as possible so that it can take effect for the next election. To the point that Nathan brought up, the longer we take, the more we lose and the more Canadians lose.

Bill C-76 would make it easier for Canadians to vote, and it would make elections easier to administer and protect. It would also protect Canadians from organizations and individuals seeking to unduly influence their vote. However, as Nathan discussed, we know there are forces beyond this act that we need to further discuss and study. I would propose that at a future date we do all of that and bring all of the necessary actors to help make our democracy even safer. But this bill is a really good start toward doing the things the Chief Electoral Officer has found to be necessary.

One party has stalled us time and time again. We've seen it for several months now. There is an unwillingness to move forward. The government has been given a mandate by the people to move legislation, and although I'm not saying by any means that the committee process is not important, we have seen practices such as this in the past, and in particular when it came to Bill C-23.

If I may remind the committee—some of the members are here, actually. Scott Reid is here, and Blake Richards used to be here, before the House rose for the summer. They were both involved with this committee when Bill C-23 was passed. At that time—I believe it was in the spring of 2014—a very similar motion was brought forward in order to pass Bill C-23 through committee. There was a start date proposed; there was an end date proposed.

If I may, I will read an excerpt from the committee blues at that time. It was moved by the member Tom Lukiwski and the motion that was moved at that time was:

That the Committee, in relation to its Order of Reference from the House concerning C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, initiate a study on this legislation, which will include the following:

That the Committee, as per its usual practice, hear witnesses to be determined by the Committee at a later date;

That the Committee shall only proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill after these hearings have been completed, provided that clause-by-clause consideration shall be concluded no later than Thursday, May 1, 2014 and, if required, at 5:00 p.m., on that day, all remaining amendments shall be deemed moved, and the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate, on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the Committee, as well as each and every question necessary (i) to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, (ii) to report the Bill to the House, and (iii) to order the Chair to report the Bill to the House as early as possible.

It's interesting. At that point, all of the Conservative members, including Scott Reid and Blake Richards, who used to be on this committee, voted in favour of this motion. Right now, in the last few meetings, I've heard some outrage that we can't possibly be thinking about a start date or an end date by any means, that this is not fair and we need to give the committee time.

I would argue that this committee has been given a lot of time. We have essentially adopted a lot of what the CEO has said, and we have spent several meetings on that previously in this committee, not to mention the 53 witnesses we've heard from already, after the legislation was brought to this committee. We've given it ample consideration, so I think it's time that we pass this legislation and allow Canadians to access their right to vote. We need to make sure that we bring forward the important amendments, and the Conservatives have definitely done so. They've brought hundreds of amendments forward. We'd like to get to work on those amendments and begin the clause-by-clause.

Just to reiterate, my motion was that we start the clause-by-clause on October 2. May I also remind the Conservatives that at the meeting we had last Thursday, there was a commitment made that we would start clause-by-clause earlier than that. September 27 was the commitment that was made at that time, so we're allowing for even more flexibility, in order to start by October 2 and then have everything completed by October 16.

Hopefully, when I give up my spot as a speaker after this, I'm not going to hear the type of outrage that we heard last time, because the Conservatives in this committee are quite familiar with this and did exactly the same thing when they brought their so-called Fair Elections Act.