Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 2nd, 2019

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Well, it seems to be what you said.

[Stéphane Perrault]

What I have said, Mr. Chair, is that if the commissioner wants to engage in a conversation regarding the importance, for example, of a provision of the act, the integrity of the regime, that is a sound thing. I think the Commissioner of Canada Elections, who enforces the act, and the Chief Electoral Officer need to have a common view on how the regime operates and what the more important aspects of the regime are.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Well, I think, given that you've acknowledged that you can have conversations with the commissioner, you should have a conversation about how it is even possible for an enterprise like SNC-Lavalin to carry out this kind of patent, four-year running fraud involving 18 employees to funnel money, 93% of which went to one political party—the party whose government appointed you to your position—and not face one single day in court for it.

You offered your opinion on a lot of different things over the years. Can you at least offer your opinion on whether you think that state of affairs is correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do so briefly, because the seven minutes are up.

[Stéphane Perrault]

Mr. Chair, I would simply point to the compliance agreement as drafted by the commissioner, in which he was at pains to explain the evidence obtained by SNC-Lavalin and the fact that this was a critical aspect of pursuing the matter. As I said before, the existence or absence of evidence supporting a prosecution is of course critical to the ability to do a prosecution. Anything beyond that relates to the investigation itself, and I cannot speak to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Now we go to Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair. With your permission I'd like to move from inquisition back to the matter at hand.

My question to you, first of all, would be, what was the biggest challenge of implementing Bill C-76? What was the toughest part of it?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Certainly, there was quite a large effort required in changing the IT systems that are affected. It's not something that is easy to appreciate from the outside, but many of the business processes in running a launch involve IT systems, and doing comprehensive changes to IT systems in the months leading up to an election is a challenge.

We were able to do it; I can say with confidence that these changes were made. They were tested in January; they were then stress-tested to the volume, and exceeding the volumes, that you can expect in a general election; and they were deployed in a simulated election. We've handled that challenge and we're confident. I am certainly confident going into this election.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have some security questions, and I know Mr. Graham has too. I can do them now, but I have a funny feeling that they still might be better done in camera, because I want to drill down a bit. I'll leave that to the end, however, and we can make a determination.

As much as the government gets credit for Bill C-76 and unravelling some of the ugliness that was in the “unfair elections act” that the previous government enacted, the way they did it was ham-fisted and borderline incompetent.

However, am I correct in stating that the government, like the previous party in power, did not change the law regarding parties submitting receipts? It's my understanding that for years and years we've been trying to get to the point that parties should have to provide receipts in the same way candidates do when you are evaluating whether they are entitled to their subsidies.

I can't think of the number right now off the top of my head, but $76 million comes to mind, though that could just be a number I'm pulling out of thin air. It's a huge amount of money that the parties get subsidies for, and they don't have to provide receipts.

Is that still the case?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Yes, that's the case. The number you're looking for is $76 million.

We are the only electoral jurisdiction, I believe, in Canada that does not have access to any supporting documentation for parties, so I was disappointed that this was not a part of Bill C-76.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, it is just unbelievable that we've gone through two regimes that changed the law and both have said no to parties having to provide receipts. How the heck do you get subsidy dollar one from the Canadian government without a receipt if they ask for it? This has to be the only example, and it's such an abomination in our democracy; it truly is.

This is my last kick at this thing, which is why I'm going at it. This is just unacceptable.

How many millions of that $76 million should not go to the political parties—my own included—when they're not even providing receipts? We do not know. I put the blame for this squarely with this government and the previous government, who refuse to hold themselves to the same account that they demand from everybody else who deals with government. If there's anything to write about in terms of big things that still need to be done to fix our democracy.... People think security, and that's legitimate, but accountability, folks: $76 million of subsidies goes to political parties with no receipts. Unbelievable.

Now I want to turn to security, so I'll just ask the questions, Chair, and I'll leave it to you and the witnesses to determine whether we should stay in public or not.

Right now, what do you see as the single biggest macro threat to our election?

[Stéphane Perrault]

I can only refer to the recent report of the Communications Security Establishment, which is a public report. It says basically that the biggest threat is disinformation and the biggest target is the ordinary voter. That's the biggest target, and that's why we think it's important in the lead-up to the election to have an awareness campaign to make sure that Canadians check their sources.

We have no indication that there are any foreign actors who intend to favour one party versus another. We have no sense that this is the concern. I think the general sense is that there's an interest in undermining the electoral process itself and the willingness of Canadians to participate and trust in the electoral process. That's where our focus is going to be.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Where are we expecting these threats?

[Stéphane Perrault]

It's not for me to speak to that. It's for a national security agency.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Don't you need to know that, though?

[Stéphane Perrault]

It really doesn't change what we do. Our role is to protect our infrastructure. Our role is to correct misinformation about the voting process. Our role is to educate Canadians. Whether the disinformation comes from one country or another or whether it's internal to Canada really does not affect our response to this. It affects Global Affairs; it certainly affects CSIS, for example, or CSE, but not Elections Canada.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I see.

I assume that there is a plan in place to be evaluating this question throughout the election. Then, I would also be interested in what your plans are for everybody to regroup after the election, in terms of security, to see what worked, what didn't work and how well we defended our system.

[Stéphane Perrault]

These are two good points.

In terms of regrouping, we're not there yet, but it is certainly something that is high on my mind. After the election we'll have to touch base to see what happened. What we are doing now, as indicated, is working using scenarios—tabletop exercises with security partners—to make sure that we each understand what the other can do, what the boundaries are, what the contact points are, so that the governance is clear and that nothing falls between the cracks and that we operate efficiently, if we need to intervene during the election.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay.

Are you in consultation if not outright coordination with other allies that are facing the same problem?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Absolutely. First of all, we take part in various forums that exist around the world and have discussed this issue. We've been in Estonia—I believe last March. There was a forum at the OAS as well this year. We have what we call the four countries, which are the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—the Five Eyes?

[Stéphane Perrault]

—well, without the Americans.

We are a group that are in fairly constant communication. I will be in London this summer engaging them, looking at what will have occurred in the Australian election, which is just happening. We are, then, keeping abreast of the issues around the world.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Mr. Bittle.

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

Thank you all for being here today.

Can you remind me when the commissioner was appointed?

[Stéphane Perrault]

I believe it was in 2012, but I'd have to confirm.