Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 4th, 2016

[Marc Mayrand]

Again, depending on what comes out, certainly my preference is that the bill would advance through committee, have been reviewed and discussed, be at least at the report stage, and hopefully have received third reading in the House.

We need certainty. Depending on the scope of the changes—and they may be very significant—we need a degree of certainty. It may not be absolute certainty, but we need a certain degree of certainty so that we can embark on the preparation, which cannot be delayed unduly.

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

One of the problems that has become evident from witness testimony at the elections reform committee has been that certain kinds of changes to the system—I don't want to suggest all of them, but certain kinds—would potentially have to go before the Supreme Court for a reference.

For example, if you increased the number of seats in the House as a way of achieving some kind of additional list system—there have been suggestions to add, for example, 15% to the House—that might affect the proportionate representation of the provinces, which is guaranteed under section 53, if I'm not mistaken, of the Constitution Act, 1867, and you'd want to be sure before you proceeded that it was acceptable. Therefore, it is conceivable that you'd have a situation in which you would need to submit a reference case to the Supreme Court, and they would obviously take some time to respond back.

If this were layered on top of your attempts when you conceivably could start making changes and you then discovered they couldn't go forward, I don't need you to tell me this would be a problem, but the question is, how much of a problem? Is it a catastrophic problem, or is it something that could still be sorted out?

[Marc Mayrand]

It may lead to some costs, as we say in the jargon, in the sense that we have to rely on a proposal to do anything, and the best proposal would be what has been submitted to Parliament and, hopefully, endorsed at third reading, let's say, in our scenario. We would have to begin some work and advance the work that absolutely needs to be done if we want to be able to run the new system in 2019.

It's nothing new. We see from time to time that legislation is disputed on the basis of constitutional challenges. We saw that with citizens abroad in the last election, and there were even cases on the ID requirements. In those situations, we have to be ready for a possible scenario that may result from a court ruling. We need to take that contingency into consideration.

It did happen for citizens residing abroad. In the first instance, the court did rule in a certain way. We made changes to respect the court ruling, and suddenly the court of appeal, just before the election, changed course and reversed the decision, so we had to revert back.

I'm not sure how else we can deal with those situations. We need to be ready and agile enough to adjust quickly if events suddenly occur.

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

I don't have enough time. I'll come back in the third round with additional questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, go ahead, please.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you for being here with us today and for answering our questions. We very much appreciate it.

You mentioned in your report that computerization could be an essential tool for reducing errors and that it would help increase the confidence Canadians have in the integrity of voting operations.

How much time would it take to implement the computer system?

Could it be in operation for the next election?

[Marc Mayrand]

If the recommendations are approved and the government adopts these measures and amends the act accordingly, the system could be in operation for the next election. That is our objective.

We feel that computerizing the procedures would help greatly reduce the amount of paper used in polling stations. It would also have the effect of simplifying election workers' duties. There is no justification for complex forms when we can use smart forms that prevent anyone from moving on to the next stage of the questionnaire if he or she has not understood the previous question.

This is the kind of system we want to establish to ensure better record- and file-keeping in the polling stations. Those files would then be electronic.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I was a new candidate in the last election, and I found the amount of paper we received at the office inconceivable. So I am very pleased to learn we are headed in that direction.

[Marc Mayrand]

As you will see as well, with regard to the nomination of candidates, we also recommend that a significant amount of that kind information should be put online.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I am glad to hear that too.

Perhaps just to reiterate some of Mr. Christopherson's comments, I was really pleased to see that one of the recommendations was to reverse the ban on using voter information cards as a form of identification.

Could you perhaps outline or elaborate on the importance of the voter information card and could you describe how its use as identification could impact some groups of Canadians—perhaps Canadians in remote areas, people who are in long-term care facilities, or even our indigenous communities?

[Marc Mayrand]

The voter information card is the main instrument through which electors find out when the election is, when they can vote, and where they go to vote. It's an essential document that is sent across the country to each and every elector who is registered.

With regard to identification requirements, we find that there are groups of people who are more challenged when it comes time to prove their address—which is a requirement, I should mention, that is very exceptional around the world. There are very few jurisdictions that have a requirement to establish address. Even in Canada, there are only two or maybe three provinces, three jurisdictions, that require it. The federal level is the only one that does not accept either a note or the voter card as an alternative to proof of address. We are the only ones in that regard.

It is particularly significant for aboriginals living on-reserve who do not have an address. In many cases, there is no addressing system there, yet often we will have visited those reserves, knocked on doors, and registered those people, so we know where they live.

It's similar with seniors, and with the demographic trends and the aging of our population, I think the problem is going to get larger, not smaller. We have many seniors who live in seniors' homes where, again, we do enumeration and leave a form with them telling them we've seen them and they are registered, yet those people often don't have documents with them. They've been left with their family members or those who take care of them. We've seen incidents of people not being allowed to vote because they did not have any of the documents authorized under the legislation. Allowing the VIC—the voter information card—or the form we leave with seniors as a piece of ID establishing their address would help resolve that problem.

I would also point out, because it is something I care about greatly, that it's important to recognize that most seniors have voted all their lives. Voting is important to them, and very often it's the one act they can do on their own, depending on their stage in life. I think the solution that relies on attestation does not respect the dignity of our seniors. Again, I think having that document, which is issued by an official authority, would be more respectful of their dignity.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Merci.

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

None.

Mr. Reid, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you again.

The analogy that came to my mind during your last response to a question from me was that if a plane doesn't have enough fuel to either return to its original point or get to its destination, it hits a point of no return. I'm really asking if such a thing is imaginable in the situation of starting to work toward a new system in the context of dealing with a reference to establish the constitutional validity of the new model. I am emphasizing this primarily in connection with models that involve adding ridings to provinces, although it could come up in other situations as well. Under such a scenario, is there a point of no return at which you have a problem—you can't simply abort the landing and return to your point of origin, which is, of course, first past the post?

[Marc Mayrand]

I think I've mentioned on several occasions that we need at least two years. Two years back from 2019 brings us to 2017, as I have indicated. I rely on the commitment of the government to introduce and have legislation in place by, I believe, next spring. After June 2017, I think my successor will get very anxious and nervous about being able to conduct an election under a significantly changed system.

Again, there is still time, but the time is short, without a doubt.

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

Obviously, all the questions I've raised regarding a Supreme Court reference as to constitutionality apply to a referendum as well, because the real problem from your perspective is having certainty as to which direction to start travelling in.

[Marc Mayrand]

Yes, and again, I indicated in previous testimony that a referendum would have to be held essentially no later than the end of next spring. We're talking about June of next year, 2017, at the latest. In order to get there, for Elections Canada to get ready, we need six months' notice. Again, it's very tight, but we're still within the timelines.

A critical milestone for me will be the report from your committee. That would give us a sense of the consensus on the type of system that's being considered, so at least we can prepare some contingencies and start thinking more clearly about what the scenarios are.

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

I appreciate that. One of the problems we have is that the minister came before our committee the day after you attended, and she was asked directly by Elizabeth May whether, if the committee makes a recommendation, the cabinet will follow that recommendation as to a system, and the minister's response was, “We'll take it into consideration.”

Therefore the practical difficulty we have is that unless the government alters its position and says it will accept the committee's recommendation, you won't be certain as to which direction we're going in until the actual draft legislation is produced, which, as I understand it, would be taking place no earlier than when the House resumes sitting on the last day of January or the first day of February, something like that.

I think that is actually the conundrum that you're likely to face, unless the cabinet proactively indicates prior to December 1 that they will accept the recommendation of the committee, full stop.

[Marc Mayrand]

You're absolutely right, I think, but the committee and the reaction of the government to the report of the committee will at least be indicative of future direction. Right now, I don't know, and we don't have any.... If there is a system that's being contemplated seriously, an alternative system, at least we can start doing some contingency around it and begin to understand what it actually means in terms of delivery, but at this point there's too much on the table. It would be a useless effort, in my mind.

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

I have no more time, except once again to say, speaking personally this time, how much I appreciate your outstanding service over the past decade. Thank you very much.

[Marc Mayrand]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Just before we go to the next questioner, do the witnesses need a washroom break or coffee or anything?

[Marc Mayrand]

I'll get a bit of water.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead, Mr. Chan, please, for five minutes.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I was going to suggest that we take a break. I know you've gone a solid hour. It's up to you, David. I think the last two on the speakers list are you and me. I think I have the last five-minute round, and you have three minutes. I just want to give members of the committee an opportunity to go grab lunch. If you want to just keep plowing through until one o'clock, I'm good either way.