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

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

It also allows a bit more freedom. I recognize that there are some formal constraints on you that you've been very careful to honour, in addition to those that are provided just by your careful nature; those might be removed, and that would be valuable to us.

I want to ask some questions that relate to several things, first of all to testimony you gave before the electoral reform committee last July. Second, there are the items that you did mention briefly—or the general subject matter, at any rate—in your report on the 42nd election.

At that time in July, I and a number of other members of the committee asked about the feasibility of conducting a referendum on electoral reform, given the tight timeline and the potential for redistribution under some of the models that are proposed, and so on. You submitted a very thorough response.

Those who say that a referendum cannot take place on electoral reform, as opposed to those who say it should not take place, have tended to provide a couple of arguments, one of which is that Elections Canada is not in a position to administer a referendum administratively. You responded a bit to that back in July. I am hoping that I'll be able to find out whether that is in fact the case or not the case.

Back in July, you stated in response to a question from me:

I can confirm with the committee that we've started to develop contingency plans, trying to identify what would need to be done.

You pointed out, of course, that a referendum has not been held since 1992, and said:

We've started to identify work that need[s] to be pursued to—

Have you made further progress in that regard?

[Marc Mayrand]

We have advanced our contingencies in that regard. We haven't done any public activities to suggest that we are actually getting ready, so that's why I insisted at the time—and would insist again today—that we needed six months' notice.

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

Yes.

[Marc Mayrand]

There are several procurement activities, for example, that need to take place.

Otherwise, we continue to refine what I call a contingency plan, describing in more detail what needs to be done if we were to run a referendum—by the spring, I guess.

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

Right. You mentioned in response to a question from Gérard Deltell at that meeting that you “would need to redo all the training manuals for elections staff” and you mentioned that this is necessary in order “to train the 255,000 Canadians who...administer elections”—I assume a similar number for referenda—and you estimated that “about 15 computer systems would need to be adapted”. Have you been able to do any work in that regard?

[Marc Mayrand]

Again, we have just identified the tasks to be performed, but we have not actually started to carry out those tasks.

First we need to update the regulation under the Referendum Act. That's the very first thing that needs to be done, because that sets out the specific tasks and the variances that exist with the normal conduct of an election. Bringing that regulation up to date would be the top priority for Elections Canada. It has been done once in the last 10 years, so it needs to be revised, updated, and tabled before Parliament.

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

You in fact did an update to one aspect of the act: you drafted the regulations, which were then approved by order in council in 2010.

How much time would be required for you to do a similar update, if you were asked? Could you do so proactively?

[Marc Mayrand]

We would need to have it in place very early on, when the notice is given, because it's a key instrument that determines what will go into the manuals for the training of poll officials.

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

Also, there's a tariff of fees which appears not to have been updated since 1992. I went through the act, and it appears to me that under subsection 542(1) of the act, it is done on your recommendation. The Governor in Council makes the actual regulation, but I gather that they are not empowered to do so unless you make a recommendation.

Would you be in a position simply to incorporate the fees that exist under the Canada Elections Act for those purposes, or would it require more than that?

[Marc Mayrand]

Given the time, I think that would be the likely approach. To the extent that the tasks are similar under an election or a referendum, we would propose the same tariff. Again, unless there are changes to the Referendum Act, it would be carried very much in the same framework as an election, so it would make sense to use the same tariff.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson is next.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your presentation, Mr. Mayrand.

I would just like to correct my friend Scott Reid. There are actually two of us who have served under the full tenure of Mr. Mayrand. However, the distinction is that while Mr. Reid is prepared to give you thanks and he formed government on your watch, I'm prepared to give you thanks and we never won a damn thing under your watch. It just goes to show you that I'm still here, but that wasn't the plan. We were going to be over there.

You've done a fantastic job, and I hope that the House—and I'm sure we will, Mr. Chair—get an opportunity to thank you properly.

As someone who has been here for all of your time and who has done at least six or seven international election observation missions in other countries, in emerging democracies around the world, I can tell colleagues and Canadians how blessed we are to have someone of your calibre, your professionalism, and your international renown and respect at the head of our elections. We're proud of our election system, no matter what some governments try to do to it. You've just been a class act, sir, all the way through. I thank you very much for your service to our country on behalf of our citizens.

[Marc Mayrand]

Thank you.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I want to mention—and I said this in camera, but I don't think I'm divulging anything—that I enjoy this exercise. It's a long, tedious exercise, but I have to say that I enjoy it. As someone who's been in public life now for over three decades, the Punch and Judy show, for those who might get that reference, gets old quick.

What is exciting and stimulating, I find, is when all of us set aside our party membership card and focus on one effort and on problem-solving. Given that the nature of our election laws is about making sure it's fair, it's not a partisan exercise. We bring our personal partisan experience, but in the main, the process involves all of us trying to make sure that we have a process that is as fair as possible to all the parties and all the candidates, one that all citizens get to participate in. It's challenging, and I find it very stimulating.

Given the group I've gotten to know on this committee, I look forward to a very stimulating exercise in trying to improve our system and keep as fair as it can possibly be.

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You've used three minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Good. Thanks.

There are two items I wanted to raise. I'm so glad to see the VIC in there, the voter identification card, given what we went through in the last round, struggling to keep this thing alive. Let me say again that the lie was put out that the thing couldn't be trusted, yet we had evidence, time after time after time from experts, that it is arguably the most up-to-date piece of information that Canadians can have in terms of their current address. It has actually accessed all the major database centres in the country—the health centres, the drivers' licensing, income tax. It was frustrating as heck going around the last time and having this argument that there were problems with it, when the reality is it's one of the most up-to-date and accurate pieces of information we can have.

I'm so glad you're bringing that back. It confused people in the last election, and I submit it was meant to be that way. I say that straight up. A lot of that stuff was meant to slow things down, cause frustration, and make people either stay home or go home. I'm so glad that we're back, hopefully, on a more positive track.

There's one question I wanted to ask. I looked a couple of times and I didn't see it. Another one of the bugaboos that's in our current law is that all the federal parties, mine included, can submit their subsidy requests—$50 million and $60 million comes to mind—with no receipts required.

I'm assuming we're going to close that loophole somewhere, Mr. Mayrand.

[Marc Mayrand]

Yes, there is a recommendation. I'm not sure if it's in chapter 2 or...but there is a recommendation.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I thought so. I couldn't find it. It also links with the issue of—just cut me off, Chair, when my time comes, as I know you'll do.

It's compelling testimony. Again, you can take an investigation only so far, but if you tell the police—and as a former solicitor general I know a bit about this too—that at the end of the day they can't force and compel, or the courts compel, to get the testimony, how far are you really going to get in an investigation?

We saw evidence, time and time again, of people who refused to be interviewed, refused to give answers, and there was no ability on the part of our officials to compel them to give that testimony.

Again, simple things like receipts to back up requests for tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money seem to me to be something we should fix. If there's an investigation going on, there needs to be the ability to compel testimony. That's something I hope we close off and improve.

I want to mention too that I liked your idea of the interim reports. This can go on awhile. As I said, it's tedious and it can go on for a while. There may be merit, Chair, in looking at breaking it off into chunks that we could then forward to the government, hopefully for their consideration or to put before the House, and then on to the government for their consideration to start putting it into legislation.

I think that's our goal. Rather than wait for the whole thing, all or nothing, let's get what we can in chunks and pieces, get it enacted, and then at the same time keep working here.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to this exercise. I want to end where I began in thanking you sincerely, sir, for all that you've done for Canada. It has made a difference. Thank you.

[Marc Mayrand]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I'm sure the committee agrees with all the commendations of all the members of the committee. Thank you.

Following up on David's last point, though, I think you have broken it into logical pieces for the committee to do. Can you repeat what those separations are in your report?

[Marc Mayrand]

Basically, there is what we call the narrative, which consists of two chapters. One deals with the electoral process, and that's where you will find the recommendations around modernization, inclusiveness, accessibility. The second chapter of the narrative deals with the regulatory regime, mainly political financing. That's where you will find the provisions that deal with various aspects, and I would point out that broadcasting needs to be updated, as well as the power of the commissioners and the administrative penalty regime that we propose.

Table B sets out a number of substantive recommendations that I believe deserve your attention, your consideration, and your study, but did not necessarily fit easily in part A.

The third table you'll find is table C, which is basically a list of technical minor amendments that are more meant for the PCO and drafters at the justice department. My view is that there are no substantive policy issues involved, but we need to harmonize language sometimes or clarify a point here and there. However, there's no substantive policy impact, I would say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Could we do an interim report on the recommendations in table A?

[Marc Mayrand]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

And give it to the government, and then do another one on table B?