Evidence of meeting #91 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 security.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Robert Graham  Administration and Personnel Officer, Parliamentary Protective Service
Superintendent Jane MacLatchy  Director, Parliamentary Protective Service
Michel Patrice  Deputy Clerk, Administration
Charles Robert  Clerk of the House of Commons
Stéphane Perrault  Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Michel Roussel  Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Electoral Events and Innovation, Elections Canada

12:50 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Thanks, Chair.

I agree that there are some detailed questions that are best asked and answered in camera. But there are some general questions, I think, that can be asked. For instance, I know a little bit about security from past life, and I would imagine that you're working with the national security agencies which is where our state of the art best efforts would be. We also know that there's very little that we do completely independent of our allies, particularly the U.S.. It's reported today, I just want to know if this applies. It's reported today that the President of the United States has still not given an absolute direction to the security forces of the U.S. to take whatever action necessary. That straight up order has not yet been given, as I'm reading in the news today. I'm just wondering if they haven't issued that order and their national security apparatus isn't seized of the issue formerly on direction from the commander in chief, then how much is there for our security agencies to tap into if they're not doing anything? In other words, I doubt we would do it alone. We would want to do it in concert. We're allies. We have common international opponents. Therefore I would think we would do things in concert if they don't have that order and aren't moving forward, where does that leave us? Is that a huge problem for us that the U.S. has not engaged in the way the world would kind of expect on their own cyber problems, and how does that relate to us given the overlap of our security apparatus with theirs?

12:50 p.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

A couple of elements to answer. It's not just going to be a full answer to that. We have been working very closely with the communications security establishment. They provide, first of all, standards that we need to meet. Second of all, they assist us in the procurement of technology, and they do supply chain integrity for us. We know that we're buying from trusted partners. Thirdly, they provide advice. We've included aspects in our procurement. Whether it's the poll books that we're going to use at the polls or the hosting services, they've advised us on including certain requirements in the RFP which are some of the costs that I referred to. We're getting the advice from the real experts with this communication security establishment, and we're also having a third party come in and do an independent audit. So we're being very careful about that.

In terms of security partners, I've asked to start engaging with our partners in Canada. CSIS, the RCMP, PCO, I expect meetings to occur very shortly where we will begin a conversation leading up to the next election. We do that at every election. This election is a bit different than others perhaps because of the experience around the world. But we go through scenarios and explore roles and responsibilities and the interventions that may be required. This is something that we should be starting in the coming months.

12:50 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Okay. I'll follow up, but I think the details of that should be best in camera.

I have one last question, Chair, before we go in camera.

In your report, you mentioned two bills outstanding in Parliament. You can't answer this but I'm going to take the opportunity, since we have a gaggle of parliamentary secretaries today, which Mr. Bittle was good enough to give me a heads-up on. Since we are blessed with such power concentrated in this one little committee today, perhaps one of them can give us the assurance that, notwithstanding the politics of the House and everything, the government's intent is that this legislation will be passed in a timely enough fashion for Elections Canada to act on.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson, for that. I have to apologize. I was deep in thought on a previous point you had made and missed your final point. Were you talking about—

12:55 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

You were sleeping again through my comments.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS

I was enjoying thinking about your prior comments. Which piece specifically are you talking about?

12:55 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

The report this morning says there are two bills. I'm trying to think of the numbers. I think one of them—

12:55 p.m.

An hon. member

It's Bill C-33.

12:55 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Thanks, Bill C-33, and there's another one. Anyway, those two bills have been through us, but they're waiting. They need them passed, and I'm just asking if we can get some assurance from the government that they're going to be made law so that Elections Canada can act, because time is running out.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS

You can predict the answer. Of course, we want to move them as quickly as we can to get them both in place for the next election, but many variables are beyond our control. This committee is one of them.

12:55 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

I think they're already past this committee. They haven't even been to this committee. Bill C-33 has got a lot of the big changes. Is this going to be a problem, Chair? I'll leave it open ended, but I've got to tell you there's going to be hell to pay if we went through all that work and Elections Canada is raring to go and that legislation doesn't get through Parliament. You can blame the opposition all you want; you're the majority government; you control the House; you control everything. I'm a little disappointed that one of you isn't confident enough in your own government's ability to pass legislation so you'd give us that assurance today.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Mr. Miller.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Miller Liberal Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC

I can guarantee that I'll wield the immense power that I hold within government to move this forward.

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

12:55 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Yes, well it's funny until it doesn't get done and then it's not so funny.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Before we go in camera, and so we don't have to come back in public, can we do the votes that we have to do on the estimates?

We'll do the votes 1 for the House, for Elections Canada, and PPS.

HOUSE OF COMMONS Vote 1—Program Expenditures..........$86,751,081

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER Vote 1—Program Expenditures..........$7,692,230

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

PARLIAMENTARY PROTECTIVE SERVICE Vote 1—Program Expenditures..........$20,700,000

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

Shall I report the votes of the interim estimates to the House?

12:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

We'll go in camera quickly. Don't leave your seats.

[Proceedings continue in camera]