Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 19th, 2020

[Stéphane Perrault]

Most of it has been engaged, in the sense that we have procured, for example, supplies. We've not necessarily paid for those supplies, but the money is engaged.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Good stuff, so in some of those categories, you've sort of committed funds based on those contracts.

I want to get down to some specific questions now.

We've heard from multiple stakeholders—and you included when we heard from you earlier on—that with the vote-by-mail process, in terms of the capacity for dealing with a large influx of electors who may want to vote by mail, we can anticipate that influx ahead of time.

To what degree is that increase being prioritized in your estimates of costs? How are we increasing the capacity? Could you unpack that a little more for me, from a budgetary perspective?

[Stéphane Perrault]

I certainly can do that.

You won't see a lot of the costs in the estimates. There's some of that money.... For example, there's roughly $10 million that's earmarked—Mr. Limoges will correct me if necessary—for the mail itself, including prepaid postage. For the first time, we will have prepaid postage for the mail-in ballots, so that people do not abstain from voting due to that reason. That's one expense.

We've also procured additional machinery to prepare and assemble the kits before they're sent out. There's an additional expense for that. I believe it's around $900,000, but we can confirm that.

Most of the work is not about expenses. It's about designing the process and reviewing the procedures. We will have a decentralized process. I think I explained that when I appeared last time, so I apologize if I'm repeating myself.

It's critical for us to be able to manage what we think will be up to five-million mail-in ballots, and to break that down in chewable chunks. To deal with that, we will deal with it locally. Each returning office will have additional staff and space to receive and process applications and then to process the count. That's essentially the strategy for the national election.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you very much. That's very helpful.

I think many of us believe in a streamlined process—making that as easy as possible—and being able to deal with the large number that will be coming in effectively.

The other thing I've been concerned about and asked many witnesses about is the information campaign and reassuring voters about the safety of the different methods of voting. Obviously there are additional costs to following the public health guidelines in terms of how we set up sites and deal with foot traffic coming through the various polling locations, but I think the information campaign is probably also going to increase or will need to increase. I'm anticipating that, and I'm kind of assuming that.

I think that's maybe one of your other expense categories that will increase. Is that correct? Can you tell us how much and what the plans are for that?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Absolutely. I think it's a very important question.

The amount is $3 million that we have earmarked for that campaign. It's a lot of money. It's a very important aspect of the election in the pandemic. It's also related to mail-in voting. To all extent possible, we want people to vote in the regular way. If they feel that they can safely go to their local polling location as they normally do, and they are reassured that they can do so in a safe way, they will do so, and it will facilitate the work for everybody, including our poll workers.

The two things are very, very closely tied. It's one thing to prepare for a large mail-in vote, but you do not want to push everybody to vote by mail because they don't understand the safety measures in place.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

That's a good point.

Can I check with you on what percentage increase that would be compared with a normal general election outside of the pandemic context?

[Stéphane Perrault]

We could come back with the details, but it's roughly $20 million in a general election.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Is it increasing by $3 million?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Yes.

We'll come back with those numbers, if you'll allow me, to be clear.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

That would be great. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Therrien, you have six minutes.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Good morning, Mr. Perrault, Mr. Roussel and Mr. Limoges. I am very happy to have you joining us virtually.

You take care of the funding issue for political parties, of course. Is that right?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Yes, absolutely.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

The Bloc Québécois was the only party that did not apply for the emergency wage subsidy. In the beginning, that subsidy was not intended for political parties. As far as I understand, when regulations were passed, a breach was created allowing political parties to use the wage subsidy to fill their coffers during the pandemic.

The Liberal Party received that subsidy, and it apparently stopped doing so it in September. The Conservatives did the same thing, but they also stopped receiving the subsidy in September. Those two parties will not repay what they received.

The Green Party and the NDP continue to receive money through the wage subsidy, even though that was intended for struggling businesses at risk of closing. Yet I have never seen a political party shut down because of insufficient funding.

Were you told by the government that political parties could receive money through that subsidy?

[Stéphane Perrault]

We have not discussed this issue with the government. Unless I'm mistaken, a political party did ask us a question on the topic, but I could check.

According to the rules governing the funding of political parties, not all income necessarily comes from contributions. Parties have various sources of income. That may include investment income and income from bank accounts, though there is not much income from those sources nowadays. There can also be goods and services tax, or GST, credits for all sorts of things.

As long as it is income to which much larger groups have access and is not provided to parties because they are parties or for reasons specific to their role, those are not regulated contributions.

I know what the Bloc Québécois' position is and I know that Parliament will have to deal with this matter. According to the regime in place, those are not contributions, but a source of income among those provided for in the legislation.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I understand, but you are talking about political parties' investment income. It's fine if they decide to make investments or deposit money into an account to get a return. Political parties can manage their coffers as they like. However, we are here talking about public money coming from taxpayers' dollars being used to fund political parties' election activities. What's more, this will lead to additional costs for the government through the chief electoral officer, or CEO. That is duplication of funding because the money filling political parties' coffers will lead to an increase in funding provided by the CEO.

I understand the parallel you made. You are talking about the Bloc Québécois' position. I can tell you that we are very proud not to have taken taxpayers' money. We expect only our sympathizers to fund our election activities. We are confident in them and they in us, obviously.

The current system does not provide for the public funding of political parties. However, the pandemic has led to the appearance of public funding.

Should we question public funding through such misappropriation? We should check what political parties would like to have and how to provide them with public funding, instead of finding roundabout ways to receive funding, which favours parties that do not deserve it.

[Stéphane Perrault]

I won't take a position in the debate. This questioning is certainly legitimate.

There are other tax credits the parties, like other entities, can have access to—for example, GST credits. This should perhaps be considered. In any case, that is money from public funding, and political parties are entitled to it, but the money is not regulated. It is money that contributes to parties' financial capacity.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I will ask a question, even though I think I know the answer. I'm not a fool.

As the great cherub of this election legislation, are you not uncomfortable with the situation?

[Stéphane Perrault]

My role is to enforce the act and its rules, and not to take a position on things that are not part of the regulatory framework. I think that was the answer you were expecting, right?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Yes, that's right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Mr. Blaikie, go ahead please.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

I take your point that the estimates were submitted in advance of the pandemic, so they don't reflect additional pandemic spending. There is quite a bit more spending projected under the statutory authority.

I'm wondering if you can speak a little bit to why the projected statutory spending is as high as it is and the extent to which.... I know you talked about—and correct me if I'm wrong—some of the pandemic preparation coming out of your statutory authorities. Because I noticed there is no submission for your office in the supplementary estimates (B), I'm wondering how that works.

Do you anticipate needing any further voted authorities from Parliament, or are you comfortable that you can respond to the possibility of a snap election and the pandemic within existing statutory authorities?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Just to be clear, I do not expect to ask for additional funds from the annual vote, which is for the permanent staff, so that will remain. I don't think I will be needing additional money there.

For the rest of the statutory authority, I am not required to go through Parliament. In the past we have sometimes made projections through the supplementary estimates in terms of transparency. In recent years, the Treasury Board has indicated that we need not go there, that typically our amounts are not sufficiently material to go through the estimates, so I don't know how that will take place this year. They are only there for transparency reasons.

I'd like to come back to your initial question because there are a few elements to it. The first point I would make before I go there, however, is that the estimates were submitted not only prior to the pandemic but prior to the results of the last election. Therefore, the minority status was not factored in.

There are two aspects. What was factored in was $85.5 million. I can break that down a little bit. If you look at that, there is, for example, $9 million for licences and leases, $15 million for the salaries of terms and casuals, and $17 million for professional services. There is also money related to the last election in there, so there are expenses that were still being paid in this fiscal year for the last general election.

If you look, then, at the $99 million I indicated in my remarks, there's $52 million for, essentially, protective measures and adaptations for the pandemic. The balance of that, the main items—and I'd be happy to provide details to the committee—has $7.3 million to deploy hardware in regional offices. That's the package, including all of the IT equipment that's used in our offices, the installation of the software and deploying it locally. There's also a Canada Post monthly fee to maintain that in the local so that we're ready if an election is called.

We have $7.5 million in expenses for returning offices, regional meetings, training and special assignments, such as engaging with indigenous communities and engaging with long-term care facilities.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

On that point, if I may, because it's a good segue to some other questions I have, I might just ask if you could table that breakdown with the committee. That would be very much appreciated.

I know you just mentioned engagement with first nation communities. We had the Assembly of First Nations here at committee, which you may well know. I imagine you're following our study closely.

One of the things they indicated was some frustration on the part of particular first nations that had wanted polling stations in their community and didn't feel that they were able to get them. I'm wondering what you are planning to change in terms of outreach.

The other thing we heard was that the earlier you're able to start in terms of that outreach and the earlier that you might be able to identify and begin to train some people in local first nation communities who would like to have polling stations, the better off they'll be in order to be able to respond.

I'm wondering what work you're doing now and what kinds of resources are being dedicated to being able to prepare first nation communities that want to have polling stations in their community in the context of this pandemic we're all living through. What can they expect from Elections Canada?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Those are very good, important questions for us. The issue of having polling sites on reserves has been an ongoing challenge for us over the years. It's something that we tried to improve in the last election. We did try to engage, and we did engage ahead of the last election with local first nations reserves in order to increase the presence.

Now, first nations do not always wish to have a polling site. I know for Monsieur Therrien in his riding that this has been a historical situation where we have not been successful in having a polling site there. We have to respect that, but we do have to make efforts to make sure we can respond to the demands of first nations and that they're engaged earlier rather than later.

In the last election there was an increase, but not as much as we would have liked. We had 389 reserves with polling sites, compared with 366 in the previous election. It was a small increase. There were a few instances where first nations would say they did not want to have a polling site, and once the edicts were issues and there were local discussions, then they wished to have a polling site. This is a challenge, but to the extent possible we've adjusted to that. I do not know of a single case where we were not able to accommodate a request for a polling site at a first nations community.

In terms of what we're doing, we will have returning officers engaging locally. We plan to have them start in January or February, after Christmas, with first nations reserves. Whether or not there is an election—this is not an indication—they will be starting to engage with first nations to talk about sites, but also to talk about safety measures and recruitment.

We want as much as possible to have first nations serving their communities, so the more we can recruit locally, the better it is for us. It helps simplify the process for everybody.