Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 15th, 2021

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I would like to come back to an issue that is important to me.

You said previously, in another appearance, that there was an opportunity to have voting over three days, in other words, a weekend and the Monday. I understand that it's evolving and that you've done your work, but I don't understand the statistic that more people would be present on two days than on three days.

Logically, it seems to me, if we have a pool of Canadians voting over three days, the distribution of votes is certainly over three days. So there would be fewer people and less risk.

Could you explain in a little more detail your logic when you say that there would be fewer people at one time over two days and that it would be safer?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Of course.

What I'm saying is that there will be no more distancing over three days if we have access to fewer places. There are limits to how far people can travel to vote.

First, if there are fewer venues and we have to concentrate the electorate because we don't have enough venues for all three days, we lose what we are trying to gain. It's hard to say exactly what would be best, but there isn't necessarily a gain to be made by adding a third day if there's a loss on the polling place side.

Second, the locations that won't be the usual locations at that time may be less accessible and further away. The three‑day option is attractive. My first reaction when we looked at this option—

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I don't want to interrupt you. However, on this point, you always say—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's all the time we have, Mr. Lauzon.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

... “if there are fewer polling stations”. However, if we have the same number of stations—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We will be moving on to Mr. Therrien for six minutes.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to extend my greetings to Mr. Perrault, Mr. Roussel and Ms. Lawson. I'm very happy that they're here today.

Mr. Perrault, you tabled a report on October 5. You came to see us and explained why we should have a two‑day voting period on Saturday and Sunday. This would give us more space, provide a greater selection of locations and make the schools an option over the weekend. I'll let you address that.

The Bloc Québécois lobbied hard [Technical difficulty—Editor]. We did so because you, the election expert, motivated us.

When we bring people of your calibre to the committee to discuss a topic that you know and know well, I think that we must listen to you. I lobbied hard for the vote to be held on Saturday and Sunday. You're going even further and saying that, if it can't be done on Saturday and Sunday, we should just do it on Monday. I completely understand your argument. At the time, I didn't understand it in that way, but now I understand it more and more. If you want a place that's available on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, the choice becomes more and more difficult and increasingly limited. As a result, this will keep people away from the polls. Is that right?

I understood that schools were more available over the weekends. However, you added that looking for availability on Saturdays, Sundays and Mondays will make the supply scarce and keep people away from the polls. That's what I understood. Is that right?

[Stéphane Perrault]

That's right.

Recruitment issues will also start to come up. That's a challenge under any circumstances. However, in terms of polling stations, it's exactly as you said.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you. I completely agree with you. I made this request my main focus.

I want to address the signature collection. You spoke about it briefly, because you didn't have much time.

We said that we could collect signatures electronically. You're proposing a more user‑friendly solution. I'll let you explain it to us, because I somewhat understood your presentation. I want you to elaborate on this topic.

[Stéphane Perrault]

It can be done electronically at this time, but it must be done in the presence of a witness. Right now, someone can print a form, sign it with a witness, take a [Technical difficulty—Editor].

We could have a completely online system, without having to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We've been having some sound issues. It happened a couple of times, and I just want to make sure we resolve it before it happens again. It cut out a little when Mr. Therrien was speaking earlier and then again during the response. I want to make sure everyone is hearing everything clearly.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Justin Vaive]

Madam Chair, we'll look into what's going on with the sound here in the room.

There has been a bit of a recurring problem in this meeting, which you and some other members noticed. It's something that's been happening in other committees as well. They're trying to address it.

For the time being, there's no quick fix. If there is any incomprehension because of those little glitches, witnesses and members may need to repeat themselves if everyone has not understood what is going on. That's the best we can do for now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I think, and we could pose the question to other members, that the disruption was very minor and that everyone still understood the flow of the conversation. I know I sure did, but I wanted to nip it in the bud before it became a bigger problem and we missed a big chunk.

That's good to know. If any of the members find that they have missed something, alert me and we can slow things down.

I'm so sorry, Mr. Perrault. I hope you remember where you were in your response. You had just begun. Could you start from the beginning?

[Stéphane Perrault]

I think I'll have to repeat a little bit.

To put this in context, I said that the electronic signature process was possible, but that it required a witness. This makes the process much more complicated.

If we want an electronic system—and I think that we should be looking at this over the longer term—we should first consider removing the witness requirement. Some provinces or territories don't have this requirement.

We should also develop business processes and an electronic system that works well. I would say that, with all the other things involved in elections, including the work with seniors and the system changes related to date changes—about 40 systems are used in elections—it may seem simple, but it isn't. I don't recommend doing this on a short‑term basis, because there's way too much involved.

I'm saying that, if we want to reduce the burden and contact associated with signatures over the short term, we can cut back on the number of signatures. Most provinces and territories in Canada require far fewer signatures. Nova Scotia requires five, Saskatchewan requires four, Ontario requires 25 and Quebec requires 100. There's a whole range.

At the federal level, the requirement is also 100 signatures, but we could lower that number to [Technical difficulty—Editor] for example, or 25. This would ensure that the process is maintained, but without as many contact requirements at the start of the election.

In my view, the easiest way to minimize contact is to reduce the number of signatures.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you. That's very clear.

I'll ask you another question. I've spoken to the minister about this situation. He considers you a very important part of the decision‑making process. I just want to make sure that this is part of your authority under the act.

Suppose that it's June and an election is called. We're currently seeing cases decrease more and more. However, in September, who will determine whether we're still in a pandemic and whether Bill C‑19 still applies?

Is it you? Is it public health? Is it the bill? How will this work?

[Stéphane Perrault]

According to the bill, if it passes, I must consult with Dr. Tam and decide whether the accommodations are still necessary.

For example, if I still need to provide varied and specific services to each senior centre, even though infection rates have dropped, I can't say that we're finished with the pandemic. I'm still relying on exceptional measures.

As long as I need to use the exceptional measures in Bill C‑19, it means that we're still in a pandemic situation.

Once I'm no longer considering this, and after consulting with public health, I'll issue a notice and the provisions will stop [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Is the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Perrault. That's all the time we have.

Thank you, Mr. Therrien.

Mr. Blaikie, six minutes please.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

One of the issues that I think we've discussed before is the question of how many more people are likely to use special or mail-in ballots in the context of a pandemic election. Under the current process, if I understand correctly, people have to produce a copy of their identification for Elections Canada, which is as it should be. In the context of a pandemic election, there's concern that people who don't have access to a photocopier or a scanner or to the Internet may struggle in order to be able to get Elections Canada not only their application but also the accompanying supporting documents that prove their identity.

I'm wondering what plans you have for that. There has been discussion at committee before about the idea of authorizing staff at Canada Post outlets to essentially do the ID verification process on behalf of Elections Canada, so that they could certify the identity of the person who then puts the application in the mail at the Canada Post outlet and that part is done. Then the person doesn't have to interact with Elections Canada by Internet or have access to a photocopier. Their ID would have been established at the point of mailing in their application.

I'm just wondering what thinking has gone on by you and your office in terms of how to square the circle for voters who either don't have a reliable Internet connection or aren't able to access a photocopier or scanner, and how they would access mail-in voting in a pandemic context.

[Stéphane Perrault]

It's actually a very interesting proposition. As you know, electors do have to produce a document form of an address even if that is only a letter of attestation, for example, for seniors living in long-term care facilities. It may not require a photocopy, but in some cases it will pose a bit of a barrier.

There is no legal impediment that I'm aware of—certainly not in our legislation—to having Canada Post employees validate the identity and address of a person in-person, viewing their documents and then certifying that in a process that we could establish with Canada Post. In fact, there have been some discussions with Canada Post to that effect.

I cannot speak for Canada Post and to what extent they would be prepared to go there or what time they would require to do that. It's something that's being looked at, but I certainly cannot commit or say anything on behalf of Canada Post.

What I can say, however, is that the same kind of interaction is possible at the office of the returning officer, or there are sometimes in large districts additional offices for assistant returning officers. Though not as many certainly as postal outlets, there are places where people can go to and, in person, obtain a special ballot.

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

Thank you very much for that answer. I appreciate getting your thoughts on the matter.

With respect to the special ballot when people receive it, we know that under the current rules, people have to have the spelling of the first and last name of the candidate in their district, which normally doesn't seem to have been that much of a problem, although I've certainly seen it sometimes where people know what party they want to vote for, or they identify the candidate in a way other than their first and last name. It seems to me that the magnitude of the problem increases proportionately to the number of people who are voting by mail, because they don't have the option simply to mark an X now on a fixed list of the candidates.

I'm wondering if there has been some thought given to the virtue of allowing people to identify candidates in a way other than the correct spelling of their first and last names. For instance, would having a party affiliation be good enough for the purposes of indicating intent on a special ballot?

[Stéphane Perrault]

It is an important issue. I know that some jurisdictions allow the electorate to vote just by the name of the party with which the candidate is affiliated. It raises a question, to be frank, for the independent candidates, so that's something that you'll want to consider. I do agree that for many electors it makes it simpler and avoids the risk of a void ballot by having the option of expressing their voting intention by the party name.

I should note that if there's a spelling error, that is not sufficient to set aside the ballot. It has to be clear what the intention is, of course. A mere spelling error would not be sufficient, but in some cases, you're right. Some electors forget and they're quite certain of their party preference. That's certainly an option to avoid setting aside ballots in that case, but that would require a legislative amendment.

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

Okay.

In the exceptional case that some candidates share the same first and last name, how do people typically differentiate between them on a special ballot?

[Stéphane Perrault]

I have to say I don't know the answer to that. Perhaps Monsieur Roussel or Madam Lawson knows the answer to that.

Normally on the ballot, you would ask for an additional surname to identify the person, but on a special ballot, of course, that increases the risk of confusion and of the elector perhaps not knowing that additional surname. Again, that may be a good example, though rare, where the party affiliation would assist.

I'll take that under advisory. I would suspect that, in that case, the name with the combined party affiliation may be sufficient to identify the intention because the name is not incorrect in that case.

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

Right.