Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 15th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 31 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The first hour will be public with the Chief Electoral Officer, appearing on Bill C-19. For the second hour, the committee will move in camera to continue consideration of its draft report on its prorogation study.

The public portion of the meeting will be webcast on the House of Commons website. Today's meeting is taking place in hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members can attend in person or virtually.

All the members today are attending virtually, so please be mindful that the meeting is taking place over the Zoom application, and that you are not permitted to take any screenshots or photos of your screen.

I will remind all of you to make sure you have your interpretation on the language you are going to be speaking. It is okay to choose the floor language, if you're going to actually....

Do we not have a floor choice anymore? What's happened to that?

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

We do indeed, Madam Chair. That's usually the one that I'm in, and it seems to work well for interpretation, enabling switching between languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It is not showing up on my application today, so that is very weird. It usually does, and that just threw me off. I will figure that out later.

You have the choice of English, French or floor; I just don't today. With the latest Zoom version, you shouldn't have to switch back and forth. If anyone has a point of order, just unmute your microphone and state that you have a point of order. We have a list of questioners today, so we will have our regular rounds for questions.

Before us today, we have our Chief Electoral Officer. Long time no see and welcome back to our committee, Monsieur Perrault.

With him is Michel Roussel, the deputy chief electoral officer; and Anne Lawson, the deputy chief electoral officer for regulatory affairs.

Welcome back to committee. It's been a long time since we've seen all of you, and we're very happy to have you with us again.

I believe there are opening statements for about 10 minutes.

Mr. Perrault, I'll let you begin.

[Stéphane Perrault, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak with the committee today about Bill C‑19.

Given where we are in the parliamentary calendar, I want to start by saying a few words about our electoral readiness before addressing certain aspects of the bill.

Over the last year or so, we have undertaken extensive readiness activities, not only to prepare for the next election, but also to adjust to the circumstances of the pandemic and ensure that voting can take place safely.

We continue to engage a range of stakeholder groups across the country, as well as with a network of federal, provincial, territorial and indigenous health authorities. We have adjusted voting operations and procured a full range of protective equipment to ensure the safety of electors and workers at polling stations.

We have also prepared a range of service options to deliver the vote in seniors' homes and long‑term care facilities, based on local needs and circumstances. It is these institutions that will choose the options.

Since last fall, we have dramatically increased our capacity to process mail‑in ballots, and we have developed, tested and implemented an online vote‑by‑mail application system. Finally, we have planned for the deployment of drop boxes inside all polling places to help ensure that postal ballots can be returned in time.

I note that all of these measures are possible under the current regime, without Bill C‑19, with some adaptations that I am empowered to make.

With this, Elections Canada is in a relatively good position to administer an election under the current regime, despite the challenges inherent to the pandemic, which is not fully behind us.

In early October I recommended a limited number of amendments to the Canada Elections Act to facilitate election delivery in a pandemic and improve services to electors. Among them was the replacement of the traditional polling day, which of course is Monday, with a two-day weekend voting period.

Bill C-19 proposes, instead, to retain Monday voting and add Saturday and Sunday. I certainly understand the intention behind having more voting days. As I indicated when I appeared before you last fall, this was, in fact, my initial instinct, but after careful review, I recommended against it. This remains my recommendation today. Let me explain.

Three polling days over a weekend and a Monday will increase the risk of labour shortage and limit the number of polling places available for the full voting period, in part because in a pandemic, schools will generally not be available on the Monday and places of worship on the weekend, or at least part of the weekend.

This will result in increasing the number of voters per poll and will not facilitate distancing. Fewer polling places will also result in electors having to travel farther than usual to cast their votes, especially in rural areas where they may have to vote outside of their town or in places that may not meet accessibility standards.

I invite members of the committee to amend Bill C-19 to provide for a two-day weekend voting period or else to simply stay with the traditional Monday. Either solution would, in my opinion, result in better services to electors.

Before concluding my remarks, I would like to draw your attention to one item that is not currently contained in the bill, and it relates to the collection of signatures for candidate nominations. This matter was raised during the Toronto by-elections and discussed, I should say, several times, at the advisory committee of political parties after I had made my recommendations.

The act requires that signatures be collected by candidates from 100 electors, each in the presence of a witness. This will be more challenging, of course, during a pandemic. Currently signatures can be collected electronically but not without difficulty, given the legal requirement to have a witness. A more user-friendly electronic solution is possible, but that would require an amendment to the act to remove the witness requirement, as is the case in some provinces. It would also, however, involve developing new systems and business processes. Given the time this will require and the investments, this is something that should be considered more in the long term and not as a quick and temporary solution, certainly not for the next few months.

As a temporary solution, the committee may wish to consider reducing the number of signatures required for a candidate nomination so as to limit in-person contact. I note that most provinces and territories require significantly fewer signatures. For example, Ontario only requires 25. Some have as few as five signatures.

Thank you for inviting me today. I welcome your questions on these matters, and of course, any other matter addressed in the bill.

Madam Chair, when we spoke last week, you suggested that I bring potential written amendments to the bill to support the work of the committee, which is somewhat unusual. I do have amendments and I'd be happy to share them through the clerk, if that is the wish of the committee. I'm in your hands in that regard.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] here on such a short timeline, my comment was not so much that they have to be formally written amendments, but whether you had any supplemental material to help the members.

Originally, it was planned that you would be appearing perhaps on the same day that we would be starting clause-by-clause. It would be useful to have it on hand, if requested by members, so that you could email it in both official languages immediately at that time rather than having to get back to us.

If the members wish, that can definitely be circulated to all of them.

Mr. Blaikie.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is just to say that if Monsieur Perrault has amendments drafted, I would certainly be happy to receive them. If there are no strong objections from committee members, perhaps those amendments could be circulated as soon as possible.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

If members wish, when we are on clause-by-clause, they can move those amendments as is or incorporate them into their own amendments. Do with them whatever. They're just advice to the committee.

We'll move on to the official rounds of questions, starting with Ms. Vecchio for six minutes.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much to all of the team that has come from Elections Canada.

Mr. Perrault, I really appreciate your coming and speaking on this bill, and thank you very much for bringing that additional information to this committee.

I'm actually just going to start off with some more simple questions, because I think there has been a lot of discussion on what we're looking at in terms of the length of a writ. That has been a discussion on whether there should be a shorter or longer writ. I know there really hasn't been something specifically determined here.

At the end of the day, who is the entity that decides whether it is a 35-day, 47-day or 50-day writ? Would that be the Governor General, the Chief Electoral Officer or perhaps somebody coming from public health, or would that be the Prime Minister?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Legally, the writ period is, under the act, between 36 and 50 days. The Prime Minister makes a recommendation to the Governor General for the duration and the timing of the writ. It is within the same recommendation as the date of the writ that the duration is set. That's set in an order in council.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

What is your recommendation when we look at this? I'm sure, over your time, there have been multiple elections happening.

I'll ask quite frankly: Have you spoken with the chief electoral officer from Newfoundland regarding the recent election in that province?

[Stéphane Perrault]

We've had some very brief exchanges. We helped them with some public inquiries during the election as they were struggling a little with the volume of phone calls.

However, in terms of the duration of the writ period, no, we have not had a discussion.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I'm just looking at that, because we know there has been so much confusion built out of it. What is your recommendation when you're looking at a writ period? Do you think it should be longer or shorter?

I know there are so many processes being changed potentially, such as mail-in ballots and all these things. Do you think the time limit should be extended, or should it be shorter during this time so that you can do your job?

[Stéphane Perrault]

As I think I indicated when I appeared in the fall, there is merit to a longer writ period in a pandemic, because everything takes more time. In terms of recruiting and in terms of finding polling places, it does take more time. Within the parameters of the act, in my view, a longer period is preferable.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

You were talking about locations, too. When you're talking about those two- to three-day writs, that's exactly what I've been looking at within my own hometown. Many of the facilities that are being used are perhaps churches, schools or community centres. We have lots of concerns there.

Have you been hearing back from any of your people on the ground who are trying to get these places set up, about any of the frustration that they're finding in trying to find centres or getting a place for three days?

[Stéphane Perrault]

We've had ongoing work done by returning officers since last fall. They've periodically engaged with a range of potential.... I believe there are over 23,000 locations that they've been contacting. In some cases, a small number are confident that they can offer their location. In other cases, they simply do not know, and some have said no. There's a range of uncertainty. Of course, that will evolve as the pandemic evolves.

We'll see, but there is ongoing work by returning officers to revisit polling places to make sure that they have a range of options for an election.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Perfect.

We're talking about not only accessibility but social distancing and all of those things. At the end of the period, when the election is over, will there be enough room to ensure that scrutineers, people like that, can view the counting? How are you going to ensure that we can continue to do all of the business we need to do, in perhaps a very small location, if this is an issue? What are some of the options you're looking at?

[Stéphane Perrault]

We have to ensure that locations are large enough to accommodate not only the vote but also the observing of the count. There will be some distancing, but remember that we will have some glass partitions so that observers can look through the glass fairly closely to make sure they can observe the count.

We will also have, of course, complete transparency and observations for the counting of the special ballots—the postal ballots—at the local returning office, as well as at our central offices in Ottawa for the national vote. We engaged with the advisory committee of political parties last week to explain the process that would follow to make sure they can observe the count.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

That's awesome. Thank you very much.

Ruby, I think I'm really close to my six minutes, so go for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

All right. Thank you.

Go ahead, Monsieur Lauzon, for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam chair.

Mr. Perrault, thank you for taking the time to be with us today. This is the first time that you and I have met as you appear before us as part of our study. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors, I am very concerned about the continued right of seniors to vote should an election be held during the pandemic.

We saw what happened in the U.K. with the new variant. We are in an unpredictable situation, and the role of government is to ensure that we are prepared for any eventuality.

Could you tell us how Bill C‑19 gives you the flexibility to make voting safe for voters who reside in a long‑term care facility?

[Stéphane Perrault]

We've developed various options, assisted and unassisted, for in‑person voting, but we won't have mobile voting. We don't want poll workers going from one seniors' residence to another or from one care home to another. There are over 7,000 care homes or seniors' residences in Canada, and every one of them has been contacted. Discussions were held with each of them to determine, on a preliminary basis, what their preferences would be. The result of these discussions will be repeated during an election period to see, depending on the evolution of the circumstances, what would be the best solution for them.

When I appeared before the committee in the fall, I said, and I repeated it earlier, that I could do this through adaptations to the legislation. It's unusual to plan adaptations to the law. They are normally due to things that happen along the way that we have to react to. In this context, given the magnitude of the adaptations and the fact that I was planning them in advance, I indicated this in my report and asked to have a parliamentary mandate to at least see if there was a negative reaction. I didn't see any. That's why I'm saying that if the bill passes, I'll have a clear mandate for that flexibility.

However, if the bill does not pass, due to time constraints, for example, and an election were to be called, the legislation still provides me with the tools to give me the flexibility to serve the residences in the manner they deem most appropriate to their circumstances.

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

Would Bill C‑19 help you with your preparations, for example?

Could you already initiate processes that would make it easier for you and your team to deliver safe elections for the most vulnerable people, who are necessarily the most affected?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Let me be frank. What would make our job easier is a fixed election date. We don't have that. We don't have that, but we do have flexibility, and we are talking to the seniors' residences and the care homes.

What will vary, of course, is that we don't know when an election will be held. So we can't recruit or train people or give specifics.

The situation is even evolving on the side of these residences and centres. They have to wait. They have a range of options in front of them, which they're looking at, but they will have to wait until the election is called to confirm which option they prefer. At this point, there is a lot of flexibility, but not a lot of certainty.

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

There is much that is new, as this is a first‑time event. The pandemic didn't come with a manual telling us how to manage it.

You had mentioned that you wanted a longer election campaign to be able to turn around and adjust. Under the current conditions, could a short election campaign still provide a safe election for all Canadians?

[Stéphane Perrault]

This is indeed an important issue, one that I want to emphasize.

We have everything we need to make sure that the elections are conducted safely. Whether the election period is 36 days or 50 days, the polling places will be safe. We have the equipment, there will be distancing, and in the event that we run out of polling places, there will be distancing outside of those places. Even if that is not what we want, people would line up a little longer outside.

Security will not be compromised by a lack of time. Such an option is not on the table. We have everything we need.