Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 17th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I just want to ask for clarification again in terms of the use of electronic signatures.

Mr. Roussel, I just want to understand correctly that, in regard to the current amendment that's on the table right now, Elections Canada could fulfill that.

In terms of the timeline for.... Essentially we know that Elections Canada has to be ready at any time to hold a safe election, and we know that e-signatures are going to improve the health and safety because, as candidates, people aren't going to be running around getting physical signatures. They're going to be able to get....

I just want to be clear that you feel that, from Elections Canada's perspective, you could implement, within a short time frame, what's in the current amendment, and if not, I'd appreciate just understanding why not. I think what I heard you say was that there's a plan to make this a lot easier in the future and that it would have to be tested further, but in terms of what's in this particular amendment, I want to know whether you think you can implement that in a fairly short time frame.

[Michel Roussel]

I think Elections Canada would have to implement it. There's been a court case on this. We would have to receive those e-signatures.

I am more concerned for the candidates and for the electors. Making this happen on the ground with the real people will be the challenge, I would say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think Ryan might have had his hand up before me, but since he's spoken a number of times, perhaps I can get a quick question in.

I want one quick clarification from Monsieur Roussel. A few moments ago you said that to fully set up a system that would allow Elections Canada to demystify or to be comfortable in accepting electronic signatures might take four to six months. Then just a few moments after that you said six to eight months.

Could you give me some clarification on exactly how long you think it might take to get a system of acceptance of electronic signatures in place?

[Michel Roussel]

I think six to eight months is the prudent answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. Thank you.

We have Mr. Turnbull and Ms. Vecchio.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I just have to clarify.

This amendment basically gives under proposed paragraph 558.1(6)(b), I guess it would be—in the actual written document that I have here, on page 11 of our package—the adaptation power to waive the requirement for a witness signature.

Under that, within the context of a pandemic election, I think what we're saying is that the electronic signatures could be collected without the need for a witness signature. That's really what we're debating right here, right now. I think what you've described sounds like a program or a plan for the future that simplifies...or creates a system that is perhaps a topic for another day. I understand that it's related, and fundamentally it would be great to make this as easy as possible. I think in terms of the intentions of this amendment, what I'm trying to clarify is the timeline for implementing that, should it come into force. Can Elections Canada already do this?

It seems to me, Mr. Roussel, that you said that it can already be done. If we remove the witness and waive the need for a witness, it could potentially be done even more easily.

I'm trying to clarify to make sure that we all understand what this amendment would actually put into force in terms of the changes necessary for a pandemic election.

Can you clarify again for us the timelines for doing what's in this particular amendment, and not maybe the plans for electronic signatures in the future, which I understand is also a priority?

[Michel Roussel]

Sure.

This amendment, accepting electronic signatures, is something that Elections Canada would have to be prepared to do within the deadline set within Bill C‑19.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You would do it, or you would have to be prepared to do it.

Ms. Vecchio.

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

Thanks very much.

Part of the question here is that one thing we've talked about is reducing the number of signatures as well, and I know it is coming up very soon. We're looking at the best-case scenarios, and it comes down to saying, “Okay, what actually works the best?” We're talking about electronic signatures. We're talking about reducing it from 100 to 50. I'm just going to come straight to a point.

To Elections Canada, what works?

We know this is going to be a pandemic election, if there is one, and that there are going to be so many issues that you will need to deal with. There will be many priorities. Should your priorities be setting up the electronic signatures, or should there be other things?

Coming to you directly as the expert in this field, what is the best option for the candidates and for Elections Canada?

[Michel Roussel]

Thank you for the question.

The best option, as the Chief Electoral Officer explained, would be to reduce the number of signatures required. In the short term, the most workable, the most practical, the best for all involved, would be to reduce the number of signatures required on the nomination papers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. That's clear.

Shall amendment G-1 carry?

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

Could we have a recorded vote, please?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to speak before we vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Go ahead, Mr. Therrien.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I don't want to interrupt the discussion, which I listened to and learned a lot from, by the way. However, I would like to point out a translation problem. In paragraph 6, it says that “le directeur général des élections peut prendre des instructions”. It seems that the translation is not precise enough, and that it should instead read “le directeur général des élections peut donner des instructions”.

If this clause is ever adopted, the word “prendre” should be changed to “donner” to make the French version consistent with the English.

Am I making a mistake by asking this? I'm asking our friend from Elections Canada if this way of writing it would be more accurate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Maybe our legislative clerk can help. Is that something that can be done at this point in that way?

[Philippe Méla]

Yes, it could be done. I am not sure what the proper wording should be. Maybe officials from Elections Canada could let us know. If, indeed, this needs to be changed, it could be done either by the unanimous consent of the committee or by one member moving a subamendment to change it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Can we find out from any of you at Elections Canada what you think the proper translation should be?

Do you see where we are, on proposed subsection 558.1(6) of G-1?

[Anne Lawson]

Yes, Madam Chair, I'm reluctant to speak about the proper translation. The concept is that the CEO would give instructions and have the authority to give them.

I don't know if “donner des instructions” is more appropriate than “prendre des instructions”, and I'm not a French-speaker so I hesitate to comment on that.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

The term “prendre” is really not adequate. I understand what you are saying, but the Chief Electoral Officer cannot “prendre des instructions”.

[Anne Lawson]

If I'm not mistaken, elsewhere in the law it talks about “prendre des instructions”.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.