Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 17th, 2022

[Stéphane Perrault]

Thank you.

It's a very important question, and I hope I can do it justice.

There has been a growing gap in the service offering between what Canadians in rural Canada and the remote parts of the country receive and what we're seeing in urban Canada. If you go back 20 years to the 37th general election in 2000, 3.5% of the voters voted at advance polls. In the last election, it was 35%. They voted over two days then, and now there are four days. That evolution is an evolution that's very urban. It's what we see in Toronto, and it's what we see in the suburbs across the country, but the service offering has not improved in remote parts of the country.

I would say that the main challenge has been a mix of legal and operational issues. The recruitment you mentioned is a challenge in those remote parts of the country. We asked for amendments to the act, which we did receive, that now allow me, by exception, to permit single days or two days of advance vote in parts of the country where the population and the workforce does not allow for four full days. Rather than it being all or nothing, zero days or four days of advance polls, it can be one or two days.

What we need to do is stop using those new provisions in a reactive way, as we've done in the last two elections, and start planning more aggressively for single or dual days of advance polls in those remote parts of the country.

That does directly impact first nations communities, so when we look at services to first nations communities, having planned days of advance vote, even if it's just one day, rather than waiting for a request and plan for zero or four, I think can make a big difference. That is what we are currently working to roll out for the next election. I think that will be a significant improvement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

We will now enter into round two.

Mr. Barrett, you have five minutes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Through you, I'd like to thank Mr. Perrault and Mr. Roussel for being here today and thank Mr. Perrault for taking the time to meet with me, as a member of this committee, earlier in this session.

Through you, Madam Chair, to the witnesses, I'd like to discuss instances of foreign interference in this last election. There was a lot of reporting in Global News, and the Toronto Star about various instances in ridings in Ontario like Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill or in British Columbia like Steveston—Richmond East, where there were reports of an anonymous misinformation campaign using social media channels like WeChat.

Global News reported in one of their articles that CSIS had said that the intelligence community didn't detect foreign interference threats that rose to the level of jeopardizing Canada's ability to hold a “free and fair election”, and that they didn't warrant warning the public, but that they were “aware of and remained vigilant of these activities”.

My question, Madam Chair, to the witnesses is if they're aware of instances, if they can quantify them, and if there was an increase between the 2019 and 2021 elections of instances of foreign interference.

[Stéphane Perrault]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll try to answer this question the best I can.

We work, as you probably know, with the security and intelligence community at the federal level as well as with the provincial police to secure the election. This is a responsibility that is shared by several agencies and institutions, and we each have a different role to play.

What I can say first is that there have been no cyber-breaches of our electoral systems' IT infrastructure in this election.

There has been a fair amount of misinformation and disinformation about the electoral process, including misinformation about COVID measures at the polls. This is an area of focus for my agency, and we do monitor social media in that respect, and we have responded, corrected and pushed out correct information so that we can ensure that voters have all the right information about the voting process.

I am aware of the reports that you've mentioned regarding possible foreign interference through organic content, whether social media or foreign language media at the local level. Obviously this is a matter of concern to the sovereignty of our elections.

With respect to the application of the Elections Act, this is not something that involves any of the rules in the act. It is something that is of interest, no doubt, to our intelligence community and to Global Affairs in terms of the relationship with foreign entities, but I am not aware of instances of foreign interference that would involve breaches of the Canada Elections Act.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Okay.

Madam Chair, I thank the witness for the response. I see that I have about a minute left.

I'll just take a moment to put a motion on notice and provide that to members of the committee. That's being sent to the clerk now, and I have paper copies in both official languages for the clerk to distribute in the room.

This notice of motion for consideration at a future meeting is:

That the Committee, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi), conduct a study concerning foreign interference in Canadian elections, provided that: (a) the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections be invited to appear jointly for two hours at a televised meeting at their earliest opportunity; (b) the Chief of the Communications Security Establishment and the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service be invited to appear jointly for two hours, at their earliest opportunities, provided that one hour be televised and the other hour be in camera; and (c) the parties represented on the Committee submit their lists of proposed witnesses, in order of priority.

With that, Madam Chair, I think I've exhausted my time.

Through you, Chair, to the witnesses, thanks very much for attending today and for taking the time to answer our questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for that notice of motion, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Perrault, do you want to make a quick comment?

[Stéphane Perrault]

No, I think I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Brilliant. Thank you so much.

Now, we will move on to Mr. Fergus for five minutes.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses who are here with us.

Mr. Perrault and Mr. Roussel, the work that you and your colleagues do at Elections Canada is remarkable and excellent. As my colleague Mr. Barsalou-Duval said, you have provided excellent service despite the situation.

Madam Chair, if I forget to mention it in every question, please consider that every question goes through you.

I would like to ask Mr. Perrault a question about mail‑in voting. I found this exceptional. In the last election, I took advantage of this possibility for the first time in my life. I wanted to encourage voters to do the same, especially during the pandemic, when people were a bit worried about leaving the house.

What other tools do you think you need to better promote mail‑in voting?

[Stéphane Perrault]

You say you voted by mail and found it easy. I'm surprised at the poll results, which say that 97% of people found it easy. I was a bit surprised by that, because I think it's a cumbersome process. We've looked at this over the years, and I'm not sure if there are ways to make it less cumbersome. But we will certainly have to see whether it is possible to do so.

The main point that comes to mind at the moment is that voters who vote by special ballot have to vote for a candidate and not for a party. Given that the list of candidates is made official only 18 days before the election, this leaves relatively little time for voters to become familiar with the list. In the first period of the election, we promote mail‑in ballots much less vigorously, because voters do not know the candidates, and we do not want to unduly favour incumbents. I am sorry to say that.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

That's a good thing.

[Stéphane Perrault]

The information is there and we do some promotion, but not aggressively.

In the last election, 44% of the packages were approved 18 days before the election, when nominations were completed. In the British Columbia provincial election, the figure was 68%. The main difference in British Columbia is that the voter can vote for a party. This allows for a much more aggressive promotion of the mail‑in ballot early in the campaign, and it allows voters to cast their ballots earlier in the election period to ensure that these are returned.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify something that seems to have caused some confusion. The mail‑in ballot for constituents who vote in their own riding does not go through Ottawa, except for Ottawa voters, of course.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Yes, it is sent directly to the returning officer.

[Stéphane Perrault]

That's right.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Excuse me, Mr. Perrault, but time is running out.

Madam Chair, I guess I have two minutes left.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have one minute left.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

So quickly, Mr. Perrault, I agree with you that the vote should be held on the weekend to encourage people to vote and to give you more opportunities to welcome voters.

Can you comment on that?

Do you still want voting to take place on Saturday and Sunday?

[Stéphane Perrault]

This is a recommendation that I consider including in my report. We also need to be aware that holding two voting days is a challenge for rural and remote areas. Once again, these are excellent solutions in urban areas, but it is perhaps more difficult in more remote regions. So we have to look at all of this and see if we can be more flexible.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

So what can we do for remote areas?

[Stéphane Perrault]

In cases where this is not possible because there is a very small population, it would be a matter of holding a single day of voting. However, for the weekend, this raises other questions. I'm thinking about that right now.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Okay.

This is a very good example of why I do not want members and witnesses to speak to each other directly, but rather through the Chair. This makes the work of the interpreters difficult. That is why I ask you to address your comments to the Chair. When two people speak at the same time, it is no longer a conversation. It is not right. Our country has two official languages, so it is very important that the interpreters can do their job.

This being said—

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

On a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Yes, Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I suggest that we go in camera when we're talking about committee business. Perhaps we should extend the rounds, because it is difficult to have a conversation with our witnesses in six minutes.