:
I'd like to call this meeting to order, please. This is the 24th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
With us today, we have the Chief Electoral Officer. We'll be looking at his report to the House.
We'll give you a chance to do an opening statement, and I recognize there's a test that you'd like to do. We want to handle that first, and then we'll move on to the general report piece. Then we do have a bit of committee business at the end, so we will excuse you a little bit early today, because we have just a little bit to handle at the end of the meeting, and we would like to move with that.
Thank you to all the members for being here on time, and we're ready to start.
Monsieur Mayrand, we'd like you to give us your opening statement, and we'll go that way, introduce the guests that you have. Again, I apologize, this meeting does take place at lunch time, and some of the members will be eating lunch in front of you, because this may be their only chance to stop and eat today.
Thank you for coming, and I give the floor to you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm really pleased to be here today to discuss two topics: first, regarding a voting device that would allow disabled electors to cast ballots autonomously and secretly; and secondly, my report of recommendations following the last election.
With me today are Mr. Rennie Molnar, deputy chief electoral officer responsible for electoral events; Mr. François Bernier, deputy chief electoral officer responsible for political financing matters; and Mr. Stéphane Perrault, senior legal counsel at Elections Canada.
If you allow me, I'll talk briefly about what's called an AVD, assistive voting device. Some of you who visited our premises in June will recall that we had the opportunity to do a demonstration of equipment that would allow disabled electors to cast ballots without assistance, so autonomously, and cast their ballots secretly.
We are proposing this initiative in response to various responsibilities under the human rights legislation, as well as the United Nations international convention dealing with disabled people. This legislation encourages or requires that officials, when providing services, adapt their services to the particular circumstances, in our case, of electors. We have also received a number of requests from various disabled electors, or groups representing disabled electors, seeking alternative ways of casting ballots that would allow them to cast their ballots independently, without assistance from other individuals, and ensuring also thereby the secrecy of their vote.
The proposal that's before the committee builds on the experience that's been taking place both in Canada and very much also in the U.S., so the equipment has been well tested before. It's been used in the most recent general election in New Brunswick. It's going to be used in municipal elections that are taking place in many provinces across the country this fall, and it was used also in a pilot in Ontario last year.
We would like to test the device in a byelection, and there's one that has to be called by October 27 in Winnipeg North. The latest time it can be called would be October 27. Therefore we would like to get the authority of the committee, as required pursuant to section 18.1 of the act, to use that equipment in that riding. Particularly, we will deploy the equipment at the returning officer's office, at advance polls, in long-term-care facilities, and possibly at other sites that we will be able to identify through consultation with the local community.
I don't know if I need to add any more at this point. The committee is generally aware of the initiative. I'll be pleased to deal with any questions on this aspect.
:
With the general election just last week in New Brunswick, one of the items from your remarks that you provided to us that stood out for me was the hope to be able to allow people to vote in another riding, but vote for the candidate in their riding. That was something that was done in New Brunswick.
When it came to the recount that was required, which was just completed, apparently it was quite onerous, trying to collect the data from all the various ridings throughout the electoral districts throughout the province and trying to pull that data together. There was a riding on election night where the result was a nine-vote difference and it went through a judicial recount. It took quite some time for the judicial recount. From what I read in the media, the time that was required wasn't for the data from that specific riding, it was to bring the data from the other ridings.
If someone lived in a riding, say in northern New Brunswick, or was attending school in northern New Brunswick, and wanted to vote for a candidate in the riding that was receiving the recount, all that data had to be brought together. There were some issues in bringing that data together.
Is that something you've looked at? Did you have any feedback from the observers that you had present during the provincial election?
:
Thank you again, Mr. Chair, and good morning to all members.
I'm very happy to have this opportunity to appear before the committee today to discuss my report entitled “Responding to Changing Needs”. This refers to the evolving needs of both electors and political entities.
Maintaining a healthy democracy requires an electoral process that responds to societal changes while continuing to foster accessibility, trust, and efficiency. Over the past few years my office has undertaken a series of administrative improvements to the electoral process. Nevertheless, greater flexibility is required under the Canada Elections Act to better respond to changing needs.
My recommendations cover three key areas: the electoral process, political financing, and the governance of Elections Canada. The report also contains a number of technical recommendations. In my letter to the committee dated September 22, 2010, I presented one additional technical recommendation dealing with the definition of leadership and nomination campaign expenses, and I would appreciate the committee's review of this recommendation as well.
I will now highlight a few recommendations related to the three key areas I just mentioned, starting with the electoral process. I refer you to the document entitled “Mapping of the Chief Electoral Officer's Recommendations”. It was distributed to the committee, I believe.
On the electoral process, our objective is to enhance services to electors by making it more accessible, while fostering trust and improving efficiency. I'm proposing that the Chief Electoral Officer be authorized to set up and conduct pilot projects during by-elections and general elections. This authority already exists in the Canada Elections Act for the testing of electronic voting. The opportunity to conduct pilot projects on various aspects of the electoral process would allow us to test other initiatives and better assess potential consequences before making recommendations for legislative amendments.
One example would be testing new approaches to the voting process at polling sites, with the aim of improving services to electors and simplifying the tasks of poll workers. Another example might be testing modified voting procedures to allow students to vote on campus.
I further propose legislative changes to address challenges experienced in recruiting poll workers. I am recommending that electoral district associations, rather than candidates, provide the names of suitable persons to the returning officer of their electoral district. I also suggest that this be done no later than 28 days before election days. These changes would provide an additional 10 days to returning officers for recruitment, appointment, and training of the approximately 650 poll workers needed in each riding to carry the vote.
To further improve accessibility, it is important that the Canada Elections Act be changed to reflect the evolving needs of Canadians. Today an increasing number of electors and political entities want to do business electronically with Elections Canada. They are accustomed to interacting with other organizations electronically every day. However, the act sets out requirements on signatures and production of paper documents, and these restrain us from providing a full suite of electronic services.
I'm therefore recommending that the Chief Electoral Officer be authorized to allow appropriate means of identification other than a signature. Among other things, this would enable new electors, including youth, to register online, and political entities to make electronic transactions, such as electronic transmission of financial returns.
The second area of recommendations relates to political financing. Over the years, successive reforms have affected the coherence of the political financing regime and increased the regulatory burden imposed on various political entities. Amendments are needed to reduce this burden and promote greater accountability. My recommendations seek to balance two key objectives here: trust and efficiency.
[Translation]
To increase trust in the management of public funds, I am recommending greater transparency in the review process for the electoral campaign returns of political parties. If requested by the Chief Electoral Officer, parties would be required to provide explanations or documents to support their election expenses returns. This change would bring the requirements applying to parties more in line with the requirements that are applied to candidates and leadership contestants.
I also note that in all provincial jurisdictions in Canada, parties may be required to produce supporting documentation for their election expenses. As you know, the current regime relies almost exclusively on criminal sanctions, which are not always the most effective approach to compliance. I am therefore proposing new measures that I believe would increase compliance. I am recommending that a candidate who files an electoral campaign return late forfeits a portion of the nomination deposit, and that the amount of the election expenses reimbursement of a candidate or party that has exceeded the election expenses limit be reduced dollar for dollar.
The most important change that I am recommending to reduce the administrative burden relates to the unpaid claims regime affecting candidates. Here my recommendation is to extend to 18 months the period during which candidates may pay their campaign debts without the need to obtain an authorization from the Chief Electoral Officer or a judge—an unnecessary burden. However, at the end of the 18-month period, there should be more stringent disclosure requirements regarding the status of unpaid claims, and a requirement to provide supporting documentation. I am also proposing to reduce the administrative burden related to the end-of-campaign weekly reporting of leadership contestants' contributions, particularly in the case of contestants who raised little funding and incurred few expenses. These recommendations seek to streamline the administrative requirements while ensuring greater transparency.
The report also includes a number of recommendations related to the governance of Elections Canada, to ensure greater clarity and efficiency. Elections Canada has long cooperated with electoral agencies in other Canadian jurisdictions. However, under the current legal framework, we have a limited capacity to implement joint initiatives—for example, as regards the joint development of public education and outreach tools. This situation could be remedied by explicitly authorizing the Chief Electoral Officer to enter into service agreements and common supply arrangements with other Canadian jurisdictions. This would help us serve Canadians more effectively.
Finally, I am asking for further clarity regarding our role in providing technical assistance to other countries with the development of their electoral processes. These activities are currently funded by the Government of Canada through ad hoc transfer payments. However, a clear legal framework is required. I am therefore recommending that the Chief Electoral Officer be granted the authority to commit transferred funds, at the request of the Government of Canada, for such activities. I also seek the explicit authority to cooperate on electoral matters and share information with international organizations and electoral agencies.
These are just some of the highlights of my report. It includes 50 recommendations which I believe are important to improve our electoral framework. These recommendations were developed by my Office in consultation with the Advisory Committee of Political Parties and, in some cases, government departments. They build on the experience of the last two general elections and aim to respond to Canadians' changing needs, while preserving the integrity of the electoral process.
I would like to express my appreciation to the Committee for taking the time to consider my report. We would be pleased to answer any of your questions. Thank you.
Thank you to your team for being here today. It's a pleasure to have you here and to hear about all the work you've been doing.
It's not every day you get access to the Chief Electoral Officer, so I have a question. I don't know if you're aware of or read an article in the Globe and Mail on August 20. It quoted a Mr. Brian Patterson. As I read the story, I thought that there was something not right about this, but then I'm not the Chief Electoral Officer, so I wanted to get your take on it.
Just to put it in perspective, Mr. Patterson was actually the chair of Tony Clement's provincial and federal leadership campaigns. He was also the chief of staff to Mr. Clement at four ministries in the Ontario government, and he was the election-day manager for Mr. Clement in Parry Sound--Muskoka in 2006 and 2008. That's just to set up for you where the comments came from.
According to the Globe and Mail story, he was asked by a municipal candidate how to obtain federal voters lists. I understand that the Conservatives manage a program called CIMS. This is what Mr. Patterson said, and I just want to read this, then I want to read what the act says and get your take on whether this can be avoided.
Mr. Patterson said to a municipal candidate:
But if someone gives you a copy of CIMS in your local campaign, we can’t stop you from calling up your local guys that you work [with] on the executives of [riding associations] if you can get it off them. You know, “Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil,”.... [Y]ou never heard me say this—and I’ll deny it in a room full of lawyers—that if you can somehow get it, you know, we don’t care.
Now, section 110 of the Canada Elections Act prohibits sharing the voters lists with anyone other than MPs. In fact, it states that parties and members or candidates of other levels of government may not use federal lists of electors for their own political purposes. The lists of electors can be used only by the federal political entity for communicating with its electors and/or for a federal election or referendum.
I guess it doesn't matter whether you saw the story, but I'm interested in whether comments like that concern you. Is it a violation of the Elections Act? How do you guard against something like this happening?
Recommendation 1.8, which deals with protection of personal information, proposes that the date of birth be removed from the lists of electors. We know that the Commissioner has made comments in that regard, but where elections are concerned, only the deputy returning officer is aware of the date. As far as we are concerned, it's a question of security.
Have you considered the possibility of showing only the year of birth? We can imagine a scenario where someone was born in 1940, but a different person appears instead. We can all imagine this happening. I understand that people are sensitive about their date of birth, but for the deputy returning officer, it's a way of ascertaining whether or not the person standing in front of him is the right person.
:
I'm sure you are, sir. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for your presentation. It's an enormous amount of work. I'm very impressed.
I would just start with one issue that caught my eye, in no particular order of importance: the issue of nicknames. It sounds like a small matter, but we're dealing with the actual, visual ballot that people see, and it has a lot to do with what goes on at the moment they're about to cast that ballot.
I'm having a little difficulty understanding this. The basic thing you're looking for is that the English reflect the French. I get that. The English, as I understand it, currently says “provide evidence of the acceptance of a nickname”, and some of the notes comment that this is difficult to enforce, etc. I'm curious as to how that plays out right now in English-speaking circumstances.
:
Yes. There are recommendations in this report regarding unpaid claims and their treatment. The current rules are quite convoluted and not very efficient. I am putting forward recommendations to clarify the rules and to achieve better results with those rules.
I should point out, however, that my recommendations are driven not necessarily by leadership contests but by election contests. We have close to 400 candidates who still have outstanding debts today from the last general election. We still have quite a number of candidates who have outstanding debts from the 38th general election. That was 2004.
The rules in the legislation were designed by Parliament to achieve two things: transparency regarding what's happening here, who's being paid what, from what funds; and to achieve an end to this.
The problem you have—and it's described in the recommendations in the report—is that when you look at the provisions, it doesn't work like that. My recommendations are to the effect that we need to simplify the regime and allow 18 months, whatever the contest, to repay unpaid loans. After that, we need a report. You'll see that report recommends there be a strict liability offence for those who have failed to repay after 18 months. It also suggests that the court would have to authorize a further extension after 18 months.
I'll stop at that, unless you have an additional point.
:
Remember that we are not talking about a strict liability offence here.
I won't refer to specific examples, but there have been cases in the past where the official agent was actually acting on instructions from the candidate. I think everyone would expect that, in that kind of situation, the candidate should be liable. But that is not what the act currently states.
Of course, if a candidate was acting in good faith and was misled by his agent, I don't think he would be held liable. I cannot image that a court of law would declare him to be liable.
However, in cases where the candidate himself was partly responsible for the issue that arose, I think it is appropriate to make the candidate liable.
:
I'll do one and then someone else can pick up on that time, if there is any.
In your remarks on page 7, you asked “that the Chief Electoral Officer be granted the authority to commit transferred funds, at the request of the Government of Canada, for such activities”, talking about helping other jurisdictions, which I think is an important thing that Canada does in the world, and I would support it.
I'm just trying to get a sense of does this mean that those kinds of activities would come out of existing funds that are set aside for election purposes only, or does your reference to “commit transferred funds” mean that the government would say, “We want you to do something to help out country X. It looks as if it's going to cost $25,000. We'll transfer that in.”? You have the authorization to act on it and the money's there.
What I'm asking about is the money. Is there any circumstance under which you would be spending money for international relations that are meant to be just for the functioning of your office and the support of running elections?
:
Mr. Mayrand, I am obviously in favour of your recommendations involving increased amounts for election staff and auditors.
With respect to election advertising by third parties or riding associations, do you consider the latter to be third parties? No. When you talk about third parties, you are referring to a national association, for example, that might not support a specific party or candidate.
Mr. Marc Mayrand: Yes.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: In your explanation, you say that the act should: “Prohibit electoral district associations from transmitting election advertising during an election period, even when the expenses were incurred before the election was called.”
That means that whatever is used during the election period has to be accounted for during the election. However, if the association paid for advertising prior to the campaign, that would not be included in campaign expenses.