:
We'll try to meet your expectations.
[Translation]
Good morning. We are pleased to be here to provide you with a progress report on the implementation of the electronic petition system.
I am accompanied today by Stéphan Aubé, Chief Information Officer, and Jean-Philippe Brochu, Deputy Principal Clerk in the Journals Branch.
[English]
Our objective is twofold. First, we will provide you with a progress report and brief you on some of the outstanding issues. Secondly, we'll show you some of the mock-ups—that's really the reason why you're here, I suspect—of what the e-petition website would look like. All of this should not take more than 10 to 15 minutes.
I am happy to report that the work is going very well. We expect to launch the website for the beginning of the new Parliament, as requested. The implementation of this new system will require $250,000 of new investments. The initial estimate based on 's proposal, as you remember, was up to $200,000. The committee's recommendations were much more complex and required much more significant technological investments. That explains the difference.
[Translation]
In addition, an employee was hired to monitor the e-petition system and ensure it works properly. We set out to create a system that is both easy to use and very secure.
[English]
ln this regard, the report adopted by the House insisted on the importance of the protection of personal information and the integrity of the petition process. As a result, the system will also have the highest levels of privacy protections. Monitoring and verification mechanisms will also be included. Personal information will be deleted in accordance with the House's strict data retention policies, based on the model used for the departure of MPs.
[Translation]
Before we proceed with the mock-ups, we would like to draw your attention to two specific issues.
The first one is IP addresses. Under the proposed system, the clerk of petitions will have the necessary tools to further enhance the integrity of the process. The clerk may also withdraw invalid petitions or signatures that compromise the process.
[English]
Public IP addresses that belong to the federal government will be blocked.
[Translation]
The second issue concerns the posting of responses to paper petitions online. Obviously, responses to e-petitions will be easy to post online.
[English]
However, as you know, over 3,000 paper petitions are tabled in the House each year. A response is prepared for each one. Discussions are under way with our partners at the Privy Council Office—and they're going very well—but considering the scope of the project and the short deadline, online publication of responses to paper petitions will not be possible by the deadline, given the resources available. If the committee wishes, we can return after the launch to reconsider this option and report on the challenges involved.
Besides this specific issue, we are pleased to inform you that the other recommendations in the committee's report will be implemented with the opening of the next Parliament. For example, various guides and manuals will be prepared and made available. lt will be easy for individuals to follow the petition they signed through the various stages of the process. A section of the website will keep a record of all the petitions that have been published, sorted by Parliament, and accompanied by the response provided. All Canadians will be able to consult the website and find information on a given petition for a long period of time.
Finally, I wanted to mention that we have developed a communication plan to ensure a successful launch, and training sessions will be offered to interested MPs and their assistants.
[Translation]
Thank you for your attention. We would be happy to answer your questions right after Jean-Philippe presents the mock-ups.
I have the thankless task of showing you the mock-ups. I hope you will be more interested in what is before you than in what I will be telling you.
Before I start, I have a few disclaimers.
First of all, the mock-ups we will be presenting to you today are static. The website is not operational. Although it may be tempting to do so, we unfortunately cannot click on the links on the screen. We are simply trying to give you an idea of what the future website will look like.
Second of all, you should keep in mind that the website's design and features may change before the launch. What you are seeing here today and what you will see after the election could be slightly different.
The first two mock-ups show the website's homepage.
[English]
The home page will be accessible on the Parliament of Canada website through a link on the second page, just after the first page where you select French or English. The website and the system are simple and easy to understand and to navigate. The home page will also contain four distinct and clear sections. We adopted a look and feel similar to those of upcoming new websites.
The system will automatically detect logins associated with an MP's account, and a “Sponsor” button will appear at the top of the page. We will use the same accounts as those authorized for submitting e-notices. A process to manage access or permissions similar in nature to the ones used to manage e-notices will be put in place.
A sign-in button will be available for those who already have an account to submit petitions. There's also a quick search box to easily find open or archived petitions. It will be possible to link to social media platforms on each page of the website, including on each specific petition web page.
[Translation]
A section of the website will be devoted to all the information about the petition process—guides, user manuals and step-by-step documents. Throughout the website, petitioners will have access to information to help them navigate.
The next image is somewhat different and gives a glimpse of the website's homepage on a mobile device. This will not be a separate application to be downloaded, but rather a light or adapted version of a desktop computer's interface. So the content will be adapted to small screens. The content and the design will also be in line with the current best practices for mobile devices and will be compatible with the vast majority of mobile devices on the market.
The next mock-up is an example of a form for submitting a petition.
[English]
We'll go through it from the top to the bottom. An e-petition practical guide will be available to consult or download. There will be plenty of information icons identified by the letter “i” next to the key steps. This page will contain drop-down menus throughout the form to help petitioners frame their petition in a proper way.
As per the committee report, petitioners will be prompted to identify five supporters, with the possibility of identifying up to 10 names to make sure the petition receives five positive answers. If need be, additional supporters above five will receive a notification informing them that the petition has already reached enough supporters. The five supporters and the petitioner will automatically be added to the list of signatories once the petition is published. It means that a published e-petition will automatically start with a total of six signatures.
E-petitioners will be allowed to have one e-petition open for signature and one draft e-petition in the system at any given time. Upon request from an e-petitioner to the clerk of petitions, petitions will be allowed to be withdrawn up to the time of their publication on the website. Petitions already published on the website can be closed and moved to the archived section, but only to be replaced with a second and different petition, as per the committee report.
In order to make sure that no robots sign the petition, security features will be included in the form. It will also be possible to preview and save a draft before submitting the petition.
[Translation]
The next mock-up is the default view of all petitions open for signature. If you click on the option “Sign or view an e-petition” on the homepage, you will be redirected to this page. You could switch between the two main tabs. The first one contains petitions open for signature, in the 120-day period to gather signatures. The second one contains all e-petitions and all the information about the various stages of their progress—for instance, whether they are certified, whether they have been presented in the House, or whether the government has responded to them. That tab even contains older petitions that have been archived.
By default, the petitions will be classified by topic, but they could be sorted in a number of other ways—for instance, by the number of signatures or by their closing date.
We have also included a user-friendly search engine that will help visitors further personalize their searches, such as by the name of an MP sponsoring a petition, by keyword or by full text search.
It will be possible to export data in CSV files—in other words, the types of files used by Excel—and in XML format.
When you click on one of the results, you will be redirected to a detailed page for each petition. We have tried to simplify as much as possible the user options for each petition's detailed page.
[English]
There are three distinct sections on that form. First of all, at the top is the petition prayer. Then on the right are the petition details, including the breakdown by province and territory. Finally, at the bottom left you will find the section to sign the petition, including security features and three check boxes—one for the citizenship or residency status, one for the terms of use, and one to receive automatic email notifications at each subsequent step reached by the e-petition.
Petitioners can also subscribe to an RSS feed on each e-petition web page.
[Translation]
After they sign a petition, signatories will receive an email with a hyperlink they have to click on to confirm their identity.
Once they complete the mandatory fields and click on “submit”, signatories will automatically receive an email to confirm their signature.
The email will contain the date and time by which they have to confirm their signature, a link they will have to click on, as well as the clerk of petitions' contact information.
[English]
We have designed a specific interface for members acting as sponsors. After a new request to sponsor a petition is sent by a petitioner, the chosen member receives an email with a link to his or her e-petition web page. He or she may also access this part of the website through the home page.
Members will find three distinct tabs on this page: first, the pending requests, organized from the most urgent to the least one; then the petitions a member has already sponsored; and finally, the declined requests. User guides specifically intended for members of Parliament will also be available.
Once you have clicked on one of the petitions, a new page opens. The prayer of the e-petition is reproduced, as well as the petitioner's contact information, as per the committee's request. Members have the option to provide comments when accepting or declining the requests or simply to contact petitioners directly, using the contact information provided. There will be a 30-day deadline to respond to requests, after which the e-petitioner will be given the opportunity to select another member. The system will automatically send two reminders to the member: a first reminder after 10 days and a final notice three days before the deadline.
All e-petitions published at some point on the website will leave a trace in the archive section, with the relevant notes, response, and final status information.
When analyzing the report, we realized that as things currently stand there will be a discrepancy in the manner in which paper and electronic petitions will be handled at dissolution. Currently, once a paper petition has been certified, it can always be presented in a subsequent Parliament. We consider that a certificate issued for a paper petition remains valid after the election. We therefore suggest to the committee to allow petitions that have reached 500 signatures before an election is called, even if the 120 days are not over, to be certified and presented in a subsequent Parliament, as is currently allowed for paper petitions.
Finally, at dissolution only the options to create, submit, and sign e-petitions will be deactivated. The archived e-petitions, government responses, and other information of a general nature will remain posted for consultation by the public.
[Translation]
That concludes the presentation.
[English]
We will be happy to answer your questions.
Just by way of introduction, as you may know my academic research is focused on voting systems, questions of voter turnout, voter registration, big qualitative but also historical terms. I've also been an academic adviser on an audit of Elections Canada in the 2000s.
I also have a lot of practical experience on elections. I was a deputy district electoral officer in British Columbia, which meant I was second in charge of running a local constituency as the administrator in 1996 and 2001, training 300 people to work on election day, hiring halls to have people come and vote, and all those kinds of details. I have an analysis of this that is both academic but also informed by some practical experience.
As you know from the brief that I submitted, I identified at least three problem areas that I saw with the legislation.
First, it seemed to me that the legislation offers a solution in search of a problem, given that there is no systematic comparative academic evidence that voter fraud is a problem.
Second, I noted an inconsistent application of the rules on the basis of geographic location inside or outside the country in the identification required and the registration processes.
Finally, I felt there was an inappropriate or disproportionate response to the problem, if there is a problem, in terms of the proof of residence required by those outside the country and the onerous registration restrictions. I didn't see how they could be justified in terms of the aims that were put forward about what the government wanted to accomplish with these reforms.
That's just a very brief summary of what I put in my brief here, and I'm happy to answer any questions you have.
:
Thank you very much for inviting me to describe to you my experience of voting in Canadian elections from abroad and how Bill would impact me.
I consider it both a privilege and a responsibility to participate in the democratic process of my country. That's why I'm here before you today, and that's why I have voted in every federal election since I've been old enough to vote, including the elections that were called while I've been away from Canada for educational and professional reasons.
While studying in Israel, I was on the international register of electors and voted a few times from there. To my dismay, I was then removed because of the five-year rule, so I closely followed the Frank case and was thrilled when that five-year rule was struck down last year. Having since taken up a postdoc position here in Switzerland, I started preparing a new registration with my spouse, who is also Canadian.
The instructions on Elections Canada's website, as well as the registration form itself, indicated that the forms should be returned either by fax or by mail, but oddly there was no email option. I first tried the fax machine, but it returned an error message dated July 14, 2014, last year. The next day, July 15, we sent both our applications in the same envelope by snail mail, since there was plenty of time still before the next election.
I didn't hear back from Elections Canada until October 15, in other words, three months later. I have since learned that email registrations are allowed, even though this is not advertised. Had we sent them by email, or had the fax machine worked properly, two or three weeks may have been saved but not months.
The email correspondence from Elections Canada that I received on October 15 indicated that they had received my application and that it was missing my proof of identity. I'm positive we had sent copies of our passports, but it was not a big deal to send them again, especially since this time they indicated we could send them by email.
Within a week, they confirmed by email that they had received our passport copies and added us to the international register of electors. Perhaps we really did forget to include our passport copies, and somehow this caused some months of delay. However, even after they confirmed they had all our documents, while I received my confirmation in the mail within two weeks, my spouse only received his hard copy at New Year's, in other words, two months later.
In total, the entire process until we received physical mail from Elections Canada took almost four months for me, and almost six months for my spouse. When I registered in Israel a few years ago, even though I don't have the exact dates, I also recall that the process was not particularly rapid.
Over the last 20 years, the length of all but one election campaign was less than 40 days. Under the new rules proposed by Bill , we would have to register for every election and only after an election is called. Given the length of the process we experienced, these rules would make it impossible for me and my spouse to vote. In light of this, I implore the committee to find some way to modify Bill to make it more feasible for us Canadians living abroad to exercise our democratic rights.
Here I offer some humble suggestions that would greatly help us.
First, Elections Canada should make it clear on its website and its registration forms that email registrations are possible and encouraged.
Second, it would be of obvious help if Bill were changed so that registrations can be sent outside of an election period. If for some reason Parliament feels that we need to register for every election, I think we could live with that, but at least give us ample time to do so. For example, a year in advance of an election may be sufficient, although since elections are sometimes called early, it would be better if we could register any time between elections.
Third, if for some reason this is not possible, it would be a huge help if snail mail were completely removed from the process. Currently, snail mail is required twice: once when Elections Canada sends the voting kit to the voter abroad, and again when the voter sends the completed ballot back. Both of these steps could be removed if we could vote at Canadian consulates and embassies, for example. Other countries, such as the United States and many EU countries, have made such arrangements for their citizens abroad. Many of them even allow voting at their consulates all the way up to election day. I'm sure Canada could make similar arrangements in such a way as to eliminate the delay of snail mail, while still confirming voters' identities and ridings, allowing us to cast a ballot.
In summary, the process that my spouse and I recently experienced in order to register to vote was much longer than the normal length of an election period. Thus, Bill , as proposed, would make it impossible for us to vote.
Canada is my only citizenship and the only country I'm allowed to vote in. I implore the committee to ensure that this is not taken away from me.
:
Thank you for inviting me to once again address what I have characterized as the most astonishing urban legend in Canadian public policy in the 35 years that I've studied public policy.
This urban legend claims that large, significant, or substantial numbers of Canadians lack any ID whatsoever, thereby disenfranchising them from voting. As a former banker deeply familiar with identification systems, I know that the principle of banking goes back to ancient times of “know thy customer” and is grounded in the idea that you can't collect money from someone if you don't know who it is you lent the money to. Therefore, identity and identification have been at the very core of financial systems for thousands of years, and it's only the rest of society, as we've moved into the digital economy, that is realizing what bankers have always understood.
First, I found that no critic had undertaken a systematic empirical review of all major identification systems in Canada using the government reports of the government departments that issue the ID in Canada: Passport Canada, Transport Canada, and so forth. I presented the empirical evidence of these systems both to your committee and the Senate committee in April 2014, and that became the basis of my op-ed published in The Globe and Mail on May 4, 2014, “Canadians who can't vote because they lack any ID? Don't believe it.”
I testified to you and in the op-ed...and I'm just going to summarize this very quickly.
Canadians possess over 200 million pieces of identification or identification documents including birth certificates, as the vital statistics acts of every province compel the registration of every birth in every province. StatsCan reports 29 million people in Canada were born in Canada, with 6.7 million people foreign born.
In Canada there are 29 million birth certificates. There are 22 million drivers' licences—not the 15 million stated by Mr. Mayrand—per the annual Transport Canada report to Parliament. There are 29 million cars and trucks registered in Canada per the Transport Canada report to Parliament, each with an ownership certificate disclosing name and address. It's the same for insurance certificates, and there are nearly 35 million health care cards, as every province requires a health card to access a doctor, a clinic, or a hospital.
According to StatsCan, 69% of Canadians, or 9.2 million, own their own home. Under provincial law, real estate ownership must be in writing with name and address disclosed. Likewise for rentals, 31% of Canadians rent, and under landlord and tenant acts, the name and address must be disclosed in writing in the tenancy.
Per the FCAC established by Parliament, 96% of Canadians have a bank account, and the Bank Act passed by Parliament requires two pieces of primary government-issued ID to open a bank account.
StatsCan 2013 reports that 17.5 million Canadians filed taxable returns with, of course, name and address, while another 8.9 million Canadians filed non-taxable returns to get the GST rebate and so forth, a total of 26.3 million filers. Per StatsCan, in 2014 two million Canadians boarded planes requiring ID three times: once at check-in, once at security, and once at the gate. Per Passport Canada, 70% of Canadians, or 23 million, have a passport. Per the Canadian Bankers Association, there are 71 million credit cards outstanding in Canada.
I'll wrap up very quickly. As the French philosopher Michel Foucault taught us in 1978 in his astonishing article on governmentality, government departments and agencies have been studying, measuring, analyzing, and collecting data on us over very long periods of time in every area of life in western countries from health care to hospitals, to educational institutions, to penal institutions, to security, to borders, to agriculture, to drug use, to seniors' housing, and on and on.
In other words, and I said this before and I'll say it again to you, it is legally and factually impossible today in Canada to be digitally invisible with zero identity of any kind in any database anywhere. The Frank court decision has added an estimated 1.5 million eligible voters abroad.
I support Bill as Parliament must act to establish a level playing field with respect to voting in federal elections so that voters abroad vote under the same rules as domestic voters. In summary, in a modern, complex society, identity and identification are absolutely essential. The nostalgia for 19th-century voting systems in a far smaller and simpler time simply does not work.
Finally, to the trust issue, to quote the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, if we all really are angels and never do anything wrong, they why do we lock our doors at night? Restated, why do we need ID to board a plane if none of us are terrorists?
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much to the committee for having me here to speak on this important bill. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa where I teach constitutional law and election law. You're all invited to come and speak to my class, if you'd like, down the road.
I'm going to give you a very different perspective than Professor Lee. You would have thought the law professor would be the one quoting Hobbes and Foucault, but instead I'm going to speak to the constitutionality of Bill , particularly the rules on registration and on voter identification for overseas voters.
In my opinion, and I wish it was otherwise, the bill as currently written is unconstitutional for violating section 3, which is of course the guarantee of the right to vote in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's unconstitutional because it substantially burdens the rights of all citizens, no matter where they live, all Canadian citizens, to be able to cast a ballot.
I would also add that I don't believe Bill is actually in the spirit of the Frank decision. Frank, of course, struck down the rule preventing those overseas for five years or more from voting, so it actually expanded voting rights.
My fear with Bill is that the House may inadvertently be doing indirectly what the courts have said it cannot do directly. The House of Commons cannot deprive people, ban them from voting. But if the rules are so onerous as to make it nearly impossible to be able to cast a ballot, then the effect is the same.
The relevant sections here for overseas voters, in particular, that raise a constitutional dimension are those that require individuals to register at each election and only once the writ has been dropped, and then the voter ID requirements from the being applied here.
Requiring registration only after the writ is dropped is a recipe for denying the right to vote to Canadian citizens. The timelines are extremely tight and I know there has been some discussion at the committee about Canada Post and how long it takes to go back and forth. Once you factor in applying to register, the approval by Elections Canada, and then sending your ballot in, it can become very difficult to get it in on time. It's not impossible, but we shouldn't have to be lucky to be able to exercise our constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. I fear that is what this bill would do.
I would just draw the committee's attention to the recent British election, which also had extensive postal balloting of hundreds of thousands of people, and an article from The Guardian. It said that 113,000 people applied to vote by post, and overseas voters raised concerns they did not receive their ballots in time. We often look to the United Kingdom as a shining example of democracy and here even through best efforts postal voting can be deeply problematic.
Second, to turn to the ID requirements, the driver's licence is, of course, the document that has both your identification and your residence on it. Of those who live overseas, however, or in the United States but are Canadian citizens, very few will actually have an incentive to keep their driver's licence or documents that prove their identification and residence.
I know the committee has had a discussion in Bill about ID requirements, so all I would add is that for overseas voters, however onerous the ID requirements are for Canadians living in Canada, for Canadians living abroad they're likely to be even more onerous. Why would you keep all those pieces of ID that you might potentially need in order to vote because you probably don't need them for any other reason?
To turn to the constitutionality explicitly, the courts have consistently expanded the right to vote since we've had the charter. The Sauvé decision granted prisoners the right to vote. Cases have also granted the mentally ill the right to vote. Frank, from the Ontario Superior Court—and we'll see what the court of appeal has to say and then potentially the Supreme Court—was absolutely in that tradition. If one is a citizen, any restriction on the right to vote has to be very clearly justified by the government.
The question here is: what is the justification? I believe, as Professor Pilon said, we don't have good evidence of widespread fraud that would lead us to say we should limit the right to vote of those who are non-residents. I would ask the committee to weigh the very direct and concrete harm that's likely to result for Canadians living outside of the country, making it very difficult for them to vote, versus the relatively abstract goal of trying to prevent fraud.
We all agree preventing fraud and electoral integrity are important, but without evidence that this fraud is actually occurring we are potentially creating a real harm through Bill .
To conclude, I would say the timing of registration is something that could easily be fixed. I know Mr. Kingsley said 30 days. Why not a year or perhaps even longer? You could register at any time potentially in between elections and I think that would be administratively possible.
If attestation as to residence is still going to be required, we should perhaps look at why the person who is attesting for you has to have lived in the same riding as you, because that is potentially artificial restriction that may not mean much on the ground and might restrict the right to vote.
Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to your questions.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
Thank you all very much for your attendance.
Under the heading of “voter suppression”, the first thing you find is Bill , because that's really what this is all about in our opinion. It's a continuation of the suppression clauses that have been incorporated into our election laws.
I want to make reference to the Chief Electoral Officer. Remember that fellow, the one whom the government didn't consult when they brought all the changes to the “unfair elections act”. He came back to talk about Bill , and one of the things that's been missed, and I don't think it was picked up in the public domain through the media, is that the change in clause 4 of Bill adds proposed paragraph 143(2.11)(b) to the Canada Elections Act. It incorporates a change. So far we've been focusing on the ID at the polling station as if it only affected foreign patriots voting who live abroad, but the fact remains that this change would change the entire Canada Elections Act.
This is the clause that's causing all the concern. It says, “an entity that is incorporated or formed by or under an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province or”—and this is the key thing—“that is otherwise formed in Canada.” Nobody knows what that means.
The change, if this passed, would not just be for voting abroad. It would be for all voters. Monsieur Mayrand said:
I am, however, concerned with the fact that the bill will make it more difficult for electors abroad to vote, and I expect that many will not be able to do so under the new rules. I am also very concerned with the new requirement that pieces of ID be issued by entities incorporated or “formed in Canada”—a criterion that is unclear and that cannot be administered by election officers. I urge the committee to consider this aspect of the bill, and also to consider other changes set out in the table....
We have our Chief Electoral Officer suggesting this is a real problem and he would like it removed. I wonder, Professor Pal, if you'd be kind enough to comment on that, because you did touch on this a bit, this whole aspect of the confusion it will cause. Would you confirm that your interpretation is that it does change the Canada Elections Act, and that these concerns at the voting station won't just happen outside Canada but could potentially happen in every polling station in Canada? Do you agree with that interpretation, sir?
:
I appreciate that. I deal with it every day.
The unsubstantiated, undocumented allegation that significant numbers of Canadians possess no identity cards appears to be a legend. But you also say that, digitally, we are not invisible. That's where we agree.
Here's where our opinions may diverge. You are not invisible to the government when it wants to find you.
Dr. Ian Lee: That's right.
Mr. Scott Simms: But, sir, this is an election and when the vote is called, the government doesn't come looking for you. You have to go to the ballot box.
Dr. Ian Lee: Right.
Mr. Scott Simms: There are so many pieces of ID that may be available to people, such as seniors IDs, such as attestations, such as all of this, that it becomes difficult in a short timeframe. We may think five weeks is not a short timeframe, but for people who are not engaged in politics, it's short and it's hard for them to do.
My question is this. One of the things government has done is eliminate the use of the voter information card. It's one of the few federal IDs. Do you not think, in light of this, that would go a long way?