Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 12 - Evidence for September 29, 2010
OTTAWA, Wednesday, September 29, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 4:16 p.m. to examine and report on the use of electronic assistive voting devices for persons with disabilities.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome back. I hope everyone had a wonderful summer. We are now about to begin our busy fall session.
Today, as you know, honourable senators, we have the great pleasure of having as our witness Mr. Marc Mayrand.
[Translation]
Marc Mayrand is the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. Stéphane Perrault is the Senior General Counsel and Senior Director. Michel Roussel is Senior Director, Field Readiness and Event Management. A little later on, we will have Lyne Morin, Director, Alternative Voting Methods. Representatives from Dominion Voting Systems are also here with us.
[English]
They will be giving us a practical demonstration in a few moments.
This meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs will learn, with interest, about the possibility of the use of electronic assistive voting devices for persons with disabilities, and that is why Mr. Mayrand is here.
[Translation]
Welcome to our committee. We are always happy to have you here. I believe you have a presentation.
Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair, for welcoming us so shortly after Parliament resumed and for agreeing to study our request for your official approval for testing an electronic assistive voting device.
This testing would take place during the by-election that must be called by October 27 in the electoral district of Winnipeg North. During the by-election, electronic devices would be made available to electors in the office of the returning officer, at advance polling stations and possibly at other polling sites that are yet to be determined.
As you know, section 18.1 of the Canada Elections Act authorizes me, and I quote:
. . . to test an electronic voting process for future use in a general election or a by-election.
Under that section, which was passed in 2000 with the current act, I must obtain the prior approval of the committees of the Senate and of the House of Commons that consider electoral matters.
This pilot project is an important step in the development of a voting process that would give persons with a visual impairment, as well as persons with reduced mobility, greater autonomy when they mark their ballots. According to 2006 data from Statistics Canada, over 2.9 million Canadians have reduced mobility and nearly 800,000 have a visual impairment.
The current act already contains a number of provisions to facilitate voting for these persons. Among other things, those provisions ensure there is a template at every polling station that persons who are visually impaired can use to mark their own ballot, once the election officer has indicated to them the order of the different candidates on the ballot; allow a relative, friend or election officer to mark the ballot for an elector with an impairment; and allow voting by special ballot.
However, our experience with affected communities has shown that a substantial number of electors with a visual or other impairment are increasingly insisting on exercising their right to vote autonomously while preserving the secrecy of their ballot, something that the current act does not allow. Where technology permits, we must strive to meet the expectations of these electors and position ourselves to better serve them.
Indeed, similar electronic processes are increasingly being used in provincial elections, such as in Ontario and, a little earlier this week, in New Brunswick, and in several municipalities.
[English]
Although this technology has already been used elsewhere, I believe it is essential to test such a process in a federal context. This will allow us to effectively demonstrate to all stakeholders — ourselves at Elections Canada, as well as election administrators in the regions, electors, candidates and parliamentarians — that the new electronic device can be a useful tool that integrates well into the voting process established by the Canada Elections Act.
For example, testing would make it possible to ensure that the federal election calendar allows for the electronic device to be programmed and verified before it is deployed in advance polling stations, taking into account the time frame between the close of nominations and the first day of advance voting; that there is adequate staff at polling stations to ensure smooth conduct of the vote; that an appropriate communication strategy is put in place so that targeted electors are informed of this voting option; and that the secrecy of the vote is preserved, notably with respect to the random mark left by the device and the ballot-handling procedure used by the election officer who operates the device; and finally, that the voting process meets electors' needs.
Section 18.1 of the act provides for the possibility of testing an electronic voting process, and in the current circumstances I believe it is essential that we act upon that provision. This will help to instill, in all participants, trust in the new voting method.
Madam Chair, I wrote to you recently to provide an overview of the voting process that would be used for this pilot project.
I believe that the information has been provided to the committee members, so I will not go into all the details here. However, we will shortly demonstrate the use of the electronic assistive voting device. As you will see, the device in question has several features designed to allow a diversity of users to vote autonomously.
Subject to the prior approval of the parliamentary committees, the pilot project would be conducted during the forthcoming by-election in the electoral district of Winnipeg North. If the by-election were superseded by the call of a general election, the electronic assistive device would still be tested in that electoral district.
After the by-election, an evaluation of our services and processes would be conducted, in particular the information for electors, the deployment of the device, the training of election officers and the smooth conduct of the election.
In addition, the evaluation would help us gauge the satisfaction of targeted electors and the groups representing them and ensure that trust is maintained in the integrity of the process.
Prior to the fall of 2011, Elections Canada would conduct a cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the feasibility of a large- scale implementation in a future general election. This analysis could take into account the experience with the implementation of other jurisdictions, namely, Ontario, which is bound to have a general election next fall. All stakeholders in the electoral process would need to be consulted to compare the impact of this technology on our accessibility objectives with other initiatives such as Internet voting.
Honourable senators, as the permanent implementation of this process would require some relatively minor amendments to the act, I would make formal recommendations on this matter if the pilot project was successful and the cost-benefit analysis positive. Before offering the service on a national scale, it is likely that an additional period of 12 months will be required to complete the procurement process, as well as to update our procedures and training tools.
My colleagues and I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have following the demonstration of the electronic assistive voting device. We hope that after we can receive your approval for testing this process during the by-election in the electoral district of Winnipeg North.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayrand. As planned, we are going to suspend the formal portion of this hearing so that the senators can go see the machine.
[English]
We will have a practical demonstration of this device by Ms. Morin, to whom I referred earlier, who is accompanied by Mr. John McKinstry and Mr. Steve Papoulias, both from the Dominion Voting Systems.
We now suspend for, we hope, no more than 15 minutes. We will hold all the questions for Mr. Mayrand until we resume our proceedings.
(The committee suspended.)
[Translation]
(The committee resumed.)
The Chair: Mr. Mayrand, that is fascinating. We move now to the question period. We will start with Senator Wallace and continue with Senators Carignan and Carstairs.
[English]
Senator Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Mayrand, for a very good presentation. Certainly, we would all agree that anything that could assist people with disabilities to vote in a better way than what presently exists obviously makes a great deal of sense, and I know we would all be supportive of that.
The questions I have are to ensure that this system is the right one and gives the protection that you believe it will give. This particular system has been developed by Dominion Voting Systems — and this company just gave the presentation. Is it a private company or a branch of the federal government?
Mr. Mayrand: It is a private company. I am not sure if it is on the stock exchange, but it is a commercial enterprise.
Senator Wallace: Is Dominion Voting Systems the only company that has provided these types of assistive voting systems in Canadian elections?
Mr. Mayrand: There are other providers of this service. This one was selected following a call for interest and tenders.
As I mentioned in the presentation, after the test, we would need to run a full procurement process if we were to proceed to a full-scale deployment.
Senator Wallace: My question was not clear. I am wondering, with the voting that has taken place in Ontario or New Brunswick or other municipalities in Canada, whether all of those voting mechanisms used systems developed by this company, Dominion Voting Systems. Have others been used elsewhere in the country?
Mr. Mayrand: I know that other companies exist that offer similar services; one is based in Halifax, I believe, but I have forgotten its name. I do not know how the technologies compare with one another.
Senator Wallace: Have any other company's systems been used in an election in Canada, whether provincial or municipal?
Mr. Mayrand: I believe so, but I would have to confirm that. I am not familiar with all the jurisdictions, and, again, it is being used more and more, especially at the municipal level. Certainly, Dominion Voting Systems is one of the largest providers and most frequently used, but I know other providers are in the market. I do not know to what extent they have been used by electoral administrations.
Senator Wallace: It is interesting and seems to be a major step forward. I know that each of us is thinking whether there are any pitfalls with it, whether it will protect privacy, function properly and so forth. Not having a technical background, none of us would know, and that would be a concern of yours.
Has your department or any other provincial or municipal government done any follow-up assessment of the use of these devices in Canada? If they have, were any problems identified, or are there any reports on the performance of these devices?
Mr. Mayrand: It is relatively new in the electoral administration. I am aware of an assessment in Ontario when they were tested in the by-election, I believe, last year or the year before. The report pointed out a number of issues. Fundamentally, the technology works. Issues exist around "calendar pressures" that are built into the Canada Elections Act. That needed to be amended in that regard.
There are issues in reaching out to the electors who could use those devices. As I mentioned, according to various census data, we are talking about possibly 3 million electors. Our problem is to reach out to those electors, educate them and make them aware of the device. Another problem is bringing the device to where they are, as opposed to asking them to come to us. That is why, in our pilot, we are looking at using the device at the returning officer's office, advance polls and long-term care facilities. That is a little different from the others, such as the one that has taken place in Ontario.
If we receive approval from the committees, we will also engage in discussion with various representative groups in Winnipeg North to see whether there are other locations where the electors who would use the system could be reached more effectively.
It is relatively new. If you look at the Ontario experience, few electors have used it, which suggests an issue of awareness and familiarity with the technology. As you see, we still have to learn to use it, and it may take some time before we reach that point. However, from the point of view of the technology, it works. No issues have been experienced with the secrecy or the functioning of the system.
Senator Wallace: If you have any performance reports that have been done by any of the provinces or municipalities on these devices, it would be useful if you could make those available to us.
Mr. Mayrand: Yes, and, following our test, if it is approved, we will certainly share the results of our evaluation after the by-election.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Welcome to this committee. I am a strong supporter of electronic voting. I think that we are especially late in increasing access to electronic voting for all Canadians.
How many times could this type of device be used? When we come up with a new solution, we always try to find the problem that we want to solve in order to assess the costs. I am trying to understand what problem we want to solve. I understand the concept of voting secrecy, but I am still not sure that confidentiality will be achieved given what happens with the ballot after.
When an elector requires assistance to vote and representatives from each party are present, it is all recorded in the record of votes. Do you have statistics that show how many times an elector asks for assistance to vote?
Mr. Mayrand: We have done a few studies on this issue that suggest that more than 10 per cent of all voters, just counting those with visual impairment, have enough problems to request some form of assistance.
Senator Carignan: I do not want to know the statistics for people with visual impairment, but rather the number of times an elector actually requires assistance to the extent that party representatives have to see the person voting, even given the fact that they have taken a confidentiality oath. I imagine you have statistics somewhere. At least, I hope so.
Mr. Mayrand: I am also not sure whether representatives have access to the ballots. They can observe. They have access to the instructions. They are witnesses.
Senator Carignan: They are witnesses, but they can, in certain cases, have access to the votes when people with visual impairments say they want to put an X for a particular candidate. The representatives from other parties can make sure that the officer puts the X.
Mr. Mayrand: But that still take place behind the screen.
Senator Carignan: Is it very rare?
Mr. Mayrand: We still do it very quietly. It can happen but that is not necessarily the objective.
Senator Carignan: I understand. It is very rare. So, we use rather complex equipment, which I think is quite expensive. It will be difficult to set it up in all the constituencies to solve a problem that seems to be very rare.
I think the chief electoral officer must have important investment priorities in order to provide electronic voting devices for everyone or to encourage people to vote since participation rates are dropping significantly at the moment. It seems to me that, in the chief electoral officer's mandate, a lot of energy should be invested in things that are going to add value to democracy. Could you tell me how many requests there were, if you have the statistics for the previous elections where electors requested assistance from the staff?
Mr. Mayrand: To my knowledge, we do not have these types of statistics.
Senator Carignan: I am surprised you do not have them. If you have identified a problem like that with such and such a solution, I am really surprised that you do not have the statistics.
Mr. Mayrand: I can give you the statistics on the number of people who use the special ballot, but we cannot necessarily make a direct link with the electors' condition.
Having said that, I understand your point and it is something that we will want to evaluate in Winnipeg North. Perhaps I should also point out the context. We must remember that a number of complaints have been submitted to the Human Rigths Commission. The Human Rights Act requires us to adapt our services to the needs and conditions of the electors, among other things.
Canada has recently ratified an international convention that encourages governments and election authorities to make adjustments so that electors with disabilities can have as much autonomy as possible when they vote, respecting their right to dignity and their right to a secret vote. In one of its provisions, the international convention also recommends more use of technology.
This initiative follows the representations we received from groups and from people with disabilities who wish to vote independently. A complaint was filed with the Human Rights Commission asking that the ballots be produced in Braille. When we did the study, we realized that few blind electors actually use Braille. On the one hand, that would not meet the needs of the whole population who require this service. On the other hand, we found that, operationally, no company in Canada would be able to produce 25 million ballots in Braille within the time frame set out in the act. That is when we started to look at other solutions.
The solution that I am proposing today allows for a more secret and more autonomous vote than we have had up to now. In the long run, that will become part of our considerations in our evaluation. We must not forget that Elections Canada is currently looking at the possibility of introducing electronic voting, which would give greater autonomy to people with various disabilities. In the evaluation report that is to be submitted after the pilot project, we should consider other alternatives to address this need.
Senator Carignan: You said you studied a number of other solutions. You tendered for several technologies. Have you studied other possibilities than adding Braille on 25 million ballots, which, in my opinion, is not necessary?
Mr. Mayrand: They are still electors.
Senator Carignan: I imagine they are not all blind.
Mr. Mayrand: We do not know which ones are.
Senator Carignan: This is about finding solutions like changing the ballot, whether just by filling in a box, or finding ways that involve changing the ballot, to avoid dispute. The darned X is so questionable as a distinct mark that we are forced to try to make a number of copies so that the mark is not distinct. The problem of the distinct mark is solved in some voting systems where the dot is a lot smaller or a box is blacked out. Perhaps, that may solve other problems for those with physical disabilities who have to trace the mark. Are there methods or systems other than a system like this that have been studied and that could achieve the same objective at a more affordable cost?
Mr. Mayrand: There are other methods. There are already some laid out in the act that I mentioned in my presentation. Among others, there is a template for blind people that allows them to mark the ballot. But a third party must still help them by reading the names of the candidates to them.
Senator Carignan: And does that still guarantee confidentiality?
Mr. Mayrand: That guarantees secrecy, yes. But we still have the groups' request. Human rights commissions and international conventions receive requests that say: yes, the secret vote, but also the dignity and autonomy of electors as much as possible. The conventions ask us to explore technologies that allow for greater autonomy of and self- sufficiency for these electors.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Carignan.
Senator Carignan: My grandmother was blind and I think she would have been afraid of the machine.
[English]
Senator Carstairs: This is a very exciting venture for anyone who is or who knows anyone who is handicapped. With privacy issues, as soon as you take an assistant to vote with you, that assistant will always know how you are voting. This system gives people the opportunity to actually have secret ballots.
My question has to do with your choice of Winnipeg North. I presume the reason is that it will be the first by-election that will be called, although two others might be called at the same time. Winnipeg North, for my colleagues, is a very multi-cultural riding. It is also a lower socio-economic riding and happens to be one in which many handicapped people choose to live because they tend to be at the lower socio-economic demographic within our country. From that perspective, it is a very good choice of riding.
However, Dauphin-Swan River, which is a very rural riding, may also have an election at the same time. Would you broaden this so that you could pilot in a rural riding as well as in an urban riding at the same time?
Mr. Mayrand: We have been considering whether we should expand if there is more than one by-election. However, based on the experience that exists right now across the country, our view is that it would be better, for the reasons you have mentioned about Winnipeg North and also because there are national groups based in Winnipeg that represent disabled persons, to focus on one pilot. The main challenge for us will not be a technology issue so much as one of reaching out to those electors and making them aware. We also hope to have an opportunity to reach out to them before the election and perhaps do a demonstration.
In a setting such as this, the technology always looks easy to use, but it could take a few moments. Our preference is to work on that basis. We are less concerned about bringing the technology into larger ridings. Our concern is to make the connection to the electors who can use the device, and we thought that Winnipeg North was a very good riding for that purpose.
Senator Carstairs: You have partly answered my second question. We have the Manitoba association of disabilities and, in every province, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, CNIB. Is it possible to offer the members of those organizations the opportunity to practice on the machines prior to the election so that they would be more comfortable?
Mr. Mayrand: Yes, that is something we would like to test in that by-election. Also, depending on the discussions we have with the local communities, there may be opportunities to have those machines in seniors' residences. Perhaps we could install the machine a few days before the voting to allow the residents to become familiar with it.
If we approach it this way, we believe that the quality of the feedback from the electors who use it will be much more valuable.
Senator Carstairs: I assume that the option not to use the machine will still exist.
Mr. Mayrand: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Carstairs: If a person chooses to bring someone to help them vote, would that option still be available to them?
Mr. Mayrand: Absolutely. It does not take away any other option. It is simply an additional option that is offered to electors.
Senator Lang: Could you give us a brief description of how the process works right now? What tools are currently available for handicapped voters to go through the procedure?
Mr. Mayrand: Information officers will ask handicapped electors whether they need any assistance. If they need assistance, it could be provided by friends or family members who accompany them. If none is present, it could be provided by an electoral official. This depends on the type of assistance required. A blind person may receive assistance either from an official or a friend who will read the ballot. The individual is provided with a device that allows him or her to know the order of candidates and to mark the ballot in complete secrecy. It is a sleeve into which you slip the ballot. On it are numbers in Braille corresponding to the order of the candidates on the ballot. The ballot is read by the individual assisting the blind person and the blind person can follow along the sleeve to find the number of the candidate of his or her choice on the ballot. The blind person can then mark the ballot independently and secretly. That is one option.
Other options depend on the barriers. I do not want to go broader than disabled electors. Interpretive services are available to electors who have language issues. For those who have difficulty reading, someone from whom they have agreed to accept assistance could read.
Senator Lang: To clarify the record, I understand that today you cannot give us statistics on how many people across Canada have asked for this type of service. Is it correct that you do not keep those statistics?
Mr. Mayrand: That is correct.
Senator Lang: My other question is on the past experience in New Brunswick. You are saying that we have to do a test of how it works at the federal level. I am sure that casting a ballot in a New Brunswick provincial election is not much different from casting a ballot in a federal election.
Have you had a report from the electoral office in New Brunswick on their experience, both in municipal elections and in the election the other night?
Mr. Mayrand: We have had exchanges with them on the effectiveness of the technology and the challenges in training, setting up the procedures, et cetera. They do not track the number of users, so the statistic is not available from that source either. We will not know how many disabled electors actually used the device in New Brunswick.
Senator Runciman: I am interested in the New Brunswick experience as well. I am supportive of a federal pilot project; I think it is appropriate. We must ensure that the assessment of the pilot project is an all-in assessment. You speak of your concern about people being aware that this technology is available to them and the training costs that will be associated with that. I want to feel comfortable that any pilot project that is undertaken will incorporate all of those factors to conclude at the end of the day whether this system merits a broader application.
This is probably not fair, but I did acquire the statistics from the exercise in the Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock by-election in Ontario. They did keep track of the number of people who used the technology there. There may be extenuating circumstances, but it worked out to about $4,500 per person casting a ballot. I believe that nine voters used the technology for a total cost of close to $41,000.
You have used an estimate here of $21,000 to $25,000. I am not sure if that is an all-in estimate. Is that least cost? What is that comprised of?
Mr. Mayrand: That includes the use of the equipment for one by-election in Winnipeg North in all six advance polling locations, the returning officer and a long-term care facility centre. We are also currently exploring other locations. Again, we are not talking about tripling the number of locations.
Senator Runciman: That does not include training, marketing or staff.
Mr. Mayrand: No, it does not include outreach or communication. It includes the setting up and use of the machines for four days of voting, as well as the assistants. Representatives of Dominion Voting Systems will be on location during the voting process in that test so that any issues with the technology can be addressed quickly. That part of the estimated cost would not normally occur in an election.
Senator Runciman: I do not think it has been mentioned that this machine also helps to count ballots. Am I correct in saying that it plays a role there?
Mr. Mayrand: No, not in this set-up.
Senator Runciman: However, it could play a role.
Mr. Mayrand: It is possible. Many municipalities use tabulators to compute the results. We did not see the benefit of that for federal elections at this time. In municipal elections, you have many candidates on the ballots. It takes much longer to compute the results manually, so there are some benefits to the tabulator. We do not see the benefits of that at this point.
Senator Runciman: I personally support the pilot. In the interim, before we receive a report back on the assessment, perhaps research could also do a little work with respect to Senator Carignan's suggestion to look at other options available to us, to individuals challenged at the polls. That would be one area, as well as alternative technologies that the committee might find helpful in reaching some conclusions at the end of the day.
Senator De Bané: Has the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer already tested this system with a good representative sample of physically challenged people in Ottawa or anywhere in Canada?
Mr. Mayrand: We have not at this point.
Senator De Bané: Do you not think it would be good to do that before asking the House of Commons and Senate committees to approve it? I know that other levels of government have done it, but as the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, I submit respectfully that you should do your own assessment, using physically challenged people in this city or any other place in Canada, and not wait for a real practice in a by-election. I leave that for your consideration.
Mr. Mayrand: I may add briefly, we have not tested it ourselves, but we have observed the use of the machine in other jurisdictions.
Senator De Bané: I humbly suggest that you should do your own sampling and testing of this.
Section 18.1 reads that such a process may not be used for an official vote without the prior approval of both houses of the Parliament of Canada.
The spirit of that section, "such a process," to me means that every time you change the process and use another technology, the two houses have to be consulted. Is that also your interpretation?
Mr. Mayrand: Yes, the two committees must be consulted.
Senator De Bané: Does that mean every time?
Mr. Mayrand: Yes, that is correct.
Senator De Bané: As you know, we are in a field here where the technology moves at a rapid pace. Television changes every three months. I look at the software I used 20 years ago in word processing and how many updates with substantial changes have come since. I am happy that you and I interpret "such a process may not be used" such that every time the process changes, you will come back.
Mr. Mayrand: Yes, that is the case.
Senator De Bané: This is great news.
Can you give me an idea of how much you estimate the cost will be for the next general election, and what would helping the physically challenged represent as an incremental, additional cost? What is the first big number, and then what does this system represent? In my opinion, we are ahead of many other western countries with respect to physically challenged people, but we still have room to improve.
Mr. Mayrand: The last general election in 2008 cost $278 million. Out of that, close to $50 million went to political parties and candidates. Therefore, the actual cost of running the election was around $226 million for the administration, plus about $50 million of reimbursement for electoral candidates.
Senator De Bané: Forget about the political parties. It was about $225 million, is that correct?
Mr. Mayrand: It was around that amount, yes.
Senator De Bané: What will the next one be?
Mr. Mayrand: We have not seen the budget recently, but I should have seen it, given the status of a minority parliament. That is something I will be looking at in the next few weeks. I would expect a slight increase.
Senator De Bané: This technology, if it is in place for the whole country, would represent an additional cost of approximately how much?
Mr. Mayrand: It would be premature for me to answer before we have done the test and a full business case. I do not know yet how we will be deploying that into a general election. We need to do a fair bit of additional analysis.
Senator De Bané: Can you give minimum and maximum amounts, approximately?
Mr. Mayrand: I do not know what the market will tell me. I will give you a very artificial price; I am not suggesting it is the right price; I may regret if I mention it. To deploy a device and service it during an election, let us say that it is $500. According to the pilot, we would be deploying that to returning officers, assistant returning officers and advance polls. Right now we are talking about 3,500 locations, and we have not reached all polling stations, nor have I mentioned the long-term care facilities and these other sites that exceed 1,000 across the country. It adds up quickly. That is why we need to have a full business case on this matter. That is why we need to see, through a test, how we can promote the use of those devices for those who need it. If the demand does not materialize, we will have to look at other options.
Senator De Bané: Do I understand you will do a test yourself?
Mr. Mayrand: Yes, that is correct.
Senator De Bané: Will that be before the by-election?
Mr. Mayrand: No, it will be in the by-election.
Senator Angus: Most of the questions I wanted to ask were asked by other senators, but I did want to ask several more.
I was surprised when you said that you did not know how many disabled persons took advantage of the system on Monday night in New Brunswick.
Mr. McKinstry, do you or your colleague know?
John McKinstry, Representative, Dominion Voting Systems: No, we do not. I do not know if they kept records of it. I do not know if Elections New Brunswick kept records.
Senator Angus: I find it incredible, this new technology.
I am the same as Senator Carstairs; the more we can encourage or enable disabled people to participate in the system in an absolutely secret-ballot way, the better. Is this initiative designed, in your mind, to supplement or replace the current system, or is it to get more people out, encourage more disabled people to come and vote? What statistics do you have in that regard?
Mr. Mayrand: I think certainly supplement, but not substitute the current system; it is to offer another channel, if I can use that expression, for those electors to cast a ballot. It is also a reflection of, again, that large figure I mentioned earlier, that close to 4 million electors suffer various limitations.
Canada is also very much an aging society. I am sure senators are aware of the demographic trend in the country.
Senator Angus: We are part of it.
Mr. Mayrand: That was not my suggestion.
Senator Angus: However, we are part of it.
Mr. Mayrand: People live longer but suffer severe limitations as they age. Our traditional approach will not meet their needs. We are talking here about electors who have voted all their lives. We need to keep ahead in that respect and be ready to adapt our services to the changing needs of electors.
I would not suggest — and I did not want to leave the impression — that suddenly we will have millions of electors using this new method. It will take years to ensure that everyone is aware of it and becomes familiar with the technology. However, in the long term, it certainly meets at least the principle of secrecy and autonomy that does not exist in the current system for many electors.
Senator Angus: You say that roughly 4 million disabled electors are on the rolls. Of those 4 million, is it your belief that a large percentage are not voting because they are disabled and do not feel they can do it properly?
Mr. Mayrand: It is difficult to tell. I can only relay the representations that are made to us from various groups from time to time. Many of them will not bother because of the issue of secrecy. As to how widespread that is within that group of electors, you would have to call further experts for that information.
Senator Angus: One does not know what is in the mind, heart and soul of a particular disabled elector, but it seems to me that this would be an intimidating system. It is mechanical. Previously, you would bring your caregiver and go in to mark the ballot. I have taken many disabled people to the polls, and it goes smoothly. This could become a nightmare.
Mr. Mayrand: Yes and no, and that is why we need to test it. If you speak to groups representing those electors, they will tell you that they are quite familiar with this type of technology. Many have computers, and many have devices on their computers that compensate for various disabilities. Again, without a test, it is difficult to say. Yes, it will be new in polling stations, so that is a change. We need to do some education and reach out before the test so that electors who could benefit from that technology are aware of it and relatively familiar with it before they come to actually vote.
Senator Angus: On this same initiative, is it part of your long-term strategy to ultimately introduce interactive voting?
Mr. Mayrand: As part of our strategic plan, we are looking at Internet voting, and that is something with which we would hope to come to this committee again. Our plan is, with the authority of various committees, to test Internet voting in 2013. We are a few years away, but not that far.
Senator Angus: We will send you some tweets on that one. Thank you very much.
Senator Plett: As was said earlier, the difficulty with being toward the end of the list is that most of the questions have been asked. You almost had me sold until you said that this might be a segue into Internet voting. I certainly would not support Internet voting at this time. However, we are not discussing that, so I will save those remarks for some other time.
I want to make one comment about the machinery, if I could, before I ask some questions. This is simply further to what Senator Carignan mentioned when the vote was being demonstrated. The machine asked the question or listed two or three names, and then the person made the vote. I feel strongly about the fact that the machine should not allow the person to vote until all names have been read. I believe it might be a slight form of manipulation. Ballots are done by alphabetical order, and I understand all of that, so it would not be that it would favour one party over another, rather it is simply a comment that I have.
Like Senator Carstairs, I am from Manitoba. I am not from Winnipeg. I am from rural Manitoba — and not Dauphin-Swan River — but clearly interested in the fact that you are doing this in Winnipeg.
It has already been said that you need approval from the committee to do this in the general election. Do you not need that same approval to do a pilot project?
Mr. Mayrand: Yes. That is why we are here today.
Senator Plett: This pilot project has not been approved.
Mr. Mayrand: No. That is exactly why we are here tonight.
Senator Plett: I am a substitute on this committee, so excuse me for that.
The Chair: You are welcome anyway.
Senator Plett: Thank you. Did you give us an estimate of the cost for Winnipeg North? Maybe I missed that as well
Mr. Mayrand: It is between $20,000 and $25,000. That is the cost of deploying and administering the device in the by-election. It does not include the cost of the communication and outreach that we need to develop at this point in time, if we get approval, nor does it include the cost of the evaluation afterwards.
Senator Plett: You raised the point of evaluation. I also find it strange that we have not been checking the jurisdictions that are doing this. To me, if we are doing a pilot project, it would have made a great deal of sense to have Elections Canada in New Brunswick a few days ago.
Mr. Mayrand: We were in New Brunswick.
Senator Plett: However, you cannot give us the information on how many people used it or how successful it was. I have not heard any statistics here on success. That is a comment, not a question.
How will you determine success or lack of success in Winnipeg North? Do you have a number of people who need to use this? How will you determine whether this exercise has been successful in Winnipeg North?
Mr. Mayrand: One of the things we will validate is that the technology does work. We are quite confident that it does. The other measure of success will be how it is being used and the extent to which it is being used by electors. Another measure of success will be if electors were satisfied with using the device. Those are the three main criteria.
Senator Plett: Will you track the number of users?
Mr. Mayrand: Yes, definitely.
Senator Plett: My other questions have been asked. I want to say that I am not quite as keen on doing this as perhaps some of my colleagues, but nevertheless I think you have answered the questions. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: The first question I would like to ask is this: To your knowledge, have any developed countries in Europe or North America gone to the Internet for voting already?
Mr. Mayrand: For voting, yes, certainly.
Senator Boisvenu: When I look at the Internet, I see it as a technology that can provide a lot of confidentiality. A person can vote very secretly, right in his own bedroom even. If we are going to be using the Internet in a few years, this seems to be outmoded technology. Is that your impression?
Mr. Mayrand: Honestly, that consideration will be front and centre in the business case that we will be producing. Is the investment really justified if it becomes temporary because we start voting online?
The only thing I am going to have to say — and it is premature to say before all the tests are done — is that, although we are looking at testing online voting for 2013, I cannot see online voting rolled out to any significant extent for several years.
I am not sure that Canadians and their representatives are ready to accept voting at home via the Internet. I am not sure whether it might undermine public confidence a little. There have been a number of experiments in the United States and Australia. Honestly, in Australia, they gave up.
There have been experiments in Switzerland and in various other European countries; the technology seems to work well and meet the needs, but there will always be security issues.
One of the basic problems with the Internet, which the candidates and the parties will probably think is very important, is that voting will no longer be able to be witnessed, whereas, when people come to a polling station, there are observers. That is something that will have to be discussed with party candidates.
Senator Boisvenu: This technology seems to me to be cumbersome and expensive. It needs almost continuous technical support. They used electronic voting in Sherbrooke five or six years ago. The system crashed during the day and they had to finish manually. So there is a lot of risk there.
Mr. Mayrand: I would like to clarify something. There would be a technician, but if this machine broke down, really broke down, other methods of voting would still be available. It would not paralyze the vote.
Senator Boisvenu: Are you going to tender for a supplier, and does the supplier have to be Canadian?
Mr. Mayrand: That is a good question. Yes, we are going to tender. According to NAFTA rules, my understanding is that tenders must be open to NAFTA jurisdictions at least.
Senator Boisvenu: Are you going to rent or buy?
Mr. Mayrand: That is what we will evaluate in our business case analysis.
Senator Boisvenu: If we get on the Internet in a few years and we are left with equipment as cumbersome as this, it will no longer have much value.
Mr. Mayrand: True; that is one of the considerations.
Senator Boisvenu: So will you come back to see us if it is decided that voting will be online?
Mr. Mayrand: Absolutely, if we will be voting online. If the committee approves, I will share the results of the pilot project, the evaluation and the business plan.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Cowan: Thank you for your presentation. I want to go back over some of the same ground that some of my colleagues have covered, particularly with respect to the recent experience in New Brunswick. I can understand why, perhaps, so recently after the election, you do not have all the figures, and I am sure there are sensitivities. We do want not to be in a position where we are simply dividing the cost by the number of voters and then making some calculation that it is not worthwhile doing. I think we all agree that the more we can accommodate people's special needs and encourage them to vote, the better off we will be.
However, it surprised me, particularly because you said that you will be determining the number of people who use the device in the Winnipeg by-election, that New Brunswick did not count. Did I understand correctly that New Brunswick did not count and you will not know how many people used it?
Mr. Mayrand: That is my understanding. I should point out that in New Brunswick it is not only disabled electors who were using the device. They know how many people used the device, but they cannot tell you how many disabled electors used the device.
Senator Cowan: Do you have any figures now that would give us some indication of how many people used the device?
Mr. Mayrand: No, I do not have figures this fresh after Monday. However, I am sure they will become available at a certain point. I spoke to the Chief Electoral Officer of New Brunswick on that, and my understanding is that we will not be able to find out how many disabled electors used the device.
Senator Cowan: Some non-disabled electors chose to use it for some reason, is that right?
Mr. Mayrand: Yes, and I think it would be fair to say that the vast majority of people who used the device were not disabled.
Senator Cowan: That is interesting.
Do you know where those were located in New Brunswick? Obviously, they were used by the returning officers. Was there special polling? I do not know New Brunswick electoral rules. In addition to advance polls, are special polls open for extended periods?
Mr. Mayrand: I might have to rely on my colleague. The devices were used at the office of the returning officer and in some long-term care facilities, I believe — not at advance polls.
Michel Roussel, Senior Director, Field Readiness and Event Management, Elections Canada: The machines were deployed at the returning officer's office and also at satellite offices within each electoral district.
Senator Cowan: I think my questions are covered. Thank you, sir.
The Chair: I have a number of questions, so I will try to keep them short, and you will try to keep your answers short.
First, would it be reasonable to maybe not assume but at least suggest that a significant number of the people without a physical disability who chose to use this system in New Brunswick might have done so because they have literacy problems?
Mr. Mayrand: That is one group of electors. I would not make that assumption, but electors with literacy problems is one group of electors that could use it, yes.
The Chair: Obviously, it is easier if someone is reading it to you.
Mr. Mayrand: Yes, that is correct.
The Chair: Who is Dominion Voting Systems? Is that an entirely Canadian company or a subsidiary of an American company?
Mr. McKinstry: We are a Canadian company, with a presence now also in the United States. Our head office is in Toronto, and we are an incorporated Ontario company.
The Chair: You are not a subsidiary of a foreign firm, is that correct?
Mr. McKinstry: No; the company started in Ontario in 2003.
The Chair: Did you develop your own software, or did you get it under license from someone?
Mr. McKinstry: It is our software.
The Chair: We have all seen some of the very controversial reports out of the United States about difficulties with electronic voting machines, and I know that a fair number of those reported difficulties have involved vote counts, which is different from what we are looking at here. However, that has raised the question of the ability to hack into proprietary software.
Do you have control over the software that will be used in these systems? Let me say that I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am trying to ensure that the absolute faith Canadians tend to have in their electoral system can be maintained.
Do you, Mr. Mayrand, as Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, have any control at all over the software, or do you have to buy it as a closed system?
Mr. Mayrand: We will eventually be the ones programming the machine for the purpose of the vote. We will be downloading information in those machines in preparation for the election.
It is also part of our test to see how it fits in the calendar. I am not sure I am fully answering your question, but we will be controlling the information going into the machines. These machines are all independent from one another; they do not work on a network.
The Chair: There is no central capacity to go in and fiddle; am I right?
Mr. Mayrand: No. Each device is programmed individually.
The Chair: As I said during the technical demonstration, one thing that raised a little concern in my mind is what happens when the ballot is printed out and comes out face up. I think you said that the deputy returning officer would take it.
Mr. Mayrand: An additional electoral officer would be appointed to do that.
The Chair: That is the person who takes the printed ballot, which comes out face up, and refolds it to put it in the box. I am wondering whether it would be possible, particularly for people with visual disabilities, to have someone with them, in addition to your official, so that they would be confident that the ballot was not read by anyone before it was folded. This refers to my concern about Canadians being confident that their ballot is secret.
Mr. Mayrand: Yes, it would be someone they trust who could attest to the secrecy. That is probably something we could explore, unless my legal adviser suggests otherwise.
[Translation]
Stéphane Perrault, Senior General Counsel and Senior Director, Elections Canada: To the extent that we have approval from both committees and we are granted dispensation from the act, we have some flexibility. I feel that we must be very clear at both committees as to the extent of the dispensation. That is something that could be looked into and studied with the other committee as well.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
As an observation, you said, Mr. Mayrand, that the technology looks so simple here. It does not look simple to me, especially not if someone is a bit nervous or confused. I would urge you to devote substantial effort, in addition to reaching out to tell people that they can vote, to showing them how to do it. I am not sure how I could recommend making it simpler other than perhaps simplifying words such as "functionality" and "de-selection." First-time users, in particular, may need a good deal of help.
Mr. Mayrand: That is a major issue in the test that we need to assess.
Ottawa did demonstrations in various malls over the last few weekends. That is another way of spreading awareness for handicapped electors and their family members. Things of that nature can be done.
Senator Wallace: Mr. Mayrand, I want to ensure that I understand what the implications would be if this and the house committee were to approve the use of this technology in your pilot project. If you concluded that it was successful and you wanted to roll it out in the next general election, would approval to proceed in that way have to be given by us, or do you have the authority to make that decision?
Mr. Mayrand: I can assure you that I would have to come back to both committees for additional approval.
Unless everyone is enthusiastic and wants us to move faster, after the test and evaluation, I will likely recommend positive changes to the legislation. That would require a bill being prepared, tabled and studied through the normal process.
Senator Wallace: In responding to a question from Senator Boisvenu, you said that following the pilot test, you would do a technical assessment of the performance. I thought you said as well that you would make a determination of whether it justifies the expense. I take from that that you would make a determination of the number of users of the device versus the cost.
Do you have any idea now of what you would use to determine whether it justified the expense? Do you have some predetermined relationship in mind? If three people used it, would you say that it is not justified? What criteria would you use?
Mr. Mayrand: It would be unfair to reduce it to a pure economic factor.
Senator Wallace: I agree with you.
Mr. Mayrand: As we are doing this, we are also looking at other jurisdictions. A number of municipalities will be using this technology in the next few months. We are monitoring those closely, and that will also inform our evaluation.
The biggest challenge will be reaching out to the electors and bringing the device as close as possible to where they are located. If we can do that, we will see what the use will be.
In some of the tests done in the past, the concern was more about the technological aspect than to ensure that the devices were deployed where electors are, and that is our challenge. How do we identify disabled electors? Where can we go where they are most likely to attend meetings, for example? That will tell us if we can do that. We will then see how enthused they become about using that technology.
I am not sure that simply deploying them in normal polling offices without additional effort will produce high numbers. I am pretty sure it will not. It is a little premature, but economic considerations will come into play and also user considerations as well. We will be receiving feedback from electors and disabled representative groups. There are a number of them in Winnipeg North, and they will all be engaged in this pilot project.
Senator Lang: You mentioned that this device was already in Winnipeg and being utilized or being tested. Is that correct?
Mr. Mayrand: Similar devices will be used.
Senator Lang: I thought you mentioned it was in malls and being tested.
Mr. Mayrand: In Ottawa, municipal elections are coming up, and they are using similar devices. They have done demonstrations in various malls in the region to raise awareness. We could do something similar in Winnipeg North.
Senator Lang: Is the $21,000 estimate for purchase or rental of the machine?
Mr. Mayrand: I think it is for rental. We are not purchasing the device. It is in service.
Senator Lang: Does that mean it is rental?
Mr. Mayrand: It is rental in service.
Senator Lang: I want to go back to the chair's comments about how sacred the ballot is and the secrecy of the ballot and the insurance that it is not manipulated. Earlier we talked about the fact that we are dealing with an older voting clientele, and we talked about receiving homes and so on. I am concerned to some degree, depending on the type of receiving home that you are in, that maybe you have a large population suffering from dementia. Unfortunately, it is a sad fact and is an issue that is has been well publicized in the last couple of weeks.
How do we know, if that machine is taken to such a receiving home, that the vote is not being manipulated vis-à-vis this machine? How can we be assured that the vote is being cast in the correct manner? I hope I am making myself clear here. It is an area that no one wants to discuss, but it is a reality.
The Chair: I think you are, but let me broaden your question slightly, Senator Lang, and ask whether, even under the existing system, there are or should be — I would have great doubts — provisions to say that this voter is mentally competent and this voter is not. That is really what you are driving at.
Senator Lang: That is not what I am driving at. If you put a machine such as this in a receiving home, someone is in charge of running that machine, and someone can assist in running that machine. What is to prevent those people who are suffering from severe dementia from not being manipulated? That is just a question.
The Chair: Mr. Mayrand, it is a troubling question.
Mr. Mayrand: It is a very sensitive issue. First, these machines are handled by electoral officials. They are representatives of Elections Canada, so they are not just anyone. Second, candidates can always have representatives to observe the vote. We have community relation officers who visit homes prior to and during the election to get a better understanding of the residents of the location and the sensitivity there. They talk with the administrator. When we send out the voting personnel, they are aware of the circumstances of individuals in those homes or establishments, and their responsibility is to offer residents an opportunity to vote. They are citizens who are 18 years old or older, so they have a right to vote. They are offered that opportunity. Again, if there is a case of severe dementia, no one will insist on that. However, everyone is offered an opportunity to cast a ballot and cast their ballot as independently as possible.
Those machines are not left unattended, unless I am missing the question. Officials from Elections Canada will be attending those machines.
Senator Carstairs: If the machine was in a long-term care facility, presumably the long-term care facility would have been designated as a polling station. As such, it would be fully staffed not only by Elections Canada but with the option of every political party having an observer.
Mr. Mayrand: In most cases, yes that would be the case.
The Chair: For what it is worth anecdotally, my grandmother, I remember, had a very long decline, but one of the last things that she was certain of was that she was a Conservative. It is a matter of shame. She might not have known what she had for breakfast, but if you put her in front of a ballot, she knew what she wanted to do with it.
Senator Plett: Senator, my grandfather was also a Conservative, and I have not strayed.
Correct me if I am wrong, but we now have mobile voting stations, do we not?
Mr. Mayrand: Yes, we have mobile voting stations.
Senator Plett: Would these units not be able to be placed on a cart and put in the back of a van and become a mobile voting station, as opposed being put into seniors' homes at large cost? We would have people travelling with this and dealing in a similar way as we do now.
Mr. Mayrand: As Senator Carstairs pointed out, it depends on the size of the home. If there are enough electors, we would set up a polling station in that home. If the numbers are too small, yes, mobile polls are an option, and it is something that we will consider in Winnipeg North. However, we have not come to a conclusion on this point.
Senator Plett: However, would you consider that in Winnipeg North?
Mr. Mayrand: Yes, that is an option.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. This really has been one of the most interesting sessions we have had for ages. We are tremendously grateful to you.
Mr. Mayrand: It was very interesting for us, too.
[English]
The Chair: I will ask senators to stay for two minutes for an in camera meeting to discuss future business. We are grateful to all the people who have come here today to demonstrate something new and fascinating to us. We will suspend for a moment to allow our witnesses to leave.
(The committee continued in camera.)