Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 8th, 2007

[William Corbett]

I'm sorry, I don't know the case you're referring to. I presume it was before I took office, but if I did know, and if you wrote me a letter, I'd fish it out and have a look. That's all I can undertake to do.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I also want to remind you that the Chief Electoral Officer, whom I previously told about this type of offence, told me and said, here before the committee, that he had often sent complaints to your office and that nothing had happened. Perhaps you weren't there at that time, but he stopped sending them because nothing happened. I hope that things are changing with regard to complaints under your administration.

[William Corbett]

I have identified the changes I've made already. I hope they add to the ability to obtain compliance and enforcement with the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's it, Madame Picard?

Perhaps the chair could ask for some clarification.

Putting aside this individual case, as I was listening to the question, I was wondering, when you receive a complaint from an individual that they may have been influenced or pressured into voting one particular way, is the primary contact not the witness that you're looking for? You need a secondary witness to back up that complaint, as otherwise it's deemed to be not a form of evidence?

[William Corbett]

If the complaint comes from a candidate or person involved in the election, then that's a hearsay statement. We need to go back to the person who was actually influenced and get the firsthand evidence, if you will. If the individual himself or herself was influenced or pressured, then that statement in itself might be sufficient. If there were several incidents of it, that's getting better. If people are prepared to give a fulsome statement of direct evidence, then you have a better case from that.

But I'm sorry, I don't know the particulars of this case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

No, I understand. I totally appreciate that. It seems it's pretty difficult to gather evidence from these cases.

We'll move on, colleagues.

Ms. Davies, we're still at eight-minute rounds.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I have just a couple of brief questions, following up on what's been spoken to by other members.

First, it seems to me that we always have to be aware of how the system itself works so that we actually make sure we minimize the possibility of fraud. One thing that has come up is the idea of just putting voters cards in envelopes instead of dumping a whole stack of cards at a building.

In your role, do you issue an annual report? Do you make recommendations? I don't know if you make your recommendations back to the CEO or whether you make them to this committee or wherever, but that would be one question, about something as simple as having envelopes to put the cards in.

Second, are there time limits in terms of when you receive a complaint and you start to follow it up? We've had a couple of instances brought up here. Do you have to have it resolved by a particular time so that it is not left hanging out there in terms of what's going on?

[William Corbett]

Thank you.

With regard to your first matter, I think the CEO looks after the recommendations from various entities for changes to the legislation. That's not my responsibility. Have I made recommendations to him? We've discussed a few, but I haven't firmly done so.

As to time limits, the limitation period on an infraction is now five years under the act. However, I would certainly want to investigate and resolve cases in a much more timely way than that. The courts are not the least bit interested in ancient history when you get there.

What I'm trying to do is identify cases that need considerable investigation. I want to investigate early the matters that look like they need significant investigation and might be considered for a prosecution down the road, and to focus my resources on those. The resources are limited, and I want to get important cases pursued with vigour.

So we do a triage, if you will, of matters to pursue. We can handle about 40 at a time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Redman, please.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Corbett, I guess one of the problems we all deal with is the fact that a lot of the complaints or evidence are anecdotal. I understand your challenge in terms of getting to the source and having people give you, as you say, fulsome statements. I guess what Madame Picard is talking about is something that's habitual or ongoing.

When an individual member--I know from our caucus, certainly--has sent a letter formally asking for an investigation of, or citing what they feel are, infractions or abuses, which are perhaps anecdotal, during the election process, and they receive a letter back from your office saying, “We don't feel we're going to go forward with this, it warrants a report but not an investigation”, is there any recourse? Or is that the end of the matter, barring any additional information that would be brought forward?

[William Corbett]

Let me understand the question. A complaint is made, and the letter in reply says.... It must set out the reasons why it's being rejected. Our policy requires that the reasons be set out in the letter.

Now, if one of the reasons is that we don't have enough evidentiary foundation for this, and you have more information or you can get more information, then you may wish to write back and tell us that you have something stronger to support this, or ask us to bring it to the attention of the commissioner to ensure that this has been properly considered. These are normal responses you might make.

I mean, we're evidence-driven. If we can make a case, we'll make it. If we can't make a case, then we are precluded from addressing the problem.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

So what I'm hearing in your answer is that if I'm unhappy with a letter I've gotten under your signature, I can then say I would like this to go to the...?

[William Corbett]

You can take it up the ladder, but I'd like more information when it comes up, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lukiwski, please.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Corbett, for being here.

I just want to go back a little bit. On the basis of what information is made public once an investigation has been concluded, you mentioned two fairly high-profile cases, one in Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River and one in Edmonton Centre, that had a significant amount of public profile and attention paid to them, to the point where you issued news releases afterwards.

My first question is to understand this. What did the news releases say? Did they generally say there was no evidence to suggest that voter fraud occurred, or did you say definitively, as a result of your investigation, that no fraud or illegal activity took place?

[William Corbett]

I'll read from the Edmonton Centre press release: “Based on the results of this investigation, the Commissioner considers the reported public concern—that large numbers of electors voted in the wrong electoral district (Edmonton Centre) with the intention of affecting the result of the vote in that district—to be unfounded.”

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

In the case of northern Saskatchewan, then, as a result of your investigation—and I'm reasonably familiar with that case, of course, being a Saskatchewan member of Parliament—in the news release on that occasion, did you say, as a result of your investigation, that all of the allegations were unfounded?

[William Corbett]

That press release states: “Based on the results of the investigation, the Commissioner has concluded that there was no evidence of wrongdoing that affected the outcome of the vote...”.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

The term there, I guess, is “no evidence”, which leads me to ask exactly what is made public. There are some confidentiality concerns. I understand that and I appreciate that. By the same token, because of the nature of investigations such as that, because they have received a fair amount of public attention, I suppose one could argue that there should be some public disclosure as to the results of your investigation and some of the details of the investigation, for two reasons.

I suppose that both parties—both the complainant and the individual who was charged—feel somewhat aggrieved. The complainant would say they believe there was voter fraud or that some allegations, at least, that they have made should be substantiated because of this and that. The individual in this case who was charged with perhaps manipulating the voting results would also feel that their reputation has been sullied because there have been some very serious charges laid upon them.

In this profession, your public reputation is fairly important. If there are members of the public out there who are thinking one way or the other that this election was stolen in a fraudulent manner, that colours or prejudices them against the one candidate or the other. I think it would be helpful, without breaking any real confidences as to who made the complaint, who you spoke with, and things like that, some level of public information was disclosed as to why you ruled in the manner in which you ruled.

Does that make any sense to you?

[William Corbett]

Our practice is to inform the complainant of the details of the investigation and the results. In both of these cases, the complainants got a lengthy letter advising them that there wasn't anything there. In these cases, there was a press release. In most cases, there isn't.

If a person knows they are the subject of a complaint and nothing seems to happen with it, they may write and ask, “What happened with the complaint made against me?” I've had several of those. Our policy is that, if a person asks, we will give them a brief indication, which usually is, “We looked into the matter and found nothing there, so we concluded the matter.” That's usually our response to that.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

And that's the level of detail, that you've looked into the matter and found nothing? Or would you go—

[William Corbett]

No, that's the conclusion of the matter. We don't give the investigation brief to the person who might have been the subject of the matter. If we find nothing there and conclude it, that's it, and that should be it.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

For the complainant, someone who is making a—

[William Corbett]

The complainant gets a much more fulsome description of what we have. If you look at these press releases, you'll see quite a bit of detail on these two cases. As I said, I felt there was that public concern that needed this sort of treatment. Essentially, though, this is what the complainants got back themselves, and perhaps more.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

As a last question on that, would there be any restrictions if the complainant was dissatisfied with the results of the investigation and went public with the confidential information that you had given to him? Would there be any retribution?