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

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

All right. You mentioned that you have 28 investigators. I always listen to the floor audio channel. That way, I improve my knowledge of English, for the benefit of the House of Commons. It seems to me I heard you talking about 28 investigators. You have 28 investigators across Canada?

[William Corbett]

Yes.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Do you think you have enough staff to carry out your mandate?

[William Corbett]

Two phenomena have caused me concern in this. If we have elections every two years, we're in trouble because it doubles the workload. The effects of Bill C-24, which requires more and more reporting of financial matters--I think associations have to report certain particulars now that they didn't have to report before--give Elections Canada a much greater grasp of the financial aspects of how campaigns are run. Elections Canada is getting much better at identifying breaches of the rules, if you will.

So the workload is driven by the increasing ability of Elections Canada to monitor and identify non-compliance, and elections every two years. I would say there's roughly two and a half years' work after a particular election. So if we have an election in 2004, 2006, and 2007, the workload will become quite problematic.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Perfect. I understand that you have a partisan function, and that you aren't urging us to vote in favour of the budget so as not to defeat the government, even if it isn't good. You don't want elections.

That was a joke!

I have another question, Mr. Chair. You're going to be pleased.

Have you studied the impact of the Federal Accountability Act on your office?

[William Corbett]

Yes.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Under that act, Bill C-2, is it correct that, as Commissioner of Elections, you now receive complaints and study them, but that you no longer have the power to prosecute? Is that in fact the case?

[William Corbett]

The investigation role remains the same. I'm sorry, I got “investigations”, perhaps you meant prosecutions. The prosecution role is now the DPP's function.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Merci, Mr. Guimond.

Madam Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Corbett, for coming today.

I don't think there's any question that the whole set-up and rules for Elections Canada are incredibly complicated. We belong to political parties, and you rely on your party a lot to provide you information, but even so, I find that at the end of the day you're pretty well alone. You have to figure out if you are doing the right thing or not.

So I certainly agree with you that in the majority of cases, I'm sure, where things have gone wrong it's not because of any deliberate action; it's just because it's so darned complicated. There are so many details, it scares the hell out of me. You always feel as if you're doing something wrong, and you probably haven't done anything wrong. Anyway, if that was the intended effect, it's certainly working.

I'm more interested in the informal complaint compliance process than what happens when you get to a formal investigation and maybe a prosecution, because when that happens I think another process takes over and you probably get a lawyer or something. But when it's still informal, I wonder if you have a protocol. And I'm thinking of a similar system. In most workplaces there are harassment policies, and usually there's an agreed-upon harassment policy in terms of what happens when a complaint is made. You try to resolve it informally before it goes to any formal investigation, but nevertheless there's a very clear protocol.

So, for example, when you say you send out these cautionary letters, do the people getting them know they're cautionary? It reminds me of Revenue Canada; you get this stuff and you don't know. We all deal with casework, and is this the beginning of their line where they're being easy or is it at the end of the line? For the person receiving it, it's incredibly difficult to know.

And even the little interchange here between you and Mr. Reid--around this table there may be some understanding of what these notices are on the Elections Canada site. We can wink-wink, we know what it really means, but the average person out there wouldn't have a clue.

So I am interested in what kind of protocol or process you have that provides an informed process for people, so people know where they are, where they stand. I think that's a huge issue for people, that you have the knowledge of where you are in that process and what your rights are, particularly if there are two parties involved.

Ms. Redman raised the question of confidentiality. If two parties are involved or two candidates, even if it's in the same party--maybe it's opposing parties--what happens then in terms of disclosure in this informal context? If you could respond to that, it would be helpful.

[William Corbett]

As I mentioned, we're updating our investigator's manual, and I will put a chapter in the manual on caution letters, and a generic draft of one so that people can see what they are.

Most of the caution letters deal with referrals from Elections Canada, and they don't require a lot of investigation, because they have the paperwork there that shows that somebody filed three months late: there's the document; there's the date on it. So we don't need to do an investigation.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Would someone know it's a caution, or would they see it as an ultimatum?

[William Corbett]

Well, I did my very best not to have it read as if Moses were sending it, if you will. It is titled, “Commissioner's Caution” at the top. As I say, it sets out what we think the facts are, sets out the obligations section in the legislation, the offence section, and the penalty section. That alone is spooky for someone to read.

Then we advise that if we have the facts wrong, they should get in touch with us, and we provide the phone number; and that if we don't have the facts wrong, they should please not do it again. That's the end of the matter; that's what it says—that's it.

In the responses I've had, some people have thought they were going to be prosecuted the next day, in spite of the language. Most didn't; most saw it for what it was. Particularly, people within the party organizations, for that matter, saw it for what it was. You may have heard of these from people you know, now that a number of them have gone out.

I'm trying to cut through the bureaucratic underbrush by using these letters rather than some other means. If you're talking about the rules being complicated, they certainly are.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

If you get beyond the cautionary letter and are actually involved, particularly if it's more than one party—and I don't mean political party, but individuals—do you have some sort of protocol about how you handle it, how you advise people what information is disclosed? If one candidate is alleging something against another candidate—in a nomination, for example, where I know it has happened, or even in a leadership area—is there a protocol for what is disclosed before you get to a formal investigation?

[William Corbett]

If you're talking about what information we give out regarding complaints, yes, there is a document. I have a document here, which I can provide in English and French, and it's available: here's how we communicate; here's how we don't communicate. If you wish, I can provide that to the chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

You still have time, Madam Wasylycia-Leis. You're good? Thank you.

Then, colleagues, we'll begin the next round. This round will drop to five minutes—the last round was eight minutes—so you can time your questions and comments.

We do not have anybody from the Liberal Party on my sheet. Can I ask if anybody on that side has a question? You are going to waive? That's fine, of course.

Mr. Hill, you're next on my list, please.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you for appearing today, Mr. Corbett. I appreciate that. I have about four questions that I've jotted down here. Maybe you could just make note of them. I'll run through them very quickly and hopefully leave you half of my five minutes, at least, to respond, if that's all right.

The first one has to do with what's included in determining what's in the public interest. If I understood you correctly, you said there were a number of criteria, including the following: do we really need to prosecute; is there reasonable likelihood of success if you suggest the laying of a charge or put it over at least for further investigation as to prosecution; and is it in the public interest?

As part of whether it is in the public interest, do you include any consideration of deterrence? It would seem to me that if the offending person is contrite or remorseful, the terms you used, that's fine for that particular individual, but what about others who might have committed a similar offence? Is there any consideration of deterring them from their activities in the future, if it has not become known but is simply a cautionary letter or something that's sent to that particular individual?

The second thing is that this would have an impact, I would think, on the statistics. This gets into the issue that Mr. Guimond was raising, I think, in the sense of his table or list of the number of offences that are investigated. Statistics can be skewed, and we have a debate right now about Bill C-31, as to whether we really need to address the whole issue of voter fraud right now.

People point to the statistics and say there haven't been very many investigations; there haven't been very many charges laid; there haven't been very many people prosecuted and convicted. Therefore, from that we extrapolate that there is no problem, and yet we continually hear as elected members that there are problems. So is there any consideration that the public interest might also lie in the fact that statistics can be used by people to say, well, the present system is working quite well, thank you very much, so there's no need for any further reform?

My third issue deals with the two instances that you said you investigated and you found no hard evidence—I think is that's the term you used. That was in northern Saskatchewan and Edmonton Centre. Could you give the committee some idea of the amount of time that was invested in those two investigations, the cost that was involved? I guess what I'm trying to find out is just exactly how much was involved in investigating those complaints before you made the determination that you were not going to proceed any further.

My last question, as an appendage to that, is that you didn't mention Trinity—Spadina specifically during your remarks today, yet I think if we were to look at the minutes of our previous meetings, when the CEO was here, he did make a commitment to this committee to have that particular riding looked into, investigated. Could you give us any indication of whether that's still ongoing or where you're at with that particular investigation?

With those four questions, I don't know how much time I've used up. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, just to intervene, I'm not sure we have that many questions coming. I'm going to extend it to an eight-minute round so that we do have time for questions. We'll have time for another round if we need to.

You have five minutes.

[William Corbett]

Thank you.

Yes, deterrence is an aspect of the public interest, both specific deterrence of the individual and general deterrence of others who might be so inclined to do the same thing. These are matters to be considered as well.

I have to point out, however, that there is a remarkable ethic at work in Canada in Elections Act matters, and that is lawfulness. There isn't, it seems to me, a great deal of need to generally deter people. There isn't a plague of double votes wilfully undertaken. My own inclination was to look at the individual: can we deal with the individual without taking this matter to court? This may change if my investigations indicate that we do have a particular offence that needs to be dealt with more seriously. Keep in mind that the courts so far are giving out conditional discharges and small fines for matters that we bring to court now, and I don't know how much deterrence there is in that. In any event, you're right, it is part of the public interest.

Regarding statistics on voter fraud, I referred to the two cases that I did simply because they're finished, they're done with, and I wrote them up. With respect to the one in northern Saskatchewan, we sent investigators from Ottawa to do the investigation on the Ahtahkakoop Reserve, to interview people. We got good compliance and assistance from band officials in particular. Some people refused to talk to us. We have no magic in that. We have no more authority than anyone else to get cooperation. It was reasonably expensive, but we sent people from Ottawa to do it because we didn't have anyone locally and we needed to get on with that.

There was a lot more work involved in the one in Edmonton Centre, because for individuals who our screening process indicated might have voted in the wrong electoral district, we had to go door to door and speak to them and find out why they voted here and why they hadn't voted there. We came up with a systemic problem, as you know, in the voters list for that area, because in Alberta on your income tax return you can put your business address or your accountant's address, and your driver's licence may also have your business address. So there was difficulty with the voters list, and that is addressed in the press release by Elections Canada as to how they hope to deal with that. That one was considerably more expensive because it required, as I said, door-to-door collection of information and data. I can't give you the dollar figures or the hours or what not.

On voter fraud, my conclusion wasn't that we didn't have any hard evidence. My conclusion was that there wasn't voter fraud. There was no organized voter fraud, that's for sure. There wasn't some organization moving voters into one district who shouldn't be voting there. There were individual cases of people voting in the wrong place, if you will. We found no evidence of double votes, which is important. People weren't voting in one place and voting somewhere else, voting twice--none of that. It wasn't just an absence of evidence, in my opinion; it was an indication that there wasn't voter fraud.

The voter fraud we do find is individual cases of double voting, wilful and otherwise, but not organized voter fraud. Those two investigations are examples of it's not being there. The Spadina one is still ongoing, as you know, and I can't comment on that. It hasn't been resolved yet.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

I didn't know it was ongoing, but thank you for telling us.

[William Corbett]

I'm not saying I'm investigating it, but the CEO's inquiry is still ongoing. I don't want to talk about investigations anyway, but I talked about the two cases I did because they are done. Is there voter fraud? Yes, there is. It's individual, though. It's people who are not qualified to vote voting, and some people voting twice, or trying to vote twice.

How much of a problem is it? I don't see a major problem, frankly, but then I haven't been around that long.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Commissioner, for that round. We've finished that round.

Madame Picard, and then Ms. Davies, and then Mr. Lukiwski.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Corbett.

In the wake of what Mr. Guimond said earlier about the credibility of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, I want to go back to a case that I have previously heard mentioned. I'm not the only person who has to experience these kinds of things in a riding. In my riding, an influential individual of one party, election after election, commits two offences that you named earlier: he illegally attempts to influence the way electors vote, and he illegally delays and obstructs the electoral process. On every occasion, complaints are filed with the support of the returning officer, with the support of the candidates of the opposing parties. Voters draft their own letters, saying that an illegal attempt was made to influence their vote. And every time, a letter from the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections is sent to us telling us that we didn't have conclusive evidence.

I'd like to know what conclusive evidence we have to produce for someone to send that individual a letter warning him that he is committing offences or is not respecting electors' right to vote without being influenced or intimidated.

[William Corbett]

If the question is what is evidence, the evidence is documents and witnesses who are prepared to give first-hand accounts of illegal conduct. That's the evidence. If the evidence was not found, I presume the investigation couldn't support the complaint with admissible evidence in a court proceeding.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

The returning officer herself complained to the Chief Electoral Officer, who is her boss, candidates complained by means of a letter, and electors had signed that letter. And yet no investigator of the Commissioner of Elections Canada came to verify the matter on site. The returning officer had requested that this individual be warned. These incidents were not observed in the last election only. I've gone through five elections, and that individual was always there playing the same game. You have the evidence. What other evidence can we provide you with? I know this isn't just happening in my riding. There are individuals in other ridings who obstruct the electoral process or intimidate certain returning officers.