Evidence of meeting #20 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was elections.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
That's right. You cannot continue to pursue a file, because you cannot get the witness to provide the information necessary for you to continue.
1:05 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
That's correct. Sometimes we find out that there was nothing wrong.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
For sure, absolutely. I believe in innocent until proven guilty, too.
Other provinces, such as Manitoba, actually have the ability that Elections Canada wants. Is that not correct?
1:05 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
That's correct. I believe there are six jurisdictions. Some have more authority than the basic authority I'm asking for here.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
When you talk about more authority, some of those jurisdictions actually have the ability to compel without having to go through the courts. Is that correct?
1:05 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
They do, among other things. Some have the same power as an inquiry commission.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Right. My understanding is that Elections Canada wasn't even asking for that much power. They were asking to appeal through the court to get a witness to compel. Is that correct?
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
After or prior to the introduction of this bill, did you have any discussion with the minister on that particular issue, on the ability to compel? Did he provide his opinion to you on that issue?
1:05 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
No, but I think he's providing it right now through the bill that's before the committee.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
That brings me to another point. It's on one of your conclusions, in which you state, “Because amendments to the Canada Elections Act affect the fundamental rights of all Canadians, as well as the rights of all political parties, it is particularly important that to the fullest extent possible such amendments be based on a broad consensus as well as solid evidence.”
When you're changing a fundamental law such as the Elections Act, the impression you're giving is that it should be done through a consensus. You should be working with Elections Canada, other opposition parties, and stakeholders.
Is that fair to draw from your conclusion?
1:10 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Certainly, I think it's a piece of legislation, first of all, that's fundamental to our democratic institutions. It touches the interests of everyone.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
That's right. You've incorporated that into your conclusion. Does that mean it's safe for me to conclude that you believe that has not been the case in this bill?
1:10 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
I'm putting that in the conclusion, because I'm hoping that through this committee, consensus will emerge as to what the best ways are to reform our legislation.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
In your opinion, if you can't build that consensus, is it better to allow the bill to pass as is or to go back to the drawing board to attempt to get legislation based on consensus? What's in the best long-term interests of our Parliament or our democracy?
1:10 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
I think that Parliament will have to decide that.
I mentioned today some issues that are quite significant dealing with access to voting by Canadians—
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
I suspect that you're in fairly high demand outside of Canada where you're providing advice on election laws. Would you ever advise that a government should go alone to bring in legislation and pass it through the system?
1:10 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
No. It's a well-known international standard that if you want to be successful in ensuring integrity and legitimacy of your institution, you should seek the broadest consensus possible.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
So, internationally you would be advocating that we should be getting that consensus, yet here in Canada we don't have that consensus. Do you see some irony there? You can feel free to say “No comment”, of course.
I want to go back to the fact that—biggest beef—someone violates an election law, I want to ensure that there's a timely consequence to that violation. If the compelling of witnesses is not in the legislation, I would conclude that it's only a question of time before things get worse for Elections Canada. The moment someone figures it out, as they already have, that they don't have to compel, why would they?
Is that a fair concern?
1:10 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
I think it's very much a part of the reality that the commissioner is living right now.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you very much.
I want to go back to the question of vouching again.
The number 120,000 has been used, particularly by members of the opposition and others. That's only an estimate.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
How many, according to your records, actually vouched for other Canadians in the last election?
