Evidence of meeting #23 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.
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. Seidle, I don't want to be rude and cut you off, so please don't be rude and go on after I signal you that we should be slowing down on the question.
That was it. You're well past a minute over on that round.
We'll go to Mr. O'Toole, for four minutes, please.
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Mr. Chair, in that light, I'll try to be quick.
My questions are for you, Mr. Seidle. I appreciate your time here and I'm going to try to move quickly through a few things.
Your concern in three areas, you stated, was based on the changes not being backed up by public policy rationale or evidence. I'm going to explore the second two.
In terms of expenses, you actually proved the changing public policy landscape, using 2004 as the starting point, through the move away from corporate and union donations and more recently through eliminating the per vote subsidy or taxpayer-subsidized party funds.
Since that has been removed, would it not be fair to do a reassessment of how expenses are determined, both in limit and in what counts as an expense towards that limit, because of the changing landscape?
7:40 p.m.
Public Policy Consultant and Researcher, As an Individual
It might very well be time for a reassessment, but that hasn't occurred. A decision has just been taken. It's a bit of a rabbit out of a hat, if I can use a metaphor.
I think a study on some of these things—it is 10 years after the act.... In fact, in the 2004 legislation there is a requirement that the act be reviewed, I believe, after five years. That never occurred. But if it's going to be reviewed, witnesses should be called, options should be examined, and so on, rather than a decision being made that is not even explained in a backgrounder. That's how limited the evidence is.
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
You raised the research exemption earlier. As you may or may not know, many candidate expenses during an election are exempted from the cap. In fact, the NDP leadership race exempted certain expenditures, some related to fundraising, from their cap. Has it been practised under a cap to exempt certain categories of expenses? Would that exemption apply to all?
7:40 p.m.
Public Policy Consultant and Researcher, As an Individual
We have to draw a distinction between what political parties do through their own rules and what is done through the statute. The statute of course has a number of exemptions; for example, to take a very basic one, child care expenses for a candidate, or expenses for a disabled candidate to be able to move around, and so on. There is a rationale for all of these. What I'm saying is that if there's a rationale for this exemption, it should simply be put on the public record and explained.
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
I would suggest that eliminating the taxpayer subsidy would be one of the public policy rationales.
I'll move quickly to your third point, the bifurcation, as I might call it, of the Commissioner of Canada Elections.
In your public policy experience, from a public administration standpoint, is there not a move away from multi-functional agencies that both enforce rules and create policy going forward, and that look back and investigate and prosecute? The Ontario Securities Commission, the British Columbia Securities Commission, a number of these provincial securities agencies have recognized the inherent conflict of both a forward-thinking policy role and a backward-thinking investigation and prosecution. Would this change not be in line with some of those public administration changes in the last two decades?
7:40 p.m.
Public Policy Consultant and Researcher, As an Individual
It's in line with the spirit of them, but I have some problems with the modalities under the statute creating someone who is subservient to another office.
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
But that office does investigations. The DPP you described is a specialized agency for investigations. Is that not appropriate?
7:40 p.m.
Public Policy Consultant and Researcher, As an Individual
I think it would be better to have more room to manoeuvre, more of an independent stature to the commissioner. You could have created a parallel office to the DPP. I'm not comfortable—
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Separating that function is not unheard of in a public administration standpoint.
7:45 p.m.
Public Policy Consultant and Researcher, As an Individual
The separation that's occurring is from the Chief Electoral Officer to the DPP, in essence. There's a rationale for that. That's been stated. My difficulty is more with turning the commissioner into someone who is highly subservient to an officer who himself or herself is appointed by a cabinet minister and reports to the cabinet minister on a regular basis.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
March 31st, 2014 / 7:45 p.m.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I will ask my questions in French. The witnesses can listen to the simultaneous interpretation. My questions will be for Mr. Seidle in particular.
I would like to go back to what Mr. O'Toole was referring to in his questions. He talked about the fundraising and the exemption for raising funds from past donors. The Chief Electoral Officer said he was very concerned about that provision. He said that there would be no way to differentiate what was fundraising and what wasn't.
Do you share Mr. Mayrand's opinion on that?
7:45 p.m.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Okay.
In terms of the register that needs to be created to combat the phone scams that took place in 2011, Mr. Mayrand had two concerns. First of all, the phone numbers would not have to be saved and saving them for a year only is not enough. It is better than nothing, but they should be kept for a much longer period if we want it to really have an effect. Could you tell me how you feel about that?
7:45 p.m.
Public Policy Consultant and Researcher, As an Individual
I think his advice is valid.
I should also add that I am happy to see that the bill addresses the abuse—and let me go back to my Trojan horse—that we experienced in the last election and that might become more serious in the future. At least, something is being done about it. Ideally, it would be improved now or perhaps in the future. I think it would be desirable to strengthen those provisions before passing the bill.
7:45 p.m.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
In his report on the 40th general election, Mr. Mayrand recommended another provision, that is, to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to request, if needed, documents from parties to support their election expenses returns. Right now, the Chief Electoral Officer can request documents to support election expenses returns from election candidates or candidates running for leadership, but not directly from parties. However, the parties still receive money directly from the public. The Chief Electoral Officer has been requesting this for a long time. In addition, the House passed a motion to support this change to the legislation, but it is still not in effect. Could you also tell me what you think about that?
7:45 p.m.
Public Policy Consultant and Researcher, As an Individual
I think this recommendation is valid. Given the level of detail in this bill, it could have been incorporated without adding too many lines to a text that is already very long and complex.
7:45 p.m.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
That is true.
How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?
7:45 p.m.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Great.
To wrap up, I would like to go back to what Mr. Lamoureux was saying.
One of the important requests that had been made has to do with the power given to the commissioner to compel testimony. As we know, in the 2011 fraud, that was a major obstacle that prevented the commissioner from doing a proper investigation on what had happened. Do you agree with me that it is unfortunate not to see that aspect in Bill C-23?
7:45 p.m.
Public Policy Consultant and Researcher, As an Individual
Once again, the commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer have practical experience. They have identified major shortcomings. Since I am not a lawyer, I do not want to comment on whether this issue is admissible in court, but the recommendation should be taken seriously, in my view.