Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 8th, 2014

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

But for the power to compel testimony, certainly would you feel that would be an effective tool, for instance, in the case of the robocalls affair that happened? Do you feel that certainly more evidence would have been put out there and would have led to a more successful conclusion?

[Preston Manning]

Yes, I think there is some merit to that, but I don't think that's the sole or the main way of dealing with these election abuses.

One of the things that concerns me.... Any of us who are elected people have heard rumour and rumour after rumour about people doing things—borderline things, illegal things—that influence an election in favour of our opponent. These have been made by all parties over the years and they can point to different ridings. A lot of this stuff is hearsay and a lot of it is after the fact.

I don't know what the answer is, but it seems to me that there should be some way of clearing the air on these types of charges because they float around forever. They become part of the urban legends or the legends in particular ridings.

I wonder, when our country does appoint independent election observers in other countries to endeavour to ensure that elections are fair and that there is not fraud, whether there isn't more room for the appointment of special officers to watch particular ridings where these types of rumours have surfaced for years.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Were these officers to have the special investigative tools similar to our own Competition Bureau here or the Auditor General, certainly that would go a long way.

[Preston Manning]

Well, it would have the tools that are given to independent election observers in other countries.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

But the independence there is obviously.... One thing is to be independent, the other thing is to be effective, wouldn't you agree?

[Preston Manning]

Yes, yes.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Effectiveness, obviously, Ms. Fraser, you touched on it earlier and I want to go back to this, because I think it's a very important point when it comes to the legitimacy of an election and the fact that people have the ability—and I think Mr. Wrzesnewskyj touched on this as well—to investigate. To me it seems like we're focusing too much on the independence issue and the effectiveness of people to investigate potential fraud, dare I say, but also irregularities that are involved here.

A lot of these irregularities are just that, irregularities, and treated as fraud. That's why I think we're doing such a disservice to this country by throwing out the system of vouching when there are alternatives that could help improve the system.

I will ask you both, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj and Ms. Fraser, to comment on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

In the 20 seconds that are left....

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

In terms of the issue of vouching, it was actually part of the case I brought forward. However, I disagree that vouching should be eliminated. If properly administered, vouching enfranchises, and removing vouching disenfranchises, especially vulnerable demographics. It takes away their voice.

In regard to the issue of irregularities and fraud and how we investigate, Mr. Lukiwski raised a very important point. What if it's Elections Canada officials themselves who perhaps need investigating? I believe that the elections commissioner should not be under the wing of the government. However, in those particular cases, a special investigative unit should exist to help investigate those cases and clear the air, as Mr. Manning said.

These sorts of situations are untenable if they're allowed to continue for years, and there have to be timelines within which these investigations take place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Simms, your time is complete. We'll go to Mr. Lukiwski for four minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much.

I have a couple of quick points for Ms. Fraser. I read, and I'm assuming this is correct, it was regarding your testimony today at the Senate, where you talked about the provisions of the bill and said your daughter under the current provisions of the bill would not be able to vote.

I take it from your comments that she's a university student living at home, so she gets all her correspondence or utility bills, whatever, via email. A couple of things, obviously there are 18 months before the next election. I would assume she would be able to get the proper identification or at least confirmation of address by that time. Second, even though she's getting perhaps all of her information by email, I know you can request written transcripts, hard copy transcripts from the university, which would be sent to her home, would they not? Would that not be able to comply with the regulations contained in Bill C-23?

My point is that when you say she wouldn't be able to vote, with all the greatest of respect, I just can't agree with that, because there are certainly ways that she would be able to vote. She would just have to go that extra mile by asking for a hard copy rather than electronic.

[Sheila Fraser]

I agree with you. My point was that today, if an election was called tomorrow based on the information that she had right now, she does not have any of the documents that prove her residency and—

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

One of the things we've been.... I'm sorry.

[Sheila Fraser]

—and I think it's a lot to ask. I don't know. Why my daughter would go and get that document is because her mother would be after her to go and get it. I think there are a lot of young people who just...it would be too complicated. There are a lot of people—now we're in a certain category of Canadians—who just would have great difficulty doing that. So I'm just concerned that there will be people who will not be able to vote because of, especially, not being able to prove their residency.

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

Yes. The point I was trying to make is that we've heard a lot of people who say, “Well, it's too difficult. I could probably get the information, but it's just too difficult.” Frankly, I think that if someone wants to vote and believes in their right to vote and wants to participate, whatever effort it takes to produce the correct identification at the polls to confirm residency and address, which are both required to vote in a particular poll, I don't think that's too big of an effort to ask of Canadians.

One last point, because I know we're running out of time. When we talked before about the level of cooperation that you see is needed between Elections Canada and the commissioner of elections, you said you don't see anything in the act that really allows that to happen if they're moved out of Elections Canada. Is there anything in the act that you see that excludes Elections Canada from talking about investigations and this dialogue back and forth?

[Sheila Fraser]

No, but my understanding of issues like the Privacy Act and others is that there has to be an explicit approval given to be able to share information. You might want to consult the Privacy Commissioner on that, but I think there has to be a specific provision in order to do that.

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

My question would be—because I think there are all indications that they would want to give as much information as possible to assist—if the impediment you foresee occurring were resolved, would that change your view?

[Sheila Fraser]

I think that moving the commissioner is feasible. I mean I think that he will be able to carry out investigations. There is the question of exchange of information and the efficiency, and the commissioner raised other issues, but obviously I think that exchange of information and the cooperation between the two agencies is the crux of the difficulties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I could let you start something else, but while I finish these comments your time will run out.

We'll now go to Madame Latendresse for four minutes.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here today to assist us in our study of Bill C-23.

I'd like to raise a particular point about the powers of investigation, which hasn't yet been raised this evening. There's another provision that has been ignored in Bill C-23. The CEO and a number of experts have for a long time been calling for the power to require political parties to provide documentation on election spending in order to ensure compliance with the Canada Elections Act.

Currently, Elections Canada can require this documentation from the candidates of political parties, nomination contestants and leadership contestants. However, they cannot require it from political parties.

It has been shown that something along the lines of what a number of experts are calling for could really help Elections Canada to combat fraud and, in general, to investigate various situations.

Do you have any idea why this provision is not in Bill C-23?

[Sheila Fraser]

No. That's a question you would have to ask the government, obviously.

I believe such a provision is needed. Political parties receive substantial reimbursements, in the order of $33 million. People are held accountable for far lesser amounts. We live in an age of accountability and transparency. And it seems only logical to me for the CEO to have that option.

Furthermore, if we allow political parties to solicit funds in an election period, how would the CEO verify that calls were made for the purpose of fundraising and not to encourage people to vote? The CEO would need to have the power to consult those documents, to compile information and to look into that issue. The CEO would need to have that option.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

That's an excellent point. We have already identified the provision that will allow political parties contacting former contributors not to declare those expenses. That applies to those who have contributed $20 or more. We feel strongly that the amount should be higher. So, someone who contributes $20 could remain anonymous. In theory, this could apply to almost anyone who is contacted by a political party. The Chief Electoral Officer quite clearly said there would be no way to follow up or monitor what was going on there.

Mr. Manning, this provision affects some $33 million in contributions to political parties without them having to provide any justification or documentation. What do you think of that? Should that be in this bill?

[Preston Manning]

I think there's merit in as much transparency as possible, but the transparency has to include not just dollar contributions. It has to include particularly contributions in kind, manpower contributions, which are often made by interest groups, labour unions, and companies. So I do think the more transparency the better, but you have to include more than cash contributions to political parties.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I fully agree.

I am going to give up the rest of my time, if there is any left.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have 15 seconds. You were going to be kind and give it to one of your colleagues, weren't you?

I'm going to go to Mr. Reid instead.