Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 29th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Read it then.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

My only question, Mr. Chair, is that this was submitted only now and—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

This is where it is. It's on clause 7, and that's where we are.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Yes, but in terms of it coming in ahead of Conservative amendment G-4—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I can only go with what I was just told. This is coming in ahead of that one because of where the line is, I guess.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Let me do that then. What's being called amendment NDP-7.2 I'd like to move, and it's with the chair. It's very short and I'll read it. The amendment would add a subclause to section 18, which now has three subsections. It would add proposed subsection (4), which says:

(4) For greater certainty, the Chief Electoral Officer may communicate with Parliament or the public on any matter that she or he considers to be relevant to her or his mandate using any media or other means that she or he considers appropriate.

I'm hoping that in doing it this way we can get early agreement on something that was of great concern to the Chief Electoral Officer. It's only one of the many concerns with respect to section 18. The way clause 7 dealing with section 18 is currently written—it's important to know this in order to know why this amendment is needed—proposed section 18 is written in the way that says:

18(1) The Chief Electoral Officer may provide the public, both inside and outside Canada, with information on the following topics only:

“May only” ends up creating the danger that this can be interpreted and indeed ultimately may be enforced in the courts as prohibiting the Chief Electoral Officer from communicating with the public, providing the public with information outside of that closed list.

As such, the Chief Electoral Officer presented his concerns about that.

The minister said on Friday—and he said this before—that there's nothing in the original section 18, even before the government amendments that we're going to see, that's intended to prohibit the Chief Electoral Officer from speaking, communicating publicly as he sees fit. In fact, the minister on Friday said that in terms of the Chief Electoral Officer's ability to speak publicly, he can say ”anything he wants”. In light of the concern, and indeed in light of even how the amendment about to be proposed by the government goes, I just want to have the clarity that what the minister said on Friday is exactly what everybody understands. That's why I'm framing it. It's for greater certainty.

Let me read it again because in the end we are circulating it.

Sorry, but I wrote the document just before the meeting. So I didn't have time to have it translated.

Again, it reads:

(4) For greater certainty, the Chief Electoral Officer may communicate with Parliament or the public on any matter that she or he considers to be relevant to her or his mandate using any media or other means that she or he considers appropriate.

I am hoping this is completely non-controversial. Given what the minister said quite early on whenever he reacted to the Chief Electoral Officer's concerns that he would be muzzled by saying, no, that's not the intention, that's not the effect, the minister has confirmed that in the statement on Friday that I just read to you, and so therefore, I simply want, for the sake of the institution and the sake of clarity, to have this “for greater certainty” clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Scott, it says in your amendment to change line 8. Is that correct?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

No, it's line 7.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's really after line 14. Is that correct? I just want to make sure you agree with the change.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Yes, sorry. It's line 14. It's left over from the last one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll have a recorded vote on amendment NDP-7.3.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

Next is amendment NDP-7.4.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

This is the same thing, although a little more narrowly expressed. May I please remind everybody that the minister on Friday said that in terms of the Chief Electoral Officer's ability to speak publicly, he can say whatever he wants. This clause would read:

For greater certainty, the Chief Electoral Officer may communicate publicly on whatever subject she or he considers appropriate.

I can't think of a more direct expression of what the minister has said. Basically he wants people to understand that the Chief Electoral Officer is in no way muzzled by any wording that appears in section 18; therefore, this “for greater certainty” clause is just to confirm that.

If the government votes this one down as well as the second one, I think everybody is going to wonder what the minister meant, and what the minister's word is worth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right. That was NDP-7.4.

Are there further speakers?

Madam Latendresse, then Mr. Christopherson.

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

I think the wording used in the bill is fairly clear. In fact, section 18 states the following: “The Chief Electoral Officer may provide the public, both inside and outside Canada, with information on the following topics only [...]”.

So I think it's very legitimate to feel that the Chief Electoral Officer is being muzzled and that the government wants to make sure he can no longer communicate with the public on any topics other than those set out in the bill.

In addition, as my colleague just pointed out, the minister told us that this was not at all what the bill contained. Therefore, if the minister is saying so, I have a hard time understanding why the Conservatives are refusing an amendment that only clarifies things so as to remove any risk of the Chief Electoral Officer being muzzled. I think this is one of the most dangerous provisions of the bill. A steady line of witnesses have told us how important it was to give the Chief Electoral Officer the power to speak about any topics he deems appropriate. Even Preston Manning said that section 18 should be removed. I am having difficulty understanding how someone can vote against an amendment that simply confirms the minister's statement to the effect that this was untrue and that the bill was doing no such thing. Why not confirm that? Why not set it out, in black and white, to eliminate any doubts?

If we consider the government members' general comments about the Chief Electoral Officer, I think it's normal to have serious doubts about that party's intentions. There really seems to an element of vengeance against the Chief Electoral Officer. I think we definitely need to ensure that the bill's wording is clear and specific, so that the Chief Electoral Officer cannot be muzzled like he currently is under Bill C-23. That's why I will vote in favour of this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleague Mr. Scott. The minister's original intention was to handcuff the Chief Electoral Officer in terms of who he could talk to and what sorts of things he could talk about. The minister, in responding to some of the public backlash to this bill, identified this as an area in which he was going to make improvements so his terrific bill could be even more terrific.

The minister said in public that in terms of the CEO's ability to speak publicly he can “say whatever he wants”. Those are the minister's words. The minister's word is supposed to mean something. Ministers have lost their ministerial positions because they've misled. The amendment before us would make the bill consistent with the public commitment of the minister. Again, the minister said that in terms of the CEO's ability to speak publicly, he can “say whatever he wants”.

The amendment states:

For greater certainty, the Chief Electoral Officer may communicate publicly on whatever subject she or he considers appropriate.

Now, I notice that the government is not yet on the speakers list, Mr. Chair.

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

I'm on there now.

[Christopherson]

Good. That's what I want to hear.

There should be a great, “We agree with you. That's a great idea, and we certainly want to honour the minister's commitment, so we can't wait to vote in favour of this”, but I will hold judgment until I hear what the member has to say.

Thank you, Chair.

Put me back on the list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I love your anticipation, Mr. Christopherson.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Mr. Chair, the bill, the fair elections act—and we're coming up to amendment G-4—clarifies that the Chief Electoral Officer now will be able to implement public education information programs, for example, within civics classes. That was a bone of contention. We made an amendment to allow him to do that. The only other clause deals with advertising and what the Chief Electoral Officer can do. It does not prevent him from transmitting or causing to be transmitted advertising messages for any other purpose relating to his or her mandate. That's just on advertising. There's nothing in the act that prevents the Chief Electoral Officer from talking to the general public on any other subject. This is quite unnecessary. There is nothing in here that restricts Monsieur Mayrand from communicating with the public.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson, and then Mr. Simms.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm going to defer to Mr. Scott to respond first, and I'd like to still remain on the list, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Are you okay with that?

[A voice]

He wants you to go first.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Either Scott first name or Scott last name, whichever is appropriate, can go.