Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 29th, 2014

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

I appreciate where Craig is coming from on this one, but again, just to be clear, the Chief Electoral Officer is an officer of Parliament, and while he has independence to a point, he still needs approval from Parliament on many things. This is particularly one for which he should seek approval from Parliament as opposed to having independent and arbitrary authority, so our position is that we will be voting against the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Scott, I saw a light bulb.

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

Very briefly, it is very important to know that the Governor in Council is not Parliament. It is effectively the cabinet, the government, the executive branch. I am not saying that is conceptually the wrong thing, because it is largely the executive branch that is responsible for foreign policy.

My concern is that it is an unnecessary textual signal that the Chief Electoral Officer, when he or she goes abroad, could be viewed as going there only at the request—literally as the envoy—of the government of the day, and I just don't think that's wise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Just to clarify, Craig, and thank you, you are right. When I said “Parliament”, I misspoke. However, I still think there would be a requirement to have some approval from the government before any such undertaking would occur. We could have a debate, one which I don't wish us to engage in right now, as to whether or not the international impression would be that it is an arm of, say, the Foreign Affairs department, but I would suggest that if you believe that to be the case, even if the Chief Electoral Officer made these decisions to enter into a program of assistance internationally on his own without approval by government, he would still be viewed, I believe, by many internationally as being an arm of Foreign Affairs.

I just think it's the appropriate course of action for a government of the day to approve any such international foray by an officer of Parliament rather than giving that officer of Parliament free rein in determining where and when and what he does.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, I appreciate Mr. Lukiwski's acknowledging that the Governor in Council is not Parliament, but it has to be understood and underscored that the reason we have officers of Parliament is to avoid exactly this kind of scenario, in that they are independent of the government. It doesn't mean they are independent of any accountability, or that they are omnipotent in terms of their authority and power, but it does mean, at least in my view, that any curtailment of their authority would be Parliament's action, not the government's.

Remember, the government isn't even honourable members of the government caucuses, although I'm sure they frame themselves that way. The actual government is the cabinet. That's the government. That's why there's a difference between deputy ministers, department heads, and others who report to the government as opposed to the Chief Electoral Officer who reports to Parliament. If one assumes, and I'm not agreeing with it, but for the sake of argument, let's say there is some kind of touchstone that has to happen with Parliament vis-à-vis international involvement, then why aren't we looking at putting in a regime that provides a process for the Chief Electoral Officer to do just that, to have representatives from each of the caucuses meet with the Chief Electoral Officer if there needs to be some discussion? I'll tell you, I get the idea that you don't want somebody sort of going off rogue, going to an event that no one in Canada would go to, but quite frankly, if that's the case, we have a much bigger problem than simply attending one event. We have a huge crisis on our hands with an officer of Parliament. So let's assume that that's not really what we're talking about.

With the greatest of respect, Chair, it's hard not to be overly sensitive about control matters when it comes from this government and the Prime Minister. That's their cornerstone—control. So you can appreciate, I would hope, why we're very concerned that any of the authority of the Chief Electoral Officer would be fenced in by the government, which means that the rest of Parliament may not even know what marching orders he or she has been given or not given, where there's nothing to guarantee the rest of Parliament is to be told. Given the way the current government is trying to muzzle the CEO, I would bet that we wouldn't know about it, so there's a real reason to be concerned about this.

This is my last point, Chair. The government continues to disrespect the status of an officer of Parliament. I'd like to hear the government answer why they think that since this is an officer of Parliament, they should get any special say as the government in the activities of the CEO when the accountability mechanism is not back to the government, but it's back to Parliament, which is all 308 members and the other place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

In response to the two points raised by David, once again I point out that the Chief Electoral Officer is not being muzzled. We've demonstrated that earlier tonight, and even concurred in by Mr. Scott. He is free to speak on any subject at any time, any place he wishes. He's not being muzzled. With respect to this particular provision, the mandate of Elections Canada and in effect the CEO is to administer Canadian elections. While I'm certainly not against, from time to time, Elections Canada responding to a request internationally for assistance, I'm merely saying that in those cases they should receive prior approval.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Why?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Would you like the floor again? We can do it that way, but across is not the right way.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I would, Chair.

I would simply respond with why. If there has to be some kind of authority, why isn't it Parliament? Why is it the government? This is a power grab. There's no two ways about it. If the government is sincere about what they're saying, then they would allow Parliament to have this authority, because it's Parliament that hires this person and only Parliament can fire this person. Where does the government get off thinking it can restrict the mandate, using its majority, as opposed to Parliament agreeing with any kind of approval that needs to be given? I guarantee that most Canadians watching, if they're asked the question, “Do you trust the government on this one?”, will say they don't.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

If there is no further discussion on NDP-13, we'll go to a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

We'll go to NDP-13.1

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

Mr. Chair, I will move this amendment.

Again, I have to say that in light of the consensus that has been put on record, I don't think there should be any worries that the right of the Chief Electoral Officer to communicate publicly as he wishes would know any borders, but nonetheless, again, for greater certainty, which means it's not as if this is necessary, but it helps assuage any concerns, this would say:

For greater certainty, the Chief Electoral Officer may give lectures and speak at conferences both inside and outside Canada without government permission.

It's somewhat necessary because proposed section 18.01 raises some ambiguity when it refers to “assistance and cooperation in electoral matters”.

It's not unusual for government or quasi-government or parliamentary bodies and institutions to themselves hold seminars and conferences. It's not just the preserve of the private sector or the academic sector. I just want to make sure there's absolutely no question that the Chief Electoral Officer doesn't have to get the Governor in Council's approval to go and give a lecture to the chief electoral body in France, or whatever it is. That, I think, would be so beyond the pale of the need that Mr. Lukiwski referred to that I hope we can have agreement on this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski, what do you say on this one?

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

At the risk of sounding repetitive, because I know you don't like that, Mr. Chair, this clause is unnecessary. We've gone over this. We've approved government amendment G-4. The minister, as quoted by Mr. Christopherson, has stated that he's not muzzling the Chief Electoral Officer. I have stated several times already this evening that he is free to speak publicly.

This amendment is totally unnecessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I just wanted to ask Mr. Lukiwski if that also applies to attending international conferences. Does that freedom extend to international activities?

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

There's nothing that prevents the Chief Electoral Officer from speaking publicly any time, any place.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm asking specifically, does that apply to speaking outside of Canada's borders?

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

As far as I'm concerned, yes, if he is invited. I mean, I don't know what the budget of the Chief Electoral Officer is, frankly, in terms of travel and that type of thing, but I reiterate that there's nothing that prevents the CEO from speaking publicly to any group.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, I wish you'd say the word “international” too, but I can't make you.

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

I appreciate again Mr. Lukiwski clarifying that the amendment is unnecessary from the government's perspective. Again, maybe it's my legislative style. I would much prefer the certainty, but I think the record will show that there should be no problem in the future for the Chief Electoral Officer for this kind of activity.

Nonetheless, could we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Certainly. On NDP-13.1, we'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

We'll turn to NDP-14.

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

I will move this, Mr. Chair.