Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 5th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm going to Mr. Christopherson.

Mr. Lukiwksi, did you have a point of order?

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

Chair, I'm not even sure if it's a real point of order, but I'm going to look for UC, unanimous consent, from the committee. I just got a notification, and I'm sure my colleagues opposite have it, that the bells will start ringing at 11:40 a.m. This would be about the third or fourth time, I think, that the bells have interrupted Mr. Mayrand's testimony, so I'm suggesting, and I'd like to get UC, if the committee agrees, since we're only literally two minutes from the chamber and Mr. Mayrand's only here for an hour, even though the bells may start at 11:40 a.m., could we agree to continue on for the full hour and then go down to the chamber?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Are we all okay on that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Wow, that's the first time on UC. Very good. We're getting better.

After the lecture we got from the Deputy Speaker, we'd best all be in our chairs.

Mr. Christopherson, for seven minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, at the risk of blowing up all this great kumbaya, the first thing I'd like to do is serve notice of a motion:That the Committee conduct a study into the provision of services to the House of Commons Liberal Caucus out of resources of the Senate of Canada in contravention of the Members By-Laws of the House of Commons since the 2011 election, and that in preparation for these hearings the Liberal Research Bureau provide to the Committee all organizational charts, all employment records (with personal information redacted), and all the briefing materials which were produced by employees of the Senate of Canada and then distributed to the Liberal House of Commons Caucus.

That now serves as notice, Chair. We'll deal with it at the appropriate time.

Mr. Mayrand, I'd like to deal right off the top with recent media reports regarding investigations that you may or may not be currently conducting. Certainly, if you read some of the media, you would be left with the impression that the NDP is specifically under investigation, and yet when we look at the recent letter that you sent to the Speaker, there isn't the word “investigation” nor “NDP” there.

I would ask you, sir, with respect, as much as you can in light of the confidentiality around your procedures of investigation, can you tell us whether or not it is indeed specifically only the NDP that is under some kind of investigation, or are you looking at the mailing system itself and therefore all the parties, or, indeed, is there nothing going on and everybody should move along as there's nothing here to see?

Perhaps you could help clarify, sir.

[Marc Mayrand]

Merci, Mr. Chair.

I just want to clarify that I do not carry out investigations. That's the sole exclusive responsibility of the Commissioner of Canada Elections. I have been contacted; I have received correspondence twice from the Board of Internal Economy regarding matters of use of parliamentary resources. I have indicated in one letter that, as far as we are concerned, the material that was provided was released prior to the issuance of the writ, and therefore according to our long-standing interpretation, are not election expenses.

I received a second letter asking me to look at the broader issue of use of franking privileges that may have constituted contributions from the point of view.... I'm talking from memory here of the letter.

Both of these letters were copied to the commissioner, as was my response to those letters. I indicated in the first letter, again, that the matter, based on the information provided, did not fall under the purview of the Elections Act. In the second matter I indicated to the Board of Internal Economy that it could raise potentially serious issues as to the interface of the rule of the House and the Canada Elections Act. In that regard, I indicated that we would engage in discussion with House officials on how we could harmonize those rules, if possible, and that I will be issuing at some point in time probably what will be one of the first guidelines that I will be issuing in the new act, hopefully to clarify how parliamentary resources use can interact with the Canada Elections Act.

I think it's particularly important, now that we're moving into a fixed-date regime, that this road should be as clear as possible.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Very good.

Chair, if you don't mind, I'd like to share the rest of my time with my colleague, Madame Latendresse.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Madame Latendresse, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. My thanks also to Mr. Mayrand for joining us today.

Mr. Mayrand, I have some quite specific questions to ask you about what you have just told us. I would like to go back to your report on plans and priorities for 2014-2015.

In that report, you mentioned the need to strengthen the integrity of the electoral process, especially given the addition of 30 new ridings. You also said that, as a result, you will have to revise your 2014-2015 operating budget.

Can you give us some more details about what those changes will be? Which budget line items will be revised?

[Marc Mayrand]

We are still at the stage of analyzing the operational impact of the new act. My proposal today is to come back to this committee in the fall to present our analysis of that impact, and its financial consequences.

I would like to be able to come back before the committee to explain how we are going to implement the new provisions of the act and to present at least a preliminary draft of the budget for the 2015 election. Bill C-23 aside, a number of factors will influence that. Clearly, there will be the addition of 30 constituencies and inflation-related costs. Various factors come into consideration, and then we have to add the cost of implementing Bill C-23. It would be premature for me to suggest figures at this time.

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

My question was more to do with the 30 new members of Parliament. I wanted to know if you could specify what those costs would look like.

[Marc Mayrand]

I cannot estimate that at the moment, at least not before having accounted for Bill C-23. Adding 30 constituencies with elections held in the same way as in 2011 would involve an additional $9.2 million in the budget for the election.

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

Are you talking about the 2015 election?

[Marc Mayrand]

Yes.

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

Okay.

I would also like to ask you some questions about Bill C-23 and about the way in which you will be planning the next budget.

An election is on its way and there will be new changes. In your opinion, what will the major financial impact of BillC-23 be?

[Marc Mayrand]

I am sorry, but I did not understand your question.

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

What will be the major financial impact of Bill C-23 and in which areas will it be the most complicated?

[Marc Mayrand]

We know that there will be an extra day of advanced polling. We have already established the cost of that: about $3.4 million. That is a preliminary figure that we will have to refine.

I would also like to talk to the committee about another issue. This is the statutory requirement for an independent audit following the election. There are questions about the range, the scope and the exact objective of the audit. That will determine the costs of the initiative and it could be quite expensive depending on the methodology used to do the audit. I think it is important for me to hear comments from the members of the committee before I make decisions in that regard.

I will submit that to you in the fall.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Lamoureux, for seven minutes, please.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to follow up on a line of questioning from Mr. Christopherson. I'll give you a hypothetical example, Mr. Mayrand.

Let's say a local company that is incorporated wanted to support me and as such sent out a letter to homes in my area promoting me and asking people to donate money towards me and my party. It's important to note that, prior to doing the mailer, I was asked if I was okay about what they were going to do and I responded by saying yes and went on to thank them. A few weeks later the mailings were completed, and a concerned citizen brought this matter to the attention of Elections Canada.

How would Elections Canada resolve what would in fact be an illegal contribution?

[Marc Mayrand]

That involves certain expenditures that are done by the third party, so you have to look at whether these constitute non-monetary contributions. Should they be found to not be non-monetary contributions, the candidate of the party or the association would have to return any excess amount to the Receiver General.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

If the mailings were found to be inappropriate, then the candidate, the party, or the person in question would have to reimburse.