Information & Ethics Committee on Aug. 14th, 2008

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Yes.

[Chantal Proulx]

Our budget is about $124 million a year.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Those funds were voted by the House of Commons and Parliament as operating expenses.

[Chantal Proulx]

Yes.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I have no other questions, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Merci.

Mr. Martin, please.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have no questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Proulx, you're the last speaker.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be splitting my time with my colleague Mr. Pacetti.

Mrs. Proulx, I understand your mandate, but I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out exactly what cases Elections Canada or the Elections Commissioner can use your services in.

I'll give you an example. A Mr. Reg Petersen, Mr. Goodyear's campaign manager, voluntarily entered into an agreement with Elections Canada regarding a problem he was facing. Does Elections Canada consult you when it doesn't know whether there should be charges or negotiations? Is that your role, or does Elections Canada have its own lawyers? Of course Elections Canada has its own lawyers, but when it comes time to lay charges, does it do that itself or does it consult you?

[Chantal Proulx]

Elections Canada may not lay charges without the approval of the Director of the Public Prosecution Service, in that the Director has to be consulted and apply the test for prosecuting before a charge is laid by an Elections Canada investigator.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

But if he believes there has been an offence, that would not prevent him from negotiating something with the individuals or their lawyers. In the case of Mr. Petersen, there was a compliance agreement, a settlement he made voluntarily, in which he acknowledged he had sinned and had to suffer the consequences. In that case, he doesn't have to consult you.

[Chantal Proulx]

That's correct. The Commissioner has the authority to decide whether he wants to negotiate what you call a compliance agreement.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mrs. Proulx.

Mr. Pacetti.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Perhaps I'll speak English, just to make it a bit clearer.

Elections Canada has legal counsel. Elections Canada will not come to your department for frivolous or small items. They have the personnel, they have the competent people—do they not?—to handle these small frivolous cases. So when you do actually get a case, I would imagine it has to be something serious.

[Don Beardall]

Well, as I think we've indicated earlier, our involvement in Elections Act matters is not common. They fairly rarely arise. But any investigative agency—

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Excuse me. So they're not common. We understand there's been a large number of inquiries to your department, but now you sort of contradicted yourself. I can't imagine there being that many cases where your department has been asked to intervene.

[Don Beardall]

There have not.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

My understanding from Mrs. Proulx is that there was one where a prosecution was undertaken, and there were many...to me it sounded as if you couldn't even count them, there were so many. But I should think there would be fewer than a handful, that perhaps the only other one would be the one we're studying today.

[Don Beardall]

I would have to let Ms. Proulx respond, because she has better knowledge with regard to actual numbers.

However, your question was in regard to the seriousness of cases that might be referred to us. Any investigative agency, including Elections Canada, would come to us when they feel they require our input and advice. It would not be a matter of the seriousness or otherwise of the matter, so much as whether or not it raises issues on which they need our assistance.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

That was my exact point from my opening question about an hour and a half ago. So we've finally gone full circle.

So the only time Elections Canada will come to your department is when it's a serious case, meaning there are going to be prosecutions and they're ready to go. They know what the two criteria are. You've explained them to us and they know. You've enlightened us—you've enlightened everybody—but I think if it doesn't respond to the common good, there is no use prosecuting somebody, if we're talking about an expense report that wasn't signed or an official agent's name that was not on an advertisement. But in this case, it's obvious that Elections Canada has come and consulted with you.

My question is this. What is the action that's going to result from all this? Is anybody going to be thrown in jail, and is it going to be done within the next 12 months? That's what we'd like to know.

[Don Beardall]

Sir, as we've indicated previously, we are not in a position to comment on any particular investigation that may be going on right now, and in any event we can certainly not speculate as to what the outcome of the commissioner of elections' investigation would be in any particular case. We cannot say if the matter will ever be referred to us for our consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to pursue that a bit further, because I'm trying to clarify and understand your position with respect to attending here this morning and also in relation to what you can and what you can't comment on. Are decisions about what you can or can't comment on made by your department?

[Chantal Proulx]

Yes, they are.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

So you disagree with Mr. Walsh's interpretation of a witness's testimony at committee here, then?