Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 20th, 2007

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

I'm sure you realize that given the minority government context we are in an election may be called at any moment, whether it be in the near future or the not so near future. Basically, an election could be triggered at any time. Maybe even tomorrow.

If we were to have an election soon, would you have a strategy in mind? What would an imminent election mean for the Chief Electoral Officer?

[Marc Mayrand]

Well indeed, over the last couple of days and weeks, I did hear about a number of reports from journalists referring to the possibility of an imminent election. What struck me when I reviewed the material for consultation is that Elections Canada has conducted four general elections over the brief period of nine years. This would suggest that the organization is both strong and professional, and that it knows how to conduct elections. I think that Elections Canada has demonstrated this ability over the past years. I have no reason to believe that this ability has in any way diminished over the last couple of months, since the last general election.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm sorry, your time has run out.

Next I have Mr. Reid or Mr. Lukiwski.

Okay, Mr. Reid, go ahead, please.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to our committee, Mr. Mayrand. I'd like to use the eight minutes I have in the following way; I'm going to ask you three questions, and you can use the remaining time to answer each question, in as much detail you wish.

All three of my questions will be on the subject of the manner in which the previous Chief Electoral Officer conducted himself. I will be asking you whether you would be continuing the same practice or changing the practice. I understand that you might want to take some of this under advisement, but nonetheless, I'll lay these things out. It would be very helpful, I think, to all parties to understand whether we can expect continuity or change in these areas, and in particular to know that you are considering in good faith how to deal with these areas.

The first one relates to the issue of the all-party consultative committee that currently exists. This committee existed prior to the tenure of Mr. Kingsley as Chief Electoral Officer. The incumbent prior to Mr. Kingsley was in the habit of consulting with the all-party committee prior to making rulings or issuing interpretive bulletins. This allowed him to gain the on-the-ground wisdom of all the parties in a context in which all parties could listen in on what was being said by all other parties--there was no favouritism being shown--and then he would issue the interpretation bulletins. Mr. Kingsley discontinued that practice and has tended to consult with the all-party committee after the fact.

I would certainly like to know whether you would continue Mr. Kingsley's practice or the practice that existed prior to his tenure. At the very least, I would like you to take back the thought of considering which course of action you would take, and report back to us at a future date.

The second question I have also relates to the information and interpretive bulletins that Elections Canada issues. These are posted on the website of Elections Canada. When the new Commissioner of Elections was here, I asked him how he treated them or was going to treat them. It struck me that one could argue that it's more appropriate for the commissioner to issue these bulletins than for Elections Canada to do so, given that it's actually the commissioner who would have to rule on them.

At any rate, we would like some clarity as to who is doing what. The impact upon your legal standing, if you attempt in good faith to follow the interpretation written down in the bulletin, is obviously of importance. At the very least, I would ask you if you're willing to read through all the bulletins to see if you agree with them, and if you don't, to change them as appropriate and come back to us, and let us know the progress you've made on looking at those bulletins. I think there are 26 or 28 on the website right now.

The final thing I wanted to ask you relates to a provision of the new anti-electoral fraud bill, Bill C-31. This includes a provision--it's in clause 21 of the new proposed act--which states that in order to cast a ballot, an individual must produce either one piece of photo identification with their address, or two pieces of identification. I'll just quote from the legislation:

(b) two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer each of which establishes the elector's name and at least one of which establishes the elector's address.

The previous Chief Electoral Officer volunteered to us, at his most recent appearance before the committee, that prior to actually issuing such a list, he would come back to this committee and would give us his tentative list and seek input from us. Would you be willing to do the same thing?

Thank you.

[Marc Mayrand]

To the third question, I would certainly answer that, yes, I think this committee and probably other consultation forums that you've pointed out should be providing input on what those acceptable pieces of identification should be.

On the all-party consultations, I haven't had any briefings from Elections Canada at this point in time, so I'm not familiar with the various networks--if I can refer to them that way--in place to carry out consultations.

I can tell you that in my current position, we do carry out extensive consultations. I think these consultations are necessary to make sure that rulings or interpretations are the right ones, the best ones. Also, they contribute significantly to voluntary compliance. When people understand what a specific ruling is all about, and they have a chance to express their views, when they have a sense that they've been heard, and they understand your thought process, I think there's certainly a better chance of generating greater compliance.

My view is that consultation should be done prior to any ruling—I'm not sure if I missed your point—otherwise I'm not sure it's truly consultation; to me it's more information dissemination. But again, I can assure you that it's certainly been my practice, in my current position, to seek views from all stakeholders before making any general rulings or decisions.

With respect to information bulletins, I will have to come back to you on these. Again, I'm not familiar with what those bulletins entail, how they were designed, and where they flow from. I would certainly be pleased to come back before you again to discuss this matter further.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Reid, you have one and a half minutes left on your time.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I'll just mention—maybe this is not so much a question as an editorial comment—that we did get a very positive reception, with what I thought were very commonsensical responses, from the new Commissioner of Elections when he came before us and we asked him about the bulletins.

I think I recall that we asked him about whether he would be willing to be involved in the all-party consultation committee process. I guess this is really a thought; I think it would be a good idea, and I hope you'd agree with me...to consult with the commissioner and find a way of working on these things jointly so that we actually have a clear joint position or understanding of where the two of you are feeling in relation to each other on these matters.

[Marc Mayrand]

I will certainly look into it.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much, Mr. Reid.

Monsieur Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Mr. Mayrand. Please excuse my croaky voice. You'll realize it's not my normal voice the next times you testify before the committee. If my voice is still like that then, I'll be thinking seriously about seeing a doctor.

Human nature being what it is, it is very tempting for a new office holder to be accompanied by members of his or her former management team. That has occurred on several occasions. It is not as if you had been assistant director general at Elections Canada for the past five years which, granted, would have been a more logical or more usual progression. I'm not saying your nomination is in any way abnormal, but you'll be less aware of the customs, traditions and files in relation to this position.

I have a specific question. Do you intend to keep the management team? I'm thinking about Ms. Diane Davidson who, among other people, testifies regularly before us. She was General Legal Counsel at the House of Commons, and Mr. Kingsley snatched her away five or six years ago, if my memory serves me correctly.

[Marc Mayrand]

I have no specific plans in this regard, and I have no information that would lead me to think that the team in place does not deserve the full confidence of the Chief Electoral Officer and the other people involved in the elections system. In fact, my impression is that this is a robust, experienced organization that knows how to run elections very well, as it has proven over the last 10 years. I have no reason to think that any major change will be necessary.

I've looked very briefly at the November 2005 Auditor General's report which mentions once again the high-quality administration at Elections Canada and refers to a few areas for improvement. I will follow up on these if my nomination is confirmed.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

In your current position as Superintendent of Bankruptcy, do you sometimes receive requests—not from citizens, but from people at Industry Canada, the deputy minister or the assistant deputy minister, for specific legal advice or interpretations from the financial services? If so, is this advice provided orally or in writing?

[Marc Mayrand]

Particularly since the amendments to the act in 1992, there is a very strict separation between the superintendent and the department's administrative authority. Any questions regarding insolvency that could be raised and could be of interest to the department are to be dealt with by a section other than the Superintendent's Office.

As I mentioned, the superintendent's powers come directly from the act. These powers are quasi-judicial. Consequently, the superintendent must use them with all the independence and impartiality required. Of course, if these powers were to be used improperly, there could be a review by the courts.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Let me give you an example. I will not refer to any specific points regarding the enforcement of the act.

One of Mr. Kingsley's initiatives was to establish the Advisory Committee of Registered Political Parties. Are you familiar with it?

[Marc Mayrand]

Not exactly, no.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

That makes it difficult for me to ask you whether you intend to keep it in place. That was to be my next question. In any case, think about it. It is judged by the political parties.

Will you be having discussions with Mr. Kingsley? Will he be giving you his post-mortem? Are there plans for a passing of the torch, so to speak?

[Marc Mayrand]

I hope to have an opportunity to meet with Mr. Kingsley. I know that his resignation was effective last Friday. Nevertheless, I do hope to speak with him, and of course, I do intend to meet the management team at Elections Canada.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

You will have an opportunity to do that. The Advisory Committee of Registered Political Parties is very much appreciated by Elections Canada and by the parties. We hope you will see fit to keep it in place.

I will now turn to a more negative point. I asked you a question about legal opinions. You are the watchdog of democracy. Our job is to try to convince people in our riding to vote for us in accordance with the law. When we asked for legal opinions from the financial or legal services at Elections Canada, we never got them in writing. It was always left up to the discretion of the person to whom we were speaking.

How do we know how to proceed if we do not have opinions in writing?

[Marc Mayrand]

In our system, as in any other, it may be a concern if people cannot get written opinions on various matters that are subject to interpretation. In the area in which I work at the moment, we do provide opinions in writing on controversial issues. For me, this is a way of ensuring that the rules are enforced in a consistent and foreseeable way. First and foremost, we must ensure that people understand rules and their import properly, and that the rules are stated clearly.

I will find out about Elections Canada's practices in this regard. I imagine there were other considerations that came into play. I will find out about this, but I can assure you that my approach is to provide written opinions on issues that may sometimes be sensitive.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

One minute.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

As you know, Bill C-2 provides for changes in the way returning officers are appointed. I do not want to lay out your work plan for you, but if there is an election this spring, this should become your priority, unless you want to proceed according to the former system, under which the government of the day appointed friends or party supporters to this position most of the time.

Do you intend to establish some priorities so that returning officers are appointed following an open, transparent process?

[Marc Mayrand]

Definitely. Unless I am mistaken, those provisions of the act are in force. So they must be acted upon.

They are not yet in force?