Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 19th, 2007

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thank you very much. That satisfies it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much, Mr. Preston.

Madam Picard, please.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good day, Ms. Gauthier, Mr. Corbett. I assure you that I'm not on a witch hunt. I have nothing against staff, management or the organization. I spoke to you about this when you last were here. I simply want some assurances that the provisions of the Elections Act are being upheld and that what happened in my riding and elsewhere won't happen again.

I've brought with me the letters that you were sent during the last election. Your file on the riding of Drummond is no doubt quite voluminous, because complaints have been filed in connection with each of the last five elections.

I'd like to briefly review our experiences, because sections 481 and 482(a) of the Elections Act were clearly violated. At the advance polls on January 13 and 14, a group of Liberal party members were systematically intimidating voters at the entrance to the polling station. A group member was trying to convince voters not to cast their vote for me, a registered candidate. The returning officer warned the group to cease their actions. An elderly woman even asked me to accompany her when she exited the polling station because she was afraid. We received several complaints from voters about this situation and these are included in your file. The returning officer even asked us to file a complaint on January 15, to ensure that everything went smoothly on January 16 and January 23.

On March 2, we received a letter from the Commissioner of Canada Elections. Your staff apparently contacted the Liberal Party's legal counsel. He assured you that the individuals named in the complaint would be contacted. Your office proceeded to contact the returning officer to get her version of the facts. The letter that we received concluded that it was impossible to find beyond a reasonable doubt that an offence had been committed. This letter was signed by Ms. Johanne Massicotte, who is now retired.

Are you aware of the riding organizer's actions? He accused me of making an unfounded complaint, of indulging in political muckraking. His accusations were reported by all of the newspapers. I learned that the person charged with investigating the complaint had called the candidate and simply asked if the statements issued were true. The candidate maintained that the statements were false and that we were just imagining things. The investigation ended there.

I've read sections 48, 166(1)(c) and 482(a) of the Canada Elections Act. In my opinion, these provisions are useless because the facts cannot be proven. Section 482(a) reads as follows:

(a) by intimidation or duress, compels a person to vote or refrain from voting or to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate at an election;

We have witnesses. The current legislation is useless because your office is not interesting in ensuring compliance. We would have needed to videotape the individuals outside the polling station. I was the candidate, and she even grabbed my arm. She was grabbing everybody by the arm and telling them to vote for her candidate because he was the better choice. Her actions smacked of outright intimidation.

What evidence should I have supplied to justify my complaint? What procedure do we need to follow to get some results? I'm not the only person who was targeted, and mine is not the only riding to have encountered this problem.

The returning officer was appointed by an opposing party, but she is an honourable individual. She herself was really surprised. She was intimidated by this man throughout the electoral process. She filed complaints with the Chief Electoral Officer. Yet, this man is still around and will resume his intimidation tactics.

We're not sure how to deal with this situation. The letter that we sent you is signed by Élisabeth Jutras, who is a lawyer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Excuse me. I just want to interrupt for a moment. We're in a bit of a funny situation here.

Madame Picard, you are over your time of five minutes on this round. However, there's no one else on the list, so I just want to inform—

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

I will give her my five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's exactly what I was expecting to happen. It was just so that we follow the rules here and make sure everybody's aware of it.

Madame Picard, you are up again.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'll listen to what you have to say, then I'll respond.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We're officially on our second round, then. We're on the second round, and the only people on the list right now are Madame Picard and Monsieur Plamondon. We can share your time with Monsieur Plamondon. Please continue.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You may respond.

[William Corbett]

I'm not in a position to debate particulars of the case you have described.

The structure of the legislation gives the returning officer remarkable powers under the act to maintain peace at any polling station where there's a disturbance. The legislation is quite clear on what that person may do to rectify and resolve a situation on the spot. The instructions to returning officers are also to engage the local police immediately in order to maintain the peace at polling stations, if this is considered necessary, and in my experience they do phone the local police. The local police will investigate and assist in the maintenance of order and the rectifying of an immediate situation. I submit that the first goal should be that the electors be entitled to vote without interference. Thereafter, a complaint can be made to our office, and we would investigate it, but the first thing to do is to make sure that the functioning of the polling booths takes place.

I'm not familiar with all of the facts involved in the matter you raise, but I presume you did receive from our office a response that an investigation took place and that a resolution, as far as the investigators were concerned, occurred. I'm not, as I say, familiar with this particular file, but it was, according to you, looked into and investigated, and a decision was taken. That decision, I submit, was taken in good faith, although you may not accept it. I appreciate that. If you want me to review this file again, you may wish to write me a letter and ask me to do so, and I'll undertake to do it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

There are still four minutes left on this round.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I was told that an investigation had been conducted, but the problem is that in cases like this, the person named in the complaint was contacted and said that the complaint was utterly unfounded. And that was the end of the investigation. My colleague will tell you that the same thing happened during the last election campaign. Our complaints never go any further because the person named is contacted and we're informed that there is no valid reason for pursuing the investigation, for lack of evidence.

I'd like to know what steps we should be taking. I know the returning officer can intervene, but the fact that she must call Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, that she has admitted to me that she can't control the situation with this lone individual, and that she has to advise candidates or their representatives to file a complaint with the Commissioner of Elections Canada are indications that the situation is serious.

We did in fact file a complaint, but we were subsequently informed that our complaint was unfounded. There was some doubt as to whether we had reasonable grounds to file a complaint, when in fact the Elections Act was violated on two counts. If I were the one to have committed an offence and if someone had contacted me, I could have easily denied everything, or maintained that I wasn't there at the time. The investigation would go no further. We have some doubts as to whether a thorough investigation was conducted. We have some reasonable doubts.

[William Corbett]

Then, Madame Picard, you may wish to send me a letter to that effect, that it was not properly carried out and would I mind reviewing it. I'd appreciate that, and I'd be prepared to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Corbett.

There's one minute left in that round for you, Monsieur Plamondon, if you would like it.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Commissioner, one of my constituents sent a letter to your predecessor, Mr. Raymond Landry, describing with supporting evidence eleven violations of the act. We initially checked by phone to see if the act had truly been violated, and this was confirmed to us.

For instance, an advertisement appeared in the newspaper, despite the fact that it hadn't been approved by the official agent and the wrong riding name appeared. We called about the ad and were told that indeed it was a violation of the act. We submitted as evidence the ad that appeared in the newspapers along with examples of 11 other offences. We submitted all of this evidence on February 2, that is a few days after the election, to ensure that you would receive it before the candidates filed their reports.

On March 27, that is a month and a half later, we received a letter notifying us that the candidate's official agent had been contacted and claimed that his name had accidentally been omitted and that the riding's name had been given incorrectly. The author of the letter claimed to be satisfied with the answer he received, indicated that the investigation was closed. The person in question would even have up to 60% of his expenses refunded. Assuming that the publication of these ads was simply a mistake, the fact remains that the Election Act was violated. He shouldn't be entitled to a 60% refund of the cost of these ads, which are illegal.

Imagine if I were to run a stop sign at a street corner while I answered the phone. Imagine if I were to tell the police officer who arrived on the scene that I didn't mean to run the stop sign. That won't prevent him from giving me a ticket anyway. That's not how things work. The law exists for a reason and must be respected. Perhaps these individuals didn't mean to run the ads, but they broke the law anyway. At the very least they should be reprimanded. At the very least, they should receive a warning and their expenses should not be reimbursed because they aren't official expenses. The letter was very clear. It noted the following:

The official agent acknowledged that the mistakes noted were made inadvertently. Accordingly, given the steps taken and the explanations given, the commissioner is of the opinion that these actions were unintentional and that it is not in the public interest to pursue this matter any further. The commissioner therefore closed the file.

Therefore, when the next election rolls around, I could purchase $50,000 worth of advertising and flood the newspapers in my riding, without giving the name of the official agent, and in the process using black money or money given to me by certain individuals. I could always claim subsequently that my actions were unintentional.

Really now, that's not how things work. The law is very clear and must be upheld. I don't want to send this person to jail or slap him with $1 million fine, but at the very least, I want him to be issued a stern warning and I don't want any of the expenses he incurred to be deemed election expenses, since they should have been, but were not, approved by the official agent, as stipulated in the act. I've tabled the two letters for your consideration, that is the letter sent to you by Mr. Tremblay, and the rather childish response sent to him by the commissioner. My constituents sent copies to my office.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

If I could interrupt you.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

I have nothing further. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

I certainly hope my colleagues from the Bloc realize that I allowed that session to go quite a bit longer than we normally do.

Mr. Corbett, did you have a reply there?

[William Corbett]

Once again, as a matter of trying to deal with a case I know nothing about—I didn't take office until September, so I don't know this file particularly well—one of the changes I made immediately upon taking on my responsibilities was to develop the caution letter that my friend just referred to earlier, which can be used to warn somebody about conduct that may not need more than a strong warning. So I'm in a position now, officially and otherwise, to deal with some of these matters in perhaps a slightly more aggressive way than to do nothing. That tool is now available to me. It wasn't available then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

We do have a bit of time left here. It's not often that I have the privilege of asking a few questions myself, so if I may refer you to page 10 of your letter to us, Mr. Corbett, I just want to know, in paragraph 43(b) we're talking about impersonation of a revising agent. It would seem to me that if somebody is impersonating a revising agent...you're not there. I'm sorry.

[William Corbett]

It's page 10 of—?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Oh, I'm sorry, it's your letter to us, dated March 14, 2007.

[William Corbett]

My letter is only two pages long.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

It's in the package that came with it, sir. I'm sorry.

[William Corbett]

I'm sorry, you'll have to help me here. Is it page 10 of the materials?