Evidence of meeting #12 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was court.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
So we don't have to ask for it. We'll all be given it simultaneously.
Conservative
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I thought I was out of time.
In that case, I didn't fully understand your response to my question the first time in relation to the problems of reporting, or that you alleged were related to reporting, of the 2008 and 2006 elections in Selkirk—Interlake.
I'll change my question and put it in a way that makes it really clear.
Let's say that in the 2000 election, I, Scott Reid, ran a completely clean election. There were no problems, but it turns out that looking back in 2008, you believe that I overspent by $1 million, and I refused to provide you with documentation. Would you feel comfortable writing to the Speaker and saying, "Scott Reid who won fair and square in 2011 in the 41st election ought to be excluded from the 41st Parliament for an offence relating to the 2008 election to the 40th Parliament"?
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Section 463 doesn't make a difference between how long ago the election took place. The whole purpose of the legislation is to ensure that there be accurate returns. It's all about transparency and accountability for the expenditures and the transactions that occur during a campaign.
From time to time, information may require that returns be amended to accurately reflect what happens during that campaign. Section 463 doesn't make a difference. Otherwise, you're turning it upside down. It's not because the election is gone that there's no longer a duty to account for that election.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
In terms of the question, could you just answer by saying, yes, I think I could send a letter based on the 2008 elections affecting the 41st Parliament in 2011?
Conservative
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
It's on Mr. Reid's last question and the two before. He's talking about the overly aggressive posture of Mr. Mayrand, but I'm finding the level of aggressiveness and hostility towards Mr. Mayrand's answer as the one who's holding up the integrity of Canada's election laws—
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I find the position that the Conservatives are taking absolutely obtuse to their reasons [Inaudible—Editor].
We've invited a guest here, Mr. Chair—
Conservative
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, we've invited a guest here, and part of the role that we all take is ensuring that the guest is treated with respect at all times.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I understand that, and that's truly the role of the chair. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I was watching it closely and I would have dealt with it. Thank you for telling me how I'm not doing my job very well.
Mr. Lamoureux.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Okay. You didn't want to go there either.
Mr. Christopherson, for four minutes.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I'll pick up where my House leader left off, and I'll just say that it's disappointing. It's disappointing more than anything, because we really did, are doing, and will continue to deal with this in a non-partisan way. You have a majority government; whether you had this seat or not it's not going to change the balance of power.
We're far more concerned about making sure we have processes that work, that are respected, that the cornerstones of accountability and transparency are met. It's very disappointing to come in here and it didn't take very long before, all of a sudden, the government's view was that the public servant in the name of Mr. Mayrand is the problem.
Unfortunately, there is a track record. If you take a look at the court cases, what has been said by judges about the government, notwithstanding their claims in the House that they're always cooperative, courts are saying they've done everything they can to delay things, and this is just more of the same. It's disappointing because it does a disservice to all of us, to Parliament, and any disservice to Parliament is an automatic disservice to Canadians. Hopefully, we can get off this kind of nonsense, quite frankly, and get back to the issue at hand. This is serious. My House leader has outlined a situation where what we're dealing with now could lay the groundwork for the determination of what happens if we get into a minority House and it's one or two seats deciding who has all the power in this country and we're unclear as to procedures or we have procedures that don't work because they were forced through by a majority in a partisan way, rather than in a fair-minded, balanced way. We're going to continue to try to do that, but the government is not making this easy.
I also want to make sure that I get this on the record. I'm glad Mr. Watson finds this all amusing, but I would encourage anyone who really is interested in our change—
Conservative
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope everyone's listening to that.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
There was a report that came out of this committee, and there's been some reference to it. I'm only mentioning it because it's value is this. We did work over, was it two different Parliaments, Tom? It was at least two, maybe into three. But they were in a minority and the world was very different when they were in a minority. That report in terms of electoral reform does reflect, in my view, the honest work and the honest evaluation of all the members who participated because it was a minority and we were trying to make it work. We spent hours working it through, and I enjoyed it. It was quite stimulating, it was good work.
In terms of that report—and this is why I'm raising it for those who follow these matters—it will be interesting to see how close the government reform package, in terms of all these issues we're dealing with here today, comes to the work done when we had an honest evaluation in a non-partisan way. I think there were only one or two issues where we actually disagreed at the end of the day and it wasn't enough to have the opposition at the time say, “No, we're not with the government.” It was unanimous except for those one or two items.
I put that on the record because I hope people will look at it. That was an honest attempt to provide rules that are fair and reflect the needs Canadians have for fair elections.
Mr. Mayrand, I wanted to ask you if this is correct. It's been posed by others that we've really got two key pieces to this. One is your part of it. For the other one we start getting into the issue of privilege. In that regard, it seems to me, Mr. Chair, at some point we may even want Mr. Mayrand here and we may want the parliamentary law clerk side by side as we work this through in making our deliberations. Whether we're going to be able to do this by the end of our time or not, I'm not sure, but we need to do this properly. We need to stay on it until it's done, but please let's ratchet down the partisanship. That's not helping anyone, and it's certainly not helping the member whose seat is in question.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.
That's exactly where we are, folks. I'd like us to stay on this topic. We are talking about a remedy for the Speaker and for Monsieur Mayrand on what to do when it happens on subsection 463(2). Let's try to keep it there.
Mr. Lukiwski, you're our last one today. You have four minutes, please.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you very much.
I'd like to make a further comment on what David was saying. Listen, you may be critical of my colleague Mr. Reid's line of questioning, but quite frankly, the questioning in his line and my line is exactly what you're talking about. We need to make sure due process is followed.
My point has always been, and I agree with you, that particularly in a minority configuration, should it surface again, this issue had better be dealt with appropriately. One seat could mean the difference between a government toppling or a government remaining in power in a minority situation.
That's why I am taking this seriously. I was part of the minority government two-term examination of electoral reform. I reiterate my point. That's why I think it's so vitally important that if there is a dispute of the magnitude where the Chief Electoral Officer and the candidate cannot come to a resolution between the two of them, in my view the only result would be that the courts have to determine the appropriateness of the return. I don't think there's any other way around it, quite frankly. Is it a perfect solution? Perhaps not, but it's the best one we've got in our society.
Clearly, if there's a dispute between two individuals that cannot be resolved between the two of them, the courts ultimately are the final arbiter. I think that has to happen here, because to disenfranchise a member, even though Monsieur Mayrand is saying he's not the one who is making that determination, subsection 463(2) of the act says the member shall not continue to sit or vote as a member until relevant documents are supplied or 462 is satisfied.
If there is dispute whether or not all documents have been supplied, and that dispute continues, who then is going to make the final determination? Do we allow the Chief Electoral Officer to make an arbitrary decision? Does he have that amount of power? I don't think that's appropriate. With all due respect to Monsieur Mayrand, I think the only course of action to determine the appropriateness would be through the courts. That's how we operate in today's society.
NDP
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Well, thank you again, David, for keeping us in a non-partisan discussion.