Evidence of meeting #14 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 bezan.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Marc Mayrand  Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Let's go ahead and call the meeting to order. We're here on the motion of privilege.

Monsieur Mayrand, I apologize for the delay in getting started this morning. We had some members of the House who wanted to call it a day very early today.

Monsieur Mayrand, I take it you have an opening statement?

February 6th, 2014 / 12:30 p.m.

Marc Mayrand Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

A very brief one.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

A brief one? Great. Let's start with that.

And then, committee members, we'll try to get as much in as we can.

12:30 p.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Marc Mayrand

Mr. Chair, thank you for inviting me back once again to appear before the committee today.

I am accompanied by Mr. Stéphane Perrault, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer for Legal Services, Compliance and Investigations.

I believe I clearly made my position on the privilege motion you are considering when I appeared before you in December. I will not repeat myself, other than to remind you that I take no specific position on the question of privilege that you are debating.

As I noted in my previous appearance, when I write to the Speaker pursuant to subsection 463(2), it is simply to inform him of a situation in which an elected candidate has either not submitted a document as required under the act or has failed to make correction as requested or authorized.

Subsection 463(2) of the act provides that in either of these situations, a member shall not continue to sit or vote as a member.

As I indicated in December, I take no position on whether a member of Parliament should continue to sit in the House of Commons despite the wording of subsection 463(2). This is a matter of parliamentary privilege.

My aim in writing to the Speaker is to acquaint him with the relevant provision of the Canada Elections Act in order that he may do whatever he deems best in the situation.

As you know, I wrote again to the Speaker with respect to subsection 463(2) in the case of the member of Selkirk—Interlake, Mr. James Bezan, and informed the Speaker that subsection 463(2) no longer applies in the case of Mr. Bezan since he has now filed corrections under the act and I have accepted them.

In addition, further to the request made by a member during my last appearance, I have submitted to the committee the letters that were sent to the Speaker after previous elections, pursuant to subsection 463(2).

These letters demonstrate a consistent approach on the part of the agency, including by my predecessor, to inform the Speaker in situations where there has been non-compliance with the filing requirement of the act on the part of a candidate from various parties.

It has been the practice of the chief electoral officer since at least 2001 to inform the Speaker in this manner.

That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chair, and I will be happy to answer any questions.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Thank you so much. We will go right to questioning. I think we'll start with a five-minute round and then see if we can get our second questions in.

Mr. Lukiwski, please.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Monsieur Mayrand, for being here.

Mr. Mayrand, I'm glad you're back here, because clearly we're here because of the letter you originally sent to Speaker Scheer invoking subsection 463(2).

That letter, in regard to subsection 463(2), indicated that a member shall not “sit or vote” if he has not complied with your request to file either a return or a corrected return, but in examining the Elections Act, Monsieur Mayrand, with all the greatest of respect, I believe you did not have to send that letter. I believe that we do not have to be in this position right now, that you had choices, and that you chose to send the letter when you did not have to.

I point out to you—as I'm sure you're well aware—that under Elections Act section 457, you and you alone make the decision as to when a member of Parliament, or a candidate, for that matter, will have to comply with a corrected return. You chose originally the date of May 6. My understanding is that Mr. Bezan filed a return on May 5. You examined that return, you disputed it, and then gave a further deadline of May 17 by which to file a corrected return. You pointed out what you considered to be inaccuracies in his previous return.

Although Monsieur Bezan did not file a corrected return as per your request by May 17, he did inform your office that he would be seeking a court-ordered injunction. Under section 459, the candidate—or the member of Parliament, in this case—has a perfect right to do so.

Now, the sanction that you suggested or pointed out to the Speaker is, quite frankly, the most serious sanction, or least one of the most serious, that could possibly be invoked upon any candidate or, in this case, a sitting member of Parliament: that a sitting member of Parliament would not be able to sit and vote. It's not just the embarrassment and the tarnishing of the reputation; it's the fact that tens of thousands of voters who have voted for that member to be their representative are now disenfranchised or would have been disenfranchised had Mr. Bezan been removed from his seat.

My point is, sir, that according to my interpretation of elections law, you did not have to do that. It was your choice. Because, under paragraph 459(2)(a), it says that even though, in this case, Mr. Bezan did not comply with your request to have a corrected return in your hands by May 17, he could have up to two weeks to file a request to a judge, who would then be able to either authorize an extension or relieve the candidate of his obligation.

Mr. Bezan had informed your office that he would indeed be seeking that relief from the courts. You had two weeks in which to grant that to him, but yet you sent the letter to Speaker Scheer a week after the May 17 deadline, or in other words, a week prior to the deadline by which Mr. Bezan had to file a court injunction. I'm just wondering why you chose to do that, because as I mentioned at the outset, this is what has transpired because of your letter. My interpretation, sir, is, quite frankly, that you didn't have to do that but you chose to do so, and I'd just like to know why.

12:35 p.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Marc Mayrand

I think the correspondence I've provided to the committee indicates that it has been a consistent practice since at least 2001 from the office to inform the Speaker of any situation that occurs under subsection 463(2).

We are in a difficult position whether we do one thing or another, and I think this matter is truly a matter of privilege. All I'm doing, or all my predecessors were doing in issuing those letters, was advising the Speaker of the matter for him to consider under the rules that govern Parliament.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Would you not agree that it was your choice? You could have waited at least until the two-week deadline was up.

12:35 p.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Marc Mayrand

Waiting or not, either case could have triggered the issue of privilege, and I still think it's more appropriate that matters of privilege be left with the House.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

I understand that the situation has been—

12:35 p.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Marc Mayrand

Otherwise, I would have been accused of not informing the House properly, as it should be—

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

I don't think you would have been accused—

12:35 p.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Marc Mayrand

—and violating the privilege.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

I doubt very much, sir, that you would have been accused of anything, because my understanding is that the discussions were going on between your office and Mr. Bezan's campaign team. In fact, now that it's resolved, the amount we're talking about is less than $500.

So for a figure of less than $500, Mr. Bezan has been vilified, in some cases, by members of the opposition. Certainly his reputation has been tarnished and, quite frankly, had subsection 463(2) been enacted and had he been removed from sitting and voting, his constituents would have been disenfranchised.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

Mr. Christopherson, you have five minutes, please.

12:35 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Thank you, Chair.

Monsieur Mayrand, as you see it, are there any unresolved issues before this committee, before your office, or before the House?

12:35 p.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Marc Mayrand

Under subsection 463(2)?

12:35 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

In terms of Mr. Bezan's case.

12:35 p.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Marc Mayrand

The matter has been resolved out of court. I received a corrected return pursuant to the agreement that intervened, and as far as I know, the matter is resolved and is no longer before Parliament. I advised the Speaker accordingly.

12:35 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Thank you.

Chair, my contention to you is that we have done exactly what has been asked of us. The Speaker found a prima facie case, referred it to this committee, and asked us to resolve it. Prior to our concluding our deliberations, the matter has been resolved out of court.

Mr. Lukiwski had advised us of that himself and further—

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

In camera discussions.

12:40 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

—Mr. Mayrand has now confirmed that indeed the government's contention that the matter's resolved is true. Because it was Mr. Mayrand's letter that started all this, I've asked Monsieur Mayrand if are there any outstanding issues, and I'm advised by him that the matter is resolved. Therefore, as far as I can see, Chair, unless someone can point out to me what unresolved work we have, the instant case in front of us is resolved and we can put “done” on that file.

Then what's left is the question of any potential changes that we might want to make to the legislation as a result of this, and we need to determine whether we're going to do that on our own and continue, and offer a resolve to the Speaker or recognize that these matters are touched on in Bill C-23, and let this be subsumed by that discussion.

To me, what's left to be resolved, Chair, is the issue of any recommendations or changes and when we might look at those. But as to the case that's in front of us, it's old.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

I could answer that and I'll stop the time while I do.

Mr. Christopherson, you're absolutely right, but there are two parts to this motion of privilege. One was the resolution of Monsieur Bezan's issue. The second one was the question from the Speaker, “What do I do if it happens again?” And you're right, you've hit on that, so this committee is still faced with the second part.

12:40 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Thank you, Chair, I appreciate your intervention. I think it helps clarify the point I was making, and that is that, since the only thing left of the two pieces is any changes, the question for us is whether we should take the time of this committee, recognizing we've got other work, to look at a part of a bill that is being overhauled in a major way under Bill C-23 that either will or could capture that issue there. That's why I'm suggesting we should fold it into Bill C-23, but we can have that discussion.

But the issue about Mr. Bezan is over. We've heard from the person who raised the first concern that it's now concluded. I don't know what more there would be for us to do. We have met the Speaker's request, and I'll say again, on the second point, the only thing left for us to determine is whether we, as PROC, want to continue reviewing that legislation in light of this case and make any recommendations, or whether we want to then just say that this matter will be subsumed by Bill C-23, which, coincidentally, is coming to this committee anyway.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

It's absolutely true that this committee is the master of its own destiny as to how it wants to study the rest of the issue, so we'll ask the whole committee. Your opinion is noted. It is this committee's normal practice at the end of a motion of privilege to write a report back to the Speaker, especially in this case since he's asked for that report. So that would likely be where I suggest we go. Okay?