Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 1st, 2014

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I have a fair idea.

[William Corbett]

It's something in the vicinity of 200. Are we going to prosecute everybody for everything? Of course not; we can't possibly do that.

The person I feel the sorriest for is the official agent, who has to put these things together after the campaign is finished and everybody has gone home and all the euphoria is gone. Some of them are absolutely overwhelmed—well-meaning, well-intentioned people. I've had accountants write to me and say, “I can't possibly sort this mess out and I'll never be an official agent again.” If you can simplify life for those people, that would be a significant step forward.

I'm off the topic now.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

No, that's quite all right. You're well within the scope of what we want to hear. I think the ability to compel a witness's testimony, as touched on by the current commissioner earlier—you made reference to the robocalls affair—is a very essential part of the job, in light of what you said about the situation, even now. The separation of that office into DPP probably makes the power to compel testimony even more important.

[William Corbett]

I would think so. I don't want to dwell on robocalls too much, but we had no idea what can be done on the Internet by way of triggering 100,000 calls for a very small price. I don't know what's coming next.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I don't know whether you have any comment about this, but recently I was reading about the necessity of reporting to CRTC concerning scripts.

Do you care to comment on that? When it comes to compliance, do you think that's an effective measure?

[William Corbett]

I don't know; I don't even know the details of this legislation. I don't know it that well. I'm sorry; you'll need someone else to answer that.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

That's okay.

But looking at this situation in total, when you were commissioner and as ex-commissioner, did anyone come to you officially from the government to ask, is this really effective?

Would the powers that are currently held within the Competition Act be something that would have benefited you in your investigations? No one has really discussed that.

[William Corbett]

No, I wouldn't say so.

I'm delighted to see the penalties becoming more substantial and being brought more in line with regulatory penalties in other legislation. It's not quite a full step, but it's certainly a decided improvement. There is nothing worse than spending a pile of money investigating an offence with a $5,000 fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Simms. You can get your question in before your time expires, but I don't give you another one. Thanks.

Next is Mr. Van Kesteren.

Welcome to the committee tonight; it's good to have you here.

You'll have four minutes.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Four minutes? Well, I'll try to be quick. I thank you all for this opportunity.

I wasn't going to say anything, until I heard Tom's story. It reminded me of one of my own.

Mr. Corbett, I don't know whether I agree—as a matter of fact, I really don't agree—with you when you suggest that all elections in Canada are fair and honest. I think for the most part that's correct, but I was thinking of this little phrase, “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard”what people's imaginations will conjure up.

Back in 2004, the first year I ran, I was one of those who was narrowly defeated, by 403 votes or something like that. I was as green as grass; I had never run in an election before and had never been involved in one.

Somewhat dejected and depressed, we went back to the drawing board and looked at the polls and dug up and started to look at all those numbers. We noticed one particular poll in which, doggone it, we were wiped out—not close, but wiped out 53 to 2, or 60 to 2, whatever it was. It was somewhat depressing. The obvious question was, what are these polls? Well, they were nursing homes. I ask you, because I know the answer and I hope you have the same answer....

Surprisingly, the next time around we put people inside those nursing homes and, doggone it, I think we won most of those nursing homes.

I want to go back to what you were saying about prosecution and taking it out. I would think, being just like everybody else who would be somewhat fearful and nervous about doing something wrong, that if there were repercussions or if there were something that might result in a little bit more than what Mr. Lukiwski was saying about the act—that nothing had really happened—I'd be reluctant, if I were involved in a scheme like that.

Wouldn't you agree that this kind of change in the Elections Act might prevent that sort of fraud from ever happening again?

[William Corbett]

I'm sorry; changed to what, again...?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Let's call it hanky-panky. Let's just call it those little irregularities that people have conjured up through the years. If you were working inside a polling station, wouldn't you think that people might be a little afraid of pulling off something like that?

[William Corbett]

Do you mean if there were an offence?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Yes. Well, it's an obvious offence.

[William Corbett]

You'll have to give me a better definition of the offence here, but in the polling station there are numerous people watching what goes on, including scrutineers from the political parties, are there not?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

We didn't have scrutineers on that particular....

Okay, we can argue that it was my fault. You're right; I probably should have had scrutineers. We didn't have the people; we were new at this game.

But whether or not there were scrutineers present, isn't it wrong to take some old folks who—I'm guessing—really didn't know what day it was, let alone who they were going to be voting for—?

[William Corbett]

Yes, it is. It's influencing the vote.

I presume there is an offence in the act, among those 200, that might fit it already. I think there is a genuine case for concern about how voting is conducted at nursing homes.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Would it be possible that if we were better able to identify those things, and if the repercussions were such that it might be a little bit more than...? I'm just trying to think—

[William Corbett]

A fine of a little more than a couple of thousand dollars....

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Yes.

[William Corbett]

Yes. That's what your legislation will do now. It will make the penalties more severe. I believe there's an offence for that already.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren.

We'll go now to you, Mr. Scott, for four minutes. Apparently Madam Latendresse is giving you all her questions.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Corbett, for being here.

One piece of your testimony that I thought was extremely important, because frankly I don't think we've heard it before, is your description of the involvement of the staff of the commissioner of Canada elections on E-Day itself, their role in working with Elections Canada staff—

[William Corbett]

It's the election period, the whole 35 days—

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

—for the election period, the whole 35 days, and their role and that kind of troubleshooting and scouting of irregularities. You asked who will do it now that this symbiotic link with Elections Canada is gone. I believe you said, flat out, “Well, the DPP won't be doing it.”