Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 8th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We will go ahead and get started tonight.

We have a good-sized panel. We have Keith Lanthier as an individual. From the Competition Bureau, we have Richard Bilodeau and Ann Salvatore. From the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, we have Marie-France Kenny.

On a point of order, Mr. Richards....

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I will be quite brief because I do want to allow lots of time for our witnesses tonight.

However, there have been some reports out there, particularly in the media, about the fact that Elections Canada has contracts, and there have been payments and remuneration made by Elections Canada to some of the witnesses who appeared before our committee on this study. As an example, Paul Thomas appeared before the committee on Monday evening last week, I believe. There was no indication given during his testimony or otherwise that he did, in fact, have a contract from Elections Canada, which was something that I think should have been disclosed.

We can argue over whether that's a good thing or not, but certainly, as an example, as members of Parliament we disclose any of our financial interests under the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. It is incumbent that witnesses should, in fact, disclose any financial interests they might have in coming before a committee.

What I'm asking you to do, Mr. Chair, is to write to Mr. Mayrand, the Elections Canada CEO, and ask that he disclose any of the contracts that witnesses who have appeared before this committee, testifying on this bill, have with Elections Canada, and if he would also disclose the nature of the work that's been performed in exchange for that remuneration.

Mr. Mayrand does report to Parliament through this committee and we deserve to have those answers. That disclosure should be made, so I'm asking you to write to Mr. Mayrand and ask for that disclosure to be provided to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Is it on that same point of order, Mr. Christopherson, or a different one?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No, it's the same one.

I've raised this before and it was just left, and that was fine. We could live with that. But now they're trying again and it's, “Are you and have you ever been a member of the Chief Electoral Officer's team?” The fact remains that if the government wants to ask any witness anything at all, they have that right, but it's not up to the chair to ask a question like this. It's part of the proceedings.

I'm getting a signal from you that maybe I can just stand down a moment, but—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

No, I was just noticing that Mr. Simms had his hand up too. That was a look of frustration that I'd like to—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, we could go through this quickly if you would just say you're not going to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'd like to hear from all first, and then I will say—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Then it opens up a whole series of questions that are possible.

It's a government decision. They have decided that they want to run these witnesses through that filter and they are entitled to ask any questions they want. They spend most of their time talking out the clock anyway because they don't like the answers they get, but that's very different from making it part of the regular procedure that the chair of the meeting.... It's almost like swearing people under oath, that people have to go through certain hoops and divulge certain things before the meeting can ever start.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's not what I heard.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's not the question being asked. It's the fact that you're being asked to make it, as the chair, on behalf of everyone, and we reject that completely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Simms, on the same point of order....

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

It's my experience on committees that we always have a discussion preceding witness testimony. We have a discussion about who the witnesses are. Perhaps they should have brought it up then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

In a normal steering situation, that may very well have been the case. We didn't really get to that on this.

Mr. Mayrand does answer to the procedure and House affairs committee and the committee is being asked to do that, but I'm going to take it under advisement for tonight.

Let us go ahead with our witnesses.

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

If I could just very briefly add to this, there were a couple of points raised refuting what I had asked you to do, but I really think, at the end of the day, we have an example here of a witness who did come forward and this was not revealed.

I don't think it's the responsibility of members of Parliament here on this committee to have to look into the background of a witness. I think that's something—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Do you want to hear from me again? I'm sure you don't. He's not going to have the floor and we don't. So Chair...[Inaudible--Editor].

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

—when there is an interest like that, it should just simply be disclosed. That's the reason why we're asking for that to be—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The chair has ruled.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I understand where you're at, Mr. Richards.

Mr. Christopherson, did you want to jump in again or not?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

My preference would be that we just move on and drop all this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Reid, is this on the same point of order?

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

Yes. I appreciate that Mr. Christopherson is very passionate and has deep feelings, and I respect that. But I get frustrated with some of the analogies he makes. His comparison of this to the McCarthy hearings—“Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”—is simply inappropriate. This is about trying to determine conflict of interest, not about trying to determine whether someone has passed the kind of obscene purity tests that the McCarthy army hearings were imposing in the 1950s.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

I'd like us all just to take a deep breath, and let's go with our witnesses.

We'll get back to that one at some point.

Mr. Lanthier, please start with your opening statement.

[Keith Lanthier, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you and this committee for inviting me here this evening.

As I indicated, my name is Keith Lanthier. I live in the riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's in Nova Scotia.

When I heard that these hearings were only going to be in Ottawa, I knew that I needed to do something. One option would have been to discuss it with my member of Parliament, but there was not enough time, and I was not confident that I would even get a response. It was important for me to have a voice.

Fair elections are the cornerstone of any democracy. I must admit that in the past I really didn't give it a lot of thought. I had very few expectations when there was an election. There was always a sense of accomplishment after voting, but that's where it ended.

This changed for me in the May 2011 federal election with the robocalls scandal, and the changed mood intensified with the introduction of Bill C-23 in Parliament. Canadians from across this country are discussing the fair elections act and thinking about the critical role that fair elections play in our democracy.

From my perspective there are two basic questions. Will the fair elections act strengthen Canada's democracy by ensuring that every eligible Canadian is able to exercise his fundamental right to vote? Will it ensure that our elections are fair? While there may be some positive provisions in this bill, from my perspective the answer to both of these questions is no.

First, there are provisions in the bill to remove two methods of voting that have proven to be effective in ensuring that voters who do not have standard ID documents showing their name and current address can vote. These are the voter information cards and the vouching system.

In the last federal election more than 100,000 Canadians used the vouching system in order to cast their ballot. There are many reasons they may not have had the necessary documentation. Every year 13% of Canadians move house, and roughly four million Canadians don't have a driver's licence. There are many groups that may be negatively impacted if these changes are implemented.

The minister has repeatedly stated that these changes are necessary to ensure that there is no voter fraud. Harry Neufeld acknowledged that there were irregularities in 1.3% of the cases but that there was no evidence of voter fraud. He also noted that there are multiple reasons for these administrative errors. Mr. Neufeld made a number of recommendations, and none of them included the elimination of vouching or voter information cards.

It is also extremely important that elections be independent and transparent. One of the problems with Bill C-23 is that it changes the rules by which election officials, including central poll supervisors, are selected. There are concerns that these changes will compromise the non-partisan nature of these roles.

The role of the Chief Electoral Officer will also significantly change. The bill will prevent him and Elections Canada from engaging with the public in the same way with respect to our democracy. This includes engaging with children and youth, who are the next generation of voters. The student vote program reached more than 500,000 students in the last election. The decline in voter turnout is clearly an issue, I think we can all agree, but not reaching the next generation of voters is clearly not the solution.

Finally, when there is suspected voter fraud, there must be the necessary mechanisms in place to conduct thorough investigations. Bill C-23 simply states that an independent investigation will be initiated, if there are sufficient grounds. The investigator will still have no power to compel witnesses to testify. That is the key reason that Canadians still have limited information about the improper use of robocalls in the last election.

This is in sharp contrast to section 11 of the Competition Act, whereby a judge can order someone to present evidence under oath or to produce documents, if the court is satisfied that the information is relevant to the inquiry.

These are just some of the serious flaws with this legislation that I can mention in the time that I have. It is for these reasons and other concerns that Bill C-23 must be withdrawn.

All Canadians deserve to be part of this conversation, and not just those who've been able to make a written submission or appear before this committee. It is too vital to our democracy to be a ball bouncing back and forth between political parties.

It is also my strong belief that any serious discussion of electoral reform has to include the possibility of adopting some form of proportional representation. This way, every vote counts. Canadians want to be engaged in this discussion—I've certainly had many around my own area—and it is necessary to respect this. There can be no legitimacy without a comprehensive and consultative process.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Next is Mr. Bilodeau from the Competition Bureau.

[Richard Bilodeau, Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Civil Matters Branch, Competition Bureau]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting us to appear today.

My name is Richard Bilodeau. I am an Assistant Deputy Commissioner in the Civil Matters Branch of the Competition Bureau.

I am accompanied today by Ann Salvatore, acting assistant deputy commissioner in the criminal matters branch.

I would like to briefly describe the mandate of the Competition Bureau and give an overview of the bureau's investigative powers under the Competition Act.

The Competition Bureau, as an independent law enforcement agency, ensures that Canadian businesses prosper in a competitive and innovative marketplace. Headed by the Commissioner of Competition, the bureau is responsible for the administration of the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act except as it applies to food, the Textile Labelling Act, and the Precious Metals Marking Act.

The Competition Act provides the commissioner with the authority to investigate anticompetitive behaviour. The Competition Act contains both civil and criminal provisions, and covers conduct such as bid rigging, false or misleading representations, price fixing or abusing a dominant market position, among other things.

The Competition Bureau also reviews mergers over a certain size to determine whether they would result in a significant lessening or prevention of competition.

The bureau is an investigative agency, with no adjudicative function. If a civil case proceeds to litigation, the commissioner can apply to a specialized competition tribunal or the courts for a remedy. The commissioner may, at any stage of an inquiry, refer a criminal case to the director of public prosecutions for prosecution in the courts. Criminal cases are typically referred when a commissioner is of the view that the evidence shows that an offence has taken place.

The commissioner of competition may commence an investigation based on information obtained from a variety of sources, including, for example, market observations, in response to formal complaints and as a result of immunity or leniency applications.

The immunity program is one of the bureau's most effective tools for detecting and investigating criminal anti-competitive activities prohibited by the Competition Act. Under the immunity program, the first party to disclose to the Competition Bureau an offence not yet detected or to provide evidence leading to the filing of charges may receive immunity from prosecutions from the Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada, as long as the party cooperates with the bureau.

Under the leniency program, the bureau may recommend to the Director of Public Prosecutions that cooperating persons who have breached the cartel of provisions of the Competition Act—who are not eligible for a grant of immunity—nevertheless be considered for lenient treatment in sentencing.

When the bureau has reason to believe that a contravention of the Competition Act has occurred, the commission can initiate a formal inquiry under section 10 of the Act.

When a formal inquiry has been initiated, the bureau can collect information in a number of ways, either voluntarily or through the use of formal investigative powers granted under the Act and the Criminal Code.

The bureau's philosophy is that most companies in Canada wish to comply with competition law regulations. The bureau recognizes the strong desire to comply and implement compliance promotion, education, information, advocacy, outreach and related programs in order to ensure that companies understand very clearly what is expected of them by the law.

However, if companies with market power engage in anticompetitive activity, we will use the full force of the law to achieve compliance.

The bureau's formal investigative powers under sections 11, 15, and 16 are available for both civil and criminal investigations. In criminal cases, the bureau also has access to additional powers under the Criminal Code.

Under section 11 of the Competition Act, the commissioner may seek court orders to require oral testimony, written returns, or the production of records relevant to the investigation. Under sections 15 and 16, the commissioner may seek orders to search and seize relevant information. In criminal cases, the commissioner may also seek warrants or orders under the Criminal Code to produce information, conduct searches, or undertake wiretaps. The bureau must always seek jurisdictional authorization to use these formal investigative powers.

Thank you.

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.