Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 8th, 2014

[Richard Bilodeau]

It's an investigative tool. When we do conduct an investigation, we have a lot of ways to collect information. When we go to third parties that aren't involved in the conduct that we're investigating, a lot of times asking the questions on a voluntary basis or providing information on a voluntary basis is sufficient. However, there are times when those companies that we are seeking information from either have commercially sensitive information that they cannot or are unwilling to provide to us voluntarily, or even that there are confidentiality provisions. In those instances, then section 11 is a useful tool. But when we seek information in a civil context from a target of one of our investigations, our default is using section 11. It ensures information is provided to us in a timely manner and that the information is complete.

Maybe I can give you a bit of a flavour in terms of what we do with the information, because you referred to the DPP.

Maybe I can turn it over to my colleague—

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

That was the next question. I want to know your relationship with the DPP.

Go ahead.

[Richard Bilodeau]

I'll turn it over to my colleague to answer that.

[Ann Salvatore]

Sure.

The Commissioner of Competition investigates anti-competitive conduct under the act, both civil and criminal. Under the criminal provisions, once the commissioner has developed a case, that evidence will be referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, the DPP, who will take the decision to prosecute.

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

Is that the first time they're engaged in that investigation whatsoever?

[Ann Salvatore]

Along the way, through our investigations, they will provide prosecutorial advice. But ultimately, in the end it's their decision as to whether they will lay charges, whether they will proceed with a prosecution. We will make recommendations—we can make recommendations on sentencing, we can make recommendations on granting immunity or leniency—but ultimately it's their decision in the end.

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

It comes down to the evidence that you get. Section 11 gathers quite a bit.

Sorry, Mr. Bilodeau.

[Richard Bilodeau]

I wanted to add that's on the criminal side. We do have civil provisions in the act. In the context of the civil provisions, it is Department of Justice lawyers, not DPP lawyers, that handle our cases and litigate our cases. We do find ourselves in a different relationship, where we are the client for the Department of Justice, in those civil cases.

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

That's interesting. Thank you.

Mr. Lanthier, I'll say a statement and you can tell me if you agree.

If people knew how bad this was going to be, would the uproar be much larger?

[Keith Lanthier]

I would answer that by saying I think people are aware. I think people are very informed. I think Canadians are very informed. For me, personally, this is my only avenue, other than writing a letter to the paper, to have a voice. I am one of the Canadians across the country who.... I think they understand. Everything, whether it's in the paper, on the media, through news stories, is well covered, so people know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

We will go to four-minute rounds, and if we keep it tight to four minutes we will get it in.

Mr. Richards, you have four minutes, please.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lanthier, I'd like to start with you. You did mention in your opening remarks some things that you were concerned with in the bill, but you did mention very briefly that you thought there were some positive provisions in the bill. I'm just curious if you could elaborate a bit on what those are.

Maybe I'll ask you some questions specifically. For example, the extra day of advance polling that's being provided, would that be something you would be supportive of? Do you think that's a good thing?

[Keith Lanthier]

I really don't have an opinion on that. I've never been prevented from voting under the current system so it won't mean, I don't think, anything personally for myself, so no.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Okay. But I suspect you'd probably agree that it's a good thing to provide voters with dates and whatnot, that they can vote—

[Keith Lanthier]

I think that it's important that Canadians who want to vote are able to vote. But if we have one thing that sort of encourages voting and maybe four or five things that discourage voting, I think we need to focus on the four or five things that discourage voting versus one that may enable people to vote.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Yes, and we may not necessarily agree that there are things that discourage them voting. In fact, I think when you have 39 forms of identification, there's lots of opportunity.

I think one of the problems, personally, is some of the communication about these things. For example, the advance polling, in your case you've indicated you've never had any issue being able to vote on election day. That's fine. But there are other individuals, obviously, who wouldn't be in that same boat and would have reasons why they couldn't physically be there that day or whatever. I think sometimes that people don't realize that there are other options for them.

We've heard a number of times in this committee from people who say there's no ability to vote. This isn't specifically what we were talking about, advance polling, but that's obviously one of the things. I think if Elections Canada did a better job of communicating to people some of these options, like advance polling or a special ballot, these kinds of things, I think it would really help to bring up participation. I just wondered what your thoughts were.

[Keith Lanthier]

Can I just respond to that?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Sure.

[Keith Lanthier]

As I said, I've never been prevented from voting. If I wanted to vote, I have been able to vote. None of the people I know have been prevented from voting.

I guess this is my issue. Canadians, as I indicated, are talking about this. When Canada negotiates a free trade deal, that takes years and years. You're working out details back and forth. But for some reason, for the Fair Elections Act, we have to somehow get it within six months. Somehow we have to do all of this.

From my perspective, I think Canadians are being robbed of their opportunity. I'm here today, but I could have 50 people sitting in this chair who want to express the same kinds of issues. We may disagree, but I'm here because of the process. The process has to be fair, and I don't believe it is.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I appreciate that, and I do appreciate your being here. I think it's important that we all have our chance to have our views heard.

[Keith Lanthier]

Thank you.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I think this process that we're undertaking with this committee does provide that.

Maybe I'll ask you about something else. There's the idea of banning the use of unpaid debts, unpaid political loans—we've seen that in the past from some candidates, in particular in leadership races and things—and using those to be able to get around donation limits. We're obviously changing that, tightening that up.

Is that something that you think is a good thing?

[Keith Lanthier]

I would say two things.

Number one, off the top, I really don't have that level of expertise.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Okay. Fair enough.

[Keith Lanthier]

But what I would say is that in the last election, there were clear examples of overspending. I think in order to have a fair election, we have to have a fair level playing field.