Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 28th, 2014

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I have a government slot right now. Is there anybody...?

I'll go to Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks.

I want to follow up on where Mr. Lukiwski was. The Commissioner of Canada Elections said—this is his quote when he spoke before this committee—“Indeed, I must stress that, as commissioner, I have enjoyed complete and unfettered independence with respect to the conduct of investigations and the choice of enforcement action, including the decision to refer a matter to the DPP.”

Unless the government can give us one example, one concrete example, that would justify making this move, we have every reason to be suspect as to why they're doing it. The fact remains that the commissioner of elections, even if it's just checking off a box, will have to get the approval of somebody who is a deputy minister accountable to a minister—which puts it into the political realm—in order to spend money. Everybody says there's no problem, that it will just be a formality, that there will be no judgment calls and everything....

So my question would be, sir, would you see any problem, then, with an amendment that would allow the commissioner of elections to have direct access to the consolidated revenue fund to spend money on investigations without having to get your interim-step approval along the way?

[Brian J. Saunders]

I just want to clarify something. The Attorney General does not have authority in respect of elections matters under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I understand, sir. I wasn't—

[Brian J. Saunders]

That is not changed under the bill that is before you right now.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes.

[Brian J. Saunders]

Also, I'm not a deputy minister. I'm a deputy head. There is a distinction there, because we're not a department of government; we're an agency.

In terms of your question—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm sorry, but that's no different from a deputy minister elsewhere—

[Brian J. Saunders]

Yes, it is, because my relationship differs from that of a deputy minister. My relationship is set out specifically in the—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But the point is that you're not independent, as the Chief Electoral Officer is. That's my point, sir. The Chief Electoral Officer is independent of the government and answerable to Parliament, to all of us. You, sir, are answerable to a politician at the end of the day.

[Brian J. Saunders]

That politician, though, is the Attorney General of Canada. You have to remember that when the Attorney General of Canada acts in the prosecution domain he is bound by the same principles I am. He is bound by the principle that he must exercise his discretion in a manner that is free of any partisan political motivation.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Agreed, but nonetheless, the change is being made, and there has to be a reason. We have no example of a problem, so we have to wonder if the government prefers this kind of system. As the opposition, I'm pointing out that we now have a political line in the flow chart, whereas before we did not.

But here's my specific question, sir: would you see any problem? Would you have any comments or thoughts on the idea that the commissioner of elections could access money from the consolidated revenue fund without your okay or approval or involvement at all—just direct access? Would you think that's okay? What are your thoughts?

[Brian J. Saunders]

That's a question of policy for, again—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Is there a problem with it in terms of a procedure?

[Brian J. Saunders]

It wouldn't create operational problems for me.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It wouldn't be any problem for you if there were a change in that. It doesn't affect the office in any way.

[Brian J. Saunders]

At the end of the day, as I say, it's a policy decision that ultimately Parliament will have to make.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have 30 seconds.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, I'll then refer back to the perception of this whole thing.

I would ask you what you think would be lost if we left things the way they are. What would lose? Democracy? Process? Tell me something that we would lose by virtue of going over to your office.

[Brian J. Saunders]

I'm not sure if I follow you. What would you lose by going over to my office...?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, I guess I worded that poorly. I acknowledge that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

My concern is—