Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 29th, 2014

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to clarify a few things. This recommendation is not that strong. We are talking about consultations. We are not saying that the Chief Electoral Officer should approve any changes the minister would like to make. The minister is free to make changes not recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer or not to follow a recommendation from Elections Canada. The only obligation the minister has is to consult that agency. The Chief Electoral Officer's main role is to enforce the Canada Elections Act. He is this country's foremost expert on elections legislation. So he can see first-hand what the current issues with the legislation are and can recommend what changes should be made to enhance it as much as possible. That's his job, his main role. I don't see why we couldn't include in the legislation—as is the case in the United Kingdom and a number of Commonwealth countries—a provision that would ensure that election laws would not be changed without consultation with the person this issue affects the most.

I think it's unfortunate the government is unwilling to accept this amendment. As my colleagues were saying earlier, this is something that goes without saying. We shouldn't have to put this provision on paper. It's unfortunate that we have to use an amendment, so that the government would accept it. I think there's really a problem if we cannot ensure that no amendments to the Canada Elections Act will be made without consultation with the Chief Electoral Officer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Scott.

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

I think it's important to take a step back. We can have a very spirited debate on whether this minister did or didn't engage in consultations. To me it's absolutely clear as day that he largely didn't, outside of a very narrow circle, and that, at a minimum, if there were consultations, they certainly didn't produce a sense of what was needed, given the fact that there has been so much reflective and reasoned resistance to much of the bill as we saw in the evidence period.

We had 72 witnesses, 69 or 70 of whom found problems with much of the bill or with specific parts. The convention, which is actually in the Elections Act context, is that the government, through the minister, would actively consult with opposition parties and any interested MPs, particularly, I guess, independents. I think that would probably pass the test if it were ever looked at judicially as a convention, even it couldn't be enforced. That was in no way respected here.

I would like to move an amendment that would keep the spirit of this but that would say that Bill C-23 in clause 5 be amended by replacing the first two lines in amendment PV-13— I'm not quite sure if that's the way to go—but where it says, “The minister shall engage in extensive consultations with the Chief Electoral Officer”, it would now say, “The minister shall engage in good faith consultations with the Chief Electoral Officer, opposition parties in the House of Commons, and independent MPs with respect to any proposed amendments to the act”. It continues in the last two lines.

I'm not sure if that's a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It is or it isn't, but we will now be on the amendment.

I have Mr. Christopherson next on the list. If you like it, you can have it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Rather than have you parsing whether I'm on the amendment to the amendment or the amendment, I'll just hold off and speak to the amendment after the vote on the amendment to the amendment. We'll see how it goes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We're on the amendment to amendment PV-13.

Are there any further speakers on that?

Ms. May, please keep it very short, because it is yours.

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

I have no objection to the amendment, but I do feel compelled in the interest of full disclosure to make sure committee members know that the minister did consult with me. I was asked to submit a letter. I was asked on December 23 to have a response in by January 4. I don't know if the Green Party was the only party asked to do that, but we submitted a letter. Then I had a lengthy and interesting phone call with the minister, and I made many points, none of which is reflected in the bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You're very welcome.

We're voting on the amendment to amendment PV-13, which is what Mr. Scott read.

[An hon. member]

Could we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The subamendment has been defeated. We're back to amendment PV-13 as written. We've assembled it again and it's now amendment PV-13.

Again, Mr. Christopherson, you're on it. Try to plough new ground here.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The rule of repetition is that I can't repeat myself, not that I can't repeat anybody else.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You've already spoken to it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have, but I have all new stuff. I'm here to make you happy, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's why I get up every day.

First off, it was interesting to hear from the government that we don't need to put this in legislation because we have a long-standing convention, but the long-standing convention still didn't make them consult.

What kind of an answer is that? I mean, if you could point to the fact that there was a convention and it was being honoured and respected by the government, fair enough, but they didn't. That's why the amendment is there, and that's why we feel foolish actually having to debate this simple straightforward thing. This argument that we don't need it because there's convention doesn't wash because the convention doesn't work. That's why the amendment is here.

By the way, it looks like they're working up a head of steam to vote against it, so they're quite comfortable with it. The government needs to take note of what they are saying is okay in a Canadian democracy. Keep in mind the kind of precedent they're setting and how dangerous it is.

It's also interesting that one of the government members said he was pleased that the minister didn't share his recommendations with the Chief Electoral Officer. I have to say I found that to be a rather bizarre point of view. It's one that the member is entitled to take, but it's entirely bizarre in my opinion. That is what they should be doing, talking about the business at hand. One is the minister of the day and the other one is an officer of Parliament. They should be talking, and they should be talking about improving things.

To say that the conversation should not include talking about the recommendations is a bit difficult when the minister himself is the one who tried to stand up and spin that his meet and greet was consultation. I believe if you check the record he used the word “consultation”.

We have a government member saying it would be inappropriate for the minister to actually consult with the Chief Electoral Officer on any proposals, any discussions, that didn't happen right here and here only and therefore that consultation ought not take place. Yet we have the minister defending the fact that his original meet and greet and how-de-do meeting was actually consultation. Which is it? Was that meeting the total sum of consultation? That's the answer the minister gives. When we say, “You didn't consult”, the minister says, “Yes, I did. I had this one-hour meet and greet. That was my consultation.”

Yet the government members are now making the argument tonight that there shouldn't be such...and that they were glad that those discussions didn't take place.

So which is it? Did they take place and were they real consultations, or were they not? The government is on both sides of this one, again.

The last thing I want to mention, Chair, is that I can't believe the lead on the government side had the audacity, when we talk about lack of consultation, to refer to the Neufeld report. That has been used to beat them up more badly than they have ever had anything out of it. They started using it selectively, and the author said that they were misusing his quotes. For the government to point to that as their best form of consultation, along with discussions with the minister that maybe happened or didn't happen, that certainly wasn't any form of consultation by any definition that we're using here.

In summary, Chair, it's unfortunate that we have to do this. I can't believe the government is actually going to acknowledge that the convention doesn't work—because they did it—and they're going to vote against the amendment that would ensure that this could never happen again. That's where we are.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

The question is on PV-13.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will move on to G-3. What clause is that?

Sorry, Mr. Scott, you did have NDP-7.2, NDP-7.3, and NDP-7.4.

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

I thought Mr. Lukiwski's G-3 had precedence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Are we there now?

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

We're there, but would mine have precedence over G-3?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm told that it's ahead of G-3.

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

Okay. This is to flesh out what we've been attempting to do with several amendments before now, not with much success, it seems.

On the whole scheme of interpretations, guidelines, and opinions in proposed sections 16.1 to 16.4, we remain concerned about the potential for logjams, for burdensome workloads for Elections Canada without some safety valve. The government has extended the timeline for Elections Canada by 15 days by taking 15 days off the consultation period with parties, but that really still isn't dealing with one of the issues that the Chief Electoral Officer mentioned and that I neglected to put in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Maybe you need to move this and maybe even read it.

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

Okay. I'll move it. This was preliminary to my moving it.

Does everybody have it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

So far the preliminary is good.

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

Thank you.

It's just makes it easier if people have it.

It's to add proposed section 16.5 after proposed section 16.4. That effectively gives the Chief Electoral Officer the option of saying that the time doesn't start to run on his deadline if he doesn't have all the information he needs to begin preparing the opinion or the interpretation.