Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 29th, 2014

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

That sounded like a potentially good distinction, not that I think the government would buy it.

Basically, it's replacing the sentence that reads, “Such a process may not be used for an official vote” with “Such a process, if undertaken during a general election, may not be used for an official vote”. The rest of the sentence reads “without the prior approval of the committees of the Senate and of the House of Commons that normally consider electoral matters or, in the case of an alternative electronic voting process, without the prior approval of the Senate and the House of Commons”.

I'm not sure. It's getting late and I know you're brilliant, so it looks like it makes sense.

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

I'm hoping it makes sense. Since I know you are very brilliant, I am honoured.

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

As long as I now understand, sort of.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I got you there, it's all right.

We'll vote on PV-16.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall clause 8 carry?

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

(Clause 8 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

(Clause 9 agreed to)

(On clause 10)

We're at NDP-15 and LIB-7 is identical. Therefore, one would be the other and the other would be one. Would you like to both speak at the same time, or each say every second word, or how would you like to do it?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Technically NDP is first apparently. So would you like to move it, Mr. Scott? I have no trouble who wants to move it. Mr. Simms, please move LIB-7 and I'll say it was first.

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

You say it with such compassion, Mr. Chair.

This one came up in testimony, of course. We talked about this. It was in the media. I'll try to keep this brief. What we're looking at here, of course, is the CEO's power to hire technical experts, specialists as explicitly recognized, was subject to Treasury Board approval for remuneration.

The requirement of Treasury Board approval for this type of expenditure for the CEO is new. It's noteworthy that the equivalent provision for the commissioner does not include such approval. What we're asking for here is much of the same. The requirement for Treasury Board approval should be removed to reflect the same degree of independence from the government as recognized for the commissioner and that's essentially it. It's just going to the Treasury Board itself which seems to be a brand new concept that we are rather suspicious of. It came up in testimony from many.

I move the amendment, which I almost neglected to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Ms. May, we also have PV-17 which is identical. These three are all together.

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

It is identical isn't it? Isn't it a remarkable thing how identical they are?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes, how remarkable is that; we all got together late at night and wrote amendments.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Scott.

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

Yes, that's how it works.

This is extremely important because for the first time it inserts a government body, the Treasury Board, to approve the Chief Electoral Officer engaging on a temporary basis persons having technical or specialized knowledge. I'll give you examples.

Mr. Neufeld was engaged on that basis to produce the report that the government cited a lot until it turned out to have things it didn't really like in it. The Institute for Research on Public Policy was engaged to do an entire process around deceptive calling. The advisory board of the Chief Electoral Officer almost certainly is hired on a temporary basis because of their members' specialized knowledge.

This gives the Treasury Board, and ultimately the President of the Treasury Board who's a cabinet minister, the authority to say no to that kind of hiring. It's not necessary. It's inappropriate to put it in here given the Chief Electoral Officer's need for independence in exactly this kind of hiring.

I asked the minister this question at least once in the House, it might have been twice, and he's a smart guy, he doesn't misunderstand questions. He answered an entirely different question than this when I asked. I don't think it's something I'm content to trust the government on at all.

When former auditor general Sheila Fraser appeared she'd had a lot of concerns expressed elsewhere, including in the Senate, and she came before us with two major concerns. This was one of them. I don't think I have to remind everybody about the thoughtfulness that usually goes into what Sheila Fraser has to say, especially in an area dealing with money and accountability.

[An hon. member]

A former independent officer of Parliament.

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

Yes. I think it's important to be on the record as saying that this isn't something that fetters the commissioner, so why should it fetter the Chief Electoral Officer? Scott already said that. It's also the case that the Auditor General doesn't have a similar fetter for exactly the same kind of hiring. Again, it's unnecessary.

There's no reason that we shouldn't be worried about what the thinking is behind this. We know that at least in some quarters of the government, including the minister, there's this real antagonism toward Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer, and some of it has come out whenever we talk about the advisory board. I asked the minister in the House if he would undertake to say this government would never deny remuneration to the advisory board under this clause. He pretended he didn't understand the question, and I never got an answer.

So I totally agree with Mr. Simms, and obviously Ms. May has the same amendment, that we have to cut out the authority of the Treasury Board and make this the same system as exists for the commissioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, perhaps I could ask our guests. Right now, if the Chief Electoral Officer needs to spend money, it's my understanding he can virtually sign his own certificates. At least he has unfettered access to the consolidated revenue fund, and by virtue of the fact that the Commissioner of Canada Elections reports to the CEO, the Commissioner of Canada Elections has de facto the same power.

I probably got some of it wrong. Can you help me get it clear? What currently is the approval process for both the commissioner and the CEO for spending money vis-à-vis his own autonomous power and access to the consolidated revenue fund? Let's start with that. Right now, how does that work, sir?

[Marc Chénier]

In setting the rates of pay, a tariff is adopted by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer. That provides for the rates of pay for all elections officers and for a lot of the expenses that are incurred by the Chief Electoral Officer or returning officers during an election period. Those are in accordance with a regulation adopted by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the CEO. You are right that the Chief Electoral Officer can draw directly from the consolidated revenue fund to pay for these expenses.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

By extension, does the Commissioner of Canada Elections have the same authority, working in partnership with the CEO?

[Marc Chénier]

There's a section in the Canada Elections Act. I believe it's section 513 that allows him to incur expenses that he may need to incur in order to deliver on his mandate. He pays those expenses on the certificate of the Chief Electoral Officer.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

At any point in that process, is there government approval, ministerial approval, Treasury Board, which is an instrument of government, approval? Are there any approvals whatsoever in what you've just told me, or is there unfettered access to that money?

[Marc Chénier]

As I mentioned, the rates of pay for elections officers and a lot of the expenses that the returning officers can pay during the election period are set on a tariff that's fixed by the Governor in Council. It's a regulation, and that tariff is prepared on a recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

What about the hiring itself?