Evidence of meeting #111 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was identification.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:15 p.m.
Lawyer, Conservative Party of Canada
Compared to other corporations in the private sector, I'm not sure I agree with you on that.
6:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
They're not subjected to privacy laws like other actors in the private sector.
6:15 p.m.
Lawyer, Conservative Party of Canada
I'm not sure their information is the same either.
6:15 p.m.
Lawyer, Conservative Party of Canada
What I'm telling you is that I can't accept your premise.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you.
I have just a quick question for Dr. Lee.
You were talking about elections at Carleton and how little participation you had because people have to actually come and vote. Are you suggesting that requiring proof of ID reduces participation?
6:15 p.m.
Associate Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
No, and I'll tell you why I'm very much of that view. We—not the royal we but all of us Canadians—have become inured to the idea of identification. Look at the boarding of a plane. Everyone of us has to flash the ID three times—not once but three times.
Every student knows that if you come to Carleton, or any university or college, you have to produce your photo ID to sit and write the exam. If you want to enter the parliamentary precinct, as I did about an hour ago, you have to produce photo ID called a passport or a driver's licence.
In a modern, complex, post-industrial society, we've accepted.... It's not like living in the village, where everybody knew everybody. You didn't need identification in the good old days of 150 years ago because the village only had a hundred people and everybody knew everybody. Those days are gone, and so we need identification in every aspect, for every system; banking, going into a sports stadium, whatever.
I went to the Eiffel Tower last August. I had to produce ID I don't know how many times in the line, just to get in at the front. What I'm saying is we've become accepting of the idea that we have to produce identification.
June 5th, 2018 / 6:15 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Those small communities where everybody knows each other still exist. I have a lot of them in my riding. Under the Fair Elections Act, we lost the right to vouch, but you are vouching in the banking system. I just want make that point as well.
I do have other topics, so I have to cut it there. We could always come back later.
Mr. Hamilton, I want to come back to a point made by Mr. Cullen earlier. In 2011, you were more than aware of the robocalls investigation and subsequent activity. Were you involved in that investigation in any way?
6:15 p.m.
Lawyer, Conservative Party of Canada
It's a matter of public record that I assisted to bring witnesses to Elections Canada, yes.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
In what way did you bring witnesses to Elections Canada?
6:15 p.m.
Lawyer, Conservative Party of Canada
I attended at Election Canada's offices.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
6:15 p.m.
Lawyer, Conservative Party of Canada
No. I was there for the Conservative Party.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I'm asking you, if you are the Conservative Party lawyer and you were present at these interviews, why were you there if the Conservative Party wasn't involved?
6:15 p.m.
Lawyer, Conservative Party of Canada
I'm not sure I understand, but let me try to answer this way.
When the revelations about that wrongdoing came to light—and nobody doubted that there was wrongdoing—the clear directive from former prime minister Harper was that we were to co-operate and give any information to the investigators that we could. I followed that directive. I still believe that was the proper directive, and there was a conviction that certainly was aided by the information that we pointed up to the Elections Canada investigators.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Had the elections commissioner had the power to compel testimony and evidence, would the outcome have been different in your view?
6:15 p.m.
Lawyer, Conservative Party of Canada
I don't know, because the way that trial was conducted, Elections Canada clearly had a strategy with their prosecution team. I don't know if they would have had a different result by being able to compel evidence and at what stage.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
In the Sona decision, the judge was fairly clear that other people had been involved and there's no method to investigate who that would have been and why or how, or how to get to them. Is that true?
6:20 p.m.
Lawyer, Conservative Party of Canada
I understand that, but surely we understand, especially on your side of the table where charter values are something that we're spoken to about every day, the right to remain silent still exists. The idea that a commissioner could compel testimony, does that include in the face of self-incrimination? I don't know that the Liberal Party is advocating that. So I'm not quite sure if there would have been a different outcome.
