Evidence of meeting #112 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 third.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'll just circle back, because we heard some pretty grand theories about what happened in the last election and about how foreign money swayed us. Can you come back to the conclusions of your investigation of the 2015 election?
General Counsel and Senior Director, Legal Services, Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections
In terms of election advertising? That's the prohibition—
General Counsel and Senior Director, Legal Services, Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections
Last night I think Mr. Hamilton said it was an interpretation on our part that foreign funds could be used for anything other than election advertising, but that's actually the wording of the section in the act. A third party can't use foreign funds to carry out election advertising. That's the limit in the act right now. Looking at that, we found no evidence that this was the case. Third parties in Canada could identify their sources of funding to a large extent. However, again, we didn't have the mandate to look at their other activities that are not—
General Counsel and Senior Director, Legal Services, Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections
Yes.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I appreciate it, Chair. I realize that people may want to get in, so I'll cut my time there.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chénier.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Committee members, there are 22 minutes left. I'd like to get your indulgence for a minute.
Here's the budget to date for the witnesses and meals in our study. Are people okay with approving that so the clerk can pay for witnesses' travel and meals? It's just to date; it's not the full study.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
He doesn't mean that's the extent of it. We can always add to it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
There will be more.
Do I have unanimous support to approve the first budget?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you very much. We appreciate that. It's a very important part of this act.
We will suspend. Our witnesses from the first two panels will be back at 8:30, the ones who chose to come back. The others have been given the option to make written submissions if they want.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Good evening. Welcome back to the 112th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We're going back to the second of our four panels.
We have with us John C. Turmel, as an individual, and Brian Marlatt, who is communications and policy director from the Progressive Canadian Party.
We are in the middle of another 30-minute prelude to a vote, so as we did last time, we will try and—well, one round will be easier because the NDP aren't coming. We will try to get in one round of questioning at least, even if the bells go, if that's okay with everyone.
We will do opening statements. Mr. Turmel, we will start with yours.
John Turmel As an Individual
As I'm running right now in a Chicoutimi by-election hoping to get in here like you guys, and I'm also running in tomorrow's provincial by-election, and I'm also running for Brantford mayor, that's a hat trick. It's the third hat trick in my career, which is elections 1994, 1995, and 1996. How can I have fun when they say, “super loser fails again”? I'm going to get the guys who beat me to understand what I'm trying to say. To get an invite to come and talk to you guys was an honour.
I did a prepared statement and I will read it to you. Having run more times than you guys, I felt the pains and aggravations a lot more.
The first point is the threshold for auditor. When I first ran federally in 1979—remember Joe Clark won—my accountant was happy with the $250 cap to audit my nil return made easier by a $2,000 threshold on candidate personal expenses before reporting was required. Today, a winner may be challenged for taking a bus to a meeting without declaring the value of the contributed ticket. Get it? You could spend $2,000 on running around and personal stuff and you didn't have to report it in the old days. No auditor.
In Ontario provincial elections, they are doing it wrong. Candidates could sign a declaration avowing no contributions requiring tax credits and did not need an auditor, but to standardize the forms that then require auditors for all candidates with contributions and without, but they paid for the unnecessary auditor. I wasn't paying it. I didn't mind.
However, when my federal accountant retired after 30 years, I used my Ontario accountant and was surprised with a $700 bill, which is reasonable at these rates, when I had only ever paid $250 in the past for 30 years, but the $250 cap left me owing the $450 overage.
I asked the Federal Court to strike the $250 cap that did not keep up with inflation, ever since 1974 unconstitutionally stifling my democratic rights. Justice Phelan ruled I could raise contributions to pay the auditor—not quite political purposes—or save $10 a week from my pension. I appealed it to the Supreme Court, docket number 36937, but it wasn't important enough to be heard.
Now, Ontario has standardized the forms for nominations candidates for parties from no reporting at all to reporting required with an auditor, an unpaid auditor. Any candidate seeking a party nomination must now pay the auditor out of his own pocket, even with a zero return.
Standardize government requirements, sure, but why standardize party requirements? Parties should make their own rules, but the new regulations are now in place to stifle political participation.
An auditor should not be required before a threshold of expenses is reached, which should apply for election candidates too. The Canada Elections Act should not be job creation for accountants.
A famous dictator once said that those who vote don't matter and those who count the votes matter.
As an Individual
With elections becoming computerized—and I'm an electrical engineer—
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
I'm having a hard time hearing him. We need some silence.
As an Individual
I provided a written one that you will get, once it's translated—
As an Individual
A famous dictator once said that those who count the votes matter.
With elections becoming computerized—and I'm an electrical engineer—hacking becomes inevitable, except for no-fraud ballot receipts.
If I can get a receipt for every coffee I buy, why can't I get a receipt for the most important transaction in my democracy? A serial-numbered receipt of my vote without my name lets me check the list of serial numbers and selections published online on election night to verify that my vote was properly registered, and I have proof in hand should those who matter count the votes wrong. No one need ever fear computerized voting again with checkable ballots. That's all you need. I proposed that two years ago, and they haven't moved.
On equitable free time broadcasting, section 9 of the Broadcasting Act used to mandate that free time political broadcast be made available to all parties and rival candidates on an equitable basis, qualitatively and quantitatively. You can imagine the fun I used to have when I was invited to the debates, and the fun my opponents didn't have. In 1986, the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down that right to fair treatment and allowed the media to give all the free time on public airwaves to whom they preferred. This is verified in Turmel v. CRTC 33319 at the Supreme Court of Canada. When Rogers banned me from a debate for wearing my party button, I complained to the top. I got arrested, and they took me away. There it is, proof positive that the TV stations can allocate free time to whomever they want. While Big Brother gets to bias elections by rigging the debates on public airwaves, democracy cannot exist. We have to handle Big Brother.
I didn't mind the rich guys buying as much time as they wanted, but it was the free time I expected a share of, and now I can't get. At the last three debates in Brantford, I was excluded from all three for the first time in my career. That's what democracy has been coming to in Ontario politics. I don't know about the rest of the provinces, but I certainly hope you guys don't let it become like that federally.
I'll go back to section 9. Of course, then there's a problem with debates involving three party leaders. Imagine 10 party leaders. Could you handle that?
As an Individual
How else are you ever going to hear about a new idea? Right now, to be on the debate, you have to be from one of the major parties they see all the time, who you know don't have new ideas.