Evidence of meeting #127 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 elections.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Robert Sampson  Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Elections Canada
Trevor Knight  Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Elections Canada
Stephanie Kusie  Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Jean-François Morin  Senior Policy Advisor, Privy Council Office
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Andrew Lauzon
Philippe Méla  Legislative Clerk
Linda Lapointe  Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Do you have any comments on the practical implementation of that change?

10:55 a.m.

LCdr Jean-François Morin

No. I think it's a policy decision.

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Nater.

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

I have a question to the witnesses. What powers of foresight and predictability does Elections Canada have to predict acts that may happen?

10:55 a.m.

LCdr Jean-François Morin

Again, I would say that this is not within the realm of Elections Canada here.

Just to be clear, Elections Canada is not a name that exists. Elections Canada is a trade name for the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, but there are only two public bodies involved here. The Office of the Chief Electoral Officer is headed by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, and the office of the commissioner of Canada elections is the investigative body.

Here we're in the realm of the commissioner of Canada elections. First of all, this power that would be provided to the commissioner here, the order requiring testimony or a written return, is always subject to a court approval, so it is not for the commissioner himself or herself to compel a person to provide testimony or a written return. It is always on the authorization of a judge.

Second, the commission of offences in the Canada Elections Act can be extended in time in the sense that the same offence can be committed over a long period, for example, because returns are not filed or because the entity or the third party committing the offence is pursuing a path that will lead the commissioner to think that an offence is about to occur.

I hope this answers your question.

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Bittle.

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

It seems to me that, if the commissioner has received information that has come to his or her attention in regard to a potential violation of the Elections Act, there would be an investigation. We would expect that of any investigative body in this country, be it the RCMP, be it our local police forces.

We don't wait necessarily until an offence has happened. We ensure that all threats.... We have some serious concerns and some serious issues that we've debated in terms of threats to the democratic process and threats to election campaigns. If there is a credible threat to an election, if there is a credible issue with respect to the Elections Act, it would make perfect sense for the commissioner to engage in that investigation.

I don't understand the rationale behind restricting this power. It just doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

I'll just leave it there.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

11 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

We're on CPC-173.1.

I'm going to suspend for about five minutes so people can have washroom breaks, etc. If you're getting food, bring it back to the table, please.

We'll just have a quick break.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

I'll remind people that we're on clause 357, which has been amended so far by Liberal-60. CPC amendment with reference number 10009245 has been defeated.

We're now moving on to CPC-173.1, which Stephanie is just about to introduce.

11:10 a.m.

Calgary Midnapore, CPC

Stephanie Kusie

Essentially, this gives the judge more discretion in terms of ex parte deliberations. There are three examples and it would apply to all of them. We know how much the government believes in the judges and the judicial system, so we feel confident that they will support this amendment in that this provides for the judge to have greater discretion in these three proceedings.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Will the Liberals do that?

11:10 a.m.

Calgary Midnapore, CPC

Stephanie Kusie

That sounded uncertain, Larry.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

We do have faith in the judiciary and we have faith in the justice process. Decisions of administrative actions can be challenged via judicial review. That exists, and we think that's sufficient.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Is there any further debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Is CPC-173.2 the same...?

October 18th, 2018 / 11:10 a.m.

Conservative

John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

We're talking about broadening judicial discretion for individuals to seek relief from an undue amount of burden in terms of providing documents. This provision mirrors what's in place for the Competition Bureau, which has similar powers as the commissioner of elections. We're suggesting this especially for the case of a voluntary organization where an executive member of a riding may be asked to provide extensive documentation that might be seen as undue, or a challenge for them to do so with their limited resources. A judge may provide discretion to provide relief in providing those documents.

We think it's reflective of what's in place now with the Competition Bureau. Perhaps it might be supportable.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Does the government have any comments?

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

We're confident in the power to compel that already exists.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Now we are on amendment CPC-173.3.

11:10 a.m.

Calgary Midnapore, CPC

Stephanie Kusie

This amendment provides that:

Within one year of a decision to cease an investigation, not to institute a prosecution, or not to serve a notice of violation, the Commissioner shall destroy or cause to be destroyed records of any testimony given or of any written return delivered under an order made under section 510.01(1) in respect of the relevant investigation.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Mr. Graham.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

I have a quick question for the officials. What is the statute of limitations in respect to these offences?

11:15 a.m.

LCdr Jean-François Morin

Actually, there are no limitations anymore for the offences themselves under the Canada Elections Act. I think the AMPs regime provides for a limitation period, but of course if the AMPs regime limitation period is over, the commissioner could always refer to the offence itself.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Is it normal to destroy evidence before the statute of limitations is up?

11:15 a.m.

LCdr Jean-François Morin

I would say no, but I would also say that being a federal public body, the commissioner of Canada Elections must obey the Library and Archives of Canada Act and get rid of documents when their prescribed lifespan expires under the Library and Archives of Canada Act. There are already provisions for the disposal of these documents at the end of their life.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Did there not used to be a a one-year, end of life cut-off for all offences?