Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 18th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Graham.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Knight, what do you think?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

When your boss is under investigation, what do you think?

If Mr. Knight is under investigation....

[Trevor Knight]

I could be under investigation as well as Mr. Morin, maybe.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Are you pleading the fifth, sir?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

I'm a little confused by the comments related to the presentation of the motion, just because I don't read the motion that way. It says, “other than an investigation by the Chief Electoral Officer or a member of his or her staff”.

Really it refers to an investigation that would be conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer. I'm not sure if I understand the motion.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Then I put the question to the Conservatives.

Why would you want the commissioner not being able to talk to the CEO when the CEO is conducting an investigation? This is the actual wording of the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Did you consult behind you, Mr. Nater?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I had a question. I'll leave it to my colleagues.

I'm going to ask a question while maybe my team is consulting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead. Ask your question.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

My question would be to Mr. Knight or Mr. Sampson.

Now that the change has put both under the same roof, what type of, I think the phrase is “Chinese firewall” would be implemented within Elections Canada? People keep changing these terms. What kinds of safeguards or walls, protective barriers, imaginary protective barriers, would be in place in the event of such an investigation being foreseen by this now that both are going to be underneath the same roof?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Before Mr. Knight and Mr. Sampson answer, I would like to point out that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, under the current act, does not have investigative powers. The Chief Electoral Officer will of course conduct some internal investigations of an administrative nature, but it is not within the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer to initiate any kind of investigation of a criminal nature.

As we pointed out yesterday, part 18 of the Canada Elections Act allows the Chief Electoral Officer to conduct administrative audits, which are, again, audits of an administrative nature. If the auditor finds something that would warrant an investigation, we'll recommend the referral of this case to the commissioner of Canada Elections.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I sense that Mr. Nater wants to speak.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Yes, I would like to clarify. Apparently there was a typo in the amendment as presented.

I'll read the subamendment. It is that the amendment be amended by replacing the words “investigation by” with the words “investigation of”. The word “by” was inserted rather than “of”. It should read “investigation of the Chief Electoral Officer or a member of his or her staff”.

That's where the confusion obviously stems from.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I'll take that as an administrative typo change.

Mr. Graham.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have a question for the officials again.

Does the commissioner even have the power to investigate Elections Canada, as opposed to candidates, parties and elections?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

There are some offences that could potentially be committed by members of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer and potentially by the Chief Electoral Officer himself.

I'll remind you that the Chief Electoral Officer is now the only person who doesn't have the right to vote—the only elector who doesn't have the right to vote in the federal election. In theory, there could be an investigation if Mr. Perrault were to show up at a polling station to vote in a federal election.

Seriously, yes, it is possible.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

If the commissioner is investigating Elections Canada, wouldn't it make sense that he'd talk to his suspects?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

If the commissioner were investigating Elections Canada, there would be some good investigative practices in place. I would imagine that the investigation would go on, and at an appropriate point in the investigation, once the evidence has been collected, yes, there would be contact with Elections Canada to let them know that an investigation was conducted or to request the provision of additional information. That would be within the realm of best practices in the context of a criminal investigation.

I see that my colleague Trevor has comments on this.

[Trevor Knight]

I just want to get back to Mr. Nater's question.

There are I guess formal separations in terms of the different roles. The discretion to institute prosecutions and to conduct investigations is with the commissioner as an office as opposed to with the Chief Electoral Officer. There are also new formal requirements respecting independence in proposed section 509.21 of the bill.

There's also—I think it should be added, obviously—a sort of understanding, an informal separation in terms of the roles that is taken quite seriously both by the commissioner and by the Chief Electoral Officer in the current arrangement. The commissioner was part of Elections Canada earlier, I know, and obviously the prosecutorial role or the investigative role is separate from Elections Canada's role in terms of an audit. There's that element.

All of those things would be especially important if the commissioner were investigating an election officer or someone at Elections Canada, which could arise, although, hopefully, it would not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Are we ready to vote? All in favour of CPC-173?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 352 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 353 to 356 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 357)

There is, first of all, Liberal-60, which has passed consequential to Liberal-38.

There's a new CPC amendment. It's 10009245.

Mr. Nater, could you present this one?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

As Bill C-76 envisions, this would give the power to compel testimony on crimes that may happen in the future. We are restricting this to past tense rather than envisioning things that may happen in the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there any discussion?

Do the officials have any comments?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Yes, this amendment would basically remove the words “or is about to be contravened” from proposed subsection 510.01(1).