Okay—
Evidence of meeting #33 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was political.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #33 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was political.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Excuse me. We're over.
Now we'll go to Ms. Vandenbeld for six minutes.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, all, for being here again.
I'd like to start my questions with Ms. Simard.
In our previous meeting with officials, we heard about the rationale for administrative monetary penalties. One reason is that if you have to meet the threshold of a criminal charge, fewer people will be charged. You need that flexibility to do administrative penalties. There might be more consequences for things that are not as severe.
How do you choose? When would you issue a letter, a monetary penalty or a criminal charge? Are there criteria? What factors do you take into account?
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections
Essentially, as you say, the administrative monetary penalty system is a more flexible system. We review the severity of the offence. This is done on a case-by-case basis.
There will be an assessment made, conducted by the operation.
Maybe Mr. Bisson could provide you with additional, more precise information.
Michael Bisson Deputy Commissioner, Operations, Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections
Yes. Thank you, Commissioner.
We do assess.... Any complaint or referral received from elections, for example, would be assessed for either the allegations or the facts that are provided. We would assess those against a set of criteria to prioritize our investigative resources, as well as to determine what the desired outcome is. In the administrative monetary penalty regime, the desire is to bring back compliance, or to enforce and encourage compliance, whereas there's a punitive element to a penal regime. As you note, there is an element of legal thresholds at play, as well, that is considered.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I note that expanding the number of actors who can be affected by this.... Our campaigns are full of volunteers, many of whom are not necessarily versed in every part of the Elections Act. They make honest mistakes. Is this something you would factor in when looking at administrative penalties? Would you look at what their role is in the campaign? Is that part of your criteria?
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections
Generally speaking, that is not one of the factors in the act or in our policy. I would say that, once again, it's based on an assessment of the facts and the evidence on file.
Obviously, sometimes there is an education component. So there may be information letters or warning letters. That's what we do as well.
I would say that the administrative monetary penalty regime is currently under review. Given the addition of these legislative amendments, we will continue the review. In fact, we intend to conduct a consultation process. Obviously, this will be an opportunity to take a closer look at how we can best serve the system as well as the volunteers.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Thank you.
For the record, I think all of us would be concerned, when an 18-year-old student is coming to our campaign, that this be taken into consideration.
The other thing I'm wondering about is the expansion of the administrative monetary penalties. It would now allow for a quicker response. I've seen cases in which going through the criminal justice system can take more than one election. By the time the consequences come, the member may not even be a member, or the candidate may have long moved on.
Is it quicker to do it through administrative monetary penalties?
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections
The short answer is yes, and I can explain why.
Having more powers, such as the ability to compel witnesses or produce documents, lets us respond more quickly. There are other powers, but this certainly lets us respond more quickly and go further in our investigations.
I think it's a key message that we should remember.
To come back to the issue of volunteers, I would say that it's obviously important to remember that every complaint must be taken seriously.
It's a balance. It's important for us to ensure that there's a balance.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Thank you.
My next question is for Mr. Perrault.
I note that, in 2019 and 2022.... I remember being on this committee in 2015, when some of these things were already brought up. My question for you is about the urgency. I can imagine that, although every time there is an election there are issues that you want to put forward, getting these ones done is very important or very urgent.
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
It is. This is an important piece of legislation. It needs to be examined carefully by this committee—and the House and the Senate, of course. These are changes that are important, and I'm happy to see them being introduced.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
You said, in your opening remarks, that “disinformation is the biggest threat to our democracy”. Of course, this bill does have new measures against spreading false information, things that are known to be false and that are intended to undermine the election and its results, but there has been concern. Even the committee expressed that.
Can you tell us why that particular measure is important, not just for the electoral processes, but for our democracy itself?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
As I said in my remarks, I think the measure needs to go bigger. Interfering with a vote is something for which there are mechanisms in the act right now. I think what is really missing.... It has to be a narrow provision with a high bar. If someone is deliberately spreading falsehood to undermine trust in the result of an election or trust in the election itself, there needs to be a mechanism in the act to address this. That's something that I think can be added to this bill.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you so much.
Ms. Normandin, you have the floor for six minutes.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you.
Thank you for being with us today, Mr. Perrault and Ms. Simard. It's always a pleasure to have you here. Your testimony is always very enlightening.
I want to start by asking a question about the concept of “potential candidate” that has been added. It relates in particular to interference and bribery.
Wasn't this concept overlooked when defining regulated fundraising events?
When I look at the definition, I see that it refers to an event from which a party, a registered association, a candidate for nomination or a candidate for the leadership of a registered party may derive a financial benefit.
Shouldn't we have added “potential candidate”, given that a regulated fundraising event can be one where a potential candidate can raise money and where interference can occur?
In any case, isn't a potential candidate already prohibited from raising money through regulated fundraising events?
My question may be a bit technical.
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
I'd like to know exactly where we are in the bill. It doesn't talk about regulated fundraising events.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I'm not talking about the bill, but about what already exists. We're talking about notices that are subject to an amendment in the bill. However, the definition of “regulated fundraising event” doesn't include the concept of “potential candidate”, whereas the sections on foreign interference and bribery do now include the concept of “potential candidate”.
Was this concept not overlooked when defining “regulated fundraising event”?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
I don't know if this is an oversight. Relatively few fundraising events are carried out in advance by potential candidates. I suspect that drawing a line to limit the regulatory burden is a choice made by these entities. However, I'm open to the idea of adding this concept to the definition, especially since, at this time, Bill C‑25 reduces some of the regulatory burden.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Among the recommendations you provided to us, recommendation 8 would add the financial agent of the nomination contestant or leadership contestant to section 502. That's related to section 362, which is about offering a bribe.
Can you explain your recommendation a bit more so that I understand it clearly?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
It's just a matter of consistency. Elsewhere in the act, sections on this type of offence mention not only the contestant, but also their financial agent. However, in the case of a nomination or leadership contestant, the scope is less broad. It may be an oversight, but I think it should be done consistently throughout the act.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
If the offence of accepting or receiving a bribe were applied to everyone and to all events, it would potentially be covered, maybe even without the recommendation being implemented. It's still an illegal act, regardless of the circumstances.
Isn't that right?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
In the case of bribes, yes.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
At the last meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I raised the possibility of removing a person's name from the voters list in cases where, for example, they have been a victim of domestic violence and that has been recognized. This is somewhat related to what happened in Alberta a few days ago.
Can you give me some general information on certain aspects?
How easy or hard is it to get a name removed from the voters list?
Is there a huge number of requests for this?
Are victims sufficiently aware of this mechanism, particularly when there's a court decision?
Do you think there's room for improvement in this area?
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
The current system is flawed. That's why I had my table include a provision that wasn't my own, but which had been included in Bill C‑65. It would enable an individual to stay on the register without their details appearing on the voters lists provided to the parties. The details would remain on the voters list provided to election workers, but not on the lists provided to parties and candidates. That was a provision in Bill C‑65, but it isn't in this bill.
Right now, anyone can remove themselves from the registry for any reason. However, if the person wants to vote at their polling station, they have to apply to be registered, but their name and address will appear on the final lists that will be distributed, even if they remove themselves afterward.
Voters can go to the returning officer's office to take advantage of a special provision that allows them to vote by special ballot. Once the address is confirmed, the address that gets put on the list is the returning officer's office. When this mechanism is used, the person doesn't then get entered in the register, and their name appears on the voters lists with only that address.
There is a mechanism, but it isn't as comprehensive as what was set out in Bill C‑65. That's why it's relevant to suggest this.