HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 25, 1999

• 1538

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. We'll continue our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-2.

On clause 12—Residence at by-election

The Chair: Now we're going to look at amendment BQ-5 in relation to clause 12. Mr. Bergeron, you're moving that.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les—Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chairman, before we address this proposed amendment, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we have submitted a new amendment for clause 2. I don=t know whether departmental officials and Mr. Knutson have had a chance to check with the Privacy Commissioner, because if they have, we could go back to clause 2 and deal with it now.

Mr. Michael Peirce (Director, Legal Operations, Advisor, Legislation and Parliamentary Planning, Privy Council Office): No, not yet.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Fine; in that case, I will set it aside and we will come back to it later.

I will move then to our amendment on clause 12. In the case of by-elections, Mr. Chairman, the original wording of this clause says that an elector must have his place of ordinary residence in the riding. The term "ordinary" seems a little vague and we=re suggesting that the word "principal" be substituted.

• 1540

[English]

The Chair: I understand what you'd like to change. Have you a reason why you'd like to change it?

Would any of our departmental people wish to comment on the difference between “principal place of residence” and “ordinary place of residence”?

Mr. Peirce.

Mr. Michael Peirce: There is no actual difference between the two terms. The term “principal place of residence” is to replace “ordinary place of residence”, but “ordinary place of residence” is defined in clause 8 of the bill. It is defined quite extensively and it would capture the concept of “principal place of residence”.

[Translation]

We are only bringing back a more common expression used in both civil law and common law. The concept in “principal place of residence” is clearly defined in clause 8.

[English]

It's more commonly used.

The Chair: While those words are being considered, I'll go to Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My understanding here is that this Bloc amendment, by replacing the word “ordinary” with the word “principal”, once again strives to be more specific.

I'm not a legal expert, and I'll refer this to the legal beagles we have before us today, if they wish to expound on this.

My understanding would be that if one says “ordinary place of residence”, you could potentially spend less than six months of the year at that place of residence and have that considered an ordinary place of residence. In other words, you could spend five months in one location, seven months in another, and vote potentially in both because the one that's five months of residence would still be an ordinary place of residence, but it would not be the principal one because it was not the majority place of residence. It was not six months plus a day.

I'm just going to put that because I know there are circumstances where you can vote in elections, despite the fact that it is not your principal place of residence, but it is yet an ordinary place of residence, where you may have a utility bill or something to that effect.

Mr. Michael Peirce: You can only vote in one place of ordinary residence. You can't have multiple places according to subclause 8(2) of the definition of “ordinary residence”.

It's very clearly defined here in clause 8, to ensure that what we're capturing by “ordinary residence” is a residence, the principal residence. It's the the place that has always been the place of residence you will return to in those rare circumstances when you're away from it.

The Chair: I see a very clear definition of “ordinary residence” in subclause 8(1).

Mr. Rob Anders: Okay. The thing I'm getting at here though is that if we're attempting to make the law clearly understood and in clear language, I, being a layman, not a lawyer, would better understand “principal place of residence” to be the place where I spend the majority of my time. “Ordinary” implies to me that I just spend time there regularly.

I know it's defined. I know you have it down in terms of subclauses in this bill, but I think for the layman reading it, the word “principal”—and this is why I sided with Mr. Bergeron—would be more clearly understood.

The Chair: The layman would understand it really well if he or she turned to subclause 8(1). Then there would be no doubt.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, you're making light of the fact that we're trying to make the law more clearly understood here. I don't think—

The Chair: I'm not making light of it at all. I'm just saying that subclause 8(1) is very clear, and any ambiguities that a person on first reading might have in relation to the current clause we're dealing with are resolved by reading subclause 8(1).

However, Mr. Peirce, it's over to you for any further comment.

Mr. Michael Peirce: The concept of “ordinary residence”, capturing the notion of “principal residence”, is used throughout the law and so this is consistent with the legal language.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I simply want to make a point that if we use the definition Mr. Anders put forward, then all members of Parliament who live three weeks out of four in Ottawa, who live eight months of the year in Ottawa, would be voting here, and I don't consider this my ordinary residence by a long shot.

• 1545

The Chair: If Mr. Mahoney had read subclause 8(1), he wouldn't fall into the bottomless pit of many residences.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I agree with you.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, although I still agree with the principle, I realize that there is an irregularity here: we should have proposed a consequential amendment to clause 8, but we didn't. So, I will simply withdraw the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

(Amendment withdrawn)

(Clause 12 agreed to on division)

(On clause 16—Powers and duties of Chief Electoral Officer)

The Chair: We're now dealing with amendment W-1, which deals with clause 16. This is moved by Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, this amendment actually works with the amendments to clause 24 that have been proposed. So I'm not quite sure how you want to handle this. Do you want to leave this one until we're dealing with clause 24, because they're linked together? The principal amendment is in clause 24. This is a change that would go with it to make it all workable.

(Amendment allowed to stand)

(Clause 16 allowed to stand)

The Chair: Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would like a clarification. My notes with respect to clause 13 are probably inaccurate. Could you tell me whether we passed or stood down that clause this morning?

[English]

The Chair: It had been stood down this morning. We were anticipating an amendment coming in. I don't recollect now whose amendment it was.

Does somebody want to own up to this, clause 13, appointment of a CEO?

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Oh, yes, right.

The Chair: That was one of yours?

Mr. Ted White: Yes.

The Chair: Is there an amendment still to come?

Mr. Ted White: Yes.

The Chair: No problem. It continues to be stood down. We have stood down clause 16.

(On clause 17—Power to adapt Act)

Our next amendment is BQ-6 dealing with clause 17. It's moved by Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What are we doing about amendment W-1? Are we not going to deal with it?

The Chair: We will come back to it later.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Well, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that if a polling station has to be closed, the voting hours of that polling station will be extended for the equivalent period of time, so that everyone has an opportunity to vote, even if the situation or emergency is one beyond its control.

[English]

The Chair: What does this amendment do? Does it create an extension of time that is equivalent to the time lost, with some exceptions?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, it would be for an equivalent period of time.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Is there any comment from our government officials?

Mr. Michael Peirce: The reason there is discretion in the bill as drafted rather than in the mandatory requirement as proposed is that in some circumstances it's just not necessary to continue keeping the polls open. For instance, you might have a circumstance where you have a poll that is in a logging camp and you have 27 voters, all 27 have voted, and then you have a flood that closes the poll for a while—or a fire. That's better, isn't it? A fire is more reasonable. A fire that leads to....

• 1550

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, is the spirit of this amendment already captured in the current legislation? I don't think it is. If we leave this decision to a returning officer, there is some doubt as to whether all voters would have the same amount of time to vote.

[English]

The Chair: Do you want to respond to that, Mr. Peirce?

Mr. Michael Peirce: No.

The Chair: Did you?

Mr. Michael Peirce: I'd have to have him repeat it. I didn't follow it. Sorry.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I certainly understand the example you have given, and I believe that it is a perfectly reasonable example in many ways. But does the legislation, as it is currently worded, capture the spirit of this amendment, which says that if a polling station is forced to close because of a situation beyond its control, voters who have not yet voted will have the same amount of time as voters in the rest of Canada—in other words, that they won't be deprived of their voting rights because their polling station dit not stay open as long as the others? I don't think it does.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou (Official, Privy Council Office, Legislation and Parliamentary Planning, Privy Council Office): At the present time, this kind of decision is made by the Chief Electoral Officer. The current wording provides that the Chief Electoral Officer may extend voting hours at a polling station, and it is understood that he would do so if he felt it were appropriate.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): The current wording says:

the Chief Electoral Officer is satisfied that, if the voting hours...are not extended, a substantial number of electors will not be able to vote

I think the concern here is that if 10 voters can't vote, they are being deprived of their franchise and that's not acceptable.

What's the normal interpretation of “substantial” in a polling station with, say, 200 voters?

[Translation]

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Elections Canada officials would probably be in a better position to answer that question. I believe the intention here is to ensure that a voter who has been prevented from casting a ballot will be able to exercise his voting rights. We're talking about situations similar to those described by Mr. Peirce, where all the voters had already cast their ballot and where there may be some question as to whether or not it is actually necessary to reopen the polling station.

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: If that's true, then the existing wording is inaccurate, because it says it must be a substantial number of voters, which could mean 20 or 30 voters.

The Chair: That's what it says.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: May I suggest something, though?

The Chair: Sure, Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I understand the need for discretion, if everybody has voted or one voter has not, but then it would seem to me that the wording Mr. Bergeron has put forward might be preferable to what's here, if there were a modifier in it that said:

unless the Chief Electoral Officer is satisfied that the interruption will not prevent electors from being able to vote.

The Chair: Mr. Peirce is considering that, Ms. Mondou.

Mrs. Parrish, while they're considering that....

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): On first blush this looks reasonable. Then I started to think about it. If I were a really nasty little organizer, I would cause a disruption for an hour in the middle of the day at every polling station in my riding. Then I would be guaranteed to keep the polls open for an extra hour at the end of the day, when there are more workers to pull more votes and more people to bring out.

If you take the discretion away, you will be ensconcing in the bill a dirty trick that some people might take advantage of—it sure wouldn't be me. If you say you have to keep it open an hour, you won't really be making Marlene's criticism work because some little old lady who can only vote at 3 p.m. will still lose her right to vote because she's in bed by 7 p.m.

So keeping it open for an extra hour at the end of the day will never be fair. An emergency is not fair, but if you put this in, I know how it could be used.

I like the original wording. I'm not going to support the amendment.

The Chair: Ms. Parrish would never even have thought of such a thing.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: No.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson, do you have something to say?

• 1555

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): The officials advise me that they can live with us taking out the words “a substantial number”, which would mean even if a few voters hadn't been able to vote it would still be discretionary. The Chief Electoral Officer could extend the hours.

An hon. member: How would it read?

Mr. Gar Knutson: It would read:

(3) If voting at a polling station is interrupted on polling day by an emergency and the Chief Electoral Officer is satisfied that, if the voting hours at the polling station are not extended, electors will not be able to vote, the Chief Electoral Officer may extend the voting hours at the polling station, as long as it does not in any case

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: A certain number of electors, not “some” electors.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We could put “some”.

The Chair: Colleagues, I suggest we stand this down because I hate to make amendments on the run like this.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Fair enough.

(Amendment allowed to stand)

(Clause 17 allowed to stand)

(On clause 18—Public education and information programs)

The Chair: Please turn, if you will, to amendment EL-1, moved by Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Maybe I'll just preface my comments by saying I have proposed four amendments to clause 18. I'll be dealing with only the first one today, and I'll defer the others to another time.

The Chair: You have my curiosity. I would ordinarily deal with them in order—one, two, three, four.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I think I'll just go with the first one for now.

The Chair: You may not have the luxury if colleagues don't buy in. You have four amendments proposed for clause 18.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes, I understand that.

The Chair: Let's hear your first one and see how we do with that.

Mr. Eric Lowther: The first one is probably the most important, in some ways, to the committee here. It is designed to respect the educational jurisdiction that falls within the provincial mandate.

We're asking here that if the Chief Electoral Officer elects to exercise clause 18 and implement educational programs, as we witnessed in the last few months here, there would be a requirement by the act for the Chief Electoral Officer to obtain permission from the government of the province.

I point to a lot of the concerns that were raised, including in my own province by the provincial learning minister, that this wasn't done in the most recent undertaking of Elections Canada. Also, when I raised this on October 26 in this committee, I pointed out to the minister that we needed to clarify the wording in subclause 18(2) of the bill, so the Chief Electoral Officer does not have the authority to embark on these types of politically sensitive public education programs without the right approval.

The minister replied at the time that he was prepared to listen to the advice of this committee on this issue. So I detected some openness to this type of amendment, and I would encourage the committee to consider it, just to respect provincial jurisdictions.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It would be the government's view that the Chief Electoral Officer's agents can't go into a high school or any school without the permission of the principal—the person in control of the facility. Presumably the principal wouldn't agree if it violated a school board policy, a provincial regulation, or the provincial ministry. So I think there's a mechanism in place already. This is just burdensome.

If provincial officials want to keep the electoral officer out of provincial schools, I think they have the power to do that within their own laws and within the authority they already enjoy.

The Chair: Anyone else?

Since Mr. Lowther moved the amendment, I'll go to Mr. Solomon first.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): First of all, this interpretation leads me to believe it's for universities and post-secondary institutions, which are more under the direct responsibility of the province, whereas the elementary and secondary schools are under the auspices of the school boards. I think the intent is there, but the wording or the responsibility is incorrect.

I would agree that if a school principal or a school board doesn't want you in that school, they make that decision. They should be allowed that flexibility and that autonomy, rather than being told by a provincial government what they should be doing when it comes to educational extras, or extracurricular activities, like the Chief Electoral Officer might be involved in.

• 1600

The Chair: Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, even though I'm well aware of the fact that Mr. Lowther used this clause to play politics in the House of Commons, I recognize that it is a perfectly reasonable amendment, in the sense that the Chief Electoral Officer represents a federal institution, whereas education is very clearly a provincial power under the Canadian Constitution. I am not questioning the value or legitimacy of any initiatives the Chief Electoral Officer might wish to take with respect to educational institutions, because they may be very valid initiatives, but in the spirit of cooperation between the two levels of government, the Chief Electoral Officer would have to obtain the prior permission of the provincial government before going ahead.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: I just wanted to mention that this is more a matter of protocol than anything. The Chief Electoral Officer, I believe, made a bit of a gaffe with his latest exercise. I don't think he did go about it properly in terms of following the protocol to get the proper permissions. Maybe he's learned by that exercise, but there was definitely a lot of negative reaction from school boards across the country.

So I actually regret that my colleague didn't put in here something a little more general in terms of notifying the correct levels of authority or obtaining permissions. I support the general thrust of this; I just wish that perhaps it had been a bit more specific.

The Chair: Okay. That seems to cover the discussion.

Have we missed something, Mr. Lowther?

Mr. Eric Lowther: We have. We've missed the fact that some statements were made here that are a little bit incorrect. Number one is that school boards would have some way to turn down these sorts of initiatives by the Chief Electoral Officer. That was not what happened this summer.

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Eric Lowther: Well, he wasn't even informed. They were not even aware this program had been launched until well after it was launched.

The Chair: We don't know who we're talking about, do we, at this point? The “he”s and “she”s and “they”s we're talking about, we're not too sure who they are.

Mr. Eric Lowther: They're the heads of the school boards where the school boards were not informed by the Chief Electoral Officer that this program was being launched. Neither were the provincial education ministers. There was a significant amount of reaction to the protocol, as my colleague here has mentioned.

This particular amendment simply states that the Chief Electoral Officer shall obtain the permission of the government of that province before launching educational campaigns in the schools of the province. If we're not agreed on that, then there are some serious concerns about jurisdictional issues here that should be pointed out.

The Chair: Let's see if we have agreement. I'm going to put the question.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Could we have a recorded vote, Mr. Chair?

Mr. Ted White: We'd like a recorded vote.

The Chair: It's not normally recorded, but if Mr. Lowther wants to request our first recorded vote, we can.

A voice: Hear, hear!

Mr. Eric Lowther: I'd certainly appreciate that. Thank you.

The Chair: All right.

Madam Clerk.

The Clerk of the Committee: Will you give me a moment, sir?

Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Chair, while we're waiting, may I ask a question?

The Chair: Of the officials, or is this a point of order?

Mr. John Solomon: Of Mr. Lowther, just to clarify on this. I haven't voted yet, so I'm just deciding.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. John Solomon: My question to Mr. Lowther is, to play this thing to fruition, would this mean that federal members of Parliament, before being allowed to go into schools, would have to get permission of the provincial government, or just permission of the principal and the school board, which is what we usually do in Saskatchewan?

A voice: If you wanted to hold a vote, yes.

A voice: No, no, that's not what it says about votes.

Mr. Eric Lowther: No, it doesn't say anything about voting. I'm invited for educational purposes quite often to schools, so I'm just wondering.

• 1605

A voice: I don't think it refers to—

Mr. John Solomon: Okay, that was a bad example. Let's say a member of Parliament generically—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But you're first and foremost the federal member for this riding. This is not the same case, I presume.

A voice: That's right.

Mr. John Solomon: I'm just asking.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would see a difference there.

The Chair: Could I have the attention of members here? Thank you.

We'll at least take Mr. Solomon's question as a representation on the issue. The clerk is ready for the roll-call vote.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Now, Mr. Lowther, there are three other amendments to the same clause.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes, and I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, but in order to assist you in your endeavours to get through this and because I don't think I'd get too far with them in this committee, I'm going to withdraw, or at least I won't formally put, those amendments at this time.

The Chair: You don't think the record might benefit from reference to them?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Well, they have them in their handouts. If the committee members want to make reference to them personally, they're welcome to do so. But I won't be formally putting them at this time.

The Chair: Okay. EL-2, EL-3, and EL-4 are withdrawn. Thank you, Mr. Lowther.

The next amendment is W-2, also dealing with clause 18. That's moved by Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I wasn't really following the discussion because I was consulting with our staff. What are we doing with Mr. Lowther's other amendments? Have they been withdrawn?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, the other three amendments were withdrawn.

Mr. White, on W-2.

Mr. Ted White: Could I just have a clarification first, Mr. Chairman?

I prepared this amendment a couple of weeks ago, and some stuff was said by the minister that would make me like to make a small subamendment to it. How do I go about just removing some words?

The Chair: I think colleagues would accept simple deletions from your motion.

Mr. Ted White: It's just a simple deletion. If members look at (b) in the amendment, I'd like to strike out all the words after “basis”, which appears in the second line of (b). So it would read:

(b) devise and test an electronic voting process on an experimental basis;

The rest would be struck out: “in a general election or a by-election” and so on.

The Chair: Dropping the comma, retaining the semicolon and the “and”.

Mr. Ted White: Yes, correct.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

Now, just speaking to the amendment, all of the members who have been here at committee throughout the process know that the Chief Electoral Officer has practically begged us for something to be put in the bill to allow him to get up to date, basically. He mentioned to us that he has to plan ahead in his work, thinking of the future and what might be happening with our children and our grandchildren.

Ms. Catterall was talking to me the other day about her new grandchild on the way, or already here. By the time that child is voting age—and this act will not have been revised again by then, based on the averages—we should really make sure we build in there the ability for new technologies to be incorporated as they come along.

So I don't see this as an offensive amendment. Actually it has surprised me how much reaction and opposition there has been to this idea, especially when the Chief Electoral Officer made it almost the main point of his submission the other night. Taking out the additional words there, which were objected to by the minister at committee, makes it a fairly inoffensive amendment, and I hope there's some support.

The Chair: Okay. I'm glad to hear from members on this. Are there any interventions on the subject of Mr. White's amendment? Mr. Knutson.

• 1610

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'd feel a lot more confident supporting this if the test we're talking about wasn't a live test with real voters. I don't think there's anything to prevent Elections Canada from devising an electronic system, perhaps testing it, and then coming to us and saying they're very confident that this new system is going to work. That's not what I heard Mr. Kingsley say at all. Given the discretion of doing a test during an election...giving him the opportunity of doing more study is fine, but not a live test. We would be opposed.

The Chair: Ms. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: That's exactly the question I was going to ask. When, in (b), the mover of the amendment took out those three lines, did you in fact take out the obligation to test in a real live election situation?

Mr. Ted White: Yes, I did.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: So what you're now saying in this is that you would like us to empower through a bill something that Mr. Kingsley can do by merely coming to the procedure and House affairs committee and asking us.

Mr. Ted White: Yes.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Why would we put it in a bill? Why doesn't he just come here after this is all over?

Mr. Ted White: Because we have the opportunity right now to make sure he can get started on this project, and if there's a change of government at some point that's not quite as friendly, he will already have had the opportunity to go ahead with the project—and we owe it to our kids and grandchildren to recognize the changing technologies.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm just a little nervous about putting it in a bill.

Even though you have that very innocent look on your face, there's probably something here we shouldn't be voting for.

Mr. Ted White: That's desperation. It ain't so.

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, when government members on the committee can say that they want to leave it to the Chief Electoral Officer to determine how we are to determine whether or not somebody is capable of casting a ballot when they appear at the polls during a general election, but are fearful and somehow suspicious of the Chief Electoral Officer when it comes to the issue of testing electronic voting, it just doesn't make any sense.

Mr. Ted White: And let him go into the schools without permission—

Mr. Rob Anders: What's the fear of electronic voting?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: There is none.

The Chair: Rhetorical question?

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Rob Anders: They're posing fears and I want to know what they are.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'd like to ask that we have it set down.

An hon. member: Defeat it.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'd like to ask that we have it set down, taking out the words “regarding the election as a significant change”, and I'll consult with the officials and the minister.

The Chair: That's a good idea.

Mr. Ted White: That's a very generous offer, and I thank you very much.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Thank you.

Mr. Ted White: I'm most grateful.

(Amendment allowed to stand)

The Chair: We'll stand down this amendment, then, and since it's an inserted clause, we'll simply move to our next item, which is—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Excuse me, may I ask for a clarification? I want to come back to that. From our researcher, my recollection is that the Chief Electoral Officer has already been before this committee asking for permission to do this kind of experimentation without seeming to require any amendment to the act in order to do it. I'd like some clarification on what was asked of the committee and what we agreed to.

The Chair: Yes, and in that same context, what other authority exists in the amended act, in the bill here now, that would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to do some so-called experimentation in electronic voting or other voting processes? That's a good suggestion.

Thank you, Ms. Catterall.

Now we'll move to the next amendment, BQ-6.1.

Okay, Mr. Bergeron, it deals with clause 19, and it's a separate package, the fourth package we have now.

(On clause 19—Staff)

Mr. Gar Knutson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the officials have indicated they don't have a package.

An hon. member: Where's the beef, Mr. Chairman?

• 1615

The Chair: Does everybody have their hands on the right paperwork?

Now we can continue.

Mr. Bergeron, this is your amendment, BQ-6.1.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, amendments BQ-6.1 and BQ-7.1, as well as amendments BQ-9.1, BQ-10.1, BQ-10.2 and BQ-10.3 which will come up later, are all consequential amendments.

When the Chief Electoral Officer appeared before the Committee, he repeated a number of times that as far as he is concerned, there is a need to change the way returning officers are appointed, so that in future, this would be accomplished through an open competition, thus ensuring they would be completely independent from government.

Indeed, a section in the Lortie report clearly states that ideally, what is needed is a system that ensures that returning officers are completely independent of government. Even though the Lortie Commission did not make a very clear recommendation along those lines, I would say that the way in which the thinking has evolved in this area prompted the Chief Electoral Officer to make that suggestion himself, so that returning officers would in future be appointed following an open competition, as is currently the case in Quebec and some other provinces. That would be a way of ensuring their independence from the government, and such a system would also lend an appearance of equity and neutrality to the process as a whole by including candidates from all the various political parties involved in an election.

The minister and a number of Liberal Party representatives repeated over and over again during the hearings that the current system is fine and allows us to hire experienced people. I don't doubt that. Of course they have experience because they're appointed by the party in power, in this case the Liberals, and previously the Conservatives. As a result, these people have had an opportunity to work very closely with the electoral system. Having been riding or liberal or conservative association presidents, or having run themselves for election, they are well acquainted with the system.

However, Mr. Chairman, if returning officers are appointed following an open competition, we will be guaranteed that not only will these people be independent, neutral and objective, but they will be competent and able to perform the work assigned to them, since they will have gone through a selection process that has proven that they have the ability and qualifications to do the job.

I know the minister hid behind the response given by the Chief Electoral Officer for Ontario, who said he would need 19 people to implement such a system. The Chief Electoral Officer for Canada told me that at the most he would need two people, rather than 19, to put such a system in place all across Canada. If need be, we could entrust the task of implementing such a system to the Public Service Commission of Canada. The Commission also has a great deal of experience in that area.

Those are all my comments, Mr. Chairman.

• 1620

[English]

I'm quite happy to let it go.

The Chair: Okay. Is anyone else intervening on this?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Chairman, we at least have to give the appearance of democracy, as Stéphane said earlier. Using wording such as "appointed by the Governor in Council, and any other officers, clerks and employees that may be required" seems rather strange on the eve of the year 2000.

Pierre-F. Côté said that this was the system used in Quebec and other Canadian provinces. I have just been told—and we may have been mistaken when we said 19 earlier—that the Chief Electoral Officer for Ontario felt this was a good idea and something that could be achieved in the long term.

I know we're not here to ask questions, but I just want to ask the members who are getting ready to vote this down just why the idea of hiring people based on their competence rather than their political ties scares them so much. What is so scary about hiring someone who is competent?

A voice: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, but just because someone is a card-carrying Liberal doesn't mean he is necessarily competent.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): That is the way it works now.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, that is the way it works now. But, in keeping with what other provinces have done, we have to ask ourselves why...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... be a card-carrying Liberal.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, exactly. People intending to vote against it should tell us where there is a Liberal Party university that teaches people to be competent, because that certainly is not a very serious or convincing argument. These files will be registered. Ms. Bakopanos says that you have to be a Liberal to be competent. She didn't say it out loud earlier, but she may as well repeat it. That is what she said, and it certainly won't make the Liberal Party look very good on the eve of a convention that they're hoping will be historic.

So, I would like them to tell me why they give more weight to political ties than to competency.

[English]

The Chair: Mrs. Bakopanos can probably speak for herself.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Solomon, I'll go to you, and then I'll go to Mr. Knutson and Mr. White.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I'm assuming we're debating BQ6.1, the amendment to clause 19. In Saskatchewan we have an all-party committee that elects our Chief Electoral Officer, and the responsibility for the assistant to the Chief Electoral Officer really falls to the CEO plus the Public Service Commission. The reason for this—and this is why I speak in favour of this particular amendment—is that the appointee of Parliament or the legislature may have certain skills, but also may have certain shortcomings in skills. Therefore, it's really important to have a balance in that your assistant CEO has some strengths where the CEO has some weaknesses. I think the public service act, in consultation with the CEO, would be the way to go on this one. I would support this particular amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson, then Mr. White.

Mr. Gar Knutson: On the narrow issue of clause 19, I want to say the government obviously rejects the premise that because it's a Governor in Council appointment, it's somehow corrupt or has less merit. We appoint a chief general of the armed forces by GIC appointment. We appoint the Supreme Court by GIC appointment. There has been no complaint about the number two person at Elections Canada, whoever it is, or that somehow they were biased or in favour of the Liberal Party. We're quite prepared to defend the current system and vote accordingly.

The Chair: Mr. White.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: The Chief of the Defence Staff may not work quite so directly...

[English]

The Chair: Order.

Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

With due respect to the chair, I'd like to point out that my question in Question Period today was about returning officers, not the Chief Electoral Officer's assistant. So, Mr. Chair, you may be jumping to conclusions in instructing your members to vote against this. We should keep an open mind that this is a separate subject.

An hon. member: You won't listen to the questions, but you should at least listen to the answers.

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just don't understand why people wouldn't want to have this vetted past the committee. It seems the government problems.... They might have somebody put into office about whom they may not have known their competence. If government members have the chance to be able to question someone before a committee, they should take the opportunity to do so. I remind the government that when they were in opposition, they helped author the McGrath report, which laid out that many of the positions just like this would be vetted past parliamentary committees so that people like us could question them on their capabilities.

• 1625

If it was good enough for them in opposition, it should be good enough for them in government, and I think it's a great idea. If the provinces can do it, why can't the federal government?

The Chair: Just for the record, Order in Council appointments in this field are referred to this committee for review after the appointment.

Are there any other members wishing to speak?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Not for the returning officers.

The Chair: No, not for returning officers, but for the Chief Electoral Officer and the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer. That's what we're dealing with now. I was corrected once.

All members have had a chance to speak.

Some hon. members: Call the question.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think we had better clarify what we are voting on. We're not voting on referring anything to a committee. That's already done. We're not voting on returning officers either. We're voting on BQ6.1, simply suggesting a change in how the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer is chosen.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau, I haven't recognized you yet, but if there's something we've missed totally, we'd be pleased to have you—

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, there is something you missed totally.

Earlier, Mr. Knutson said that the government appointed the Chief of the Defence Staff and other people. What polling station does the Chief of the Defence Staff work in, Mr. Knutson? We're talking about the electoral process here. You have been talking about clarity for two or three weeks now. We're talking about the electoral process. And at the very least, one should be attempting to seem non-partisan within the electoral process. Why do you think political ties are so much more important than competence?

Maybe there's something we don't understand here, but it seems to me that when you hold a competition and hire people based on their qualifications, you may not necessarily be hiring Liberals. I don't believe one necessarily has to be a Liberal to be competent, although I may be wrong. You referred to the Chief Justice and other officials. Tell me what polling stations these people work at and I'll go and vote there.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Rob Anders: Record a division.

The Chair: Record a division, Madam Clerk.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 19 agreed to on division)

(On clause 22—Election officers)

The Chair: We now go to amendment BQ7, dealing with clause 22.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Does clause 18 still stand?

The Chair: We passed clause 19.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Where are we now?

[English]

The Chair: We are now on clause 22.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect for my colleagues, who have taken a position I consider to be totally undemocratic, I find it strange that members of a government that claims to have a monopoly on democracy would vote in favour of maintaining a patronage system for the appointment of returning officers, who are charged with administering an election in each of the ridings of Canada.

Mr. Chairman, at the very least, I would ask my colleagues to recognize that, as regards the appointment of election officers, a candidate in a previous election should not be able to perform any duty connected with an election, if only to make the system appear credible. Since they don't want to make the system truly credible, at the very least, they should give it an appearance of credibility by not allowing former election candidates to act as returning officers or assistant returning officers in a subsequent election.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

• 1630

Mr. Gar Knutson: The government is prepared to support BQ7.

The Chair: Is there any other discussion?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Anders didn't request a recorded vote. Did we miss something here?

Mr. Rob Anders: We didn't need to have a list of “shames”, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: All right, colleagues—

Mr. Ted White: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I'll recognize you in a moment.

The next amendment is NDP page 3, dealing with clause 22.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Have we voted on...[Inaudible—Editor]?

An hon. member: Yes, actually.

An hon. member: Get your press release out.

The Chair: Before I go further, Mr. White has a point of order.

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, I unfortunately have to leave to catch a flight. You'll probably reach clause 24 before the day is out. You'll see that I have a number of amendments there. I would ask the indulgence of the committee to allow those to go over to the next day.

The Chair: If you're not here, we'll stand it down. Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you very much.

An hon. member: As long as you come back before Christmas.

The Chair: Mr. Solomon, this is your amendment.

Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Chair, whereas the clause 3 amendment that I put forward to lower the voting age to 16 years was defeated, hurting my feelings and the feelings of all those 16- and 17-year-olds while disenfranchising them all, I'll withdraw this amendment because it's pertinent to that previous one having been passed.

The Chair: Thank you for that, Mr. Solomon.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Which one did he just withdraw?

[English]

The Chair: He has withdrawn his amendment, Mr. Bergeron.

(Clause 22 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Can we have a five-minute break?

The Chair: This is a good point. I would like to deal with the matter of sitting on Monday. Is it really a five-minute, must-have break?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, you've made your point, and we'll excuse one of our members.

We can now discuss Mr. White's request about sitting times on Monday. Is he still here?

An hon. member: No, he's gone.

The Chair: Mr. White had travel arrangements that he had to attend to.

Mr. Anders, would you be prepared to put Mr. White's case?

Mr. Rob Anders: He gave me some brief instructions, to the effect that his ideal scenario would be for him to start up with us again on Tuesday morning. If that can't be done, then as a second position he would take to coming back late Monday night. However, he would just like to put forward that it would mean he would spend the whole day on the plane. It doesn't make for a very productive day for Mr. White, but it's up to the will of the committee.

I think everybody here knows how much time and effort, blood, sweat, and tears Mr. White has put into his amendments here and whatnot. All the guy is asking for is the morning.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: At what times are we scheduled to meet right now?

The Chair: That's a good question, Ms. Catterall.

Madam Clerk, can you advise us as to when we're now scheduled to meet on this next week?

The Clerk: As it stands now, we are currently scheduled to meet from 3.30 p.m. on Monday to 5.30 p.m., in the case of there being votes in the House. I believe it was then from 6.30 p.m. through to 9 p.m. that evening, and from 10 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. on Tuesday. That's as far as I've taken it, because how far we've gotten into the bill will determine whether or not we meet Wednesday afternoon, Thursday, and Friday.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Can we expect him to take the 9 a.m. plane and get here by 4 p.m., or the 2.30 p.m. plane and get here by 10 p.m.?

• 1635

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, I don't pretend to know the exact plane schedules, because he didn't leave that information with me. I know for sure that he cannot make the 3.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. sitting on Monday. He could make the 6.30 p.m. to 9 p.m., but would prefer, asks, begs, the indulgence of the committee to start at 10 a.m. on Tuesday morning.

Mr. John Solomon: I have a suggestion.

The Chair: Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: All of us are going to have some reason not to be here. I would suggest that we stand Mr. White's amendments until he's able to arrive, proceed with the NDP and the Bloc amendments as quickly as we can, and meet on Monday as scheduled. If he arrives for Tuesday, we'll do his on Tuesday. I don't have a problem with that. I think that's being cooperative.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes, it is. If there is something we've done on Monday that would absolutely be of concern to him—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No. Let's not go too far. We're not redoing this 43 times, Marlene, I'm sorry.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I know, but we're trying to be accommodating to everybody. It is a big country.

The Chair: The proposal is that we would stand down any amendments to be moved by Mr. White throughout Monday, until he gets here Monday or on Tuesday morning, whichever he chooses. His whip can deal with whoever is here for voting purposes on Monday, and if there is a concern about any specific item of business that we deal with in his absence, his colleagues can take it up and members can consider it at that time and can act accordingly. Is that a reasonable arrangement? We will meet on Monday, then...no, I won't decide that until—

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Can I ask a question?

The Chair: Yes, Ms. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Will Mr. White be entitled, obviously, to send a substitute so that the substitute can vote on the Bloc amendments? Otherwise they don't have a chance of getting in....

The Chair: I spoke on that, yes.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, so that's why I wouldn't want to go back to reopen it.

The Chair: The party whip will take care of attendance at committee.

So what I articulated earlier is what we'll do. Mr. White has ample back-up within his party to debate issues here on Monday—

Mr. Rob Anders: You're flattering, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: —and we'll provide due deference to his amendments throughout the day.

Now, if there is no request for—

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor].

The Chair: No, I won't even tempt fate.

(On clause 23—Oath)

The Chair: Let's proceed then. We have carried clause 22, so we now move to clause 23 and amendment PC-2.

An hon. member: You can't start until—

The Chair: It's just been pointed out that this is an amendment that would normally be moved by Mr. Harvey. Mr. Harvey is travelling, so I think we should extend the same courtesy to Mr. Harvey as we have contemplated for Mr. White.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(On clause 24—Appointment of returning officers)

The Chair: Our next amendment is NDP page 4, dealing with clause 24, and this is in the medium-sized package.

Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is an amendment that would provide an opportunity for all the riding returning officers to be chosen through the public service process. That is, they'd be chosen on merit.

We have 301 returning officers. For the most part, we've been lucky in most cases in that they've all been very successful in the past, but there have been some circumstances in which there have been a few problems.

I believe this is doable. I don't personally support the competitive hiring of DROs and poll clerks, because that does involve a whole of lot of extra bureaucracy and cost. But certainly the returning officers should be hired on the basis of some experience, interest, and certainly merit, so I put forward the resolution.

The Chair: Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I really think there's a concrete tactical problem with this one here. The experience in B.C. was that when they did go to this system, either 75% or 85% of the people who were hired had been returning officers before, i.e., they were partisan political appointees. I don't think they changed when they were selected through a competitive process for their competence.

• 1640

I understand there was a substantial problem as well when Quebec went to this system. Essentially it was young lawyers who were appointed as returning officers, but a large number of them resigned after the election was called and had to be replaced. I just see a system that has worked well, and I don't see how you get non-partisan, experienced people unless you do some kind of political purity test, and I'm not prepared to do that.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I have a problem with what Ms. Catterall just said. I generally agree with her, and I have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for her. However, I must say that she made some rather gratuitous comments about the current situation in Quebec. The system there works very well, and the fact is that every riding does not necessarily have a young lawyer as a returning officer.

Indeed, a number of them have political experience, whether it be in the Parti québécois, the Liberal Party or even the former Union nationale, in some cases. But the fact is they were not appointed because of their experience working for the Parti québécois, the Liberal Party or the former Union nationale; they were chosen because of the skills they demonstrated during the selection process. They may have been appointed under a PQ government even though their experience was as Liberals, or they may have been appointed under a Liberal government, even though their experience was with the Parti québécois.

I simply want to point out that the process is not designed to allow the party in power to systematically appoint people who are members of that party or who have gained experience in the ranks of that party; nor is it designed so that after an election, if there is a change of government, people are systematically appointed because of their ties to the party forming the new government.

The fact that a particular party is in power in Quebec has absolutely no effect on the selection process. Actually, these people have political experience with many different parties—the Quebec Liberal Party, the Parti québécois, the former Union nationale, or even the Liberal Party of Canada, the federal Conservative Party or the Bloc Québécois. They have the experience and they are appointed because of that experience. But the process is not marred by the kind of partisanship that characterizes the federal system.

I would like to read an excerpt from the Lortie report. On page 483 of the English version, it states:

A cornerstone of public confidence in any democratic system of representative government is an electoral process that is administered efficiently and an electoral law that is enforced impartially. Securing public trust requires that the election officials responsible for administration and enforcement be independent of the government of the day and not subject to partisan influence.

[English]

An hon. member: There you go. That's perfect.

The Chair: Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: I appreciate those comments, Stéphane. As members, though, the other dimension that we're failing to understand here is that, as a country, Canada goes to various elections throughout the third world. We advise them as a matter of policy that their election officers should be non-partisan. In Canada, we're not doing as we tell other people to do; we're actually practising something that we wouldn't even advise third world countries to undertake.

So I'm wondering where government members stand on this, when you send out our election officials and members of Parliament like that. I'm not sure who around this table has been there, but many have gone to other countries to supervise elections. We are always instructed to advise them on the cleanest possible way to run elections. Returning officers are very important, because they can decide whether it's run fairly or not.

The other point I want to raise is that Mr. Kingsley himself has suggested that he believes this should happen as well. That's not the only reason I support it, but it's one of the many inputs you should all consider.

The Chair: Ms. Parrish, and then Mr. Anders.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I've monitored three of the first democratic elections, and I don't ever remember being instructed on telling anybody how to set them up as far as returning officers or non-returning officers are concerned.

Secondly, returning officers are appointed for life—

Mr. John Solomon: You didn't attend the briefing session, then.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, I did.

Returning officers are set up for life as long as they don't move out of their riding or do something really ridiculous. A returning officer appointed by the Tories will in fact run an election where there is a Liberal incumbent at some point.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's not true.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, it is true.

Thirdly—

Mr. Gar Knutson: Until the boundaries change.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Until the boundaries change. All right, but if the boundaries don't change—

An hon. member: They always change.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: No, they don't.

Mr. Gar Knutson: They change every 10 years, generally.

The Chair: Ms. Parrish, continue.

• 1645

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: It's a chorus of assistance here.

I know I had to nominate two returning officers before the 1997 election, and it hurt me deeply to nominate the one in my riding because I lost my best worker and Steve got my other one. The reason you pick your very best people isn't that they're partisan and they don't behave in a partisan fashion; it's that they're fair, they're efficient, and they're going to do a good job. As an incumbent, the worst thing that could happen is to have a messed up, challenged election, so you nominate the best people you have and you take them out of your campaign, sadly enough.

I'm sorry, if Mr. Kingsley wants to build a little fiefdom where he appoints a whole bunch of soldiers, that's his problem. I am not going to listen to Mr. Kingsley on this one. I think we're doing the right thing, and so did the returning officers from Ontario and Quebec.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Parrish.

Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: I've never heard of a better exposition than the one Ms. Parrish just gave, where she said she nominated the best people out of her own campaign and, come hell or high water, she's not going to listen to the Chief Electoral Officer. I think the Chief Electoral Officer is probably being a little more impartial with regard to this—forgive me, Ms. Parrish—than you might be. I can't see the problem with having transparency. At the end of the day, if the person Ms. Parrish, for example, puts forward is the best person, then that will come out in the process.

Once again, we've debated previously today on these issues of open competition, merit, no extra costs, getting somebody with experience and competence over allegiance and ability, getting away from the idea of appointment and patronage, and of achieving fairness and independence. I can't understand why the government is so fearful of this, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: We'll go back to Mr. Knutson, and then to Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I think Madam Catterall spoke eloquently—

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: You didn't think I did?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Well, he cut me off.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: What I have to say is directed at Ms. Catterall, but I can do it now because it's actually Mr. Lincoln who is going to answer.

Ms. Catterall made some statements earlier in reference to the system in Quebec. She said that certain things took place there. But what she said seemed to be somewhat, indeed, quite far removed from the truth. So, I would like Mr. Lincoln, who was an MLA and minister in Quebec, to tell us...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: An excellent one at that.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, an excellent minister of the Environment.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: Well, well; praise from the Bloc!

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes. One must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, right?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Wait, there may be more coming.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would like him to talk about the electoral system in Quebec and, if possible, confirm or deny some of the allegations made by Ms. Catterall, to the effect that a group of young lawyers had been hired there and half of them had resigned.

Now it's Ms. Parrish's turn. I'm sure you're right, Ms. Parrish. I couldn't agree with you more—that the two people you appointed were the best available. They probably would have won the competition. Don't you think so?

[English]

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, probably.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: And they would have been hired.

[English]

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Then why are you opposed to a system that would allow us to verify the validity of your assertions, which I'm sure are perfectly accurate? You are a frank, honest person, and the people you appoint are obviously the best. If they go through the competition process, they are the best they can be.

[English]

That's it.

[Translation]

However, there's one thing you said...

[English]

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Lee, are you going to permit me to answer that?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, it's not your turn. It's mine. One thing you said really caught my attention. You said that people were appointed for life. Yet before the last election, 75 per cent of returning officers changed.

[English]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Seventy-five percent.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Either they had a short life, or it was a...

[English]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's a clear majority.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, a clear majority of them changed.

So, I would like Mr. Lincoln to talk about the system in Quebec and I would like to know from you whether you were aware that 75% of them had changed. If you were not aware of that and neither is she, what are you going to vote on?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau, I hope you'll be with us for the balance of the consideration of this bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman...

[English]

The Chair: Please forgive me in advance, but your style in inviting other members opposite to engage in debate with you—

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, no.

[English]

The Chair: —is not going to be helpful to the further disposition of the sections in this bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman...

[English]

The Chair: And if you'll let me finish—

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, sir.

The Chair: —that would be helpful as well.

I'm going to ask that you think about directing your interventions on the bill through the chair to whomever is here. If you are going to finger-point here and bait other members—not in a negative sense, but in a respectful sense—you're simply going to invite responses and then responses to responses. So I'd ask you to keep that in mind.

• 1650

Now, you've completed your intervention, and there being no points of personal privilege that I could detect, there is no real need to respond. I'll take your questions as rhetorical.

Are there any other interventions on this—

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I'm not finished.

The Chair: You were not finished?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, the reason I was unable to attend previous meetings was that I needed the time to read this extremely complicated piece of legislation.

What I want to say is that the questions I'm directing at Mr. Lincoln and Ms. Parrish are intended to help me come to an enlightened decision as to how I should vote.

[English]

The Chair: We have more questions. I'm going to put the question on the amendment. We're dealing with NDP-4.

An hon. member: I'd like a recorded vote.

The Chair: All right, Madam Clerk, go ahead.

An hon. member: Are we voting on the clause?

The Clerk: We are voting on NDP-4, clause 24.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We now move to BQ-7.1, M. Bergeron. This is also dealing with clause 24.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman...

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Bergeron, this is contained in your very small package. All right, Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, as you can see in our amendment, we are proposing that the returning officer in each riding be appointed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act following an open competition.

It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that no one at this table will be opposed to the idea of elections officers being appointed based on the exact same criteria and principles as those set out in the Public Service Employment Act.

I would point out to Committee members that this is a perfectly normal, usual process for appointing personnel in the Public Service of Canada. And, to use Ms. Parrish's expression, we are absolutely convinced—as I am—that members of the federal Public Service are competent and that at every level and in every department, they are in fact the most competent individuals that could have been hired in their respective area—which is to say that the appointment and selection process could not be more reliable.

So, to repeat what my colleague, the Member for Repentigny, said a few moments ago, if people are convinced that the best persons for the job are people that have provided their loyal services to the Liberal Party of Canada, I imagine they will not be the slightest bit concerned about having them take an exam administered under the Public Service Employment Act. Also, if these individuals are as competent as Ms. Parrish claims, they will ace the exam and be reappointed—except that this time, it will be a perfectly legitimate appointment, such as those made in the Public Service. They will also be free of the kind of controversy that arises when an appointment is made directly by the Governor in Council—in other words, when it is a partisan appointment.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Knutson, and then Ms. Bakopanos.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Given that we just had a full discussion on this point, I would ask that you call the question.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I have a point of order. I want to go further.

The Chair: Ms. Bakopanos.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Considering there are a series of amendments that touch on exactly the same subject, and I don't believe there will be a change of position on either side, could we agree to vote on those? They can have a recorded vote if they like or we can take the recorded vote that we had earlier and put it on. I don't have any problem with that.

But instead of hearing the same rhetoric over and over again from the Bloc Québécois—and after you have reprimanded Mr. Sauvageau—I would prefer that we do it on a basis of...they're all similar. They're all dealing with the same subject matter, and we can take a recorded vote, if you like.

• 1655

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

I believe that...

[English]

The Chair: Now, I haven't recognized you yet, Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On a point of order.

[English]

The Chair: I haven't recognized you yet.

In relation to the interventions by Mr. Knutson and Ms. Bakopanos, I think it's clear that we're dealing with the identical issue in this bill, so we could recognize that as we're speaking to it.

In fact, just to correct the record, I really didn't reprimand anybody. Mr. Sauvageau's doing a good job.

Anyway, let's continue—

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I was wrong, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, in keeping with the spirit of your last comment, I must say it was not my impression that my comments—in other words, the ones I just made—in any way contravened the directive, or at least the remarks you made a few moments ago with respect to Mr. Sauvageau. Consequently, I don't...

[English]

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: I said I withdrew.

The Chair: No, no. We've had good debates so far.

I think we've discussed this issue about the process of putting returning officers in place in the ridings. So if there are no further interventions, I will put the question on the amendment.

An hon. member: I'd like a recorded vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would ask that it be a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, a recorded vote, please.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We now move to amendment BQ-8, Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: It's BQ-8, dealing with clause 24.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, the amendment we are dealing with here was intended to ensure that if a returning officer were appointed in a perfectly objective and independent fashion, he would not be able to hold office for more than two years. However, since the decision was made to maintain the current partisan process for appointing returning officers, I certainly don't want us to be subjected to these kinds of partisan appointments by the party in power every two years. I therefore withdraw this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron. BQ-8 is withdrawn.

Colleagues, we'll now skip the amendments proposed by Mr. White, and in the large package move to amendment BQ-9, moved by Mr. Bergeron, dealing with subclause 24(7).

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, this provision is intended to ensure that when it has been clearly established that a returning officer is not performing his duties properly, he can be removed by the Chief Electoral Officer. It would seem that when someone who is clearly incompetent needs to be removed from office, the process the Chief Electoral Officer has to follow in order to accomplish that is very long and complicated.

As a result, I am suggesting that the Chief Electoral Officer be empowered to remove returning officers who have clearly shown themselves to be incompetent. The effect of this would be to partially eliminate the government's current control over election officials.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any comments?

• 1700

Mr. Gar Knutson: The Chief Electoral Officer indicated when he was here that he didn't agree with the suggestion, that he was quite happy with the removal process.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That is not what he said.

An hon. member: What's he talking about?

The Chair: We have a misunderstanding or disagreement about the evidence. Let's deal with the subject on its merits, not on what someone else thought.

Is there a comment from officials on the process of removal?

[Translation]

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: You're right, Mr. Bergeron. He said he did not wish to have the power to remove people from office that he did not have the power to appoint. If the other provisions are not passed, this one will have to removed.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That makes things clearer. Thank you, Ms. Mondou.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It makes sense to me that if you have somebody who's serving as a returning officer who for whatever reason is not performing their tasks as they should...that you allow the Chief Electoral Officer, who'd be the best judge, I would think, of whether or not that person is performing the task, to do the removal. The Governor in Council is a somewhat removed way of going about these things. And let's face it, during an election period, when you've got 36 days for your writ period, you don't want a lengthy process to have to deal with somebody who may be a problematic returning officer.

I mean, the rubber meets the road in the writ period. When that happens, you're going to want to deal with the situation in a timely fashion, as opposed to going through some long, convoluted process with regard to the Governor in Council.

So it makes sense to me, following a principle of subsidiarity and moving the decision-making to the authority best able to deal with it, that you allow the Chief Electoral Officer to deal with the situation, rather than the Governor in Council.

The Chair: Okay. Moving from subsidiarity to congruity, could I ask officials if it would be structurally incongruous, or would it be possible, to have someone else remove an appointee who was appointed by the Governor in Council? For example, if party A does the appointing, would we leave it to party B to remove?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: It's rather unusual. The Interpretation Act, for example, says that when you have the power to appoint, you normally have the power to remove. Having said that, the process that is now in the act is a very onerous one. They cannot be removed easily, and there is a reason for that. It's because they have to be independent and not be easily removed.

The Chair: They have to be protected from the political buffeting that might go on. Okay, that's fair enough.

Are there any other interventions?

Mrs. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I just had a question of the officials. If someone does become extremely ill during the election process, can they resign?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Absolutely.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Is that instantaneous?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Absolutely.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Catterall, and then Mr. Anders.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: If someone were removed by the Chief Electoral Officer, who would replace that person? I presume we would then have to go back to the Governor in Council for a replacement. So if they have to be convened to replace, there would seem to be no problem with them doing the removal either.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understood well.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The replacement would have to be done by the Governor in Council, so I'm not sure that I see that this amendment would save any problems. If the Governor in Council has to make the replacement, they could just as easily do the removal.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: That's right.

Mr. Michael Peirce: That's why it's removal and replacement.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Yes, you're right.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: At the same time, yes.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Yes.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. White.

I'm sorry—

Mr. Rob Anders: I've shaved, Mr. Chairman. Could you not tell?

The Chair: I'm so used to turning over to your colleague. Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It makes sense to me, Mr. Chairman. You put a question to our legal beagles, Ms. Mondou—you are a legal beagle, yes?

Okay, there are two legal beagles. We have beagles squared.

I hope, especially on an issue as important as this, that they are beagles, Mr. Chairman. If they're not, it scares me.

• 1705

You put the question to them about whether or not the Chief Electoral Officer could remove somebody who had been appointed by the Governor in Council. But if we vote that into law and put that in here, surely it does give a pretty clear understanding of where the House committee and the government want this to go.

I mean, yes, I understand that we're referring it for legal beagle approval over here, but if it's written in the law, and we've designated it as such, I think that pretty much clarifies the matter.

I still submit that it fits with the idea of subsidiarity. One of our legal beagles, Ms. Mondou, confirmed that indeed it is an onerous, difficult process to remove somebody unless they themselves choose to resign.

We put these things in here not because everybody is a good mensch when it comes to the situation where they're not doing the job right. We put these things in here because we have to deal with them in situations where they're not doing the job right. I think that's why we have to deal with this and put in something. If they don't resign, who makes the decision? Who makes the call?

I think it's better to have the call made by the Chief Electoral Officer than by the Governor in Council.

The Chair: Mrs. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'm voting against it because it's the thin edge of the wedge. It's going back to the idea of having the Chief Electoral Officer selecting and non-selecting returning officers.

The Chair: Okay.

I'll put the question on the amendment.

Mr. Rob Anders: Recorded vote, please.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Mr. Richardson, you have a comment.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): I think we're fighting this one—and I know it's on its last legs—because at some stage we're going to have to go through what we discussed earlier, that the Order in Council appointment and/or replacement will professionalize the operation and give it some kind of longevity and some institutional history that'll be there in terms of those who are already returning officers in the riding.

So I think it would give it a little bit of a plus. I think all of us have our political axes to grind on that, but I think some day we're going to have to pull the plug on it and get it into an honest, professional, or semi-professional operation. That can only be done through the federal government, through Governor in Council or through a competition, and appointing them that way.

That's all I have to say about that. I think we're seeing the last of it.

The Chair: Okay.

We are continuing to stand clauses 24 and 25 of the bill for amendments proposed by Mr. White.

(Clauses 24 and 25 allowed to stand)

(On clause 26—Assistant returning officer)

The Chair: There is an amendment to clause 26, BQ-9.1, moved by Mr. Bergeron. It's in the small package.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I don't agree with what was just said. I think there is a difference. As a Committee, we have just decided that the returning officer is to be appointed by the Governor in Council. As a possible compromise, perhaps we could at least agree that the assistant returning officer in every riding should be appointed by means of an open competition. In this way, we would at least ensure that the second most important official in each riding would be a competent, independent and objective federal official appointed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act. This individual would be in a position to support the returning officer, as well he should.

• 1710

Just to respond to Ms. Bakopanos's argument, I don't think this is the same thing at all. If we agreed as a committee, after the discussion we had a few moments ago, that the returning officer was to continue to be appointed by means of a partisan process, well, so be it; let us at least ensure, as a sort of compromise position, that the assistant returning officer should be appointed on the basis of an open competition. Let's take one small step towards making that happen, please.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Good try, but I'm actually even more opposed to this. If I were going to lean in any direction, it would have been the last one—in some other life—but this one....

I watched how these two people worked together on several campaigns. They work together very closely. It's a pressure-cooker situation. I would think the chief returning officer has to have the discretion to hire someone whose talents blend with theirs and with whom they have a good working relationship. To impose a person on the chief returning officer would be most difficult.

Even if I were sympathetic to somebody being appointed, it sure wouldn't be this one, because for that job, an 18-hour-a-day job, you need to be able to select someone that you know you're going to be able to work with.

The Chair: Mr. Anders, then Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Rob Anders: Maybe I'm indicating my age here, Mr. Chairman, but do you remember those cartoons where there was a big dog named Spike and a little dog? I can't remember the little dog's name, but the little dog was the conscience of Spike. He would continually jump on Spike's back and tell Spike whether what he was doing was right or wrong, or good or bad, and so on.

The point I'm demonstrating here is that with regard to the person who is appointed as the returning officer, yes, I would like to have seen an open competition. It would have been transparent and the person would have been chosen based on merit and ability rather than allegiance and all the rest of these good things. But if that person is put into their office by appointment, why can't we have somebody who can serve as meritorious conscience for the returning officer, an assistant who has some background experience and has been vetted in some capacity professionally?

Mr. Chairman, that just makes obvious sense to me.

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, we've heard a lot about how talented and competent the people who are appointed are. I just raise this point again to say quite seriously that I am absolutely certain that these talented, competent people who have been appointed would have no trouble passing a Public Service competition.

Sometimes it takes a long time to change people's attitudes. I would remind you of what the Lortie Commission said:

A cornerstone of public confidence in any democratic system of representative government is an electoral process that is administered efficiently and an electoral law that is enforced impartially. Securing public trust requires that the election officials responsible for administration and enforcement be independent of the government of the day and not subject to partisan influence.

A little while ago, we voted in favour of a partisan system of appointing returning officers. As Stéphane already said, there seems to be some openness in that area; so let's take a step in the right direction by agreeing to appoint via competition the people who will be supporting the highly competent individuals appointed through a partisan process.

In terms of costs, we were told that going the competition route would mean hiring two people. As far as the rules are concerned, it is simply a matter of applying the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act. So, there is no real problem in terms of taking a step in the right direction that will slowly but surely—the one step at a time philosophy of our premier—allows us to reach a stage where people can support the proposal brought forward today.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

I'll put the question on the amendment.

Mr. Rob Anders: Recorded, Mr. Chairman.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

• 1715

The Chair: I will now move to amendment BQ-10.

Mr. Bergeron, this is your amendment. Would you introduce it, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Do we have a clear majority?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, as regards amendment BQ-10, the idea here simply to ensure the impartiality and independence of assistant returning officers by not allowing members of the returning officer's immediate family—uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, cousins, colleagues or employees—to be appointed to the position of assistant returning officer.

While I understand Mrs. Parrish's arguments to the effect that in order to do his job, the returning officer needs to be supported by someone he trusts and has a good relationship with, it seems to me that for appearances' sake, despite the decisions just been made by this Committee, we should be trying to ensure that the people appointed to support the returning officer are not people with whom he has too close a relationship.

[English]

The Chair: This is a more comprehensive list of those persons who may not be so appointed.

Any further interventions?

Seeing none, I'll put the question.

Do you have a question, Ms. Catterall?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm just wondering what the government has to say about this. I'm trying to see, as well, who has been added—father, mother, child, brother, half-brother....

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron should know who he added.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, the list includes: children, brothers, sisters, spouses, half-brothers, half-sisters, uncles and aunts, cousins, nephews and nieces, and we have also added a work colleague or employee of the returning officer, as well as any person living with him.

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: And “work colleague of”? That's the only question that needs clarification.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: What do you mean by "work colleague"?

[English]

The Chair: Well, if they weren't a work colleague then, they would be now.

In any event, is there any comment from officials?

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: In smaller communities, this might present a problem.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, with a view to reaching a consensus on this, I would be perfectly prepared to withdraw “work colleague” from the list.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment, if you don't mind.

[English]

The Chair: Actually, Mr. Anders did get his hand up first, so I should recognize him.

Mr. Rob Anders: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: So it's Mr. Anders and then Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, if the point of contention here is the issue of “work colleague of”, you could change it to “previous work colleague of”. That way, you would exempt people for the purposes of the election.

Ms. Parrish can shake her head all she wants; nonetheless, I think it makes perfect sense that you don't want to hire people who have that close a relationship—you know, the buddy system—to get these positions. I think that only makes sense.

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: As my colleague, the Member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, just said, we would be prepared to remove “work colleague” from the list, but supposing someone uses the argument of small communities. That has not happened. But supposing someone did? We could then say that the ridings are all relatively proportional; the area may be larger, but the number of people is about the same in each riding. I'm sure that no one will use that argument, but we have to recognize that someone could do that.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Catterall.

• 1720

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I have one question. Am I blind, or does the spouse not appear in either version, the bill or the amendment?

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: It's not who you live with.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I know that.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: That's wide.

The Chair: We've gone beyond the “s” word.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On a point of order.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron has a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Before you put the question on the amendment, Mr. Chairman, does everyone understand, notwithstanding Mr. Anders' comments, that I very much appreciate and have agreed, with a view to reaching consensus, to withdraw the term “work colleague”?

[English]

The Chair: All right. If we could just make sure that is clear to our clerk, we have deleted the words “work colleague of”. Could I please have a nod from government officials that the deletion of those precise words will give us a workable—

Mr. Gar Knutson: You'll get it from me. You won't get it from them.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Could I just make a bit of a distinction here?

[Translation]

I think there's a difference between the English and French here. In the French version, reference is made to an employee of the returning officer, but those words do not appear in the English version, if I'm not mistaken.

[English]

Mr. Rob Anders: That is correct.

The Chair: We have a discrepancy between the French and English versions of the proposed amendments. I'd love to wrap this up now. I'll take the cue from anyone who has a credible resolution.

Mrs. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I think the intent of the motion is to expand it to include all people who are closely related to the returning officer. So if you take “employee and work colleague” out, I don't think there's any problem. I think the intention is to get rid of relatives.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I complied with Ms. Parrish's first request to withdraw “work colleague”, but there is definitely a hierarchical relationship between a returning officer and his employee. So, I am very reluctant to remove the words “employee of the returning officer”. I think that is quite understandable.

I can certainly understand why people wanted me to remove “work colleague”, but removing “an employee of the returning officer” would be problematical, since there is an hierarchical relationship between the two.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. I did agree to recognize Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to move, as a friendly amendment, that we strike the words “work colleague of” and substitute the two words “employee of”. That would probably get rid of a discrepancy between the English and français versions of the document.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Good job.

Mr. Rob Anders: Thank you. It would get us on the right track.

So I propose that as a motion. In addition, Mr. Chairman, because Ms. Catterall was asking earlier about the differences between the two—as far as I can tell, the word “stepchild” has been replaced by “spouse's child'. I take this to be a slightly more politically correct version of that.

Then, the words “uncle, aunt, cousin, nephew, niece” have been added. So it expands the list of those people who have some sort of affinity and blood relation or marital relation to the returning officer.

The Chair: It's a constructive suggestion.

I have to recognize Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm advised just in the last few minutes that the word “spouse” may be contrary to government policy. That's why we use the language “person you live with”. So I would like to ask if we could stand the clause down.

• 1725

The Chair: I didn't want to stand the clause down. I'd hate to have to stumble over the “s” word again.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, there is some indication that there might be some room here to work out a wording that incorporates the meaning of Mr. Bergeron's motion, if we would only give the parliamentary secretary an opportunity to consult with his minister and come back to us on Monday perhaps.

The Chair: Thank you. So the issue of amendment BQ-10 is going to be left unresolved.

(Amendment allowed to stand)

(Clause 26 allowed to stand)

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Are we going to change the words “spouse's child” to “person you live with's child”?

An hon. member: Well, yes.

Mr. Rob Anders: This is too much.

(On clause 28—Notification if returning officer incapacitated)

The Chair: We now move to the next amendment, BQ-10.1, dealing with clause 28. It's moved by Mr. Bergeron. It's in the very small package.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I see the situation here as somewhat different from the one we discussed earlier. It is only slightly different, but it is different. When a vacancy comes about, not as a result of a change in election boundaries, but for some other reason, such as the death or resignation of the returning officer, we believe someone should be appointed as quickly as possible by means of an open competition, in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act.

[English]

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Chairman, this is splitting hairs; it's the same issue.

The Chair: Yes. This is complementary to another amendment that was defeated.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'd like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived—(See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: The clause is not carried, because we still have Mr. White's amendments.

(On clause 29—Duties of returning officer)

The Chair: We're dealing with amendment BQ-10.2.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, in keeping with what Mr. Richardson said earlier, as has already been pointed out by the Chief Electoral Officer for Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer for Ontario and the Chief Electoral Officer for Quebec, we will eventually have to adopt such a system.

Consequently, can we at least agree that in the case of the resignation or death of an assistant returning officer, these individuals will be replaced in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, this I see is the least accommodation the government could make to the opposition on this point. The government has turned down the ability to have open competition with regard to the returning officers, to the replacement returning officers, to the assistant returning officers.

• 1730

Certainly, on the replacement of assistant returning officers, my goodness, the government, at least, can see the future and make an opening here for the open competition for the replacement of these people.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Actually it is just the opposite. Presumably, if you're firing your assistant returning officer, you may be doing it in the middle of an election and the last thing you want to be burdened with is the need for a public service competition. So the government stands by the bill as written.

The Chair: Any further interventions? Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, if 98 per cent of these people are appointed by means of a partisan process, it would not be so terrible for 2% of them to be appointed because of their competence. I would encourage Liberal Party members to demonstrate some openness and willingness to move forward by allowing, in a really exceptional case, for a principle to be tested that will no doubt eventually be adopted because everyone will have realized that this is the way to go.

[English]

The Chair: If it's a short intervention, you can continue.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I just wanted to answer Mr. Knutson's question, since he asked what we would do if the vacancy arose right in the middle of an election. I suppose that if an open competition actually took place, there would not be only one candidate. There would certainly be a second best candidate, and possibly a third best candidate. So, there would be someone who could quickly take the place of the assistant returning officer, if he had left his position for one reason or another.

[English]

The Chair: Point made. Thank you for your interventions. I will call the question.

Mr. Rob Anders: A recorded vote, please.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 29 agreed to on division)

The Chair: There is another amendment put forward by the Bloc in relation to clause 30. I would point out that clause 30 was carried this morning, so I'm not going to put the amendment.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I would suggest you seek unanimous consent to reopen it.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I would so move.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The amendment is late by a couple of hours. We're still in the first day.

The Chair: All right. Colleagues seem to be disposed to “uncarrying” clause 30 so that Mr. Bergeron can make his amendment.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I would give consent if Mr. Anders consents to stop these silly recorded votes, because I'm running out of patience. So I will give unanimous consent if Mr. Anders also shows a cooperative streak.

The Chair: Do we have a deal, Mr. Anders?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes or no, Mr. Anders? No discussion.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'm not making any special deal here.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I withdraw my consent.

Mr. Rob Anders: What do you want me to make a deal on?

The Chair: All right. We don't have a deal. Okay, we'll move on. What's next?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. This is a Bloc Québécois amendment. Here we are linking consent to reopen a Bloc Québécois amendment to a Reform Party member's consent to something else. I don't want to be taken hostage by my friend Rob Anders, even if he is a nice guy. I don't want to give him a veto over this proposed amendment.

[English]

The Chair: I'm afraid, Mr. Bergeron, I can't change the order. Ms. Parrish has not given her consent to uncarry the previously carried clause.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: How could you do this to me?

The Chair: So you can go out in the hallway and punch it out and we're going to continue with the next amendment, BQ-11. It is in the big package.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, were we going to stop at 5.30 p.m.?

The Chair: The chair did have that as a target in mind.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, in all fairness, when I was to make the deal with Mrs. Parrish, we were already past the clock. So that's exactly the intervention I was going to make, because what deal is there to be made? Why don't we put clause 30 into consideration on the next day of business.

• 1735

The Chair: Your chair has already decided, or made the ruling based on what members—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, but if there is unanimous consent....

The Chair: Okay, now we're at the end of a segment of the bill that ends with clause 31. If at any time members wish to go back and remake a section of the bill, your chair would go back and do it, but I have to be put in possession of the right marching orders.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I would request that you ask again if we can deal with clause 30. I would remind the committee that when I spoke—I'm not sure if it was last week—I indicated to the committee in good faith that anything they wanted to put over until next week, given that we would start on Thursday, we would put over. If amendments have come in an hour later or a couple of hours late, in the spirit, we agreed we would start today on the basis that things could be put over until next week. So I would ask again that you look for unanimous consent on clause 30.

The Chair: Sure. Is it the view of members that we redo clause 30, that we uncarry it and consider any amendments?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: It would appear so. All right, then. Shall we do this now?

(On clause 30—Additional assistant returning officer

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, are we capable of dealing with your amendment quickly now?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, you have the floor. We're dealing with amendment BQ10.3.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm trying to find the right paper here, because I had already moved on to the other amendment.

The amendment says:

(2) A returning officer shall establish an office in each area designated by the Chief Electoral Officer.

I see no problem with that. This is something we can probably reach consensus on.

As for sub-clause (2.1), I think that this will be the final area where the government can show its willingness to compromise. If there is ultimately to be a second assistant returning officer, let's agree to having that third person appointed following an open competition, rather than on the basis of the current process. If there is to be movement in that direction, Mr. Richardson, let's do it in this provision. If there is going to be an additional assistant returning officer, let's ensure that person will at least be appointed on the basis of an open competition.

[English]

The Chair: You're urging the same principle in hiring that you have urged in previous amendments. That's fine.

Is there any discussion?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I will be consistent and vote against it.

The Chair: Mrs. Parrish says she'll be consistent. Is there any other discussion?

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: We could both be consistent, but we're talking about a different situation—specifically, additional assistant returning officers. There can't be many of them. Here again, if we want to test the competition process, this might be...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, take a first step.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: ...as Mr. Richardson was saying, the opportunity to take a first step in that direction, to test this principle and see whether it can be applied in other situations. I am certain that card-carrying Liberals with all this talent, as Ms. Parrish says, can win a competition. Otherwise, one wonders why they would be so afraid of a competition.

[English]

The Chair: Those are valiant and noble submissions. There being no other submissions, I'll put the question.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We've reached a time at which we've put in a lot of work here, and we've reached a reasonable stopping point in the bill.

Madam Clerk, can you tell us when we had scheduled ourselves in here for Monday?

The Clerk: It's at 3.30 p.m. in this room.

The Chair: So that's 3.30 p.m. on Monday.

The Clerk: If you wish, I can offer you dinner.

The Chair: At 3.30 p.m. on Monday, we'll make a decision.

Mr. Knutson.

• 1740

Mr. Gar Knutson: Just so that I can plan babysitters, there's no predetermined ending time for Mondays? We'll work late?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We'll work late.

An hon. member: That's right.

The Chair: May I ask, colleagues, if it is our intention to work through the dinner hour?

Some hon. members: Yes, sure.

The Chair: Well, there's the answer for the clerk. We'll have a big day on Monday.

I want to thank colleagues. We've made a reasonably good start on this. I thank officials. We stand adjourned until Monday.