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]

Wednesday, December 1, 1999

• 1547

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I see a quorum. We're continuing with our clause-by-clause study of Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act. When we left off last night shortly after 11 p.m., we were at approximately clause 502, which was carried. We are now going to begin with a consideration of the amendment to clause 537.

There are two things I want to point out to you. The first thing is that we have a new agenda for the bill. You'll see it in front of you on the legal-sized paper. All clauses that have not been carried to date are shown with proposed amendments in numerical order. Therefore, as we begin to deal with clause 537, you will find it on page 4 of the agenda. That's the first thing. We'll be starting with clause 537, amendment NDP-27, on page 4 of the agenda.

Secondly, the staff have been good enough to prepare a new compendium of all amendments. The only compendium we have left, with one exception, is what is called group B. There will be a second compendium containing government-proposed amendments, which should be with us shortly.

So as we move through these clauses, we will deal with amendments. We may wish to stand down the clauses pending confirmation that there are no further amendments to the clause, but other than that, I think we can proceed.

Now, you will recall the decision of the House leadership that we would not be sitting during evenings when there were party seasonal events, sometimes called the Christmas party here on Parliament Hill. The NDP have their event tonight, and in deference to the circumstances of Mr. Solomon, it is proposed that we deal with all of the NDP amendments now while he is able to be here with us. That would allow us to continue sitting through until we.... I believe we can complete this by this evening. It remains to be seen whether all of that will fall into place, but if we can address Mr. Solomon's amendments and let him withdraw in order to participate with his colleagues in their party event, that would probably suit us.

• 1550

I'll recognize Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have two points. One is that I'd like to withdraw the NDP amendment pertaining to clause 537.

Secondly, I would appreciate it if committee members would cooperate and allow me to go through some of the NDP amendments before we leave. I did speak with the chair regarding the meeting tonight, and I have no problem with the meeting proceeding. If we can cover my amendments in the next 40 minutes or so, that will be perfect, and it will probably take a lot less than that. Maybe even the next 15 to 20 minutes will cover them all off. Then the committee can sit as long as it likes tonight. You're welcome to go until midnight or one o'clock.

I have another commitment at 4.30 that I have to get to as well.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron has a statement.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I find myself in the somewhat strange position of defending the interests of someone who does not want to defend them himself. My colleague the government whip will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I understood that there was an agreement between the leaders, in which we all participated, that there would be no work during the political parties' parties.

I understand that we want to accommodate Mr. Solomon by allowing him to present his amendments now, but I believe we are not doing justice to Mr. Solomon or to ourselves by allowing him to present them now and by continuing without him a little later. I believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Mr. Solomon is interested not only in the clauses to which he is proposing amendments, but to all the clauses and to the entire Bill.

Therefore we should be courteous towards him and not work this evening, come back tomorrow and finish the work during the day. I do not agree to continuing the work this evening, as had been agreed by the parliamentary leaders.

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: Maybe I could address this, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: As one of the parties to the agreement that we would not be sitting tonight, in consultation with the chair, I am prepared to have the committee sit and not be present. I don't have a problem with that. I've looked over the amendments, and there are some great amendments that the Bloc has put forward, and the government as well. But if the committee doesn't want to do that, the committee is the group that decides its own destiny. But certainly as far as I'm concerned, as the whip of the NDP, I'm happy to cooperate and allow the committee to proceed.

The Chair: Mr. White, on that subject.

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, there have been a few instances over the past few days where having the full opposition here has been very important for the passage of some amendments, where a couple of the government members have joined us. So my concern is very much that—although Mr. Solomon didn't mention any of my amendments, which I hope he might see fit to support—if he's not here when we have those discussions, it could be the crucial vote. If none of the NDP can be here, it might make a difference between the adoption of an amendment or not.

So I'm very distressed about continuing without the full crew on board here. I don't think we should do it, even if we have to sit tomorrow.

The Chair: I understand your thought, but of course the presence of any of the parties around the table at any committee, at any time, at any place, is the decision of each of the parties. You have expressed yourself on that.

Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): As reported by Mr. Bergeron and Mr. Solomon, in terms of agreements between the parties, I'm not so sure it carries on to all the workings of the House. Certainly in terms of the votes in the House of Commons and so on, the parties have always been very respectful of one another, and at those types of social gatherings at this time of year. But largely based on Mr. Solomon's own generosity and understanding of the situation and the timeframe we're all in, I'm satisfied that we could proceed this evening, given his own feeling on the matter.

• 1555

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, to insist on this, but I am forced to agree with what Mr. White just said. Since the government has not shown much openness since the beginning of these proceedings regarding the recommendations or suggestions of the opposition—we saw that especially yesterday, when it didn't even bother to comment on its rejection of opposition amendments—I believe that it is important that the opposition be sufficiently represented in this committee.

On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, you gave as an example that it always happens that there are committee hearings and that members are not free to attend. However, there is a mechanism whereby a whip can replace a member who cannot participate. That mechanism is not available tonight because there is no member of the New Democratic Party who is in a position to participate in this committee's work. None of them will be able to participate in the work of this committee since they are all busy this evening.

I repeat that it is a lack of respect not only for Mr. Solomon, but also his NDP colleagues, to allow them to present their amendments immediately. I am absolutely convinced that they are interested not only in the clauses to which they have proposed amendments, but also to all the clauses in this Bill and to the entire Bill. They therefore have a right to fully participate in the discussion of all the amendments, all the clauses, and the entire Bill, and it is their duty to do so.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, at this point then, we are going to continue with our clause-by-clause.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): I'd like to move that we give priority to the NDP motions. I'm drafting that now. I have it in writing.

The Chair: All right. Thank you to Mr. Knutson, who has made a procedural motion. Mr. Knutson is moving that the committee give priority to the NDP motions and that they be considered now. I will simply ask for colleagues to either approve or not approve that motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Then, procedurally, we would now proceed to allow Mr. Solomon to select from the agenda those motions he wishes to have us consider at this time. I think the best thing is to begin at clause 537, which was withdrawn, move forward to the end, and then come back to the earlier part of the bill.

The chair does not see any NDP motion between now and the end of the bill. Now we'll go back to the beginning of the bill and work forward.

I direct your attention to clause 49, Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: What page is that?

• 1600

The Chair: Page 21 of the compendium.

(On clause 49—Listing requests)

Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Knutson, have you had any opportunity to look at this particular amendment to make a suggestion as to whether you would support it or not?

Mr. Gar Knutson: The government is not supporting telephone numbers.

Mr. John Solomon: This is the occupation and telephone numbers.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We're not supporting—

Mr. John Solomon: Either one.

Mr. Chair, I would just move then for the purposes of discussion on this particular amendment—NDP-10 on page 21 of the compendium—which calls for the voters list to identify occupations and telephone numbers that are not confidential, so that as members of Parliament who are using the lists for communication purposes, we can communicate with our constituents in a more timely, efficient, and targeted way. I would be prepared to answer any questions on this, but I so move.

The Chair: Thank you. I just point out that this section involves information for the register of electors, not the list, but of course it is the register of electors that is used to create the list.

Mr. Solomon has introduced the amendment and described it. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I think this issue was discussed fully in previous days, so we don't have anything to add. I hope that's not taken as a sign of disrespect.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Solomon can reread my statement of the other day on why I'm not supporting this.

The Chair: Yes, we have had some previous discussion.

All right then, seeing no further discussion, I would call the question on the amendment.

Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: As a response and a footnote, Mr. Chair, if I might, I forgot to bring with me my voters list, which has the occupations and phone numbers on it, because in Saskatchewan the voters lists do provide occupations. There's no problem with that; people have been doing this for decades in Saskatchewan. It really is very efficient, because then when you've got your voters list, you can actually call somebody who has a particular occupation, or if you're talking to somebody whose occupation you don't know, it provides you with a real advantage in terms of giving them information that is important to them. That's our job, as communicators and as members of Parliament. Anyway, my riding has it in my party and nobody else does. I just wanted to share all of that with everybody, because I think it's so good.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): I wonder if I could see a copy of—

Mr. John Solomon: Oh, I can't do that because they're confidential. Only I can use them.

The Chair: Okay. Having had discussion, we'll put the question on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 49 allowed to stand)

(On clause 56—Prohibitions)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Solomon. We will then move to clause 56 and amendment NDP-11, which is located at page 26 of the compendium.

Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Chair, this is in relation to the register that we just discussed. This would provide the voters lists, of course, with information that would make our jobs easier. But I guess members who would vote against this would want to continue to not level the playing field for all candidates who are running for office. I think that's an undemocratic approach. I think making resources available to the members of Parliament to accumulate phone numbers and occupations, if it disadvantages every candidate in every other political party that's not holding that particular seat, is a shame, Mr. Chair, and I would ask for a recorded vote on this one.

The Chair: In view of Mr. Solomon's effort to have occupation included for the good people of the peaceable kingdom of Saskatchewan, I would then...he's asked for a recorded vote on amendment NDP-11. So Madam Clerk, would you call the roll?

• 1605

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1)

(Clause 56 allowed to stand)

The Chair: We now move to amendment NDP-12. That is located in the compendium on page 27.

Mr. John Solomon: Can we withdraw this one?

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Solomon asks that the amendment be withdrawn. It is withdrawn.

A point of order from Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes. We dealt with the amendment to clause 56. Did we actually deal with clause 56?

The Chair: No, we did not.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Do we have another amendment?

The Chair: At this point there is the possibility of other amendments from the government.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay.

The Chair: I'm hesitant to carry a clause in relation to which there might be more amendments.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No, that's fine.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): It's the same with clause 57?

The Chair: It's the same.

(On clause 128—Hours of voting)

The Chair: We then move to amendment NDP-14, which is located on page 31 of the compendium.

Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Chair, just on this issue, if I might, I'd like to stand this. We have an amendment on this coming, which will solve the Saskatchewan problem. The Saskatchewan problem is not quite solved in the act. As soon as it arrives, I'll introduce it and explain what it's all about.

The Chair: All right. I understand. So we'll come back to NDP-14 at clause 128.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: When will it come?

The Chair: The chair is anticipating this momentarily, in five minutes or so.

(Clause 128 allowed to stand)

(On clause 409—Personal expenses of a candidate)

The Chair: The next amendment is NDP-24, in relation to clause 409, located at page 44 of the compendium.

Mr. John Solomon: This is also in the same courier's package that's on its way, Mr. Chair. So I would have that stood until it arrives.

The Chair: We'll come back to that.

(Clause 409 allowed to stand)

(On clause 435—Certificate)

The Chair: We did spend some time on clause 435 last night, I think.

Mr. John Solomon: I'll withdraw amendment NDP-26, page 48.

The Chair: And amendment NDP-25?

Mr. John Solomon: Yes, I withdraw amendments NDP-25 and NDP-26.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Solomon. Amendments NDP-25 and NDP-26 are therefore withdrawn.

As I see it, that actually disposes of the NDP amendments, save and except for the two clauses of the bill where an amendment is currently being drafted and delivered to the committee.

So what I suggest we do then, colleagues, is go back to where we were last night, which is at page 4 of the agenda and clause 537. We can work forward from there and deal with amendments only pending delivery of what I anticipate are several amendments on issues of great importance to us.

• 1610

(On clause 538—Minimum of 250 electors)

The Chair: There is an amendment in the name of Mr. Bergeron. It is BQ-88 and it is contained at page 53 of the compendium.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, this amendment sets a maximum number of electors for each polling division. I know that returning officers are directed to divide polling divisions that are too big, but it can happen that returning officers, either because they misunderstood the directives or because they interpret them differently, do not divide the polling divisions and that we end up with mega-polling divisions that are difficult to manage on voting day. The objective of this amendment is to set an upper limit on the number of electors for each polling division.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The government appreciates what Mr. Bergeron is trying to do, but we think this amendment is too restrictive. I think, for example, if you had 351 electors, that wouldn't be enough to trigger a brand-new poll. We think we should leave it to the discretion of the people closer to the ground, because it may well be that 400 electors in one apartment building is perfectly appropriate, but 200 or 300 electors spread out over 10 miles or 50 square miles of rural area isn't appropriate.

So we think this is too restrictive, and although we respect Mr. Bergeron's views on this, we're opposed.

The Chair: Okay. I will go first to Mr. White and then to Mr. Picard.

Colleagues, please keep in mind that Ms. Bruyère is here in the event reference needs to be made to her experience.

Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Bruyère, I'd like to ask a question about this particular amendment. In terms of the restrictions that would be imposed on you if this amendment passed, Mr. Knutson made the comment that there could be problems. For example, if there was a building that had 400 people in it, it would be very appropriate to have a single poll there. But I would reverse that and say that with the present rule an area should contain at least 250. Would there not be some rural places where that could create problems because people are so spread out that you have this huge poll?

My first question is, for both the existing situation and this other one, do they provide equally difficult problems, but reversed, in terms of the poll? And do you have any suggestion as to what might be a better situation?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You should ask that question of Mr. Knutson.

Ms. Diane Bruyère (Assistant Director of Operations, Electoral Coordination, Elections Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In answer to your question, Bill C-2 as it is written now provides that there will be at least 250 electors in each polling division, unless the CEO agrees otherwise. So that deals with the smaller polls in rural areas or mobile polls, for example, and that type of thing. It works quite well.

Obviously, putting a cap on the number of people in a polling division has a number of different complications. As Mr. Knutson mentioned, if there are 351 people, you'd automatically have to have two polls. One would be 150 and the other one 151, which is really not cost-effective. At the current time, our national average number of electors per polling division is 365 and it works quite well. We ask returning officers to establish it on the basis of the population that will be served. So if it works to have 400, that's fine, and if it has to be less than 250, we agree with that as well.

Mr. Ted White: I gather from what you've said, then, if Mr. Bergeron's amendment, for example, had read “each polling division shall contain no more than 350 electors, unless the Chief Electoral Officer agrees otherwise”, we'd end up with exactly the same situation we have now.

Ms. Diane Bruyère: Exactly.

Mr. Ted White: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Picard and then Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: My one question was answered.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Ms. Bruyère, although it is somewhat futile, what she would think of a similar provision to the one on the floor, where we specify: “unless the returning officer decides otherwise”.

• 1615

Although I do not have the exact wording in front of me, could we say for example: “each polling division must include no more than 350 electors unless the returning officer decides otherwise”?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: It is up to the committee to decide which wording it prefers. The two wordings would come to the same thing. We know that on average there are more than 350 electors in any case. Does the committee believe that it would be worth it to change the current provision? It's really up to it to decide.

[English]

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 538 allowed to stand)

(On clause 539—Amendments to list of electoral districts)

The Chair: We go to clause 539. There's an amendment, G-36, in the name of the government. Mr. Knutson, would you introduce that?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Government amendment G-36 simply makes the English consistent with the French.

The Chair: Are there any questions? It's a translation issue.

Mr. Ted White: I just have one question.

Mr. Knutson, could you confirm that the thing being corrected here is just the (ii), as opposed to any change in the translation.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes, that's all it is.

Mr. Ted White: That's all it is? Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 539 allowed to stand)

(On clause 553—Amounts to be paid out of C.R.F.)

The Chair: There's an amendment in the name of Mr. Bergeron, and it is BQ-89.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, we have already had a similar debate earlier. Therefore I can immediately presume what the result will be. This amendment is a consequential amendment to have proof of identity defined by regulation and the regulation submitted to this committee's attention.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. White.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In terms of proof of identity, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Ted White: Really, it shouldn't be the Governor in Council making these sorts of decisions. It should be the Chief Electoral Officer deciding what is satisfactory proof of identity and satisfactory proof of residence.

You give too much power to the Governor in Council, Stéphane. I'm sorry, but I can't support this one.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But it would come before the procedure and House affairs committee.

The Chair: Is there any other discussion? No?

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 553 allowed to stand)

(On clause 555—Statement of assets and liabilities—coming into force before July 1)

The Chair: The next amendment to be considered is under clause 555, and it is amendment BQ-90. Monsieur Bergeron will introduce it.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We propose adding the words “according to generally accepted accounting principles”, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: We support it.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron has the support of the government.

[Translation]

A voice: Again?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: This is the only amendment we have adopted, or just about.

[English]

An hon. member: Are you making a deal with them?

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, you've been very good and very lucky.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

• 1620

(Clause 555 allowed to stand)

(On clause 556—Financial reporting—registered parties)

Mr. Gar Knutson: In consultation with Mr. Harvey, he has left me with four amendments. I've agreed to introduce three on his behalf and he has agreed to withdraw one.

The Chair: All right, please do that. Will you be introducing PC-24 under clause 556?

Mr. Gar Knutson: It's the one withdrawn.

The Chair: Amendment PC-24 is withdrawn under clause 556.

Mr. Gar Knutson: No, sorry. I stand corrected. It was PC-23 that he wanted withdrawn. Amendment PC-24 is the first of the three he wanted me to introduce. I'll introduce it, but I'm going to vote against it.

The Chair: Before we proceed, the clerk is assisting me in locating amendment PC-23.

I'm informed that Mr. Harvey withdrew that yesterday.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I apologize.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson, can you articulate amendment PC-24 on behalf of Mr. Harvey?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Under this amendment, clause 556 would be amended by replacing lines 30 and 31 with the following:

556. Upon the coming into force of this Act

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What does that mean?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I don't know.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But they agree.

[English]

Mr. Bob Kilger: Could we get Mr. Peirce to maybe interpret the amendment?

A voice: It just takes the date off.

The Chair: Mr. Peirce, are you able to put that in context for us?

Mr. Michael Peirce (Director, Legal Operations, Legislation and House Planning/Counsel, Privy Council Office): I am, although I invite Elections Canada to deal with this. They have to deal with the specific operational issues that are affected by it.

The Chair: That's fine.

Who will assist us from Elections Canada?

Mr. John Solomon: While we are waiting, I was consulting with Mr. Harvey's assistant, so maybe we could ask him to explain what the point of this was.

Mr. Kurt Beers (Parliamentary Assistant, Office of Mr. André Harvey, MP): This is my one quick moment.

An hon. member: Introduce yourself.

Mr. Kurt Beers: I'm Kurt Beers, and I work for André Harvey.

We propose this amendment to ensure that the fiscal requirements do not come into effect in the middle of a fiscal year.

The Chair: Okay, thank you for explaining that.

Perhaps we could now ask Elections Canada to comment. Go ahead, Ms. Vézina.

Ms. Janice R. Vézina (Director, Election Financing, Elections Canada): Okay, I'm going by memory here. It's been awhile since I reviewed this one.

The principle is that basically we did not want to impose on political parties the need to produce two separate reports under two different sets of rules. The objective is to have the reports prepared either under one set of rules or the other, and that would depend on when the act comes into force. If the act were to come into force after June 30, the reports prepared by political parties would be done under the old act. If the act were to come into force before June 30, then the reports would be prepared under the new act.

The concept behind that is the coming into force six months after royal assent—and again, I'm not an expert on this. The political parties would therefore know by December 31 that the coming fiscal year would be accounted for and be reported on under new rules. They would know in advance. That's why the cut-off is June 30.

Mr. Michael Peirce: The amendment would wipe out the June 30 cut-off.

The Chair: Yes, the amendment would not allow for that targeted—if I can call it “targeted”—flexibility or targeted adaptation.

• 1625

Ms. Janice Vézina: If I could just add one thing, this was discussed at the political party advisory committee, and the concern expressed there by a number of parties was that they did not want to produce two separate reports under two different sets of rules.

The Chair: Okay, so you feel you have resolved that difficulty.

Ms. Janice Vézina: The current act resolves the difficulty.

The Chair: All right, thank you.

Mr. Kilger, did you have a question? No.

If there's no further discussion, I'll put the question.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 556 allowed to stand)

(On clause 560)

The Chair: We now proceed to clause 560, where there are amendments in the name of Mr. Bergeron and Mr. Harvey, and an amendment in the name of Ms. Bakopanos. I'll start with Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I am waiting for information from the leader's office regarding this amendment that we could eventually withdraw. May I ask you to defer the clause and come back to it in a few minutes?

[English]

The Chair: That is acceptable to the rest of the committee, Mr. Bergeron. So we won't deal with that amendment.

Are we in a position to deal with Mr. Harvey's amendments? They are PC-26 and PC-27. They are located in the compendium at pages 62 and 63. I would like someone to do their best to explain the purpose of these amendments. Take your time.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Why don't we ask the gentleman from Mr. Harvey's office?

The Chair: Perhaps Mr. Knutson would move them on behalf of Mr. Harvey, as a courtesy.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I so move.

The Chair: Perhaps Mr. Harvey's assistant could describe the purpose of these two amendments.

Mr. Kurt Beers: The two amendments were proposed to clarify that receipts may also be issued for donations made after the writ, but before confirmation of nominations, for those whose nominations are eventually confirmed.

The Chair: Well, there's an interesting question. Before the chair starts debating this stuff, I'll look for any discussion around the table.

Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Could I just get that repeated, please? I was partly somewhere else and I didn't catch the whole thing.

Mr. Gar Knutson: When you're nominating a candidate after the election has already being called.... You can't issue a receipt until you get your candidate nominated. So let's say it takes you a week. They want the party to be able to collect money and issue receipts.

The Chair: Ms. Vézina, in the circumstance where the candidate is not yet nominated, can a campaign legally receive money on donation for the campaign?

Ms. Janice Vézina: Cash cannot be received prior to official nomination, but if cheques are received, they must be dated as of the date of the official nomination or later in order to qualify for a tax receipt. So the date on which the candidate is officially nominated is the date on which a cheque should be dated, and not prior to that.

The Chair: The nomination referred to here is the official nomination under the Elections Act, not the party nomination.

Ms. Janice Vézina: It's the official nomination with the returning officer. You're correct.

The Chair: Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I'd like to ask Ms. Vézina a question: if you're not the officially nominated candidate, first of all, the donations can still go to the riding association, right? Secondly, if you accept a cheque in your hands but haven't deposited it, is that all right too, or can you not even accept a cheque?

Ms. Janice Vézina: The date of the cheque has to be the date of your official nomination or later.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Okay.

The Chair: What if it's not?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: But the riding association can still accept it.

• 1630

Ms. Janice Vézina: Whatever arrangements you have there....

Mr. Jerry Pickard: How does it affect an independent candidate? That's the only area where I see a problem.

Ms. Janice Vézina: An independent candidate, since they're not nominated—

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Well, they don't have a party that they can make a political donation to, so it would affect an independent candidate in a different way from how it would affect someone running as a party candidate.

Ms. Janice Vézina: Yes, if you're using your local association or party for receipt purposes, it does affect them differently.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: That's right.

The Chair: Okay, do I have this wrong? My perception is that we do have a gap, a break, a hiatus, a delay. As soon as the writ period begins, most party-nominated and independent candidates, whether they're officially nominated or not, start running and start raising money and receiving money. So is it a fact then that in that circumstance, those candidates, before they're officially nominated through the Canada Elections Act, would be in breach of the financial provisions of the statute if they received a cheque dated currently?

A voice: Yes.

The Chair: And that would include me if I run again, right?

Ms. Janice Vézina: The issue revolves around the tax receipt rather than the receipt of the contribution. The questions are being asked in terms of “Can I issue a tax receipt for a contribution?”

The Chair: No, that's not the question, Ms. Vézina. The question is, can you receive money?

Ms. Janice Vézina: You can receive a contribution, yes, you can.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: But you can't receipt it. You can't give a tax receipt if you receive it.

Ms. Janice Vézina: You can't receipt it.

The Chair: Thank you. So there's only a delay in issuing receipts. There's no delay in your ability to receive contributions.

Ms. Janice Vézina: That's right.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: May I clarify that? I didn't understand it as a delay. What I understood is if you accept a donation to your campaign in the week before you're the candidate, you cannot issue a receipt for that.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: They won't issue a receipt.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes.

Ms. Janice Vézina: Again, it depends on the date of the cheque.

The Chair: But it's the campaign.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Elections Canada won't give it to them.

The Chair: Elections Canada doesn't issue receipts.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Revenue Canada—

The Chair: Revenue Canada doesn't issue receipts. It's the candidate's official agent.

Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Just for clarity, Mr. Chairman, I think what you said is not strictly correct. Yes, you can accept a cheque, but it has to be postdated in effect, so you don't have the money. So there's still a problem there for a small candidate who needs cashflow. They can accept these cheques, but they're of no use whatsoever until after the nomination date.

The Chair: I'm just going to ask what the problem would be if, as a candidate, he or she accepted cash earlier than the official nomination date, or a cheque, currently dated, earlier than the official nomination date. Is there any problem with that?

Ms. Janice Vézina: There's not a problem with receiving the contribution, and it should go through your official agent and be deposited in the campaign bank account. The problem comes if that contributor wishes a tax receipt.

The Chair: Immediately.

Ms. Janice Vézina: That's when the issue arises.

The Chair: All right. What happens when the contributor of the cheque, currently dated, or the cash, donated in advance of the official nomination date, wants a receipt issued in due course a month later? What happens?

Ms. Janice Vézina: Well, according to the Income Tax Act and the regulations, that's not allowed.

The Chair: You can't issue a receipt for the cash or the cheque? Okay, well, that's a problem. And that's what this amendment is meant to fix, I understand. Is that correct?

Who introduced this, Mr. Knutson?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I introduced it.

The Chair: As a courtesy.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes. The way it was explained to me, it's about accepting donations after the campaign starts but before you have your candidate nominated.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Gar Knutson: And we're prepared to vote.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Ms. Vézina, if I understand correctly, when the contribution is made by check and the date is indicated on the check, it is easier to verify because we see exactly on the check whether the date is after or before the appointment date.

Ms. Janice Vézina: Yes.

• 1635

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But if I give two $100 bills to the official agent of a given candidate two days before the appointment, what prevents the official agent from depositing that money one day after the appointment and saying that the contribution was made after the appointment and to issue a receipt for tax purposes? It goes without saying that that is contrary to the spirit, but what possible control do we have to prevent that kind of thing?

[English]

Ms. Janice Vézina: At the moment, I can think of nothing that would stop that. We give guidelines to people on controls for the campaign, but if someone wishes to go around that, there's really nothing to stop them in terms of the cash.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In a pinch, the same thing could be done for a check. The official agent could tell a contributor not to write the date on the check and that he will do it. Once the appointment is made, the official agent can write in the date and all is said and done.

If I understand correctly, the Progressive Conservative amendment would eliminate this deficiency in the act where a number of people who want to circumvent the act could be engulfed.

[English]

Ms. Janice Vézina: Yes, it would help to clarify.

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: It seems to me this is all about cashflow for somebody in that period after the election is called and before the official nomination. There are things to get organized, you have to get some cash in, and so on. So this is about cashflow.

Mr. Peirce, in looking at this amendment here, are you of the opinion that it does what it's purported to do? Do you see any problems that would come from applying this amendment?

Mr. Michael Peirce: I see difficulties with the amendment in principle.

Mr. Ted White: Could you explain those to us, please?

Mr. Michael Peirce: In brief, there's a problem of control and there's a possibility that a person will never be nominated. That would be a problem.

Mr. Ted White: So you've already issued the tax receipt, the person doesn't get nominated, and the taxpayers are on the hook.

Mr. Michael Peirce: Exactly, yes.

Ms. Janice Vézina: I think what's happened in previous proposals relating to this is the retroactivity aspect of this. If you're finally nominated as a candidate officially, there's a retroactivity back to the issue of the writs.

The Chair: Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Not to confuse the issue, and I accept the problems you've put forward, but is there any way to resolve the question? I'm skirting the amendment now and asking, is there any way? Because if there isn't, we have to stick with the status quo, but if you have a suggestion to improve the situation....

Mr. Michael Peirce: After reviewing the system, we feel the system as it is is the best one.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Okay.

The Chair: Okay, I'm going to put the question on amendment PC-26.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Then we go to PC-27. Can I assume this falls under the same rubric and has the same purpose?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'll move it with the intent of voting against it.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson moves as a courtesy, on behalf of Mr. Harvey, amendment PC-27. We've discussed it. I'll call the question.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Ms. Bakopanos, did you wish to address the amendment you've put here?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Yes, I will, even though we've already voted against the other amendment, which was a consequence. It's on clause 560.

The Chair: Again, we're dealing with clause 560, and the amendment is BA-2.

• 1640

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: BA-2 is located in the compendium at pages 59 and 60.

I'll recognize Mr. Bergeron on a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I interrupted my colleague Ms. Bakopanos, whom I like very much by the way, but I simply want to bring to your attention that we are ready to discuss amendment BQ-91. I do not know if you wish to study amendment BQ-91 before amendment BA-2.

If it is not inconvenient for you, I could go immediately to amendment BA-2 without a problem, but if, logically, you want to go to amendment BQ-91 first, we would be in complete agreement.

[English]

The Chair: I'll let Ms. Bakopanos decide if she wants to proceed now.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I have no problem. I'll leave it up to the chair really. Do you want me to continue? It will be quick.

The Chair: We've already introduced it, so we'll proceed with it.

Ms. Bakopanos.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I'll just repeat what I said, Mr. Chairman. The reason for the proposal of this amendment and the one to clause 375 of the bill was to ensure that the receipts and contributions given to a political party could be issued at the riding level. The reason for that—and I'll repeat what I said yesterday—is that we can issue receipts right now during an election campaign at the local level. The current act in fact does allow political parties to appoint local officers or agents in order to issue these receipts.

If we are talking about the national party depending on local riding associations for their financial contributions, the financial contributions are usually done at the riding level, especially if we take examples, as I said, in my province. That's not to give any credit to a lot of the other political parties, but most of the work is done at the local level. Even with my association, it's there that most of the donations come in.

It would speed up the process, and as I said, the act does in fact allow at the present time for national parties to delegate that responsibility to the riding level. So these are recommendations for amendments in consequence of those principles.

The Chair: Thank you. If the amendment you moved last night was negatived, would it follow that this must or should be negatived or withdrawn?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: No, because.... Well, you'll have to rule on that, first of all. That's your decision. But the amendment I was proposing last night was changing the word “may” to “shall”. You can leave the “may” in any case, and these are consequential amendments based on that. So I don't think you can rule it out of order, but that's your decision, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: No, I'm not going to rule it out of order unless it's clearly out of order or described that way. So let's proceed to discuss that amendment.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It's the view of the government that various political parties should endorse.... They have their own internal systems, and internally, if they want to issue receipts locally, I believe Ms. Bakopanos said they can do that under the current act. So I'm not sure what we gain by doing this.

The government is supporting the language as written in Bill C-2.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. White, then Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Ted White: Ms. Bakopanos, as you know, I supported your original amendment, but following up a little bit on what the chair asked, what is the real value of this amendment, in light of the other one having been defeated? You made a short comment about that, but perhaps you can identify the main value of passing this now, in light of the other one not passing. Is there really any major value to it?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: The other clause would have in fact obliged the political party to issue. This is more in line with how the receipts are in fact issued. So they're consequential in the sense that if the other had passed, it would have been an obligation for the political party. In this case it isn't. The changes we're proposing here have to do more with the issuing of the receipts themselves.

• 1645

Mr. Ted White: And you still feel it would be of value to have this one passed even without the other one.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes.

Mr. Ted White: Okay.

The Chair: Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I must tell you that today I am more in favour of this amendment than I was to the one presented to us yesterday.

Yesterday, I was embarrassed by the requirement that the party name an electoral district agent everywhere, in whatever riding. In this case, that requirement is no longer there because the verb “may” is still in the act. The party therefore can appoint an electoral district agent in the different ridings based on its internal rules and its on-the-ground organizations in each riding. If it avails itself of this possibility, this amendment would allow the electoral district agent to issue a receipt for tax purposes. As for the principle, I am in complete agreement although I maintain all the reservations I expressed yesterday, which had to do with this requirement to appoint an electoral district agent, which no longer exists.

My second reservation still exists and I maintain that there must necessarily be a corollary to that. If the electoral district agent has the authority to issue a receipt for tax purposes, he or she should have the responsibility of publicly revealing the entries and disbursements of funds. The amendments we are looking at do not give the electoral district agent that responsibility.

As a result, although I am very much in favour or this amendment, I will abstain from voting, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Thank you. We've discussed the issue, so I will put the question on the amendment. No, Mr. Pickard has a question.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I'm not really clear from Mr. Knutson's comment. Is it a fact that this can already happen with the wording in the bill as it presently exists? At whose discretion can this occur? Is there a control that takes it away from the local riding?

Mr. Gar Knutson: The national party can nominate somebody in your riding to issue receipts.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: In other words, the legislation suggested takes it away from the national party and says the local riding can do it if they wish. Is that what I'm hearing?

Mr. Gar Knutson: It's the amendments.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: It's not a parallel. There is a huge difference.

Mr. Gar Knutson: My point is that it's a party decision, and the current legislation allows for it to be a party decision.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: What I am trying to determine is how that functional difference occurs, and I think I have.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You cannot nominate someone if he or she can't issue receipts.

The Chair: Your chair is of the view that in this bill as it's worded, registered political parties now have the authority to delegate to an individual the authority of an agent of the party for the purpose of issuing receipts. However that happens within the party would be at the discretion of the party and organized by the party. Have I articulated that correctly, Mr. Peirce?

Mr. Michael Peirce: I believe that's correct.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: The proposed amendment we're looking at now talks about the receipts themselves and the fashion in which.... That's why I said earlier that you can still have said no to one, unless the experts can tell me otherwise. Am I wrong, Mr. Peirce?

Mr. Michael Peirce: I have no comment on this.

The Chair: This amendment would place some administrative order on the delegation if it occurred.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes.

The Chair: That's fine.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Now we'll go to amendments BQ-91 and BQ-92 on the same clause. BQ-91 is located in the compendium at page 58. Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, off the top I would like to say that it is good that I am currently with my colleague from Trois-Rivières, Mr. Yves Rocheleau, since he is the author of this amendment that, for procedural reasons, bears my signature. I will therefore make a brief presentation and Mr. Rocheleau will be able to intervene afterwards to argue in favour of his amendment.

• 1650

This amendment is to ensure that people who do not pay taxes because their income is insufficient can also participate in the financing of political parties and receive a financial incentive from the government to do so.

Currently, only people who pay taxes are entitled to the tax credit granted for contributing to the election fund of a political party. A person with a more modest income who does not pay taxes is not entitled to any credit whatsoever.

This amendment would allow them to have a fiscal advantage, just like any other taxpayer who contributes to the financing of political parties.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, to Mr. Rocheleau's credit, in effect democratizes the system and ensures that those less well off can also participate in the process and in the financing of the political parties. As a result, through their contributions they will be able to be heard by the different political parties and by the various candidates. Attention will then be given to their concerns and to questions that affect them.

Obviously, I imagine that someone who is well less off and made a contribution to a political party would have a chance of getting more attention than I manage to get from my colleagues as we speak, Mr. Chairman.

Raymond, you should check the blues carefully. You are having auditory hallucinations.

The Chair: Agreed. Mr. Rocheleau.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and the members of the committee for allowing me to explain the amendment that I have submitted. I thank my colleague Stéphane for presenting it to you.

The purpose of this amendment is to correct an anomaly, not to say injustice, under the current act that has the effect, as my colleague indicated, that people with a low income who do not pay taxes cannot benefit from the tax credit for a contribution to a political party or to a candidate in whom they believe enough to want to support him or her financially. These people are penalized because this tax credit is nil.

The example that comes to mind is the one of my mother-in-law who, with all her Christian charity, offers her support to me not only morally but also financially. Since the interest rates are not very interesting, her income is more modest than it was previously and she no longer pays taxes. She is the one who made me aware of the fact that the $100 she gave me, she gave me entirely, whereas a neighbour who pays taxes gets 75 per cent of it back.

When we take this reasoning a little further, we realize that we are penalizing students, people who receive employment insurance or, worse yet, a person who receives welfare help and believes in democracy and contributes $10, $20 or $50. I believe this is an anomaly that had gone undetected until now in terms of generosity—because we can use that term—in the Canada Elections Act.

It is a question of equity towards all the taxpayers and all Canadian citizens, and we should correct this anomaly, not to say injustice, towards certain Canadians.

I hope that my explanations have been clear. Under the current act the government rewards those who pay taxes and penalizes those whose income is too low.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Rocheleau.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Mr. Chair, before I debate the substance, I'd like you to rule on whether or not this requires a royal recommendation. It would be the government's view that because this is obligating the government to issue a refund, that is going to require a new expenditure that wasn't anticipated at the drafting of the bill, and therefore this motion is out of order.

• 1655

The Chair: On the subject of the royal recommendation, which was raised by Mr. Knutson, Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, could the members of the committee show some indulgence and allow me to withdraw the amendment?

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: You need unanimous consent to do that.

The Chair: Your chair was hoping there would be some discussion. There's a worthy aspect to the intent. If it had not been withdrawn, it might have been easy to find that it did require royal recommendation. But if it is being withdrawn, I thank the mover for withdrawing it, and we can then move on. So for the reasons discussed around the table, amendments BQ-91 and BQ-92 are withdrawn. Thank you, Monsieur Rocheleau.

Next is government amendment G-36.1. We find that in the compendium at page 64, which is actually the last page of the compendium.

A voice: So we're finished.

The Chair: We're not quite finished, as you all know.

Could you introduce this amendment, Mr. Knutson. It looks like an English-French translation.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It is and it's so moved.

The Chair: Again we have to make the two versions coincide perfectly. We have an adjustment to the English version so that it coincides with the French.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 560 allowed to stand)

The Chair: The clerk has suggested we go back to clause 1 of the bill, work our way through again, and deal with all of the proposed amendments, including the new government proposed amendments that have just been delivered around the table. I'll simply call that the government package. So now you have the group E compendium and the government package of amendments. We also have two separate amendments that were referred to earlier in discussions around the table. I have in front of me the English versions, and I assume there are versions en français, which deal with the two items raised by Mr. Solomon and Mr. Knutson.

So let us then go back to—

A voice: Clause 1.

The Chair: —if not clause 1, then as close thereto as we can get without reopening anything. That happens to be clause 2.

(On clause 2—Definitions)

The Chair: The clause was stood down for a reason none of us will recall. There are amendments from the BQ in the name of Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I have a point of order. Just so we're clear, we're not standing anything else down now. We're carrying clauses. If we go quickly, we'll approve the bill, the title, etc.

The Chair: If that is the will of members, that's what we'll do.

Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chair, there might be something still under discussion. Mr. Knutson, I'm not sure if you're aware of that.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm not. So who should be discussing?

The Chair: If there's any clause still under discussion in any quarter, we will not complete dealing with it. That's fair enough.

Mr. Ted White: We're still talking about those particular voting clauses, I think.

The Chair: We'll complete a clause and carry it wherever possible.

Mr. Gar Knutson: If negotiations are going on with the government at the current time regarding the language of some amendments, make me aware now and I'll instruct some government officials to try to bring negotiations to an end so that we can get finished.

The Chair: All right. I think Mr. White has taken care of that now.

Mr. Ted White: Yes.

The Chair: That's underway.

• 1700

Mr. Bergeron, you have two amendments, BQ-1.2 and BQ-2. Could you introduce those? They are in the compendium, page 1 and 2.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, amendment BQ-1.2 is very simple. You will recall that when we introduced it at the beginning, we had included sex and date of birth of the electors in the list. Many people, including the very agreeable Ms. Parrish, had pointed out to us that it was more or less desirable to do so. At that time we had agreed to amend our amendments accordingly.

However, this amendment to clause 2 had already been tabled. Later, we adopted a few amendments presented by the Bloc Québécois with their new wording. However, we were to come back to the amendment to clause 2 that had already been tabled.

We now have before us the new amendment by the Bloc Québécois, which is consistent with the previously adopted ones and which adds the telephone number to the list of items included when that number is not confidential.

In addition, to take into account other concerns brought out regarding the possibility that people who do not have a telephone number might not be on the list of electors, we have added another provision. We would add the telephone number when it is available and when it is not confidential. If there is a telephone number and it is not confidential, we add it. Therefore an elector who does not have a telephone number could be included in the list of electors, thus answering your objection, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I would like to remind colleagues that this was debated at some length over the last few days. The government still stands by the advice it received from the privacy commissioner. To summarize, because telephones aren't necessary to run an election, this wouldn't be in compliance with the privacy law requirements, and therefore the government is opposed. No disrespect to them, though.

The Chair: Yes.

Colleagues, since we have taken this up on more than one occasion over the last few days—the issue of telephone numbers in the register and telephone numbers on the election lists—as I understand it, the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff made an attempt to put together information that would relate to the potential change in the bill. So they've done some work. And I gather Mr. Knutson has indicated that there has not been a change in the government position, presumably based on that information. So we've had a good discussion.

I'm happy to recognize Mr. White on the subject.

Mr. Ted White: Yes, I have a question. I'm not sure whether it's going to be for Mr. Knutson or Mr. Peirce, but recognizing that it is common practice at the time of the election to take the voters list, maybe on the CD-ROM, we read it in to maximize our database in our ridings and we add the phone numbers off the CD-ROM. It's common practice to add the telephone numbers to the voters list. It is part of running the election, because it's part of getting your vote out.

So if the privacy commissioner was consulted and doesn't feel the phone numbers should be part of the voters list, how does he feel about us combining them and using them at the time of the campaign? How would the privacy commissioner feel about that? Was that question ever asked, or does Mr. Peirce have any opinion as to what the privacy commissioner might think about that process or practice?

Mr. Michael Peirce: I couldn't speculate on the privacy commissioner. I really couldn't.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

• 1705

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, very quickly.

Yesterday, Ms. Mondou very courteously brought to our attention the argument of the Privacy Commissioner, who said that under the provisions of the act, he believed that this information was not necessary. I had expressed reservations about that opinion, or partial opinion, because I think the Commissioner was not to judge, under the provisions of the act, whether it was necessary or not, but to tell us if it was dangerous or not to use information deemed confidential. But we know full well that this information is not confidential. It is public because each year everyone receives a big brick at home called the telephone book and it contains people's phone numbers.

I would like to ask Ms. Mondou a question that has already been raised. Given the provisions of the act that deal specifically with the conduct of an election, the Privacy Commissioner may be correct in claiming that this information is not necessary. On the other hand, other provisions of the act allow this information to be used by the members, outside the electoral period, to reach their electors. Can this information, at that time, be considered most useful and relevant?

In your opinion, has the Privacy Commissioner taken this provision of the Elections Act into account or did he limit himself to the provisions related to the conduct of the election? It seems to me a very restrictive evaluation of the Elections Act and of the relevance of using the phone number in such a case. Am I wrong?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou (Counsel, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office): In fact, the simplest thing for me, since I would not like to speak in the Commissioner's name, would be to allude to what the Commissioner said in 1995 when these questions were discussed.

For him, the list of electors was primarily developed to help in the conduct of the election. The fact that its use was authorized for members of committees, members of Parliament and candidates was secondary. The information added to it should be built around its primary function and not around the fact that a secondary use is authorized. That is his reasoning.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. I hope colleagues realize it's not the easiest thing in the world for Ms. Mondou to try to articulate views that have come from an agency she doesn't work with, the privacy commissioner.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We understand that, but the fact is that he's not here so we have to comply with—

The Chair: You're right. We don't have the privacy commissioner.

I'm going to ask Mr. McMahon from Elections Canada if he would attempt to concisely articulate the view of Elections Canada on this issue of not so much the legality of it but the utility of phone numbers for the register of electors and electoral lists from the perspective of Elections Canada, which is an agency that attempts to organize our federal elections for electors.

Mr. Tom McMahon (Acting Director, Legal Services, and Registrar of Political Parties, Legal Services Directorate, Elections Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and merci beaucoup.

[Translation]

I will not repeat what I said the other night, except to insist on the fact that, in our opinion, the proposal has very important implications.

When Mr. Kingsley proposed adding the telephone numbers a few years ago, it was to relate the telephone numbers to the names and addresses that would be collected during the 1997 census. It did not happen.

Now the software has been written and there are many challenges to collect the data. Our point of view, today, is that we are convinced that it will not be easy to add the telephone numbers to the list during the six months that will follow the adoption of the act.

• 1710

Therefore, if the committee maintains that it is necessary and important to add the telephone numbers, we will ask it to amend clause 577 to give us more time to add the telephone numbers if they are deemed essential. We are convinced that it is not possible to add them during a six month period.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Would clause 577 have the effect of postponing the implementation of the act solely in this regard?

Mr. Tom McMahon: You would have to decide.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The proposed amendment you are suggesting would only be to delay the implementation of this aspect?

Mr. Tom McMahon: That's it. We are ready to implement the Bill with a six-month deadline, as Mr. Kingsley said on October 8th, I believe, but as for telephone numbers, we will need more time than that.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Does Elections Canada now have any idea or any sense of the potential cost to Elections Canada of adding the phone numbers as envisioned generally by members on the committee here in this process?

Mr. Tom McMahon: I think the best way to answer that question is to look at the cost that was involved in collecting information from the income tax form for names and addresses. When we asked Revenue Canada to change the income tax form and collect the name and address so we could update the list of registers, I believe there was a cost in the neighbourhood of $2 million, maybe even as high as $4 million, for a one-time change to the form. Then there's an ongoing cost I believe in the neighbourhood of $1 million to $2 million annually to maintain that collection of the information from Revenue Canada.

Right now if we were to get phone numbers, for example, from Revenue Canada...the 1994 to 1999 forms are done. There's no possibility of changing those. So we're looking at the next year. We think the cost of collecting the phone numbers, if we were to go through the Revenue Canada process, would be at least as high as it was for the addresses and names.

The Chair: Thank you for that.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: You're asking us to speculate on a process that the privacy commissioner said is illegal anyway.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: He didn't say it's illegal.

Mr. Gar Knutson: This is somewhat of a hypothetical conversation.

The Chair: I thought the cost information might be useful to members. I thought Mr. McMahon's comments might be helpful. We don't want to get into a debate on the whole issue. We're dealing with an amendment here.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So no following on that, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I'd like to wrap up the discussion. I think we can get to a conclusion here very quickly.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure, with all due respect to you, that it is relevant to raise the issue of costs. It the committee decides that it is useful and relevant to make this change, I do not see the relevance of announcing the cost, except to try to discourage them.

That being said, the question has been asked and answered. I must say that inserting the telephone numbers in the list of electors must have a certain usefulness since the Chief Electoral Officer himself recommended it a number of years ago, as the advisor to the CEO just confirmed a few moments ago.

In addition, I would like to point out to the people from Elections Canada, who probably do not work the same way we do, that for the by-election in Hull—Aylmer, for example, we bought a diskette of the phone numbers in Canada that cost us $115. We only needed four hours to integrate the telephone numbers with the list of electors. That was for only one riding. Multiply that number by 301 and you will not reach the numbers alluded to a while ago. There must be a technical aspect that escapes me.

However, I insist on repeating, Mr. Chairman, for everyone's benefit, that I rebut the argument according to which the configuration of the permanent list of electors structured a number of years ago must not change in the coming centuries. At that time the legislator judged it to be the most appropriate configuration in terms of the needs of the times. With the evolution of mores and technology, perhaps we should change that configuration. I rebut the argument that says that we should stick indefinitely to the configuration adopted a few years ago.

• 1715

[English]

The Chair: We've had a good discussion of the issue again, with a bit more information. It's been helpful. So I'm going to put the question on amendment BQ-1.2.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We move now to amendment BQ-2.

Monsieur Bergeron, BQ-2, on page 2 of the compendium.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, we have had a very interesting discussion about this. The government asked us to table this amendment because it had a number of checks to make on its end. I imagine that they have been made. You will recall that the amendment dealt with the voluntary contribution of a self-employed person.

The Elections Act, as currently worded, contains a fundamental discrimination since a self-employed person cannot participate in an election campaign as a volunteer because it is claimed that his or her normal hours of work are not clearly defined. That means that a self-employed person is considered to be at work 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. As a result, if he spends some of his time as a volunteer during an election campaign, whether he or she is a carpenter, a plumber, a computer specialist or a secretary, his or her contribution must be accounted for.

That is not the case for an employee who is just as specialized as a self-employed person. The time spent by a carpenter, a plumber, a computer specialist or a secretary for a candidate's campaign outside his or her normal hours of work will be deemed to be volunteer work. On the other hand, if these persons are self-employed, it will have to be considered as professional services that must be accounted for in the campaign expenses. That seems to me to be a fundamental injustice and an act of discrimination.

Our legislation already contains a certain number of measures that discriminate against self-employed people. Let us try to correct the situation and ensure that self-employed people can also participate as volunteers in the democratic process called an election.

I hope that the government will have paid attention to this proposed amendment that it asked us to table and that it will support it.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I appreciate Mr. Bergeron's argument. The government has considered his proposal. There are still some discussions going on, but at the current time we're not prepared to make any changes. That may change by report stage. Consequently, we're not in favour of the amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Knutson a question.

[English]

The Chair: Make them very short.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Knutson, I am a computer specialist. I have a small business at home and it is very clear that my office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. from Monday to Friday.

If, as a computer specialist, I give my time to the Gar Knutson election campaign at 7 p.m., under the current act, does that contribution to the Gar Knutson campaign have to be accounted for in his campaign expenses?

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: As I indicated, I appreciate Mr. Bergeron's reasoning.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm asking you a question, Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm answering it. I don't have a reason to dispute what you're saying. I can't give you one. All I'm saying is the government is considering the consequences of doing this. I can't articulate a rationale, because they don't have one to articulate. It's still under review.

• 1720

So in the interim, we're opposed to this amendment at committee stage. We may change our minds by report stage and introduce something to clean it up.

I understand how unsatisfactory that is, but that's the best I can do.

The Chair: Now, it appears, Mr. Bergeron, that you have been heard. The government appears to have listened as well as heard, and Mr. Knutson has given his answer. I don't want to get into a debate between the two of you.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No.

The Chair: You were going to ask one short question last time—

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

The Chair: This is a point of order. It may not be, but we're willing to have you test that.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would like you to stop making assumptions about my interventions before I make them. That being said, given the openness that Mr. Knutson just showed, may I have unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment?

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: The government agrees.

The Chair: That's perhaps a good idea, Mr. Bergeron, under the circumstances. We have a good suggestion by Mr. Bergeron.

(Amendment withdrawn)

[Translation]

The Chair: Amendment BQ-2 is withdrawn.

[English]

We now have the pleasure of carrying, if so advised, clause 2. Clause 2 is going to be dealt with on a recorded vote.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, I misspoke myself. May I change my vote to what I intended, please?

The Chair: Yes, it is.... You may alter the vote that was entered in error.

(Clause 2 agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 4 agreed to)

(Clause 13 agreed to)

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

The Chair: Clause 16 has an amendment from Mr. White. Clause 16 was stood down, as earlier agreed to.

Mr. White, are you ready to introduce that amendment?

Mr. Ted White: Actually, Mr. Chairman, you were going just a little bit fast there. I couldn't flip the page fast enough to see what clause 13 was. So I would ask the indulgence of the committee if we could please have a recorded vote on clause 13.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Agreed. We will go back to clause 13 and have a recorded vote. Madam Clerk.

(Clause 13 agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We're now back at clause 16. Mr. White, you have an amendment, W-1.

Mr. Ted White: There is a method in my madness, but it shall be revealed later. Yes, Mr. Chair, W-1 is part of a group of amendments with consequences from one to the next. I think the best order actually would be to consider W-7 first, and then there may be others withdrawn or added depending on what happens with W-7. So I wonder if we could deal with W-7, which is on page 12, and that would determine the fate of some of these other ones.

The Chair: Do colleagues agree?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(On clause 24—Appointment of returning officers)

• 1725

The Chair: Amendment W-7 is contained on page 12 of the compendium.

Mr. White, please.

Mr. Ted White: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The purpose of this amendment is to take the patronage out of the act with respect to selecting candidates to be returning officers. When the Chief Electoral Officer came before the committee, I think he said it was “essential” that he be permitted to select his own returning officers.

I know all of us around this table have stories of good returning officers and bad ones. Certainly in my own riding we had quite a good one in 1993. Then the government decided to appoint its own officer, who knew nothing about the job, and we had quite a few problems in 1997.

This amendment gradually removes the patronage. It works in conjunction with some of the other amendments that would not automatically fire everybody who is there right now. They would be allowed to gradually retire, die off, whatever happens to remove them from their positions. Eventually, with the passage of time, the Chief Electoral Officer would begin employing these people, based on merit, similar to the process that's used in Quebec.

I think it's a good process. It doesn't kick anyone out of their job right away, and I would urge committee members to vote in favour of it. But I can see Ms. Parrish is not going to.

The Chair: Okay. On discussion, Mr. Knutson.

Please be quiet. Let's get the karma back.

Mr. Ted White: I would just like to correct something. I think Ms. Parrish thinks I would fire everyone there, and I just want to stress that in a subsequent amendment connected with this, it would be a gradual process. It doesn't assume that everybody there is bad. It gradually replaces them by attrition.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We have discussed this issue. No disrespect to Mr. White—I appreciate his logic and reasoning and where he's trying to go—but I just want to say the government is still opposed. We've discussed this issue at length at previous meetings. Therefore I would ask that you call the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I ask for a roll call vote, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron has requested a recorded vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On the appointment of returning officers.

[English]

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Mr. White, which one shall we go to now?

Mr. Ted White: I will now withdraw amendments W-1, W-3, W-4, W-5, W-6, and W-8.

The Chair: I see a total of six amendments withdrawn by Mr. White. Thank you, Mr. White.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I ask for a roll call vote, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron has requested a recorded vote on clause 16.

(Clause 16 agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

• 1730

(On clause 17—Power to adapt Act)

The Chair: We have two amendments in the name of Monsieur Bergeron. The first one is BQ-6. The next one is BQ-6.1. They are found at pages 4 and 5 of the compendium.

Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, amendment BQ-6, if I am not mistaken, is replaced by amendment BQ-6.1

[English]

The Chair: Will you withdraw BQ-6.1?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No. It means that BQ-6.1 replaces BQ-6.

Remember the debate, Mr. Chairman. We have had this discussion before. The idea was to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to prolong the opening of a polling station for an equivalent amount of time if it had to be closed for a certain time. For example, if it had to be closed for two hours, the polling station's hours would be prolonged by two hours.

To that, Mr. Knutson, in one of his always relevant interventions, imagined a case where in a logging camp, when all the electors had already voted, there is a fire. It would then not be useful to reopen the polling station after the fire since all the electors would have voted.

We have therefore modified our initial amendment to give the returning officers, and, ultimately, the Chief Electoral Officer, a certain latitude by adding the words “if convinced that otherwise the elector could not vote there”.

It is therefore the same amendment we had proposed at the start, but we have taken into account the eloquent and convincing arguments of Mr. Knutson, and we have added an arbitrary element, subject to the judgment of the Chief Electoral Officer, if he deems that it does not seem necessary to prolong the opening of the polling station.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Is there anybody to...?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm fine.

An hon. member: Thank God.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Thank you. How do you say that in French? Whatever. Ça va.

Just so I understand, we're looking at BQ-6.

The Chair: It's BQ-6.1. The new and improved version.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We will have to consult with the officials, so I ask that the clause be stood down for 15 minutes.

The Chair: Is that okay, Mr. Bergeron?

(Amendment allowed to stand)

(Clause 17 allowed to stand)

(On clause 18—Public education and information programs

The Chair: We have two amendments, one from Mr. White and one from the government.

Do you want to deal with yours first, Mr. White?

Mr. Ted White: Both of those are under discussion still at the moment, in an effort to reach an agreement on this.

The Chair: All right. Shall we stand clause 18?

Mr. Ted White: Yes, stand it down.

The Chair: All right. There's some collaboration here on an amendment.

• 1735

Mr. Gar Knutson: How close are we on the wording of clause 18?

Mr. Michael Peirce: We're just translating right now between English and French.

(Clause 18 allowed to stand)

(Clause 19 agreed to)

(On clause 23—Oath)

The Chair: There is an amendment standing in the name of Mr. Harvey. It is numbered PC-2 and is located at page 7 of the compendium.

Mr. Gar Knutson: He didn't give me any direction on PC-2.

The Chair: The amendment appears to allow an election officer, within the meaning of paragraph 22(1)(b), to carry on partisan activities during an election campaign, as long as they don't interfere with the performance of the duties. It's just as it reads, I guess.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Point of order.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: If there's no one here to move it, I suggest we consider a withdrawal and he can reintroduce it at report stage.

The Chair: All right, this wasn't part of your discussions with him then.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It wasn't part of my discussions, but rather than have you explain it and have sort of this artificial debate without him in the room, and defeat it....

The Chair: If somebody moves it, we can deal with it.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Let's not deal with it, because then we prejudice his ability to bring it back at report stage.

The Chair: All right. So on his behalf, you're asking that it be withdrawn.

Mr. Gar Knutson: No, it's on my behalf. It's on behalf of getting it done sooner.

The Chair: As long as someone is taking responsibility for the withdrawal, I am happy to do that.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, some information please. Could you enlighten me about the procedure? Is it possible for a member to withdrawn an amendment tabled by another member when the latter is absent? Can that be done?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: If he has given him the mandate to do so.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, not for this amendment.

[English]

The Chair: In this particular case, Mr. Harvey had discussed with Mr. Knutson and the chair what he thought could be the disposition of his amendments. There was an understanding that his amendments would be put by someone in the room. Mr. Knutson had agreed to do that as a courtesy.

Now we are in the situation where it's been suggested that one of those amendments be withdrawn. Although that wasn't in my discussion with Mr. Harvey, it might be actually a satisfactory result for Mr. Harvey, as Mr. Knutson has pointed out. It would allow us to get on without dealing with that amendment, and it would permit Mr. Harvey to take the matter up again in the House, if so advised.

I think that would be a fair way to go. If Mr. Harvey has difficulty with that, he can take it up with us at a later date and we can provide appropriate assurances.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, although I do not wish to question your always judicious decisions in any way, I wonder about the admissibility of such a request from Mr. Knutson. Perhaps the clerk could enlighten us in this regard and tell us if it is possible for a member to withdraw the amendment presented by another member when the latter is not present.

[English]

The Chair: Perhaps the chair has a better solution. It's not a bad question you ask, however, perhaps we will simply not put the amendment. Did somebody move it?

Mr. Gar Knutson: No.

The Chair: We will simply not move it and it will die. We don't have to deal with the hypothetical withdrawal. If no one is prejudiced, we can move on. Without anyone moving PC-2, I will put clause 23.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On division, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

(Clause 23 agreed to on division)

• 1740

(On clause 24—Appointment of returning officers)

The Chair: We have either negatived or withdrawn all amendments attached to clause 24.

Mr. White is requesting a recorded vote on clause 24.

(Clause 24 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

(Clause 25 agreed to on division)

(On clause 26—Assistant returning officer)

The Chair: There are two amendments for clause 26, in the name of Mr. Bergeron—BQ-10 and BQ-10.1.

Mr. Bergeron, is amendment BQ-10.1 replacing amendment BQ-10?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, we have heard another compelling argument from Mr. Knutson, according to which it is difficult to translate the word spouse (“conjoint”) into English in federal legislation. We have therefore replaced the translation of “les enfants de la” by “the children of the person who lives with”. The problem that Mr. Knutson perceives is thus eliminated. Amendment BQ-10.1 in fact replaces amendment BQ-10.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Any discussion of amendment BQ-10.1? Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The government appreciates what Mr. Bergeron is trying to do. However—

The Chair: However.

Mr. Gar Knutson: —I believe the term “cousin” is somewhat vague. I think in smaller communities, hiring your cousin is not like your wife or your spouse or the person you live with. This is pretty broad. We think it's too broad. But reasonable people can differ on this. Consequently, the government is opposed to this amendment.

The Chair: Okay, let's go to another reasonable member. Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would like to allow Mr. Knutson to demonstrate all the good will of which he is capable and I am absolutely convinced he will be able to do so. I suggest that we eliminate the reference to cousin in the amendment.

[English]

The Chair: I think we're bartering again.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Knutson, the ball is in your camp.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm not authorized to make government policy on the run. The general point stands that it's a very broad restriction and we're still opposed.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Why?

Mr. Gar Knutson: As I said, I'm not authorized to make government policy on the run.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Can we defer the amendment? You could consult and we could come back to it later.

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: That's not our choice. Our choice is to continue with clause-by-clause consideration. If you'd like to bring this up for a fuller parliamentary debate next week, we would agree to the amendment being withdrawn and give you the opportunity to bring it at report stage.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, you find me somewhat embarrassed. I do not intend to engage the government in a political struggle before the cameras simply on terms such as “nephew”, “niece”, “employee” or “cousin”. Isn't there another way to arrive at a friendly agreement within this committee instead of making it a completely ridiculous battle in the House in front of the cameras?

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: Well, I too am not going to get into a political battle or have a ridiculous debate about a word like “cousin”. I've given the government's position and I stand by it.

• 1745

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I ask permission to withdraw the amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Yes. I don't think there'd be any objection on that.

Ms. Catterall did want to speak to it. If it's withdrawn....

An hon. member: If it's withdrawn, you can't speak to it.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No, it can only be withdrawn with the agreement of the committee, and before I agree to withdraw it I'd like to make a couple of points on it.

The Chair: Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The problem is we have a number of issues we're dealing with in this proposed amendment. Did we make a previous amendment? One of the things this amendment does, which I think is desirable, is remove the word “stepchild” and replace it with “the child of a person who lives with the returning officer”. I think that's a desirable amendment.

I think “an employee of” is also a desirable amendment. On the others, I agree that, especially in small communities where you're going to have a polling station, you might have problems even in getting that assistant returning officer if you throw in that level, especially for the second cousin, third cousin, or fourth cousin.

That's why it would be nice if we could in fact agree on what changes we do want to see to this and then let Mr. Bergeron move whatever else he wants in the House. So I'd certainly like the idea of removing the word “stepchild” and replacing it with “the child of a person who lives with”.

The Chair: Okay. There's obviously some receptivity around the table to modifying this class of prohibited hiring. So I'm going to suggest, Mr. Bergeron, that you continue to seek withdrawal of the motion and that if it is matter that should be addressed in the minds of members, there's no reason why it couldn't be addressed again in the House at report stage, with some collaboration in the House itself.

I don't see here a willingness around the table to accommodate the precise amendment that's there now. I realize, Mr. Bergeron, you've made an attempt to craft an amendment—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, Mr. Chair, I see a willingness from almost everybody except Mr. Knutson, so I want it to be withdrawn.

The Chair: All right. That's fine. You should note the receptivity of other members to look perhaps to an amendment at report stage.

(Amendment withdrawn)

(Clause 26 agreed to)

(On clause 28—Notification if returning officer incapacitated)

The Chair: Mr. White has two amendments on clause 28.

Mr. Ted White: Amendments W-9 and W-10 are withdrawn.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. White. We will therefore withdraw amendments W-9 and W-10.

(Clause 28 agreed to on division)

(On clause 36—Appointment)

The Chair: There is one amendment: Mr. Bergeron, BQ-18, located in the compendium at page 19.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, perhaps someone could help me. I truly do not remember why we tabled this amendment.

[English]

The Chair: It appears to be an effort to correct only the version en français.

Mr. Bergeron.

• 1750

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

Good day, Mr. Anders. We are happy to have you with us today.

Mr. Chairman, after checking, we conclude that the previous amendment in effect asked the returning officers to stay within the list that had been supplied by the political parties and told him that he could, on his own and arbitrarily, fill the missing or vacant positions.

To be more direct, the effect of this amendment is to force returning officers to respect the lists supplied by the political parties and to fill, as the returning officer sees fit, only the vacant positions.

[English]

Mr. Ted White: Could I have a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman? Are we on BQ-18 or BQ-23?

The Chair: We are on BQ-18.

Mr. Ted White: Okay, but my copy only shows a correction to print. Mr. Bergeron's gone into a long description of what I think is BQ-23.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No.

Mr. Ted White: Yes. BQ-18 is a French correction only.

The Chair: The amendment itself refers very specifically to page 21, clause 36, line 25, en français.

Mr. Ted White: Yes. It's replacing the French version only on line 25. You'll be able to give the same argument again, Stéphane.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: He added the word manquants.

The Chair: And there was an administrative failure to include the English version.

Well, you've struck gold, Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Once again.

The Chair: Once again. What a record.

Can we just make sure we have an English version that is viable, because what I have in front of me has.... Oh, I see. It only changes the French version. Oh well, that's fine.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I don't know if there's a reason and if he's correcting, but since we had to pass an amendment to change a 1 to a 2, I'd better point this out. Mr. Bergeron's version says greffier de scrutin, and the original says greffier du scrutin.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Suppose... Oh my God!

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The language of Molière.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Bergeron, is that an appropriate modification?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I suppose you are in a position to claim that you have never made a mistake in the language of Shakespeare to cast stones at us as you are doing.

[English]

The Chair: All right. So is that modification acceptable to you, Mr. Bergeron?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. So now we have a modification to amendment BQ-18, as described on the record, replacing de with du.

(Amendment as modified agreed to)

(Clause 36 as amended agreed to on division)

• 1755

(On clause 128—Hours of voting)

The Chair: Colleagues, Mr. Solomon had asked that we deal with two amendments that had been discussed among colleagues here earlier. I'm going to suggest that we attempt to accommodate him now, because, as indicated, he has some other commitments.

The first one will be clause 128 on page 55 of the bill, and the amendment contained on page 14 of the government collection—page 15, en français.

Mr. Solomon, would you introduce that particular amendment to clause 128?

Mr. John Solomon: Members, you recall that during the last federal election, because of the new timing requirements of the act, the polls in Saskatchewan closed, in effect, after British Columbia by about a half an hour. I think this was an oversight in the original drafting.

Although the new proposal in the act tries to address it, it's not clear. So I would move this amendment, which basically says that when the rest of the country celebrates daylight saving time—and Saskatchewan, of course, is on central standard time, it doesn't go to daylight saving time—the polls in central time, in particular those polls that observe central standard time in Saskatchewan—not all, but those that do—may be open from 7:30 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. The exceptions would be, of course, the polls along the Alberta border, some of which, for example Lloydminster, will take mountain time, which is equivalent thereabouts by half an hour, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

It's very complex to explain. The Saskatchewan amendment, which clarifies the problem, took a lot of study of time zones, and we actually referred to scientists on this. I'd recommend that you support it.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We support it.

The Chair: That goes to show that sometimes even in the peaceable kingdom of Saskatchewan things get kind of complex from time to time.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 128 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 161—Registration in person)

The Chair: Now we will go to the second amendment, which Mr. Solomon will move. It is related to clause 161 in the bill. The amendment is in the government package at pages 17 and 18.

Mr. John Solomon: As members may recall, during the course of our review of the bill rural vouching was eliminated from the act. This replaces it and actually provides a vouching capability for every voter in the country, not just rurally. I would therefore move this particular amendment.

• 1800

To clarify to members, it provides an opportunity for those who are not on the voters list to be vouched by one particular voter who knows that person who's asking to be put on the voters list and to vote.

The Chair: All right. Is there any further discussion?

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to ask a question. Should I understand that the purpose of this amendment is to generalize the usage of having a given elector registered by another elector in all circumstances?

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: That's correct, everybody—urban, rural, resort communities, or whatever.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, although I understand the motives that brought Mr. Solomon to insist repeatedly that such an amendment be made to the Bill, are we aware that we are opening the door to possible abuses?

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: Any elector can abuse any particular clause or subsection of each clause in the act. With this, you sign an oath; it's not just a matter of my walking in and saying I know Mr. Bergeron and it's okay for him to vote. You still have to sign a declaration providing your name and address, and it goes into the returning officer's files. If there is any kind of a problem....

I can vouch for only one. If I decide you're the guy for whom I'm going to vouch, I can't vouch for anybody else. As I'm led to understand, the voucher also signs the prescribed form as well. So it's not likely to be abused. In my view, it's only going to be abused as much as every other section of the act by every other voter in the country.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I will first comment on what Mr. Solomon just said. The purpose of our work is to ensure that the provisions of the legislation are sufficiently restrictive to limit abuses as much as possible, and not to open the door to a greater number of abuses.

I would like to ask a question of the officials of the Chief Electoral Officer.

Mr. Solomon seems to claim that as soon as one takes an oath, it is guarantee of some kind. However, we asked Ms. Bruyère a question when she appeared earlier and we were told that the book, the register, and all that were sealed and that that envelope was not opened afterwards.

Then how can we claim in any way come back on any challenge? If we can, are there provisions to file suit, if applicable, against someone who would have sworn falsely?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: There are two cases where it is possible to open the envelopes. When the Commissioner of Canada Elections receives a complaint alleging that a person has abused that division, he has the right, during his investigation, to open all the envelopes. It is obvious that the judge also has the right to open them when an election is challenged in a riding so that he can find the needed documentation.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What sanctions can be imposed on a person who swears a false oath?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: In the upcoming amendments you will find a sanction related to such an infraction.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Of what magnitude is this sanction?

• 1805

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: The sanction provided here is aimed only at persons who acted in the name of more than one elector. The sanction for a person swearing a false oath is already in the Bill. If you give me a few minutes, I will be able to tell you what it is.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you, Ms. Mondou.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Actually it's a question very similar to Mr. Bergeron's—not entirely similar, Mr. Chairman, so it's still worth asking, okay?

I just want to state for the record that I've seen this with my own eyes. When I was down in the United States in Oklahoma, there was a teacher who voted six times. On five of those times she went ahead and lied in terms of who she was. She put forward declarations and swore oaths and vouched and all the rest of this good stuff. Anyhow, she walked away absolutely scot-free after having done that. Maybe it's an indictment of the State of Oklahoma and their lack of penalties, but nonetheless it happened. It got covered in the newspapers. She wasn't the only one do to that.

So my question is to the folks at Elections Canada or to the legal counsel. Have there been problems with this in the past? Have there been allegations in the past of abuse of a vouching system? I perfectly understand, having been in the election in Saskatchewan; I can see circumstances where this is applicable and useful. I'm just wondering whether or not there have been problems noted with regard to this particular provision or if there have been allegations of abuse.

The Chair: Ms. Bruyère.

Ms. Diane Bruyère: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Unfortunately, I don't have the statistics. The only person who would be able to provide this would be the commissioner, because they would receive the complaints against electors. The rest of us at Elections Canada are not privy to that information, obviously, because it's confidential.

In terms of this particular amendment, the fact that you will only be able to vouch for one person will certainly go a long way towards avoiding some of the potential problems that could come up, such as someone vouching for 20 electors, for example.

Mr. Rob Anders: Do we have an understanding of what the worst-case scenario would be? We have a situation here where a woman in Oklahoma walked away scot-free from having abused the system five times on top of her legitimate vote. What's the scenario in Canada? What's the worst case we've had here with regard to somebody doing those sorts of things?

I'm sure that in Canada's history we must have had vote fraud, Mr. Chairman. If that's the case, I'm wondering what the punishment was.

A voice: Never.

The Chair: Is that question answerable, Ms. Bruyère?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: I'm afraid I don't have that information.

Mr. John Solomon: I have some information on that, if I may...?

The Chair: Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: The example is—again, it's a provincial election, Mr. Anders—that of an election in the past in one riding, where the result was very close, within 21 votes. There was an inspection of the ballots and it was decided that there were a number of these sorts of... actually, it was an oath with identity, and there were more than 21 of these oaths in all of the polls for which they could not contact the person who signed the oath. They were fabricated names or they didn't have a residence. They never found out what happened.

The judge at the time decided, therefore, that there were more than 21 irregularities with respect to a 21-vote plurality, so in his wisdom he declared the election null and void and called the government to provide for a by-election. That was the penalty.

This is going to be a very rare circumstance. It may happen anywhere in Canada. In Saskatchewan, though, keep in mind that you still must have proof of identity or residence. If you don't, one of your fallbacks is to have someone vouch for you.

Again, it can only be abused as much as perhaps any other section can be abused. I can't guarantee it won't be, but I sense that it's a very fair way to include as many people as possible in the democratic process of elections.

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: I'm withdrawing my question.

The Chair: All right. Thank you.

• 1810

That was a useful discussion. Now I'll put the question on the amendment: shall the amendment known as government package pages 17 and 18, moved by Mr. Solomon in relation to clause 161, carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Before we adopt this amendment, I would like to hear Ms. Mondou's answer to my question and decide on this amendment.

[English]

The Chair: On this?

Ms. Mondou, do you have the information that Mr. Bergeron was looking for?

[Translation]

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Clause 5 of the Bill provides that:

5. No person may

a) vote or attempt to vote at an election knowing that they are not qualified as an elector or not entitled to vote under section 4;

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What are the possible sanctions for contravening this provision of the act?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: They are in clauses 483 and 500.

[English]

Mr. Michael Peirce: Five years or $5,000 maximum, or the two together if preceded by indictable offence.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Preceded by what?

Mr. Michael Peirce: By indictment.

[Translation]

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: It is the most severe kind of prosecution.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 161 as amended agreed to on division)

The Chair: Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: I just want to thank all committee members for accommodating me with these amendments and others to allow me to proceed to my other commitment.

I also want to thank the drafters and all members who supported those last two amendments.

Thank you.

The Chair: Well, Mr. Solomon, having taken care of these clauses, you're off to take care of another clause now.

Mr. John Solomon: Yes—Santa Clause.

The Chair: All right. Thank you very much.

(On clause 39—Registration offices)

The Chair: I think we're back at clause 39. There are two amendments proposed to clause 39, one from Monsieur Bergeron, BQ-23, and a government amendment. Monsieur Bergeron's amendment will be found in the compendium at page 20. The government amendment will be found in the government package on pages 3 and 4.

Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw this amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Bergeron.

Mr. Knutson, there is an amendment in the name of the government, which is shown on pages 3 and 4 of the government package.

Mr. Gar Knutson: All this amendment does is provide clarifying language that if the returning officer can't find half of the registration officers offered by each of the candidates...if the candidates don't provide a sufficient number of names of suitable persons, the returning officer can appoint names from other sources. That's what's done and practised now anyway. This clarifies the language giving him or her the authority to do that.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, what is meant by “each of the candidates”? Normally, it is the candidates who finished first and second in the last election. Why are we now talking about each of the candidates? Does that mean that the returning officers must take into account the lists supplied by the eight, six or four candidates during the election, or that the returning officer first goes through the list of the first two candidates and then the others if there are vacancies?

• 1815

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: It means the candidates referred to under subclause 39(3). Subclause 39(3) narrows it to the candidates that finished first and second respectively.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Having discussed that, then, I will put the amendment moved by Mr. Knutson.

(Amendment agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 39 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 47—Duty of returning officer)

The Chair: Now, colleagues, there is a language correction to clause 47. It was carried earlier. It is a correction to the French version to coincide with the English version. May we reopen that clause to make this correction? Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: All right. We're now dealing with clause 47. You will find this amendment in the government package at page 5. Since it's only a correction to the French version, there is only one page. Shall we adopt this amendment to—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, could you explain the purpose of this amendment to us? At first glance I do not see its usefulness or relevance.

[English]

The Chair: Our counsel could probably explain the reason.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Madame Mondou.

[Translation]

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: This amendment flows from a comment you made, Mr. Bergeron, about the wording of this clause. You indicated to us that an application could not be granted, but rather accepted.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Bergeron has struck gold again.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 47 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 49—Listing requests)

The Chair: We now move to clause 49, where there is an amendment from Mr. Bergeron—BQ-26. The NDP amendment there was negatived. NDP-10 was negatived, so it's just BQ-26.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It won't be very long, Mr. Chairman. If you will be a little indulgent, I will find what I want in my papers.

[English]

The Chair: Sure.

Colleagues, amendment BQ-26 is found on page 22 of the compendium.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, perhaps someone can explain to me the reason why we deferred this clause because I don't remember. Be that as it may, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when an elector asks to be registered he or she must supply an official document to prove his or her identity. Obviously we must ensure that this is consistent with the government amendment presented by Mr. Solomon that we adopted a few moments ago.

• 1820

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Anders, please.

Mr. Rob Anders: As far as I understand it, basically we have a move from what I think are somewhat vague terms of “satisfactory proof of identity” to, as Mr. Bergeron would put it, “proof of Canadian citizenship and place of residence supported by official documents.” Oui?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes.

Mr. Rob Anders: I think that's a great addition, Mr. Chairman. One, you have the first provision, which is that you want people to actually vouch for themselves or take some sort of an oath, which we discussed in Mr. Solomon's amendment. At least in terms of an oral submission, they must provide something else about who they are and what not.

I would actually even go so far as to say we want something along the lines of photo identification. I wonder whether or not there was any consideration of that, because, I'm sorry, voter fraud does go on. I think this is a great way of preventing that type of thing from happening, and it would certainly make me a lot more willing to accept the idea of vouching—as Mr. Solomon was putting forward—if we had some sort of provision for photo ID, at least for most people anyhow. Maybe for those who vouch, they can get around it. I don't know.

Has there ever been any consideration given to the idea of photo identification being required for voting?

Mr. Michael Peirce: The term “satisfactory proof of identity”, which appears in paragraph 49(1)(c), is a term that's prescribed by the CEO.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'm just going to ask for legal counsel. I'm looking at paragraph 49(1)(c), and all I see are the words “satisfactory proof of identity.” Is that referred to someplace else?

Mr. Michael Peirce: Yes, it's in subclause 2(3), on page 7 of the bill.

Mr. Rob Anders: So that's clause 2 of the definitions section.

Mr. Michael Peirce: On page 7 of the bill, subclause (3) gives the power of the CEO to prescribe what constitutes satisfactory proof of identity.

Mr. Rob Anders: I would take it that the purpose of Mr. Bergeron's amendment is to make that less vague, because here you're allowing the determination to be made by the returning officer. I think Mr. Bergeron is seeking to give that a little more meat on its bones, as it were, in order to provide some more solid basis from which to judge that.

The Chair: Mr. White, I think you had your hand up.

Mr. Ted White: Yes, I did. I just wondered if an Elections Canada representative could tell me what would be deemed to be proof of Canadian citizenship for the purposes of this amendment if this amendment was to pass.

Also, what exactly is the signed certification that's presently required? That's in paragraph 49(1)(a). It mentions a signed certification. Could that be described for me, please?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: Mr. Chairman, the signed certification referred to in paragraph 49(1)(a) is a declaration by the elector that he or she is indeed 18 years of age by polling day, and is a Canadian citizen. It's a signed declaration.

Mr. Ted White: Excuse me, but is that done in front of a notary public or someone like that? Or is it just something that I can write out myself and give to you?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: It's done on the prescribed form for registration. It's not done in front of a notary public, no.

Mr. Ted White: So anyone could fill it out.

Ms. Diane Bruyère: It's a signed declaration. Correct me if I'm wrong, Isabelle, but there is an offence in the legislation for signing a false declaration.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Yes.

Ms. Diane Bruyère: In answer to your other question concerning what is considered satisfactory proof of identity, the CEO has prescribed that it is one document or a combination of two documents that will provide name, address, and signature.

• 1825

Mr. Ted White: Actually, that wasn't my question. My question was what Elections Canada would consider to be proof of Canadian citizenship if this amendment were to pass.

Ms. Diane Bruyère: We would certainly have to look at what's available. Certainly what comes to mind is a baptismal certificate or Canadian citizenship card, but there may be others that we're not aware of right now. We'd have to research it.

Mr. Ted White: And that could be complicated because you might require certified copies. The person would have to go to notary or someone like that, rather than send an original.

Ms. Diane Bruyère: It might be complicated for a number of reasons. They're not documents that everybody usually has with them and carries around.

Mr. Ted White: Finally, do you feel comfortable with the present arrangements?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: Subclause 49(1) as it is written now would work quite well.

Mr. Ted White: Okay, thank you.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 49 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

(On clause 52—Deletion of names)

The Chair: I move to clause 52. There are two amendments, one in the name of Mr. Bergeron—that's BQ27—and one in the name of the government.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, this new amendment was tabled following the tabling of the Bloc Québécois' amendment that lead to a very relevant intervention by Ms. Catterall. We have worked on the wording of a new amendment that I do not find in the book.

Amendment BQ-27.2 replaces amendment BQ-27, which becomes null and void.

To all intents and purposes, we have to choose between two almost identical proposals, amendment BQ-27.2 from the Bloc Québécois and the government amendment on page 7.

These amendments are aimed at ensuring that the Chief Electoral Officer be required to remove from the Register of Electors the names of persons identified in paragraphs 52 a), b) and c), and that he have the option to do so or not in the case of the other paragraph, paragraph 52 d), which becomes paragraph 52(2).

I invite my colleagues to vote in favour of one or the other. I believe that in both amendments we have the essence of what we want to accomplish.

[English]

The Chair: For the record—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Bergeron's amendment is exactly the same as the government one, so let's do him a favour and adopt his.

An hon. member: Oh, that's sweet.

The Chair: I just want to clarify that BQ-27.2 is in fact amending clause 52. Is that right?

• 1830

A voice: Yes.

The Chair: This is just an error in the agenda.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, it is clause 52. It's the same thing, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, so there we have an amendment described by Monsieur Bergeron. There's also a government amendment that appears to address the same thing, Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Right. If we pass Mr. Bergeron's amendment, we'll withdraw the government amendment.

The Chair: Are they identical?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Apparently.

An hon. member: Pretty much.

Mr. Michael Peirce: In substance they're identical. They're just drafted in different ways.

Mr. Gar Knutson: So we can pass Mr. Bergeron's amendment. It's the one on the floor.

The Chair: Okay, that's fine. I'll put the question on Monsieur Bergeron's amendment, which is BQ-27.2, located at page 25 of the compendium.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Can I confirm therefore that amendment BQ-27 is withdrawn and amendment BQ-27.1 is withdrawn?

A voice: I don't think so, not the last one, because it does deal with clause 52.

The Chair: All right. I'm still trying to correct this error in the agenda here. We have adopted amendment BQ-27.2, the government is withdrawing its amendment to the same clause, and therefore I will put clause 52 to a vote.

(Clause 52 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 53—Restrictions)

The Chair: Now we move to clause 53, where there is an amendment in the name of Mr. Bergeron, BQ-27.1. That is located at page 24 of the compendium.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, we have had this debate before.

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: I have a point of order. I don't mean to be rude. It's been suggested to me that clause 53 has already been carried.

Voices: Yes.

Mr. Gar Knutson: That's what I'm told.

The Chair: We'll check with the clerk here. The agenda shows that it has not.

Mr. Gar Knutson: That's fine. Then we'll treat it as open.

The Chair: We can't confirm that it's been carried. My old notes are now in the vault.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Okay.

The Chair: So we'll proceed as if it hasn't been carried yet.

Monsieur Bergeron, on your amendment BQ-27.1.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, if the government is prepared to vote in favour of this amendment, let's vote.

[English]

The Chair: No, no, that's not the case.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Oh well, excuse me. This amendment has already been discussed and I believe we are all agreed on this matter. This amendment is designed to remove the word “federal” from clause 53, so that, with respect to the agreements between the federal Chief Electoral Officer and the provincial ones, the information can also be used by the latter for electoral or referenda purposes in the provinces. The federal Chief Electoral Officer could also use, for federal electoral or referenda purposes, the information communicated to him by the provincial chief electoral officers.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: I'd like to ask Elections Canada, please, to indicate what effect this amendment would have, whether it would be beneficial or not beneficial, and whether it's something that would be helpful to Elections Canada.

The Chair: We'll ask Mr. McMahon to reply, if he wishes, if he can.

• 1835

Mr. Tom McMahon: My understanding of the effect of the amendment is it would make it so that individuals would not be able to choose to be on the federal list and at the same time not have their name passed on to provincial lists. So it's a question of what degree of choice you want to provide to the elector.

Mr. Ted White: I'm stretching my memory a little bit, but isn't there another part of the bill that does give a person the choice to be on the—

Mr. Tom McMahon: There's another part of the bill that gives a person the choice to not be on the list whatsoever.

Mr. Ted White: Yes.

Mr. Tom McMahon: This is slightly different. This says you can choose to be on the federal list and to ensure your name doesn't get passed on to the provinces. So two slightly different things are going on there.

Mr. Ted White: I understand. Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No, that satisfies me.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 53 agreed to on division)

Mr. Gar Knutson: On a point of order, I just wondered if we could eat before the pizza gets cold.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: He's terrible!

[English]

The Chair: I'm going to suggest we just try to deal with the next two. These are clauses to which there are no amendments proposed.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Clauses 56 and 57 agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you. Now we're going to suspend for ten minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Have these amendments been withdrawn?

The Chair: Yes.

[English]

Amendment NDP-12 was withdrawn and NDP-11 was negatived. Okay?

Now we're going to suspend for the usual ten minutes. Thank you.

• 1838

• 1902

The Chair: We'll resume our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-2.

Colleagues, when we left off we were completing clause 57. We did that. I'd like to suggest we go back and deal with two clauses that we had stood down together for the purpose of achieving some agreement on the language of the amendment, if there were to be any. They are clauses 17 and 18. They're on page two of your agenda.

There was an amendment from Mr. Bergeron that was numbered BQ-6.1. Mr. Bergeron had crafted that amendment in the hope of coming up with something that would withstand ministerial scrutiny. I'm not so sure we have a solution, keeping in mind that Mr. Bergeron has struck gold more than once.

We've actually dealt with amendment BQ-6.1, but we didn't complete the consideration. So this was an amendment by Mr. Bergeron that would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to extend voting hours. There's already a provision in the bill. Mr. Bergeron had a revised wording. So let's just see if there would be a disposition now to go to the question on the amendment.

Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, may I simply know why we are coming back suddenly to clauses 17 and 18 instead of moving on? Have you heard something about an eventual agreement being reached?

I tabled this amendment hoping that we could eventually come to an agreement with the government.

[English]

The Chair: Attempts have been made to reach a consensus there, and there was none. So an agreement was not reachable. Therefore, Mr. White had asked me to come back to deal with clause 18 where we have a similar scenario, so I thought we could deal with both clauses together. We are able to complete our consideration now.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Can we start with clause 18, Mr. Chairman? We can do a last check. You seem to be saying that there has been no agreement. As far as I know, there have not even been any negotiations.

[English]

The Chair: There certainly have been discussions. I've already put on the record the amendment and the history and everything, Mr. Bergeron. It would be easier for the record if we simply dealt with it now.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's easier for the record?

• 1905

The Chair: That's right. We have introduced the amendment, the clause. I referred to it in the previous discussion. We could deal with clause 17 now.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I find you are becoming very technical. It's fine that it makes it easier for record purposes, but isn't there a way to try and find something to help the members of the committee agree and allow them to reach a consensus or a compromise acceptable to everyone?

[English]

The Chair: It's the view of the chair that you're prolonging the agony. The chair has been led to believe that there would not be—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Admitting that I am a little masochistic, Mr. Chairman, allow me to prolong the agony a little longer.

[English]

Mr. Jerry Pickard: It's fine with me.

The Chair: All right. Mr. Pickard has selected agony. Is that okay, colleagues? We'll move to clause 18 and abandon the preamble that led into 17.

(On clause 18—Public education and information programs)

The Chair: There are two amendments originally proposed, one from Mr. White and one from the government.

What's happened is that following consultations and discussions there is a new amendment, which is now referred to as amendment 18.1, handwritten carefully by Mr. White. I understand that this amendment, if adopted, would permit the withdrawal of the two other amendments.

You have now in front of you in both official languages amendment 18.1, which will be moved by Mr. White.

Mr. White, would you care to introduce this amendment to clause 18?

Mr. Ted White: I'll just ask the indulgence of the committee for a moment. There are certain things that happen that are milestones in our lives. I can understand why many members of this committee wouldn't find this to be a terribly exciting amendment or perhaps even some of them might find it to be a bit threatening.

Back in 1988, when I owned a telecommunications company, a friend of mine and I signed up for a new technology, which was touch-tone telephones—the things you use today where you check your arrival and departure times with the airlines and so on. And we signed a contract to start marketing them in British Columbia.

Unfortunately, I was diagnosed with colon cancer and I had to sell my company because I was given six months to live. You can see I'm still here, so we got over that hump.

The Chair: Hear, hear.

Mr. Ted White: It was because of this that I eventually ended up running for office, because my company had been sold and I had lots of spare time.

In 1993, shortly after I was elected to this place, I was asked by the Reform Party to carry out an experiment with electronic voting. In June 1994 Maritime Telephone and Telegraph, MT&T, helped me run a referendum in my riding using touch-tone telephone technology.

Here we are, almost six years later, with an amendment that gives the Chief Electoral Officer the opportunity to begin looking at these technologies in a much more advanced way, which may eventually help our children and grandchildren vote a different way.

So I thank everyone involved—the minister for allowing me to discuss it with him and the government people for assisting with the drafting of an amendment that's satisfactory to everyone.

And thanks for the indulgence of the committee to let me tell that little story.

The Chair: Thank you for your contribution to the record.

The amendment has been moved. There is probably no need for discussion. Is there any?

Mr. Michael Peirce: It was just brought to my attention that perhaps instead of referring to the committee that normally deals with matters relating to procedure and House affairs it should refer to the committee that normally considers electoral matters.

The Chair: The chair agrees wholeheartedly.

Mr. Ted White: Yes.

• 1910

Ms. Marlene Catterall: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments here. We have Mr. White's amendments. We have another one from the government that seems to do the same thing but seems to be a little more complete in providing definitions and so on. I wonder if we shouldn't look at both of them to see which one we want to keep.

Mr. Gar Knutson: And there's a third one. That's the one we're voting on.

The Chair: Yes. We're dealing with amendment 18.1 as modified on consent of Mr. White to delete, in English, the words “matters relating to procedure and House affairs” so that the ending of the amendment will read “electoral matters.” The French version would be modified accordingly.

Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Is it appropriate to leave a final decision like that in a committee? That means it would never have to go back to the House as I read it there. Am I wrong?

Mr. Michael Peirce: It would not have to go back to the House, although, of course, at any given time an amendment could be made to change this, so the House still remains in control of the matter.

I should also point out that this exact procedure currently exists in the British Columbia act as well for electronic voting, bringing it back to committee—

Mr. Jerry Pickard: If it comes to the committee and the committee decides to go ahead with an election and use the technology, according to what I read here, how does the House have control?

Mr. Michael Peirce: Because the House can always amend this provision.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: So the House would have to then come back and amend the provision. So it would require an amendment in the House for the House to gain back control.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Pickard, perhaps this would be helpful. Our researcher, who's been with the committee for quite a while, has advised that it is the practice of this committee to deal with issues such as this and then immediately report to the House. The House would then be seized of the report and would do whatever the House wished.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: And that's not a problem?

The Chair: This would not be a problem.

Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Is the government ready to support that?

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: We are.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: My God!

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Knutson.

I am going to attempt to put this amendment. It is numbered 18.1. You have it in front of you. We've modified it on consent.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 18 as amended agreed to on division)

The Chair: Since we're living right next door to clause 17, is it still premature to deal with clause 17?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We are still negotiating, aren't we?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron wishes to stir the soup a bit more.

(On clause 66—Manner of nomination))

The Chair: We will go back to where we left off previously, and that is just coming into clause 66. It is page 3 of the agenda, and we have two amendments for clause 66, one from Monsieur Bergeron and one from the government.

Can I ask Mr. Knutson whether it would be helpful here if we dealt with the government amendment first?

Mr. Gar Knutson: It would be helpful if you tell me what page the amendment is on in the book, and then I would be happy to deal with it.

The Chair: The government amendment is shown on page 8 of the government package, on page 9 en français. The amendment of Monsieur Bergeron is shown on page 28 of the compendium.

• 1915

Mr. Gar Knutson: This is the nickname amendment. It flows from the very—very, very—lengthy discussions we've had over the last few days.

I would suggest it gives election officials the discretion to disallow the use of a nickname where it can cause confusion or where it's just being used for abuse of process. I think it's a good amendment, and I think we should carry it without any debate.

The Chair: The amendment has been described. I'm prepared to put the amendment.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I have one very simple question: Why do we have “political party” rather than “candidate”?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Because there was an example in British Columbia where somebody's nickname was “Bloc Québécois”.

Mr. Michael Peirce: And for a candidate we had “Jean-Guy Chrétien”.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: In the case of candidates, Elections Canada already takes care of that. If two names are very similar, they ask one person to use a middle name, or they will find one other distinction. But they can't do that for a party, obviously.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We now go to Monsieur Bergeron's amendment, BQ-28.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, we already had a chance to discuss it. I suggest we vote immediately.

[English]

The Chair: BQ-28 is shown on page 28, coincidentally, of the compendium.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 66 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 67—Witness files nomination paper)

The Chair: There is an amendment from Mr. White and an amendment from the government.

No, I have to correct that. There is only one amendment, from Mr. White. You will find W-11 on page 29 of the compendium.

Mr. White, would you introduce that amendment.

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chair, I think I would call this a compassionate amendment. It's in response to the pleadings from the third or small parties who came before this committee and said $1,000 was too much of an imposition on their election campaign, and unreasonable. If you have an election campaign that totals only $5,000, because that's all you can raise, and you have to give $1,000 to the government while the campaign's on, it's not very fair.

I can imagine how we would feel if we had to give up a fifth of our $60,000 to the government while the campaign was taking place. It seems reasonable to drop it to something a little more manageable, and I propose $200.

The Chair: Thank you for that.

Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'm a debater. I debated in high school, I debated in university, and I probably wouldn't be here today were it not for that. It was a wonderful experience, and it was more valuable to me than my university degree. Therefore, I also highly value different points of view and the freedom of speech, or the ability to express them.

• 1920

I may not vote for the Christian Heritage Party, the Libertarian Party, or the National Party—and I could list others—but I do think they should have the ability to be on a ballot, and I do think people should have the option to vote for them.

I think we should afford them all the opportunities we can, as long as we don't pig out on the subsidization of things, which I'm opposed to, Mr. Chairman. Other than that, really, it's important to the democratic process that these people have access to the ballot and that people be able to hear what they have to say. It enriches all of us.

I hope we'll allow them that leeway, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Anders, are you trying to compete with Mr. White's touch-tone phone story?

Mr. Rob Anders: No.

Mr. Ted White: It was getting close, though, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I'm going to put the question on the amendment.

Mr. Ted White: Can we have a recorded vote?

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 67 agreed to on division)

(On clause 81—Right of candidate to enter building)

The Chair: You're quite correct, Monsieur Bergeron, it is contained in the government package, pages 10 and 11.

This is a clause where officials have taken into account some of the committee's earlier discussions pertaining to definitions and circumstances in multiple-unit residences. They believe an amendment should be made to better reflect the purposes of the act.

Can I ask Mr. Peirce, or Mr. Knutson, to—

Mr. Gar Knutson: I think you did a great job.

The Chair: All right.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think actually this arose from a discussion I had with Mr. Peirce after we'd been through this part of the bill. I was concerned about condominium buildings and their ability to wriggle out of the requirement to allow....

At any rate, I think that part has been fixed up. Mr. Peirce and I have since had a discussion about how you treat multiple residences where there may be a good reason not to allow canvassers in. I think we agree that we don't have it quite right here. For instance, I don't want a shelter to be identifiable.

I think we're agreed that he will work on a further amendment that might be presented at report stage. What we're trying to capture is the group home, or even a residence for post-psychiatric patients, or emotionally disturbed young people where having somebody strange come in might really be upsetting. It could be that as well as a shelter.

I think what we'll try to do, then, is come up with another amendment that would capture that and allow the administrator of such a residence, for the sake of the safety or well-being of the residents, to ask for a special permission. Therefore, if somebody knocked at the door and was refused entry, they wouldn't know it was a shelter. It might be any one of a number of types of group homes where that would not be acceptable or wise.

What Mr. Peirce has suggested, I guess, is that we go ahead and adopt it now, because it does correct certainly one of the problems, and then look forward to another amendment when it's in the House.

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

• 1925

Mr. Rob Anders: I understand what Ms. Catterall is putting forward, and I have sympathy for it. I wonder, though, whether or not those decisions are best left to the candidates, because I put forward that people who are in youth homes, or battered women's shelters, or any of these types of institutions, vote too. Their vote is just as valuable as anybody else's. I think candidates probably have to be sensitive to their conditions, but they vote too.

I have a question, because I ran into a situation in the last election where someone—grumble, grumble—kicked me out of an apartment building. If a candidate is challenged and a person makes it impossible for them to go door to door in the building by being very loud and obnoxious and physically getting in their way, what type of recourse or punishment is there? Can one do a personal arrest, not that one wants to? What can one do? If somebody is in violation of this, what's the repercussion?

The Chair: Mr. Peirce.

Mr. Michael Peirce: There's a general offence provision that can be found in section 480.

The Chair: Section 480 would be there to respond, to provide sanction for a breach of this new section of the act.

Mr. Rob Anders: It doesn't provide me—

Mr. Michael Peirce: There's also a provision in subclause 486(2) that would give access to a building.

Mr. Rob Anders: I think we talked of this before. I had some questions before about those fines and things.

The Chair: That's subclause 486(2).

Mr. Rob Anders: I'm looking at it, but there's—

Mr. Gar Knutson: Are you looking for the fine section?

Mr. Rob Anders: Yes.

Mr. Michael Peirce: That's clause 500. In subclause 500(3), “Every person who is guilty of an offence under any of subsections...” Subclause 486(2) is included.

Mr. Rob Anders: Yes, it's $2,000 or six months.

The Chair: You're armed and ready. Thank you.

We're going to claw back clause 81. Do we agree to claw back clause 81 for the purpose of amending it?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 81 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 93—Sending of information)

The Chair: We now move to clause 93, where we have an amendment in the name of Monsieur Bergeron, amendment BQ 29.2, which is on page 30 of the compendium. We're back on the issue of telephone numbers.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I must admit that we find ourselves in a somewhat paradoxical situation since we have adopted this amendment for some clauses and that for other clauses we have not adopted it. So I wonder how the legislative draftsmen of the Bill will make it consistent. Be that as it may, we are proposing this amendment, which is quite different from what had originally been presented before the clause was deferred.

You will recall that the original amendment included sex and date of birth. This new amendment no longer includes sex and date of birth and adds a new rule or another criteria related to telephone numbers, that of their availability.

• 1930

This criteria must prevent the exclusion of an elector from the list of electors when that elector does not have a telephone number. We therefore add to the preliminary list, which already has the surnames, given names and addresses, the telephone numbers where they are available, that is when the elector has a telephone number and the telephone numbers are not confidential.

There are therefore two criteria. An elector who does not have a telephone number would still be registered on the list and the confidential number of an elector would not be put on the list.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Is there any discussion? Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We've discussed this issue at length.

Mr. Lee, you received a letter from the Privacy Commissioner in which he outlined his objections to including telephone numbers. The government stands by the advice from the Privacy Commissioner. Therefore we're not supporting the amendment.

The Chair: For the record, a letter has been distributed. It was received by me today as chair. The Privacy Commissioner forwarded that letter, dated today, December 1, 1999, by electronic mail arrangement, which he did because of the shortness of time. You have in that letter the Privacy Commissioner's articulation of the privacy concerns that were earlier expressed to Elections Canada and in the process leading up to this bill.

Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: At the risk of being difficult, I would point out in this letter the very last sentence of the second-last paragraph, in particular, in which he says:

However, I am not persuaded that the numbers are an essential component of the permanent voters' list, a register created for the sole purpose of allowing Canadians to exercise their right to vote.

Under subclause 110(1), we have given permission for the list to be used for communicating with electors, but we've also given permission to use it for soliciting contributions and recruiting party members.

So with that in hand and this part of the bill that we allowed, I would ask the chairman of the committee to ask Mr. Phillips again if subclause 110(1) is also an invasion of people's privacy.

The Chair: All right. That has been articulated.

Would somebody take note of that? I don't want to have to go back through the records.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'll take it under consideration when it goes to the House.

The Chair: So you want the chair to inquire of the Privacy Commissioner, in regard to—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: It's subclause 110(1), specifically, “including using them”—being the electors list—“for soliciting contributions and recruiting party members.”

The Chair: You'd like to know if it is of concern to him in relation to the Privacy Act provisions.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: You're welcome.

The Chair: Okay, I will do that and report back.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 93 agreed to)

(On clause 109—Final list of electors)

The Chair: We have an amendment to clause 109 in the name of the government. You will find it in the government package at page 12.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: This is an amendment drafted at the request of the committee, where we asked that Elections Canada provide four additional printed copies of the final voters list on request. I would suggest that it doesn't need debate, since we've talked about this issue at length in the past. I would ask that you call the question.

• 1935

The Chair: Yes, we had a good discussion. Thank you for the amendment, all the members who contributed to that.

(Amendment agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 109 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 138—Initialling ballots)

The Chair: On clause 138, there is an amendment in the name of the government. It is located in the government package, page 16. I'll call the amendment government package 16.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: This is a drafting mistake to make the English consistent with the French.

The Chair: Thank you—making English consistent with the French, okay.

Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Unfortunately, I can't read French. I'm not en français, so I'm wondering—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'll tell you.

Mr. Rob Anders: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron. I'm wondering, does the French version just not contain the word “lead”? Is that it?

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It gets the “lead ” out.

The Chair: Okay, we got it.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 138 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 233—Information required for application)

The Chair: Clause 233 is not on your agenda. It is another clause that requires an amendment to deal with a French-English coincidence. It is located at government package page 19.

Does this require description, Mr. Knutson?

Mr. Gar Knutson: No.

The Chair: It is simply making the French version coincide.

Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: What is the difference between the English and the French versions? Once again, I can't read the French version, so what is the difference?

[Translation]

Mr. Michael Peirce: We replace the word grant (“accorde”) by the word accept (“accepte”). Since it is in French, I am speaking French.

[English]

It changes the word “accepted” to the word “accorded”.

The Chair: That's great, okay. So may we then claw back clause 233 for the purpose of making this amendment. Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 233 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 243—Assistance)

The Chair: On clause 243, there is an amendment in the name of the government. It is at pages 20 and 21 of the government package.

Mr. Knutson, could you introduce this amendment?

Mr. Gar Knutson: This amendment was discussed by the minister. It's for people who are very severely disabled and are unable to get out of their homes. There is a process set up for them to vote. Even if they can't sign their name, they would still be eligible to vote based on this wording.

• 1940

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: I've read both the amendment and what exists in the act as it stands. Just on a quick glance I can't notice the difference. What does this do?

Mr. Gar Knutson: The extra language is for a person who can't write a word; all they can do is mark an X.

The Chair: Okay. It is then proposed that this clause be added to the bill following clause 243.

Mr. Ted White: It's an additional clause?

The Chair: It's an additional clause.

Mr. Ted White: I think I just have one small question. I recognize this is an additional clause and it gives one of these electors the option to request that the vote be taken at home. Do I read it correctly that this can only happen if the person is unable to personally go to the office? So it's not determined by the disability or the inability to read; it's determined by whether or not they can make it—

Mr. Michael Peirce: That's the trigger, yes.

Mr. Ted White: —to the office of the returning officer.

Mr. Michael Peirce: It's two things. They have to be unable to go—

Mr. Ted White: Yes.

Mr. Michael Peirce: —and also unable to—

Mr. Ted White: Read or be...

Mr. Michael Peirce: Yes.

Mr. Ted White: Okay, thank you.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 243 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 277—Setting aside of outer envelope)

The Chair: There's an amendment in the name of the government; it is amendment G-11 and it's shown in the compendium at page 34.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We're adding a reference to clause 243.

The Chair: Oh, yes. This amendment is consequential on the previous one.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 277 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 325—Prohibition—prevention or impairment of transmission)

The Chair: On clause 325, there is a government amendment, number G-14, and it's shown on pages 36 and 37 of the compendium.

Mr. Knutson on G-14.

Mr. Gar Knutson: This is added to clean up the new vouching language we introduced with Mr. Solomon.

The Chair: That's not quite it.

• 1945

Mr. Gar Knutson: I apologize. This spells out that municipalities can take down signs where it's posing a hazard to public safety, or it gives the authority to interrupt a broadcast if that broadcast is an unlawful transmission.

We're hoping this language will help people in dealings with their municipalities. This language, plus other language in the bill, plus the Supreme Court ruling, should be able to point out to the municipalities that they only have the right to outlaw signs in the interest of safety or some other public good, which is that general prohibition is illegal on public property. You have to read the bill and you have to read the Supreme Court ruling.

The Chair: I'm just going to let Ms. Parrish.... Mr. Anders has a question.

Mr. Rob Anders: I wonder if spoofing would potentially be considered an impairment of the transmission to the public of an election advertising message?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Spoofing? Sorry?

Mr. Rob Anders: Spoofing. This Hour Has 22 Minutes and The Royal Canadian Air Farce regularly do spoofing. Would spoofing count as an impairment to the transmission to the public of an election advertising message?

Mr. Gar Knutson: No.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: It depends who's watching which channel.

The Chair: Ms. Parrish, are you okay on this?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes. I'm not thrilled, but it's okay. It should have been clearer.

The Chair: Yes. I wanted to confirm, but maybe I don't have to confirm anything here. The words speak for themselves, don't they?

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have a brief, simple question. I am trying to see the difference between what we are looking at now and what we looked at previously. What has changed?

Mr. Michael Peirce: It's exactly the same thing. There is no change.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: It was simply set aside.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Why had it been set aside?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: It had been deferred so that we could study the possibility that the municipalities advise people if they decided to remove their signs.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We decided it is not appropriate to introduce such a provision?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: There was no consensus around the table. I do not think that satisfied the members of the committee.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think it did.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: In the previous discussion we talked about signs being removed because of municipal sign bylaws. I understand that as well there is a ruling by the Supreme Court that would prevent this from happening. Since we're not dealing with it, then—it's not recommended to deal with it in this act—will Elections Canada take the responsibility of defending every person running for office? If a municipality touches the signs, will Elections Canada make certain they go to those municipalities and defend the candidates?

I think there needs to be protection. Quite frankly, I don't think a candidate is in position to court challenge during the middle of an election or cause or create that problem. So how is Elections Canada going to protect the candidates?

The Chair: Perhaps we could have Mr. McMahon indicate what the Chief Electoral Officer might do in such a circumstance.

Mr. Tom McMahon: It's hypothetical, a situation we haven't faced, so I don't want to give a categorical answer.

I doubt that Elections Canada would bring a court challenge against a municipality. As the earlier conversation discussed, municipalities would continue to have the right to regulate their own property. As Mr. Knutson just said, and as I understand the government's intent on this provision, the candidate would try to persuade the municipality in a case where a problem arose that their bylaw contravenes the spirit of Ramsden versus the City of Peterborough of the Supreme Court of Canada and also by showing them this provision try to persuade the municipality. But I think the government's intent is to allow municipalities to continue to regulate public property. We would not intervene with that.

• 1950

Mr. Gar Knutson: I can comment on the government's intent. Our intent is that they can take signs down in the interest of public safety.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Only.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Not just because they don't like lawn signs, or signs on country roads.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I can say this: In the last election campaign I had signs removed, as I mentioned earlier. I also was given a copy of the provision in the law, and I was told by the municipality that they have a bylaw they're going to enforce, and go to hell. That's what I was told in the election campaign. You tell me what you're going to do about that to protect me and others who are campaigning. If you can't, then I think you have to come up with solutions.

Mr. Tom McMahon: I'm not going to give you anything definitive tonight.

The Chair: I have to go to Mr. Bergeron, then I go to Mr. Bonin, and then I go to Ms. Parrish.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Ms. Mondou, I do not wish to doubt your word in any way, but I must say that if we had decided to defer the clause, it was probably because on the contrary there was in fact an agreement. I do not see how anyone around the table could be against the idea that if a municipality that wants... No one challenges, at least I don't think so, the power of a municipality to withdraw the posters or billboards of a political party for reasons of public safety. We agree on that.

The problem is that it can happen that a candidate does not know what happened to his or her posters or billboards, says he or she has been vandalized and phones the police or the public safety service of the municipality to finally find out, after two days of searching, that the municipality has them in its municipal workshops.

It might be simpler for everyone if the municipality, when it removes a candidate's signs, took the time to notify the candidate's organization that it will remove the sign in everyone's best interests, in order to avoid useless interventions by the candidates and their organizations, who have many other things to do during the 36 days or so of the election campaign. I believe the municipalities would be showing common courtesy by notifying candidates when, for completely legitimate reasons, they decide to remove their signs. I believe we agreed on that. That is why the clause was deferred.

[English]

The Chair: I'm going to go to Mr. Bonin.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Unless there is a reaction by the government's representatives, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: I'm going to deal with all the representations before we get an answer to that. We'll take all three from members and then we'll get a response.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As an example of a law with no teeth, we had a situation we brought to the attention of the regional municipality of Sudbury, and their response was “We know it's against the intent of the law, but we're doing it anyway. Council will insist on doing it anyway.” There was no consequence. I don't believe in laws with no consequences.

The Chair: Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: In following what Mr. Bergeron said, I think if you put something in this that says you must bring us back our signs or notify us, you're giving them permission to remove your signs and ignore the Peterborough case.

I think this paragraph (b) in the amendment is good. Having “the removal by an employee of a public authority of a billboard, poster or banner where the posting of it is a hazard to public safey” is giving them the only case under which they can do it.

I'm wondering if we could also put a section in there that just gives you a two- or three-line synopsis of the Peterborough case. It would be something very concise saying the Supreme Court has decided, etc.

A voice: You can't do that, not if it's an amendment.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The Speaker would be really angry if we were to put what the Supreme Court has decided in a piece of legislation.

The Chair: Are you finished, Ms. Parrish?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: In the wording, “the removal by an employer of a public authority of a billboard, poster, or banner only where the posting of it is a hazard to public safety”, if you put the word “only” in there it pretty well tells them to keep their hands off. One word. That gives me enough to fight with.

• 1955

Mr. Ted White: Except it doesn't really.

The Chair: Do we have a response from Mr. Knutson or counsel in relation to any of the matters put by our colleagues?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Quite plainly, I don't have any direction from the minister on this. I'm not prepared to agree to changes in the bill tonight. What I am prepared to do is advise the minister of the committee's concerns, and recommend that he bring clarifying language at report stage. I appreciate that this is not going to satisfy everybody, but it's the best I feel I can do this evening.

The Chair: I think we could probably come up with something, colleagues, in the House, but—

Mr. Gar Knutson: You should have prepared an amendment. That would have forced that down to the act.

The Chair: At the risk of making everybody fall off their chairs, I recall yesterday we changed the wording of this phrase “billboard, poster, or banner” to something else.

Mr. Rob Anders: Bingo, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I think it probably was intended to keep the wording consistent, so we may wish to alter the phrase “billboard, poster, or banner” in this amendment to coincide with the wording we had before.

Mr. Rob Anders: That's my point precisely.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: On that point, I would just flag it for the officials and let them bring the new language to make it consistent at report stage.

The Chair: Ms. Parrish and then Mr. Bergeron.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: In keeping with consistent rulings from the chair, you have allowed single words to be inserted and deleted from previous amendments. I would like to beg your permission to insert the word “only” between “banner” and “where”, and I'd like to have the committee vote on it. We've had 24 hours to consider this.

The Chair: None of these are bad suggestions. I'm wondering, if this clause is ultimately going to be looked at and possibly reconfigured at report stage, we might want to express our views on it now and collaborate in the House on a change that would better meet the needs of members.

I have several members who want to speak on this. In fact, it's almost everybody. So I think Mr. Bergeron was next and then we'll go to Mr. White.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I am asking myself what we are doing. As you know, I am one of those who believe that we must move quickly to adopt this Bill. If the government intends to call an early election, even though only the Prime Minister knows, the Chief Electoral Officer must have the time to implement this act which, despite its imperfections, seems to bring substantial improvements to the act that is in force as we speak.

That being said, Mr. Chairman, even if we agree to move more quickly, I do not want us to skip steps. Currently I feel there is a persistent ambiguity regarding this clause. The Parliamentary Secretary is uncomfortable and says: “just flag it and we'll make it consistent at report stage”.

What requires us to adopt all this tonight? In fact, I am wondering until what time we will sit tonight. We have not decided that.

Mr. Chairman, if we don't finish tonight, we can continue tomorrow and table the report on Friday. That won't create a problem. It would if this was Thursday afternoon or Friday morning, but we can finish the work this week and study it in the House next week.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want us to hurry and do the work poorly. I am under the impression that with this amendment in particular, we are doing our work poorly.

We are told to adopt it as is and that we will fix it at the report stage. If we are able to to do something good at the committee level, let's do it. Until what time do we want to sit to go through everything tonight?

[English]

The Chair: On the amendment, there's one moved, we've spoken to it, we may get to vote on it. As to when we adjourn tonight, colleagues have yet to decide when we will. We're almost finished in our bill, so the chair isn't of the view that we should adjourn immediately, if that's what you had in mind. So I'll go to Mr. White.

• 2000

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm not saying that we have to adjourn now, Mr. Chairman. The work was going well and I didn't have a problem, but I start having a problem when the Parliamentary Secretary tells us, uneasily: “I don't know what to tell you, I don't know what to do...”

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, thank you. I've heard everything you've said before. It does not need further clarification.

I will go to Mr. White for his intervention on this subject.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I've mentioned before, I've never actually had any difficulty with the municipalities, but I hear the message over there that other people have. Certainly when the complaint is coming from the government side, I think there's reason to believe they may be able to do something by report stage.

I'd just like to mention that Ms. Parrish's suggestion actually doesn't work, in terms of the flow of the language. If you look at the new subclause 325(1), it starts, “No person shall prevent or impair the”. Now if we go on to subclause 325(2) it says:

Subclause (1) does not apply with respect to

(b) the removal by an employee of a public authority of a billboard, poster or banner only where the posting of it....

You see, if we put the “only” in there it doesn't make sense any more. Can you see what happens to the English?

Mr. Rob Anders: It's a double negative.

Mr. Ted White: Yes. That doesn't work as a simple amendment that would fix it. So I suggest that if Mr. Knutson is saying he is prepared to discuss it and the government members want that discussion, probably the best chance to get it fixed is in the House.

The Chair: Okay, and I see a certain amount of tenacity here on the issue. Even the chair would like to try to improve this section when it gets to the House. Perhaps we could just leave it at that.

Mr. Pickard wants to speak to this.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: If we're going to be tenacious on this one, I see no reason why, in five minutes, we can't say “no public employee may remove an election sign, unless it is impairing safety or causing a safety hazard”. That's simple and can be done.

The officials had two or three days to deal with this, and they chose not to, for whatever reason. This was raised and it was clear. I see no reason why we can't move to the next couple of clauses. They can do the wording construction, and we can come back to this clause in five minutes.

The Chair: Okay. There's another solution, and that is we don't deal with the amendment. We leave the wording in the bill where it is. Everyone knows it needs to be fixed. We'll collaborate in the House at third reading and come up with something that everybody likes. If the government wants to fix it, we won't fix it here because it's not fixed enough. We can fix it up in the House.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: But if the minister decides not to fix it, we don't have an alternative.

The Chair: Subject to whatever Mr. Knutson might want to say, I doubt very much if the minister wouldn't want to modify this section.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm not going to undertake for the minister that he will bring a clause at report stage that will make everyone happy, which I think was close to your words. I don't want my silence on this to be interpreted as agreement.

The Chair: The chair thinks similarly to Mr. Knutson, but I'm more optimistic.

Mr. Anders, if you can help us quickly out of this.... No curiosities.

Mr. Rob Anders: No. First, if we can change it now, let's change it now. I have two really quick suggestions.

The Chair: We're not changing it now.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, hold on. We just have to change the word “billboard” to “sign”, because that's keeping congruent with what you were going to flag and what I was going to point out.

The other thing is to include what Ms. Parrish and Mr. Pickard were talking about. We could take the words “in exclusively the case”—and maybe there's better wording that legal counsel could come up with—and put that between the words “banner” and “where”, so it would read:

the removal by an employee of a public authority of a sign, poster or banner in exclusively the case where the posting of it is a hazard to public safety.

• 2005

It's congruent with all the wording of the passage. It fits, I believe, the intent of what Ms. Parrish and Mr. Pickard want, and certainly what I would want. It takes care of the incongruity of “billboard” with the rest of the bill, for the use of the word “sign”.

We've added wording to a lot of other clauses of the bill tonight, so my suggestion is to put that forward. If the minister wishes to change it at report stage he can do so, but it reflects the will of the committee tonight.

The Chair: Thank you.

You've put a good suggestion, but I will simply go to Mr. Knutson. He can express his views on this, and then we'll deal with it, as advised.

Mr. Gar Knutson: In terms of speaking for the government, I'm not authorized to agree to anything other than G-14.

The Chair: Okay.

All right then, colleagues, we can adopt or not adopt G-14, and then we will move on.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: This committee is in control of its own destiny. It has the right to put that amendment on the table and vote on it.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Apparently the chair doesn't know that.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: There's no question about that, and it can't be overruled if it's agreed by a majority of this committee.

The Chair: No one has said that, but we have one amendment on the floor now.

Mr. Rob Anders: I am moving a subamendment, Mr. Chairman. We've done tons of these this evening, where we've made word changes. I've come up with something, if the other members were listening, that I think addresses the concerns. It's a subamendment, so why not vote on the subamendment and then the amendment?

The Chair: I don't want to get into a protracted procedural discussion here. Certainly we can amend the amendment. If we are going to do it, the chair wants these things to be in writing. We have done it before, but it has been with some one- or two-word obvious amendments.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, you're welcome to my notes.

The Chair: I'm in the committee's hands and I will take direction from members. We have an amendment on the floor right now.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, can we defer the clause temporarily in order to allow Mr. Anders the time to write something? In the meantime, we could work on something else.

[English]

The Chair: We can stand this.

Ms. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I have two words that might be added: “No person or municipal authority shall prevent or impair.”

Mr. Gar Knutson: “Person” includes a municipal authority.

The Chair: These are reasons why it's very tough to do a lot of drafting at a committee like this.

Mr. Anders has proposed something. Why don't we just run it around the table a little? I'll stand the clause and the amendment.

(Amendment allowed to stand)

(Clause 325 allowed to stand)

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Thank you.

The Chair: Now we'll go to clause 346. It's not on your agenda. This is another clause that should be clawed back, reopened and amended, for the reason that would be expressed by Mr. Knutson or counsel. It is amendment G-22, in relation to clause 346.

Mr. Gar Knutson: This was at the request of the broadcasting arbitrator. It gives him two days to send his report regarding the allocation entitlement of broadcasting time under the act. It gives him two days to outline the procedures for booking broadcasting time and any other information.

Two days may not seem like a very long time, but presumably he turns his mind to these things before the election's even called.

The Chair: My recollection is that these are the amendments the broadcast arbitrator had recommended. We're simply articulating them here. They seem to be good.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. White.

• 2010

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, it seems that a much bigger change in this particular amendment is the change from the broadcasting arbitrator issuing to all broadcasters and network operators. It appears the broadcasting arbitrator now only has to prepare and send to the irrelevant and out-of-date Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

So am I to understand by this amendment that the broadcasting arbitrator, who normally would have had to tell all broadcasters and network operators what the guidelines were, can now dump the whole thing in the lap of the CRTC and hope they inform everybody else about it?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: If you look at clause 347, which is the next clause, the CRTC also has an obligation to send that to all the broadcasters within a certain timeframe, which is two days. So the only thing these two clauses are doing is flipping the responsibility. It used to be the broadcasting arbitrator who was sending that to the broadcaster. Now it will be the CRTC, because obviously they are better equipped, and they are keeping contact all the time with the broadcaster.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: [Inaudible—Editor].

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Yes. It's one day more, but it's the other way around. Instead of having this responsibility on the broadcasting arbitrator, it's now on the CRTC.

Mr. Ted White: How will this timing work though? It says the broadcasting arbitrator has two days after the issuing of the writ to prepare and send this stuff to the CRTC, but it also says the CRTC has only two days after the issuing of the writ to get the stuff out.

Mr. Michael Peirce: It's now four days. There's another amendment at page 24.

Mr. Ted White: Oh, okay. Thank you, because that seemed like an unreasonable flip time.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Absolutely.

The Chair: So shall we reopen clause 346 for the purpose of amending?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I will then put the amendment in the government package on pages 23 and 24.

(Amendment agreed to on division—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 346 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 347—C.R.T.C. to provide guidelines to Broadcasting Arbitrator)

The Chair: Now we will go to clause 347. Shall we reopen it for the same purpose?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: We've had the amendment described by Ms. Mondou. It coincides with the recommendation for the broadcasting arbitrator.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I have a question. We're giving the arbitrator two days to issue all the information about free-time political broadcasts and so on. I don't know why we're giving the CRTC four days instead of the two they have now. If he can do it in two days, surely they can do it in two days.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: It's four days from the writ, so in fact they only have two days, because they receive the guidelines from the broadcasting arbitrator two days after the issue of the writ. Then they have two days to basically take that, take their own guidelines, and send that to all the broadcasters.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay, but right now they only have two days after the writ. You're giving them four.

Mr. Michael Pierce: That's right.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: They have to wait for the broadcasting arbitrator guidelines. They didn't have to do that before, because they were the first ones who were sending that to the broadcasters.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It seems to me we're giving extra work to the CRTC at a time of changing technologies and when the CRTC is becoming more and more irrelevant with every passing day. If this act is to last another thirty years, we should be taking the CRTC out of here, not giving them extra work. This will be the only thing they have left to do within a couple of years.

The Chair: The point is made. I'll call the question on the amendment described in the government package on pages 24 and 25, amending clause 347.

(Amendment agreed to on division—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 347 as amended agreed to on division)

• 2015

(Clause 382 agreed to)

(On clause 405—Prohibition—making contributions)

The Chair: We go to clause 405, which has three amendments. Our gold miner is back in business. Monsieur Bergeron is seeking to strike gold.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I don't know if what you just said was pejorative, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: No, no.

[English]

I was trying to flatter you, Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Oh yes?

[English]

The Chair: It was patronizing, I agree. Okay, let's go.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, in the meantime, should I be selling my subamendment to the other committee members across the way there?

The Chair: I think you may have a true copyright on that subamendment. It might be worth holding out.

Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I will probably have to consult with the departmental officials. They have proposed a number of very interesting amendments regarding the candidates' trusts, but consequential amendments to clause 405 would probably be required. There is no consequential amendment to clause 405. That is why we had tabled amendments BQ-68, BQ-69 and BQ-70 to clause 405.

We are quite prepared to support the government's amendments to clause 424, except that we would probably need consequential amendments to clause 405. I don't know if the government would prefer to defer study of this clause.

A voice: We understood.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I understood Mr. Knutson's answer very well, but I am not sure he understood the meaning of my intervention. I know there is an agreement.

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: My colleagues have indicated an optimism in terms of drafting an amendment that would satisfy the committee, so I take back what I said twenty seconds ago and ask that it be stood down.

The Chair: Okay, clause 405 is stood again.

(Clause 405 allowed to stand)

(On clause 409—Personal expenses of a candidate)

The Chair: We can go then to clause 409. Mr. Bergeron has an amendment, BQ-73. It's located in the compendium at page 41.

• 2020

Mr. Knutson, I notice there is a government amendment, G-23.1, also sitting here.

Mr. Gar Knutson: What page?

The Chair: We're dealing with clause 409. We had a series of government amendments. I know of at least one that replaces that, so I'm just wondering—

A voice: We should deal with this one first.

The Chair: —if there's any overlap between the government amendment and Monsieur Bergeron's amendment.

Mr. Gar Knutson: There is.

The Chair: Well, in view of the fact that the government would be proceeding in any event, perhaps we could start with the government amendment.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Sure. This is a result—

The Chair: May I ask, is government amendment G-23.1 withdrawn?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes. Isn't it? Isn't that the thing with the—

Mr. Gar Knutson: Is that from last night? Yes.

The Chair: Thank you. Amendment G-23.1 is withdrawn. We now go to the government package amendment on pages 26 and 27. Ms. Longfield wishes to make an intervention.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: This is a result of discussions between Mr. Solomon and me about trying to consolidate the NDP amendment 24 on page 44 of the compendium, and it was just to bring about the best of two resolutions. I've talked to Mr. Solomon, and he wants to withdraw amendment NDP-24 in support of the one on page 26.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, excuse me.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Can someone explain to me what just went on? What did we just withdraw and where are we? I may be confused in my notes, but I really don't know where we are.

[English]

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Can I explain?

The Chair: Let me bring you up to date. We're dealing with clause 409.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: The government has withdrawn its earlier amendment known as G-23.1.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Where do you see G-23...43.1?

The Chair: On the agenda, page 4, clause 409.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It's not in the new packages. It's in the package from yesterday, from last night.

The Chair: It was an earlier amendment, proposed earlier by the government. It has now been withdrawn.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Agreed. Now...

[English]

The Chair: Secondly, there is an NDP amendment, NDP-24, which is not going to be moved tonight—it will effectively be dropped. The government has proposed, in the government package on pages 26 and 27, a new amendment. Ms. Longfield indicates there have been discussions between her and other members, and the government is now moving GP-26 and GP-27. So we're considering that amendment now.

Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: I'd like to ask legal counsel an opinion here. The NDP amendment used the word “incapacity” instead of “disability”. There was some brief discussion around the table about that last night. I'd like to ask legal counsel, in paragraph (c) of this government amendment it says “expenses relating to the provision of care for a person with a physical or mental disability”. If the word were “incapacity” there, as opposed to “disability”, in legal terms, or legal description, what difference would that make?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: I believe there is no distinction. The drafter has decided to use “disability”. I'm not sure if it's really a conscious choice between two options. They just thought that it was working well. It's not only at that section, but throughout the bill there are other references—for example, people who can vote in certain ways, and the word used is “disability”. So it was in order to keep that kind of concept all through the bill.

Mr. Ted White: Okay, so you're not distinguishing between the use of the two words.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: No.

Mr. Ted White: Okay. From a medical perspective, I think it was different, because last night there were some comments about it.

The Chair: Thank you. There being no further discussion, I will put—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: There is, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I agree. I prefer to see the word “incapacity”. It's used in the other section because it specifically refers to the inability of the person to vote. “Incapacity” has a different meaning and a different context, certainly to Judi's mother and to mine, who may be old, but not, in their view, disabled.

Secondly, there may be a reason for this, but I would think in the last line of that same section, it should read “for whom the candidate normally provides such care”. I mean, I may provide for my mother—I may provide her with lots of money—but the idea of this is to pay to replace the personal care I normally provide her.

• 2025

Mr. Michael Peirce: It was in the version I drafted.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Ted White: Very good point. That was a very good description of that.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I have a point of order.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Can I ask that they set the clause down for five minutes?

Mr. Michael Peirce: No, it's done, sorry.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It's done where?

Mr. Michael Peirce: It has “incapacity” instead of “disability”, and “such care” at the end of “provides” in paragraph (c).

Mr. Gar Knutson: Okay.

The Chair: We're moving at a million miles an hour here. So we're doing fine.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Can you give that to the chair?

The Chair: Can I ask counsel if these changes...? All right, thank you. Counsel has provided an indication in writing. Consistent with previous...we have made two word changes.

For the record, the amendment in the government package, pages 26 and 27, will have a word change in paragraph (c) replacing the word “disability” on the second line, with the word “incapacity”, and inserting on the third line, after the word “provides”, the two words “such care”.

So with that modification to the amendment, I will then put the amendment, government package 26 and 27.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If I understand correctly, Mr. Chairman, there is no change to the French version.

[English]

The Chair: I would say this, Mr. Bergeron. The French version is correct as it is.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That is what I was saying.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Now, Mr. Bergeron, we go to your amendment BQ-73. BQ-73 is located in the compendium on page 41.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, given what we have just adopted, I propose to amend my amendment so that it keeps point b) only, which would become, to all intents and purposes, point e) of the amended clause.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, our clerk has that.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In addition, Mr. Chairman, if you don't see any problem, I would like to add, after the word “candidate” the words “during the conduct of the election” for purposes of clarity and to ensure that a candidate does not take out a mortgage during the election campaign and have the interest credited to him as a personal expense.

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: You want to pay the interest for 30 days?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's a candidate's personal expense. It's not much, but... It's like going to a barber or sending one's clothes to the cleaners.

• 2030

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thirty days.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Excuse me?

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thirty days? How much is the interest?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It depends on the amount of the loan.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Bergeron has modified his amendment.

Mr. Rob Anders: There's discrimination going on.

The Chair: I will recognize Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: The only concern I've got is that there's always—and I'm surprised Mr. Anders isn't ferreting it out—a possibility somebody's going to cheat on this. They could borrow the money from a friend at an exorbitant rate of interest. I don't know how you'd regulate this. You have to start building in....

Mr. Rob Anders: Usury, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: You'd have to put it in as a proper agency, and then you'd say, is it an agency that supports this party or that party? I think I have a bit of difficulty with Mr. Bergeron's—I understand the reason you're putting it in, but I think it's fraught with possibilities for problems.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, will you allow me to propose a supplementary amendment? I know I am becoming a little difficult, but in line with what Ms. Parrish just said, which seems very appropriate to me, I would indicate, after the word “candidate”, “granted to the candidate by a recognized financial institution for the conduct of the election”.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Mondou on that.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: May I just add something? A loan is already covered as an election expense. It's not a personal expense, but it's already covered as an election expense. The only effect of this amendment is to put it in a different category.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Which might be a little bit complicated for—

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: It's not; it's just that there's no limit on personal expense.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: It's not rebatable? This part would not be rebatable?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: It is rebatable.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: It would sure make up for the last two.

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Could counsel explain where is the other reference to the loan, please?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Yes. Sorry, Mr. White. It's covered under clause 407.

Mr. Ted White: Okay. Oh, I see.

Mr. Gar Knutson: This is a point of order, Mr. Chairman. After consulting with learned officials, it's the government's position that this, in that it would increase the rebate to candidates, is not part of the conventions adopted by Elections Canada in the past. It would increase expenditures from government and therefore requires a royal recommendation. We'd ask you to rule it out of order.

The Chair: If I can confirm that this amendment would cause an increase in the amount of money paid out by the government under the statute in rebate for election expenses, then I would rule this out of order. If that's what's been put by Mr. Knutson, I'd have to rule it out of order. First of all, I'm going to ask counsel if that would be the effect of this amendment.

Mr. Michael Peirce: Our interpretation is it would have that effect.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Peirce.

The last word goes to Mr. Bergeron, just so we have a full hearing on this.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, if you permit and if my colleagues agree, I would like consent to withdraw this amendment.

[English]

Mr. Rob Anders: I was just about to speak.

The Chair: All right, I think that's acceptable, then. Mr. Bergeron has withdrawn amendment BQ-73 before I had to rule on it. So it's withdrawn.

• 2035

(Clause 409 as amended agreed to on division)

The Chair: Amendment G-23.1 is withdrawn, and NDP-24 was not put.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Is G-23.1 withdrawn?

The Chair: That's correct, on the previous clause.

(On clause 424—Return on financial transactions)

The Chair: We have another need to make an amendment proposed by the government. May we reopen the clause for that purpose?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The amendment will be described as government package 28 and 29, and it will be introduced by Mr. Knutson.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman...

[English]

The Chair: I think I'll let Mr. Knutson introduce this first, Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: After the agreement with the government, as was the case with Mr. Solomon, we will withdraw all our amendments related to trusts, provided, of course, that a consequential amendment is proposed to clause 405. It is one of the points on which we have insisted since the beginning of this review of the Bill and the minister has shown himself to be responsive from the start to the idea of putting provisions in the act regarding candidates' trusts. Here is the first amendment, on pages 28 and 29, aimed at clarifications regarding candidates's trusts, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me, Monsieur Bergeron. Would you clarify what clause you're dealing with now?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Clause 424, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Knutson is going to introduce this amendment, but Monsieur Bergeron has raised a minor item.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I haven't been briefed yet on the negotiations that have gone on between officials for the government and Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Michael Peirce: Me neither.

Mr. Gar Knutson: So who has been doing our—

A voice: Who's in charge here? Who's on first?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: These are your amendments that I am presenting.

Mr. Michael Peirce: Do you have a question?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, I am presenting them.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Bergeron has done a great job of introducing them. Is there any discussion? Mr. White has a question.

Mr. Ted White: I have a question for Elections Canada in relation to trust funds. I must have led a very sheltered life because I've never even heard of these trust funds everyone seems to be very excited about. Could someone from Elections Canada tell me if there have been problems with the use of trust funds by candidates or parties that in their opinion need to be addressed?

The Chair: I think this goes to Elections Canada. Ms. Vézina, could you please frame the trust fund issue for us?

Mr. Ted White: Have registered parties or candidates been using trust funds as a way to avoid responsibilities or disclosure?

Ms. Janice Vézina: I can't speak to the motivation behind the use of trust funds, but we know they exist. To quote my boss, Mr. Kingsley, who I think has pronounced himself on this, the problem is that we just don't know what's going on with them. We can't say there's a problem because we don't know about them.

Mr. Ted White: I assume from what you're saying that there's a potential for problems because you can't see what's going on there.

Ms. Janice Vézina: Yes, you can't see who's donating money to them.

Mr. Ted White: I realize you don't know with accuracy what's going on, but could you give me an example of a way the fund could be used that would be improper?

• 2040

Mr. Gar Knutson: I can. It was rumoured at one time that John Turner collected money or the Liberal Party collected money for John. This may be totally wrong, but it's written in books about John Turner that money was collected, tax receipts were issued, and the money was put into a trust fund for his personal use. Nobody seemed to know.

What this will do is force the reporting of trust funds. You'll have to report them.

Mr. Ted White: So the government has turned over a new leaf and is prepared now to have these—

Mr. Gar Knutson: We're accepting the counsel provided by Elections Canada.

The Chair: It's a great amendment. Just keep in mind, colleagues, that this factual hypothetical that was discussed by Mr. Knutson sounds to the chair to be hearsay of hearsay of hearsay. So—

Mr. Gar Knutson: It was in the realm of error.

The Chair: It's a well-intentioned example of something that might have happened or could have happened. We're not suggesting here that it did.

In any event, somebody down here was signalling. Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm too tired to connect all the dots in the bill before us. This refers only to trust funds that are used for the purpose of elections.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Yes.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: So it wouldn't have touched something like that at all.

I think what the Elections Canada people are saying is that it's not a matter that we know there's fraud here. I said before that I think they're going on a fishing expedition. But if it's money used for an election, the public has a right to know where that money came from. Is that it?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Yes.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you.

The Chair: We'll give three and a half seconds to Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, simply to illustrate this possibility, when one presents oneself at an election...

[English]

The Chair: That was three and a half seconds, Monsieur Bergeron, not a description. Thank you.

I'm going to then put the.... Mr. Peirce.

[Translation]

Mr. Michael Peirce: There is no change to line 5, only to line 4 in English.

[English]

There's no change to line 5, only to line 4.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Are you taking out the underlining?

Mr. Michael Peirce: No, I'm taking out “and 5”.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Only in English.

The Chair: The English version of government package 28 is just modified to delete the reference to line 5, so that it reads “by replacing line 4 on page 171”.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 424 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 428—Trust funds)

The Chair: There's a government amendment. Shall we reopen clause 428 for this purpose?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: This amendment is on pages 30 and 31 of the government package.

Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, consistent with what I said earlier, we have here a consequential amendment to the amendment that we just adopted, also in the area of candidates' trusts.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 428 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 435—Certificate)

• 2045

The Chair: We have several amendments. The NDP withdrew their amendments on this.

The first one out of the box is BQ-80, Monsieur Bergeron. That is located at page 45 of the compendium.

Unless Mr. Knutson indicates otherwise, I will expect that amendment PC-19 will not be put, based on the understanding we had earlier.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the current provisions to the Elections Act be maintained. Bill C-2 makes a substantive change that will have very negative repercussions on all political parties in Canada, to the extent that it specifies that 22.5 per cent of election expenses paid by registered parties can be reimbursed, whereas the current provision says 22.5 per cent of election expenses.

Amendment BQ-80 aims at restoring the current provision of the Elections Act, which says 22.5 per cent of the election expenses of a registered party, and not 22.5 per cent of the election expenses paid by a political party.

The provision of the current act specifies that 22.5 per cent of the expenses of a political party can be reimbursed. In the provision in Bill C-2 the word “paid” has been added. Therefore the expenses actually have to be paid to be reimbursed. As a result, a lot of election expenses that were traditionally reimbursed no longer will be as a result of Bill C-2. The amendment simply aims a reintroducing the current provision of the Elections Act.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Insofar as this will increase the rebate, it will increase the expenditures related to the bill. I would therefore ask the chair to rule it out of order as requiring a royal recommendation.

The Chair: Monsieur Bergeron, you may want to address the issue of whether or not this would increase the payout to political parties.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It is possible that it will in fact increase it. I will therefore withdraw the amendment.

[English]

The Chair: You escaped by the skin of our teeth. May I just conclude the withdrawal of the amendment then. So BQ-80 is withdrawn.

Mr. White, I know you wanted to speak to this, but you have your own amendment coming down the pipeline.

Mr. Ted White: I want a clarification. All he's doing is returning it to the way the existing act is worded. How can there be an increase in expenditure by the government? This bill hasn't passed yet, so it's not as if he's trying to amend something that has already been passed. All he's saying is leave it the way it is. Therefore, there's no increase in expenditures by government.

The Chair: I think the context of the measuring stick would certainly be the current bill.

Mr. Gar Knutson: This bill has a royal recommendation. A certain amount of money has been allocated for this bill.

The Chair: I think Mr. Knutson is very close to the perfect answer.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Does the existing law not have a royal recommendation as well?

The Chair: Of course it does. But we're dealing with the legislation that is before us, and it comes with a royal recommendation. We are using somebody else's—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: But so does the existing law.

Mr. Gar Knutson: But we're not amending the existing law. We're amending this law.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: That's right.

Mr. Gar Knutson: You can't amend the royal recommendation attached to this law.

Mr. Rob Anders: That's a far stretch, Mr. Chair.

• 2050

The Chair: In any event, I would point out that the amendment was withdrawn.

We have amendment W-12, which is located at page 49 of the compendium. Perhaps Mr. White could reintroduce his amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, before we move on to that, I would like to clarify this question. I think we just raised an important question. Perhaps the clerk can enlighten us. Mr. White raised a very important point when he said this amendment was not aimed at increasing the government's expenditures under the existing act. There would be no additional expenditure by the government under the proposed amendment. Therefore I do not see why we need a royal recommendation.

[English]

The Chair: Ordinarily, if we didn't have a whole lot of collegiality here, I'd rule that your question was out of order because you're putting a question dealing with a procedure in relation to an amendment that has already been withdrawn.

However, if colleagues want to hear the answer, I'll go to the clerk and we'll give you an answer.

Did you hear the question, Mr. Clerk?

Mr. Bernard Fournier (Procedural Clerk): I heard the question.

The Chair: Give me an answer.

I'm not going to try to re-articulate, so we'll put it on the record.

Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

Mr. Bernard Fournier: My understanding of the rules relating to royal recommendation is that if the expenditures being proposed do not exceed the expenditures that were covered by your original royal recommendation attached to the previous act that's now in force, it would be in order.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, may I present the amendment again please?

[English]

Mr. Bernard Fournier: But I should say it's not clear cut. You'll never see it clearly spelled out like that either in Beauchesne's or in May.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. White, on amendment W-12....

Mr. Ted White: What happened to the benefit of the doubt for that last amendment?

The Chair: Procedurally, he has withdrawn it. He may wish to reintroduce it in the House.

Mr. Ted White: Procedurally, I wish to withdraw this one.

(Amendment withdrawn)

Mr. Ted White: I'd like a recorded vote on clause 435.

(Clause 435 agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, forgive me for going back, but you may wish to review that procedural issue involving the royal recommendation with the clerk of the House at an early date to clarify your position and our position on that, because it was not a simple issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, excuse me. I am not sure I understood what you said.

[English]

The Chair: I can speak to you after the meeting.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Okay, fine.

The Chair: Thank you.

(On clause 451—Electoral campaign return of candidate)

• 2055

The Chair: There's an amendment that will not be put in accordance with the previous procedures involving amendments that were moved or intended to be moved by Mr. Harvey. I think this will be consistent.

There are two government amendments, in the government package at pages 32 and 33 and pages 34 and 35. Mr. Knutson, would you introduce those?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I would be happy to introduce those amendments.

The first amendment, on pages 32 and 33 of the government package, applies to clause 451 and replaces lines 19 to 23 on page 186.

Clause 451 is in regard to the contents of the return on financing expenses in an electoral campaign, and this hooks in any trust funds that were set up for a campaign. It's consistent with the intent of clauses we've amended earlier this evening—which seems like a long time ago, but it's probably not.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: I'll now go to pages 34 and 35 in the government package.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I would make the same comments with regard to this language as well. It's regarding trust funds, and it's a consequential amendment to earlier amendments.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 451 as amended agreed to)

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, did we take a vote on the clause?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Rob Anders: I apologize, but we did want to record that. It does deal with the subsidy that is given to electoral parties, and for the record—

The Chair: That's clause 451?

Mr. Rob Anders: Yes.

Mr. Ted White: We both missed it.

The Chair: Out of deference to your duties, we'll do a recorded division on clause 451.

(Clause 451 as amended agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 489—Strict liability offences—summary conviction)

The Chair: We are required to reopen clause 489 as the result of an amendment that was made to the vouching provisions, which you will recall from earlier. This amendment is at pages 36 and 37 of the government package. It's an amendment consequential upon us adding vouching into the process, that one-off, one-instance vouching.

I don't think it needs to be described with more provision than that. It adds vouching to a list, and it's a penalty provision. It's an enforcement provision.

Shall we reopen the clause for this purpose?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

• 2100

The Chair: I see unanimous agreement to reopen the clause in order to reconsider this. I will now put the question on the amendment.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

[English]

(Amendments agreed to on division—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 489 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 497—Strict liability offences—summary conviction)

The Chair: We have an amendment in the name of Mr. Bergeron, and it is BQ-87.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, it was a consequential amendment to the amendments on trusts. I know that a consequential amendment to clause 405 will be made soon and I don't believe it is useful to insist further on amendments to clause 497 at this stage.

I therefore withdraw the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

(Clause 497 agreed to)

(On clause 537—Complaints)

The Chair: Mr. White, this was a clause in relation to which the NDP had an amendment and withdrew it. That was NDP-27.

(Clause 537 agreed to)

(Clause 538 agreed to on division)

(Clause 539 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 553 agreed to on division)

(Clause 555 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 556 agreed to)

(Clause 557 agreed to on division)

• 2105

(Clause 560 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clauses 561 and 562 agreed to on division)

(Clause 576 agreed to on division)

An hon. member: You're going too fast there, Mr. Chairman. We're not keeping up.

The Chair: That's okay. I'm finished calling clauses—momentarily, anyway.

(On clause 325—Prohibition—prevention or impairment of transmission)

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, we were dealing before with clause 325, and that was the one that had to deal with the removal of signs, posters, or banners if they were creating a hazard to public safety. I've passed around my subamendment to the amendment, and I'd like to deal with it at this time if we could.

This is regarding clause 325, and I'm just trying to think of the amendment. I believe it may have been a Bloc amendment.

The Chair: I'm just going to recap for everybody, so that we all know where we are. I just checked with the clerk, and the clerk advises me that we have only three clauses left to deal with. All three were stood, and they are clauses 17, 325, and 405.

Mr. Ted White: Shall we do them tomorrow then?

Mr. Rob Anders: That would be perfect, Mr. Chair.

(Clause 325 allowed to stand)

(On clause 17—Power to adapt Act)

The Chair: Let us go back to clause 17, if that is the will of members. I hate going back that far, believe me. However, there are only three clauses still to do.

There was an amendment put by Monsieur Bergeron, BQ-6.1. This amendment deals with the provisions that would allow the extension of voting hours where an emergency had interrupted the polling. The question is on the amendment. I gather that we did not yet have a perfect amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Can I ask you to wait just a second since there are still discussions at the back about this amendment?

[English]

The Chair: Okay, here we go again.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Let's move on to another section.

(Clause 17 allowed to stand)

(On clause 325—Prohibition—prevention or impairment of transmission)

The Chair: Let's flip over to clause 325.

Mr. Rob Anders: What was the amendment, Mr. Chairman? I have the subamendment, but I'm trying to recall the amendment.

The Chair: Clause 325 was about to be amended by...yes, this was the signage.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mine is a subamendment, Mr. Chairman. What was the amendment?

An hon. member: It was G-14.

Mr. Rob Anders: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think what I have here has been passed around.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, it hasn't.

Mr. Rob Anders: You may wish to take a look at it.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Do you have a French version?

Mr. Rob Anders: I wish we did, Mr. Bergeron. We're working on it.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Okay, I'll read it very slowly.

• 2110

Mr. Rob Anders: What it basically does, Mr. Chairman, is replace the word “billboard” with the word “sign”, because we had agreed in previous resolutions in other clauses that the word “sign” was more inclusive and was to be the language used in the bill, as opposed to the word “billboard”.

The other thing it does, Mr. Chairman, is streamline, if you will, the language that was there with regard to the removal of signage in the case of a hazard to public safety. If you look at clause 325 in the act, the part in the bill reads:

No person shall prevent or impair the transmission to the public of an election advertising message without the consent of the person who authorized its transmission.

That's as it appears in the bill. The original text in the bill would be left as is, as subclause (1).

Subclause (2) would be the following—and I ask you to cast your eyes at the amendment, as you see it in G-14 on page 36:

(2) Signs, posters or banners may only be removed by an employee of a public authority or any other person if they are creating a hazard to public safety.

That way, I think it takes into accommodation Ms. Parrish's concerns and Mr. Pickard's concerns, and it also deals with the transition from the word “billboard” to “sign”.

Mr. Ted White: Ms. Parrish doesn't like it.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'm just tired.

The Chair: The first thing I want to do is thank Mr. Anders for trying to put this together. He's come up with something in the ballpark, but the chances of us nailing this sucker down with precision tonight in this method are very small. Even if we amended it now and thought we got it right, the chances are slim that we would. I see another amendment coming in at report stage in any event.

So with all respect, I thank Mr. Anders for drafting this and making an attempt, but already our ears have picked up things that we would like to discuss and clarify. It's very difficult to draft around a table like this. We have lots of great ideas and lots of problems that we want to solve. It's a section in the bill that, in fairness to our colleagues, we cannot fail to do a good job on. We must have a good section that works well for candidates.

I'm suggesting that we either leave the section as it is and all work together on something that can come back into the House at report stage, or adopt a government amendment that makes a structural change but isn't perfect, and then come back and modify it again later. That's the suggestion of the chair.

Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Since I do believe that what I have here—and people have had a chance to see it—is better than what is left in the bill, I at least ask that we just go ahead and vote on the subamendment and let it be. But I do think we have something that's better than what is there right now.

The Chair: If colleagues are of a will to do that, thy will shall be done.

Ms. Catterall, and Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm not of a will to do that, because the proposal put by Mr. Anders doesn't fit with the current wording of the legislation. Subclause (1) says you can't interfere with any transmission, but subclause (2) now says subclause (1) does not apply “with respect to”. You can't follow from that and read what Mr. Anders just proposed and still have it make any sense. That's a good example of why we shouldn't be trying to draft legislation at the last minute on a bill like this. I agree that I'd like to adopt what's here and then ensure that there is a clarifying amendment at report stage in the House.

The Chair: The one thing that Mr. Anders has added in is the “sign”/“billboard”/“poster” change, which is going to have to be made in any event.

Ms. Parrish.

• 2115

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Actually, I'm getting tired and I think the wording of it...we don't even have it in French, so Mr. Bergeron doesn't have a chance to look at it. I'd like to pass the government amendment as a good start, and I'm going to undertake to talk to Mr. Boudria myself and see if we can get a lot of Liberals to talk to him and—

The Chair: Would you also agree to talk to Mr. Anders, since he's been working hard at this?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Oh, yes. I'm always ready to talk to Mr. Anders.

The Chair: Okay. We have an understanding here. We'll knock off the amendment as it is, as flawed as it is, and we'll get back to it in the House.

Mr. Rob Anders: I want to vote on the subamendment at least.

The Chair: Oh, do you want the subamendment dealt with?

Mr. Rob Anders: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Anders has done the work. Let's give him the satisfaction of a disposition. There is a subamendment.

Would you read the subamendment, Madam Clerk? Is there a need to read it?

The Clerk of the Committee: I think maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea—

Mr. Rob Anders: To read it into the record—

The Chair: It was introduced on the record by Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: I think it would be a good idea.

The Chair: I think you did read it into the record already.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: He only read “a portion of”.

A voice: En français.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, absolutely. It's an excellent idea.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Madam Clerk, read the proposed subamendment onto the record.

The Clerk: That Bill C-2 in clause 325 be amended by (a) replacing line 25 on page 126 with the following:

325. (1) No person shall prevent or impair the transmission to the public of an election advertising message without the consent of the person who authorized its transmission.

325. (2) Signs, posters, or banners may only be removed by an employee of a public authority or any other person if they are creating a hazard to public safety.

The Chair: Okay, I'll put the question on the subamendment, as read by the clerk.

(Subamendment negatived)

The Chair: I will then put the—

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Were you voting on the subamendment? Could we do a recount on that?

A voice: No.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I'd like to see a show of hands.

The Chair: All right. I'll just call the question again. All those in favour of the subamendment as read by Madam Clerk, please show hands.

(Subamendment negatived)

The Chair: Again the subamendment is negatived, but I thank colleagues for their efforts. I will now put the question on the amendment.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But I haven't seen the version in French.

The Chair: Shall the amendment described as G-14 be adopted?

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: I will now put the clause. Shall clause 325 as amended by G-14 carry?

(Clause 325 as amended agreed to on division)

The Chair: That's great.

(On clause 405—Prohibition—making contributions)

The Chair: Now we can go to clause 405, where there had been three BQ amendments.

Mr. Bergeron and/or Mr. Knutson, can we address clause 405?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, this is the consequential amendment to which I referred a little earlier and that had not yet been written, but now has thanks to the good offices of the legal advisors of the Privy Council. It is the consequential amendment about candidates' trusts.

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: We're in support.

The Chair: All right. There's been an amendment moved—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Which one?

The Chair: —by Monsieur Bergeron.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: You're winning tonight, Mr. Bergeron.

• 2120

The Chair: All right, the amendment has been read. Do we need anything further on the record?

Do we have a number for it?

Mr. Bernard Fournier: It's B-405.

The Chair: Now I will put the question on this amendment.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Monsieur Bergeron?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I abstained. I didn't vote against it.

The Chair: Are you withdrawing the three other amendments shown?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What other three? Excuse me.

The Chair: There are three other amendments shown for clause 405.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: As a result of the agreement with the government, amendments BQ-68, BQ-69 and BQ-70 are withdrawn.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have heard that Mrs. Catterall wanted a recorded vote on this amendment.

The Chair: Oh, oh! Okay, now I'm going to put clause 405 as amended by B-405.

(Clause 405 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 17—Power to adapt Act)

The Chair: Now we go back to clause 17.

Colleagues, this is the last clause we have to deal with. There is reason for celebration here.

If the amendment is withdrawn...oh, I see we're still working on it, Mr. Bergeron?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We ask for 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: All right. This is what your chair will do. We're going to proceed to adopt the schedules to the bill before we go back to clause 17.

(Clause 17 allowed to stand)

(Schedules 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to on division)

The Chair: Okay. That's as far as I can go right now. Now we'll go back to clause 17.

(On clause 17—Power to adapt Act)

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I believe that I can proudly announce that we have reached an agreement. After long and arduous discussions with the officials of the Privy Council, the Parliamentary Leader and Elections Canada, we finally propose to add the word “shall” in the English version, after “Officer” and before “extend”.

[English]

Mr. Rob Anders: I haven't seen the English translation.

M. Stéphane Bergeron: The English translation!

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rob Anders: Where is it? I can't see it. Where's my copy?

The Chair: All right. I believe, colleagues—

[Translation]

Mr. Rob Anders: No anglais, Monsieur Chairman.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Monsieur Chairman!

[English]

The Chair: All right. For the record here, we're going to have to be precise about what we're dealing with. We're dealing with clause 17. We were dealing with amendment BQ-6.1 in the compendium, but it has now been modified. Amendment BQ-6.1 has been modified to insert the word “shall” after the word “Officer”.

• 2125

Ms. Catterall, do you have something to say?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Believe me, at this stage I would like to just say “carried”. It seems to me that what this does is force the Chief Electoral Officer to keep the polls open up to an extra five hours even if one half hour into that five hours every single living voter has already voted.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes, it does. It says:

shall extend the voting hours at the polling station for a period of time equivalent to the period during which the polling station had to be closed.

If it was closed for five hours—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, but you have to read the rest of the sentence.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I am. It says “as long as it does not in any case”.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: I just want to point out that there is still a condition that he has to evaluate and he has the discretion to look at these conditions and see if they are met or not.

The Chair: And there's also a limit of 12 hours on polling for the day and a closure of midnight for the day.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes, so that poll scheduled to close at 7 p.m. may stay open for an extra five hours. This is exactly why I chose five hours. I don't see that having decided to extend it, he has any option except to extend it for the full period.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: You're absolutely right on that.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Even if half an hour into it everybody's voted....

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Yes. Even if these conditions are met, it has to be for the same period of time.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It's going to happen rarely. Perhaps I shouldn't even worry about it, but good law is good law and bad law is bad law.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson, do you have a comment?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I would suggest that we ask Mr. Bergeron to withdraw the amendment and we'll deal with it in the House at report stage since we're—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You will?

[Translation]

Wasn't there an agreement?

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, Monsieur Bergeron has withdrawn his amendment. We should thank him and show future consideration.

(Clause 17 agreed to on division)

The Chair: This is the fun part of the bill. I see Mr. Pickard is waiting for the fun part.

Can we have a recorded vote on clause 1? This is the short title.

(Clause 1 agreed to on division—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Mr. Ted White: What is the title, please? Just so I can be sure what piece I'm voting on.

The Chair: The title is the long title that you find on the front page. I could read it but it's three lines long.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

• 2130

The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry? There is a recorded vote requested.

(Bill C-2 as amended agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Shall I report the bill with amendments to the House? A recorded vote is requested.

(Bill C-2 as amended reported to the House—[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I'm asking research to produce a paper containing a basket of all of the material issues raised at our hearings that have not been addressed in whole or in part in the bill for our consideration at a future meeting. This will be used for consideration of a report to the House so that they will have a list of the issues we care about but haven't been able to resolve in this bill.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: And a letter to the privacy commissioner on fund-raising using those lists of fund-raisers....

The Chair: I will ask research to prepare that. If you wish to speak to research in advance to assist him, please do.

Mr. White has a question.

Can I allow some members to leave? There will be no dilatory motions or votes after this.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Can I assume there's no meeting tomorrow morning?

Mr. Ted White: I don't think any motion I'm going to make will be dilatory, but I might make a motion. It will just take a moment.

The Chair: We haven't had notice of much coming in here anyway, so you may consider this as procedural.

Go ahead, Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: As this is an unusual process to have the bill come before the committee before second reading, I'm curious to know what would be a reasonable amount of time for the report to be produced. I would think it would take more than a day, possibly until Friday. Would that be reasonable that we would expect it on Friday?

The Chair: In this case the staff make every effort to complete a bill as soon as they practically can and get it back to the chair for a report to the House.

Mr. Ted White: Could I get some sort of guidance here? Would it be reasonable that they would have it Friday afternoon or Monday?

The Chair: I would say that they will either have it for report to the House tomorrow or Friday—no later than Friday.

Mr. Ted White: Is that reasonable? Do the clerks think it's reasonable to have it by tomorrow?

The Chair: They may or may not. I'm sure they would do their best to have it ready as soon as it is practically possible. That is a matter for the House in its normal procedures. It would be the intention of the chair to report the bill either tomorrow, if it's ready, or Friday.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

The Chair: Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On behalf of the committee members, I would like to congratulate and extend our thanks to the staff of the Chief Electoral Officer, of the Privy Council and the committee who have assisted us very efficiently, as well as to the political staff of various political parties that have accompanied us during our work. It was very painstaking work and they supported us exceptionally well during the long hours that we spent together during these last few days.

[English]

The Chair: I think we all concur with that, Monsieur Bergeron.

Having said that, we'll adjourn to the call of the chair. There is no meeting tomorrow.