HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 28, 1999

• 1107

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. I see a sufficient quorum. We have three parties present.

We're delighted to have with us today Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer for Canada. Mr. Kingsley is here with officials and we'll be devoting at least half of our meeting today to his presentation and questions and answers.

We had arrived at a consensual understanding prior to Mr. Kingsley's presence here today. He will be providing a comprehensive but succinct introductory statement. I understand, Mr. Kingsley, you'll also be providing us with a very comprehensive submission, which you would otherwise have delivered orally to the committee, and that's satisfactory subject to the views of members here today.

Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Before we get underway, I have a question on procedure.

The Chair: This is a point of order, I suppose. Go ahead.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: On procedure, I would note that in our meeting the other day the first witness, Minister Boudria, started his presentation at noon and by the time we got through at 1:30.... It was actually past 1:20 before the first government member had an opportunity even to raise a question and we were very short on any ability to raise a question at that time.

I would propose that for a committee to be very effective it's important to look at all members of the committee being able to have input into the discussions—and I think everyone around this table agrees that this is quite important—to make sure that members of committees have a fair and equal opportunity.

I would propose that we make a change to the structure as was carried through last week. My suggestion at this point in time—and I'm not hard-line on the suggestion, but I think we have to bring some fairness so every committee member has an opportunity to participate in the question period—is that we start out with a five-minute rather than ten-minute session, with everybody asking questions, and that two opposition members ask, one Liberal has an opportunity to ask, the other two opposition members ask, one Liberal, and then after the first round there would be one opposition member and one government member through the process.

• 1110

I don't want to get into a raging debate this morning. But I'm just letting you know I feel that for everybody to participate it is important that the opportunity be available for both opposition and government members to participate in the committee discussions. Quite frankly, I feel that oftentimes, where it's structured the way it had been in the last meeting, the government is almost completely shut out of the discussion.

So I would leave that in your hands at this point in time for consideration. If other members wish to comment and discuss it, fine. I only open it up. I don't want to take time away from Mr. Kingsley. That's not the objective here. You can handle this meeting as you wish. But I do believe it's important to consider all members' equal opportunity in committees.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Pickard. Although you don't want to take away the time from the witnesses and although you don't want to have a raging debate, the point has been raised. It would be your chair's view that this issue could be stood down to a point in time when the witnesses had completed their submissions. It's highly unlikely we're going to be able to resolve this without some discussion around the table. So I'm suggesting that it be stood down. The matter will be in the hands of the chair for this meeting.

I understand what you're saying. I had made the point informally to the official opposition very briefly prior to the meeting. We can take the matter up as a committee later and perhaps firm up if we wish.

Members, Mr. Bergeron had indicated he wanted to speak to it, but it would be the preference of the chair that we stand down our internal discussions on this matter until after we've completed our work today.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): I have a good question for you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you that out of respect for the witness, the meeting had to start exactly on time. The other members of this committee, including the Bloc members, are very punctual. However, I wish that out of respect for them, you had waited a few moments. Regardless, we arrived just as the meeting was getting under way. Therefore, there really wasn't a problem. I have no desire to get into a discussion about this with Mr. Pickard because I agree that it's important to hear from this witness. If we want everyone to have enough time to ask him some questions, then I think we should let him get on with his presentation.

I do, however, have a question about what you just said, namely that you broached this matter with the official opposition prior to the start of the meeting. Did I understand you correctly? If that's the case, I'm somewhat surprised to hear it. Perhaps you could enlighten me about one thing, Mr. Chairman. Otherwise, I'll spend the entire meeting wondering a little about what you said exactly. Since I don't wish to call into question your impartiality or sense of fairness toward all parties represented on the committee, I do hope you can enlighten me.

[English]

The Chair: There's no need to question your chair's impartiality until we address the issue of punctuality. Just prior to the meeting, in the absence of the Bloc Québécois, which was not present at the time immediately prior to the start of the meeting, I did speak with a member from the official opposition about a part of the matter raised by Mr. Pickard. I assure you that if any member of the Bloc had been here at the time, I would have raised it. In any event, it's an issue for discussion among members. The other two points you've made have been noted by all members. So we can continue this discussion later. Thank you.

All right. let's get back to our main item of business, Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley. Mr. Kingsley, welcome. I know you have an opening statement. Perhaps you could introduce the officials who have accompanied you here today.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me and my colleagues. I am accompanied by Janice Vézina, the director of election financing, who many of you have met before. Also with me are Diane Bruyère, who is assistant director of operations, and Patricia Hassard, who is the newly appointed assistant chief electoral officer.

• 1115

As you noted in your introductory comments, Mr. Chairman, the full text of my remarks as tabled will be entered into the record, including the three attachments to which I will be referring.

In terms of my presentation, I have extirpated parts of what is before you, but I follow the same order. It shouldn't be all that difficult to follow me. I will just be skipping parts of it.

Bill C-2, the new Canada Elections Act, represents a very significant revision that will become the foundation for Canada's electoral system in the future. Your review of this bill is important to all Canadians. I would also add that as contemplated by subsection 4(3) of the act, Elections Canada has been consulted by the minister responsible for the Canada Elections Act during the preparation of this bill.

Elections Canada is committed to the integrity and the transparency of the electoral process, and a fair and inclusive system that is accessible to the entire Canadian electorate. It is from this perspective that I recommended changes to the Canada Elections Act in the 1996 report to Parliament entitled Strengthening the Foundation, which many of you will remember, as well as in my 1997 report on the 36th general election, where I completed the former report with ten additional recommendations. The main principle underlying many of the recommendations therein was the public's right to know—the public's right to know where the money is coming from, and the public's right to know who is intervening in the electoral process.

Canada's election laws have served us well to date. However, the changing nature of Canadian society, along with advances in technology and communications, have necessitated changes in those basic laws. Since the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and following the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, the electoral legislation has already changed significantly. Accordingly, Bill C-78 addressed issues relating to disabled electors in 1992; Bill C-114 reformed the voting process and made it more user-friendly and accessible for electors in 1993; Bill C-63 established a national register of electors in December 1996; and now we have Bill C-2.

This bill constitutes major progress in the reform of electoral law in Canada. It is much easier to read, understand and apply than the current Canada Elections Act. It recognizes many of the modern realities of the electoral process. In many ways, it strives to enhance participation, transparency and fairness, the main principles upon which a democratic electoral process must be built.

This bill is the most extensive rewrite of the statute since the first one in 1920. Among the measures in Bill C-2 is a requirement that third parties who wish to participate in an election campaign must identify themselves and their financial supporters. In my reports, I've made a number of recommendations seeking to regulate third parties. Bill C-2 would create a regime that requires third parties to register if they spend more than $500 on advertising for or against a candidate or registered party during an election, or on issues associated with registered parties and candidates. The bill would also impose limits on the total amounts that third parties can spend on election advertising.

In 1996, in Somerville v. Canada (Attorney General), the Alberta Court of Appeal declared unconstitutional the thousand-dollar limit on third-party advertising in the current act. However, that is not the end of the matter. In 1997, in Libman v. Quebec (Attorney General), the Supreme Court of Canada disapproved of the Somerville decision. Too often, commentators on the issue of third-party interventions in the electoral process overlook the Supreme Court decision. The members of the committee may wish to review the unanimous reasoning of the court, which stated in part:

For spending limits to be fully effective, they must apply to all possible election expenses, including those of independent individuals and groups... [Such] expenses should include not only those incurred by political parties and candidates, but also those incurred by independent individuals and groups unrelated to the parties and candidates.

The actions of independent individuals and groups can directly or indirectly support one of the parties or candidates, thereby resulting in an imbalance in the financial resources each candidate or political party is permitted.

• 1120

And yesterday Minister Boudria yesterday completed the quote, which is already in my remarks, so I will not repeat it.

The analysis conducted by my office of the survey from the 1997 Canadian election study found that 82.7% of respondents supported limits on third-party spending. The same survey found that 94% of respondents favoured limits on party and candidate spending. For your consideration, I'm attaching to this presentation an extract of a letter dealing with this study that I sent to the chair and to the committee in February 1998, covering in more detail that very point—and that is the contents of the letter that I sent to you at the time as well, Mr. White.

The bill sets a third-party advertising limit for or against candidates of $3,000. In order to put the proposed limit in context, you may wish to know that for the 1997 general election, the average maximum spending limit for a candidate was $62,000. The average actual expenditure by a candidate was $23,400, of which an average of 58%, or $13,600, was spent on advertising.

The bill proposes a national spending limit of $150,000 by a third party on election ads. If a registered party ran candidates in all 301 ridings at the last general election, the maximum spending limit would have been approximately $11.4 million. Generally speaking, some 55% of party spending is spent on advertising, thus the average actual expenditure by a registered party for that election was $3.5 million, with an average of $1.9 million being spent on advertising. For your review, as part of this official text, I'm leaving with you today a table indicating actual election spending by each registered party during the 1997 general election, to help you in your deliberations of this most important topic.

I would also note that during the 1992 referendum, referendum committees were registered within 24 hours, and this was not an impediment for Elections Canada. It would not be when it would come time to register third parties during an election either.

Another reform in Bill C-2 is the increased amount of financial information that will be disclosed about and by political parties. The bill requires more detailed financial reports from registered parties—for example, transfer of funds from parties to candidates and to electoral district associations. These changes do enhance the public's right to know about these matters.

Similarly, the bill requires the disclosure of information about the methodology of opinion surveys. In my reports, I previously recommended that an explanation of the methodology used in an election survey be reported when an election survey is first released, and that the sponsor be required to provide to any person, on request, a detailed report at a reasonable cost. This the bill does.

The bill also takes into account some aspects of the 1999 court decision of the Ontario Court (General Division) in Figueroa v. Canada. The candidate will receive a full refund of the $1,000 deposit if all reporting requirements are met, and upon the return of any unused tax receipts. Registered parties that lose their registration status for failing to field the required number of candidates will not be required to liquidate their assets upon their meeting certain conditions that are in the statute. This makes it much easier for independent candidates and small political parties to participate or continue to participate in an election.

The bill provides an enforceable right for candidates and their representatives to have access to apartment buildings and condominiums from 9 a.m. until 9 p.m. This would make it easier for candidates to have access to electors in their riding, and for electors to meet candidates and their representatives.

[Translation]

Bill C-2 also establishes new measures which will make the enforcement of the act more flexible and timely. They call for a more pro-active approach to electoral enforcement.

The Commissioner of Canada Elections would be given authority to enter into a compliance agreement with a person who committed or who may commit an act or omission contrary to the act. The agreement would be voluntary and would put into place procedures or other measures aimed at ensuring compliance. This agreement would be made public immediately.

• 1125

The bill also empowers the Commissioner to seek a court order for interim relief during an election campaign when voluntary compliance is not forthcoming.

Thus, the Commissioner could seek a court order to require a person to comply with the Act if, in his view, the evidence demonstrates that the fairness of the electoral process and the public interest required action to be taken. This power will have a major impact on the electoral process by introducing a means to enforce the act during the election campaign itself. It is important that the Commissioner be able to take prompt action. These changes to the system are critically important and warrant your full attention.

Over the past seven years, there have been several reviews of the Act which have made comprehensive recommendations for amendments. In order to assist the committee in its study of this bill, I am attaching to the notes of this presentation a table comparing the recommendations made previously by the Royal Commission, parliamentary committees and the Chief Electoral Officer, with the provisions of Bill C-2. This table constitutes a visual aid, provides you with an overview of the situation and gives you some idea of the status of the changes recommended by the various stakeholders. The 32-page format is easy to consult. In fact, I reread it myself last night.

Bill C-2 prohibits publicizing the results of an election survey for the last 48 hours of an election campaign. In the 1998 Thomson Newspapers case before the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice Bastarache, who wrote the majority decision for the court, had this to say about the need for blackouts on polls:

Canadian voters must be presumed to have a certain degree of maturity and intelligence. That have the right to consider the results of polls as part of a strategic exercise of their vote. It cannot be assumed that in so doing they will be so naïve as to forget the issues and interests which motivate them to vote for a particular candidate. I cannot accept, without gravely insulting the Canadian voter, that there is any likelihood that an individual would be so enthraled by a particular poll result as to allow his or her electoral judgment to be ruled by it.

Many of the recommendations that are in my reports deal with ways to increase public knowledge of who spends money to influence the political debate. It is noteworthy that the current election financing laws were adopted 25 years ago, in 1974.

A core principle in my reports was the proposition that a full and accurate reporting of all financial transactions is central to the public's right to know.

Bill C-2 requires the preparation of a return on the financial transactions of trust funds established by a political party for an election. Members of the committee will recall that Bill C-83 had proposed control of a wider range of trusts than Bill C-2. It would have covered any trust established by a registered political party. The recommendation in my report was that provision be made for the appointment of a registered agent for any trust fund associated with a political party. This individual would be responsible for reporting annually on the financial health of the trust fund.

Bill C-2 does not require electoral district associations to provide an annual report of their financial transactions. Yet, their involvement in the electoral process is significant. Electoral district associations often finance a candidate's pre- election activities, raise money from sources between elections, and receive substantial financial transfers of their candidates' election surpluses.

In a research paper for the Lortie Royal Commission, Professor William Stanbury has argued, and I quote:

As the only unregistered and virtually unregulated entity in the federal system regulating political finance, riding associations are, in effect, the “black hole” of party and candidate financing in Canada.

• 1130

Other jurisdictions in Canada - Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia - require political parties' electoral district associations to register and to disclose their financial activities. Such disclosure requirements significantly enhance the public's right to know.

In my reports, I recommended that only the electoral district agent be registered, not the electoral district association, and report if there are financial transactions. At the same time, the registered electoral district agent would be entitled to accept contributions and to issue tax receipts.

Members of the committee may also wish to consider my previous recommendations to extend financial disclosure to leadership campaigns and candidate nominations and to require members of Parliament to disclose contributions received between elections.

In my reports, I recommended that returning officers be appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer in a competitive process based on merit. It is important that returning officers be well prepared to deal with technological challenges, the complexity of the law and the shorter election period, and that they be perceived by all stakeholders and candidates as neutral.

Some of you may recall that in 1998, I shared with this committee the results of a study on electronic voting which was commissioned by Elections Canada. I wish to remind the committee that electronic voting would be optional and that it would not replace our existing system. I also recommended in my reports that the Act be amended to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to conduct pilot projects, such as electronic voting, during a by-election, but only after full consultations with this committee.

Finally, I would like to address the transition provision in the bill, namely section 577. It provides that the bill would come into force six months after the day on which it receives royal assent.

This bill is comprehensive, touching every aspect of electoral administration. If adopted, we would need to rewrite all of our training manuals and create new training programs for returning officers and election workers. It would affect all of our major computer systems. It would also impact on all the major public reporting documents prepared by my office.

Having carefully reviewed these factors, I have concluded that six months would suffice. I might also add that the strategic planning systems established by Elections Canada since 1992 will serve us well as we carry out this task, should Bill C-2 be enacted.

Mr. Chairman, as members of this committee well know, Bill C-2 is an extensive piece of legislation. In my appearance before this committee, I have highlighted the main issues from my perspective and I hope this is useful to you.

As usual, Mr. Chairman, my office is available for any briefings that committee members might want as you deliberate on the details of this bill. I am also pleased to appear before the committee at any time on this or any other matter of interest to you.

You are embarking on a tremendously important review of one of Canada's most important laws and we are there with you.

My office has forwarded to the clerk of the committee the Table of Concordance from the Canada Elections Act to Bill C-2 to assist committee members with their consideration of the bill, as well as the table of contents of the compendium of all federal, provincial and territorial election legislation in Canada. To all intents and purposes, it covers all areas. If you like, we would be happy to send you the compendium in its entirety or simply those sections of interest to the committee.

Thank you for your attention, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.

• 1135

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Kingsley.

First, on behalf of all colleagues here and in the House, I want to acknowledge the integral role that you and your officials would have played in giving advice to government in the drafting of this bill, and secondly, the importance of your advice and that of your officials to Parliament, as Parliament considers the bill. We acknowledge that, and with reference to one of your remarks, it might well be that members would want you to come back at some point in this hearing process. We realize your introductory submissions today were relatively compressed, and so we'll see if that eventuality occurs.

Now I'm going to go to a series of five-minute rounds. I'm sure we'll be able to accommodate everybody on the committee, and we're taking names now.

So I'll go to Mr. White for a five-minute round.

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kingsley, I heard you mention electronic voting on there, and I've already had discussions with the minister and the chair here. I'm hoping we can put an amendment in there, a friendly amendment that will give you that request.

Turning to a comment in your presentation, clauses 24 through 42 and clause 273 deal mainly with the appointment of returning officers, assistant returning officers, revising agents, DROs—there's a whole list there—poll clerks, mainly appointed by Governor in Council, or the parties, or the candidates make recommendations, and so on.

When Elections Canada assists emerging democracies or third world countries to set up their systems, do they recommend a similar system? Or in keeping with your comments, is there some other system recommended, and if so, what would that be? What are the disadvantages and downsides of the present system that cause the parties and candidates to make recommendations about a lot of the people who work within the field operations of Elections Canada?

In terms of a party remaining registered, it must run 50 candidates in an election, and must have applied to be registered 60 days before the issue of the writs for an election. Since we usually don't know when a writ will be issued, I'm left wondering how a party will know when the 60-day cut-off is going to occur. So unless we can, as we tried to do the other day, get fixed election dates, I don't see how that rule can be very practical at all.

But in March of this year anyway, as you would be aware, an Ontario high court decision struck down the 50-candidate threshold as arbitrary and unconstitutional, replacing it with two candidates. And that ruling is under appeal, but the court order has not been stayed. In fact, the Attorney General's office, acting on behalf of the government, withdrew an application for a staying order on September 28. I realize you're not the government, but even if the government couldn't accept the two-candidate threshold as set by Ontario, it still seems rather arbitrary to go back to the 50-candidate rule. Did Elections Canada make any recommendations to the government in terms of what would be an appropriate number—maybe 12, or 10, or something more in keeping with what happens in the House of Commons for party status?

Finally, in terms of third-party spending, there is a question I asked the minister, which you may be aware of if you had a transcript from the other day, and I asked him three times without managing to get an answer. Perhaps you can help me. The question is: Is there evidence from anywhere in the world that third-party spending has ever had any detrimental effect on the outcome of an election or referendum, and particularly in the case of Canada, and is there any evidence that a party or candidate has had insufficient resources to adequately rebut or argue against third-party spending?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: How many hours do I have to respond?

Mr. White, as usual, the questions are excellent, and I will attempt to answer them to the best of my ability. At the same time, if I miss out on some of the points, I would appreciate it if you raised them again, because I don't want to skip any part. It's very important.

With respect to the nominating process for what I will call election officers, for lack of a better word, obviously when I go out on the international scene I do not recommend that the Canadian system be emulated where it comes to the appointment of returning officers. I clearly indicate, as I do in Canada, that the appointment of returning officers under the present system is an anachronism. It is something that was inherited from times past when it may have made some sense, and I have indicated to this committee in my reports that in terms of the credibility of the person, the acceptability of the person by other candidates, by other parties, the process I was proposing whereby an officer of Parliament, the Chief Electoral Officer, would be doing the selection based on merit, in my view would address that significantly. It would also allow us to address the whole issue of competence and merit in the candidates and focus on that and their ability to do the job as the sole factors that merit consideration.

• 1140

Your question also related to lower levels. As I think I've indicated to you in previous testimony, I remain of mixed mind with respect to the appointment of DROs and clerks. I am aware of the bill you introduced in the past to have them chosen by that returning officer, then, who would also have the visibility and the credibility of the impartiality of the Chief Electoral Officer. I find merit in that, but I also find merit in the fact that the DRO comes from a list provided by one party and the clerk comes from a list provided by the party whose candidate came in second. There is a check and balance that is introduced there. However, my bottom line is that I don't think that check and balance is essential, that the system you have proposed would work and would work well. It would require a lot of training, but on the other hand, that's what we do now. The name of the game now is training, so that people know their jobs.

So to encapsulate what I've said, no, I do not recommend that they take the Canadian system in terms of appointment processes for election officers.

With regard to the 50-candidate threshold versus two candidates, it must be remembered that in that judgment the two-candidate threshold would apply only to certain benefits; it wouldn't apply to them all. It wouldn't apply to the reimbursement formula, for example, if I remember correctly, but it would apply to the name of the party on the ballot for those two candidates, which was in essence what the appellant was trying to achieve: get the name of our party on the ballot, because it is viewed as a major achievement in our system.

What I discussed with the government is not what I wish to report here, but what I will do is indicate to you my views on what should constitute a party and when a party should be constituted. It is clear in my mind after the almost 10 years I have been here that there needs to be at least one element that is not easy or too easy to achieve before party status is achieved.

Other than the number of candidates that are fielded, one could visualize a need for 50,000 signatures before a party could become a party, but whether it's that or the number of candidates and if the number should be 40 instead of 50, to me, Parliament and this committee have to come to grips with what the test is whereby a party becomes a party, and an important threshold had to be crossed.

I leave that thought with you. But in my view, I do think it is important that there be one important hurdle or threshold that is not easy or relatively easy to achieve but is a clear indication either of a lot of public support or a clear indication of the willingness and the capacity to perform as a party by having a certain number, a requisite number, of candidates.

• 1145

My answer would be no, with the rest of the system we have now, two is not enough. We would then need something else indicating a lot of support: 50,000 signatures, or 25,000 signatures in some parts. It depends, but it has to be a hurdle. There may be other elements.

With respect to the 60-day cut-off, obviously in a regime whereby one does not have fixed election dates the cut-off would occur if the application had been made and, while the 60 days had not fully expired, an election was called. Whatever was in the hamper at that stage would remain in the hamper. But if the Chief Electoral Officer had been able to process the application sooner, then we would have to look at what impact that would have, and I want to assure the committee that, as with all matters relating to parties and candidates, we act with all due speed. We never attempt to exhaust the time limit given to us and arrive at the last minute. When that happens, it's because we had to go that way. So this may have a bit of an impact on that 60-day cut-off.

With respect to third-party spending and the requirement for evidence about harm and about others having sufficient resources, I suppose I could table before the committee press clippings from the previous campaign, because we gathered them, dealing with third-party intervention against specified candidates, from various third parties. A lot of people were aware of them. I know in testimony before you there were one or two examples given where, at least in the mind of the person giving it, there was evidence that there was that.

With respect to the resources issue, is there any evidence that people did not have sufficient resources? I don't know if I could lay my hands on that, but there is another aspect that I want to share with the committee, and it's obviously a view that I've formulated over time. That is to say, if reasonable third-party limits do not become law in Canada, it is my personal view that over time the whole regime of limits on candidates and parties will fall apart completely because someone will challenge that law, because some third party will have had more resources than the candidate, and this will be clear. The candidate will say, well, I'm going to spend more; I'm not going to take this lying down; I'm going to go above my limit; I have to defend myself. I can't see the courts saying you're subject to the limit no matter what these people have. Once that happens, if we want to have an example of what will happen to us, all we have to do is look at that laboratory down south and what's happening to their electoral system, and all the lead articles about money driving the primaries, chasing candidates, and only a certain group being able to survive the process, the ones with lots of money or the ability to gather it.

So that's my answer, sir.

The Chair: Mr. Kingsley, thank you for that very comprehensive answer.

Colleagues, realize that if we ask four minutes of questions, we're going to get at least that much in a reply, so that's the nature of the beast. I'll go to Mr. Bergeron for five minutes, and then we'll take a five-minute round over here.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: First of all, I want to thank Mr. Kingsley and his team for coming here today. Members always appreciate your appearance very much. Your comments and observations always serve to enlighten us. Thank you as well for all of your efforts on behalf of democracy in this country.

I read and listened carefully to your presentation and as usual, I have only praise for you, the one exception being your observations on the question of electronic voting.

As you know, I've had an opportunity to discuss this subject in the past. I have a number of reservations about electronic voting, while were on the subject in general. Perhaps we should stop using the term broadly, as some parties in the House now do, and start drawing a distinction, first between on-site electronic voting which would speed up the voting process as such and the tabulating of votes after polls close, and secondly, the process of electronic voting which would allow a voter to register his vote directly from home, which would indeed break with tradition. Right now, the solemn act of voting implies that a citizen is taking responsibility. However, as things now stand, the second process has a number of limitations in so far as confidentiality is concerned. Some experts still question whether electronic voting can ensure confidentiality.

• 1150

You also spoke about the criteria or ideals of transparency and fairness which appeared to have guided the government in its drafting of the new legislation. I concur with you that generally speaking, this bill now before the committee introduces a certain number of amendments and substantial improvements to the existing Elections Act. Accordingly, I agree that we must proceed with due diligence to ensure that these improvements and changes are implemented before the next general election.

However, in terms of transparency and fairness, the proposed legislation still has a number of shortcomings, despite the government's good intentions. I pointed out several of them on Tuesday during a meeting with the minister. Surprisingly, at times, the Minister seemed to embrace the Lortie Commission whenever he wanted to justify his decisions, while at other times, he seemed to dismiss the Lortie Commission recommendations outright. Take, for instance, my recommendation about the financing of political parties. He pointed to the fact that the Lortie Commission had not put forward a specific proposal to justify its failure to act on this matter. However, when we pointed out to him that the Lortie Commission, the Chief Electoral Officer on two separate occasions and all opposition parties in this Parliament had recommended that returning officers be appointed through an impartial competition process, he replied: “That may well be, but there are other factors that we need to consider”.

Could you explain to me further the reasons why you recommended on two separate occasions in the past, and why you continue to maintain here today that for the sake of the transparency and fairness of our electoral system, returning officers should be appointed through an independent competition process, and not by way of some partisan process, as is now the case.

I would also like to make two brief comments about Mr. White's suggestion that deputy returning officers and polling clerks be eventually appointed through a similar process. At first glance, I can't really see any problems with that. However, for the benefit of our audience, and for those who will have an opportunity to read the transcripts of our proceedings, I do want to say one thing.

Obviously, the so-called system of checks and balances comes into play when persons representing two different political options find themselves together. They somehow manage to keep the process open and fair. However, another factor must also be considered. The act of appointing deputy returning officers and polling clerks from lists drawn up by the political parties encourages public participation in and the machinery of the electoral process. In that sense, it encourages people to get actively involved and, dare I say it, to become party activists. We must not lose sight of this fact when we consider the provisions of the bill.

That's all for now, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Kingsley.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Bergeron, thank you for your comments about my presentation.

• 1155

You've clearly identified both sides of the issue. On the one hand, an electronic voting machine would be set up in the traditional polling booth. We're seeing this happen more and more frequently in municipalities across Canada.

Elections Canada is not very keen on the idea for one simple reason: it would push costs up and, as long as there is only vote to tally to determine who represents that federal riding, there would be no great advantage to employing this method. However, if ever the time comes when, on election day, voters are asked to choose their federal MP as well as their representative in the Senate, to vote in a referendum and to either endorse or reject some kind of proposition - in short, to make six or seven choices, then electronic voting becomes a far more efficient way of proceeding because the results can be tallied quickly.

It is the second kind of electronic voting that is referred to in my report. You are quite right to raise issues such as the difficulty associated with this process and confidentiality. Confidentiality isn't the problem, because we feel confident that we can guarantee it. The problem, rather, is making certain that the person casting the vote is indeed the person entitled to vote. That's why we recommended to the committee that pilot projects be conducted, since technology can offer solutions. We would define the parameters of these pilot projects and conduct them only during a by-election. Voters would be free to use either this method or the more traditional one.

All I can say is that the pilot project would be closely controlled. You would be informed of all the particulars and if you decided that you didn't want us to go ahead, the project would be shelved. However, if we do not make some provision for this in the bill, we'll never put this option to the test. We would then lag behind other jurisdictions. You would ask us for reports and these would be less than enlightening, at least in the case of federal elections.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: [Editor's note: Inaudible]... it's a symbolic gesture.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: A symbolic gesture? We have people making decisions involving millions of dollars over their cell phone while driving their cars. I'd say they were ready to make decisions about the way their country should be governed by recording their vote electronically. We have people who are unable to get out and would like to be able to vote, not by mail, because that's an option, but electronically, because they have become quite adept at using such systems. That's the gist of my proposal. I won't get into it again, because I've said all I had to say. If members disagree, that's the end of it, but I will at least have done my duty by telling you what I think about this option.

As for the process of appointing returning officers, the Lortie Commission did not make any specific recommendation to this effect. The Chief Electoral Officer at the time was the one who made this recommendation, following the experience we had. I won't repeat what I said earlier, but I will elaborate some.

In the 1997 general election, 75 per cent of the 301 returning officers lost their jobs because of the 1995 redistribution. Therefore, we were in the position of having to train a large number of new returning officers who had no experience whatsoever in terms of running an impartial election. Of this 75 per cent, one quarter were appointed during the final weeks of the campaign and received only two days of training, instead of the eight or nine days now required, given all of the systems that we have in place. We mustn't delude ourselves. The returning officer relies on fully automated systems, just as the head office does. The one thing in the system that isn't automated at present is the actual process of casting a ballot. Everything else is automated. Therefore, we need people who have been properly trained.

That's one important aspect of this whole issue. Having the Chief Electoral Officer appoint returning officers would ensure that the merit principle prevails and incompetent individuals would be dismissed. Right now, the Chief Electoral Officer does not have the authority to fire a returning officer who is clearly incompetent. I don't have this authority. All I can do is try to convince the Governor in Council and that can be an exhausting process. Thank you.

• 1200

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): My understanding of the legislation is that the $150,000 countrywide is a finite limit. You can't have 50 organizations spending $150,000 for $7.5 million. It's $150,000 countrywide by all third parties. Is that accurate?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: By each third party.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: By each third party.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: By each third party, and there are collusion provisions in the statute that prevent these people from knowingly entering into deals so that they multiply the $150,000.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: And in the real world there'll be 50 ways of getting around that.

If I had 50 organizations in my riding, they could each spend $3,000 against me?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If they are genuine organizations, and if that's their inclination and they're not colluding amongst themselves, yes.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: If I had 50 organizations that thought I was doing a really super-duper job, they could also spend $3,000 each to tell the world how good I was.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: As long as they're not in collusion with you, yes.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Okay.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: And by the way, “collusion” has been defined under other statutes; it's not an issue for us. The commissioner for Elections Canada was one of the first administrators of the law dealing with collusion under another statute. So we have the experience in hand.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Well, I'm really glad to hear that, because on this one, if I were a smart cookie, I'd be able to figure out 50 ways around it.

There's a recommendation from the Lortie commission that we've all ignored—and I was off the committee for a year, so I don't know how intense the debate was. It was to limit the expenses of persons seeking nominations—and you talked about riding associations accepting donations. In my particular nomination, I would bet that with six candidates spending an average of $30,000 to $40,000, we had a good $200,000 spent by Liberals in my riding well before I was ever nominated. Without any limits there, in a hotly contested nomination, you have an immense advantage going into the election because of the publicity. Would you not agree with that?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, I would agree, and that's why I recommended that nomination meetings also be subject to limits and reports.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Okay. The Lortie commission suggested it be 10% of the limit of a candidate's election expenses. Now, I was at the time in a riding with over 300,000 people. Would that 10% and the limit be based on what they anticipated the new spending would be, or would it be based on the last election?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It could very easily be based on the last projection that we had provided you, which would have been October 15 the year previous. We provide you with a list now, and with the increases in the voting population, you get an estimate of what your expenses would be. So it's very easy. You got that on October 15—a couple of weeks ago. In my view, it could easily be based on that, which would give it currency, in both senses of the word.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: My limit in 1993 was something like $97,000. It was huge. So each candidate could have spent just under $10,000, and that would have been their limit.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That's the way that would work, in accordance with the royal commission.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: By the way, I'm a big fan of the standard updated election list. I think we've done a terrific job. I was not too impressed with how Ontario handled it in the last election, but I'm pleased to see it's working. It's a very good system.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thank you. We're trying it at every by-election and improving its use every time.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Parrish, for your intervention.

I'll recognize Mr. Bonin for five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): I won't take up all of my allotted time.

Mr. Kingsley, I want to thank as well as praise you and your staff for being so courteous and accessible. When questions arise, especially after an election, your staff does its utmost to resolve problems and its efforts are much appreciated.

[English]

My question is on third parties. I read into this that a union that exempts their executive members for the period of an election to work on the election full time would become a third party. A union is not a member of any political association; individuals are. We all know of examples where executives of unions are put on managing campaigns full time, but are not taken off the union payroll. Am I correct in believing that in this case they would become a third party subject to the limitations?

• 1205

The Chair: Yes. Ms. Vézina will reply to that question.

Ms. Janice Vézina (Director of Election Financing, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): Your question was whether the union in that situation would be third party if it were loaning staff or union members to another third party?

Mr. Raymond Bonin: While maintaining them on their own payrolls.

Ms. Janice Vézina: Well, I think that would be a contribution to the third party from the union.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: There is no exchange of money from the union to the party in order to pay these employees. They are on the union payroll. They are paid by the union, which I consider to be a third party.

Ms. Janice Vézina: But that would be a contribution of services.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: And reportable.

Ms. Janice Vézina: And reportable.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Paid services.

Ms. Janice Vézina: Yes. Because they're doing this during normal working hours, and they're being paid to do this by the union, any donation of services in that context would be a contribution from the union.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: This has been an ongoing practice that we all know of, but we never see it in the reports from elections as a contribution. It's never been required that they include it. They have never included it.

Ms. Janice Vézina: They're supposed to.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Therefore, I don't think they see that as a contribution to the party. I know by asking the question that there's room for debate here. It's something that will have to be cleared up, because it is a real problem for those who don't benefit from that service.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I will add further that under the present law, if such a thing is known, it should be reported to us, because we would investigate that. A donation of staff by a union or anyone else is reportable as a contribution.

I will further state that under your example, if a union were providing funding or a contribution in kind to a third party to help it, that third party would then be subject to the limits and the law, and it would also be subject to the provisos requiring declarations about who's contributing. So it would be clear that the union was contributing to that third party.

Moreover, if that union itself became a third party and involved itself in the process, then we'd face that prospect of collusion that I was talking about. Okay?

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Yes.

The Chair: Just to clarify that, the donation of a service from, let us say, a union to a candidate during a campaign would not be just a donation recordable as a donation, but would also be an election expense for the candidate, recordable as an election expense. Have I got that right?

Ms. Janice Vézina: If the services were being used to directly promote or oppose a candidate or a party, it would be an election expense.

The Chair: That's correct. Thank you.

I recognize Mr. Earle, then Mr. Harvey.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you are aware, I am substituting for my colleague John Solomon, who's normally on this committee.

I understand that at the last meeting of this committee Mr. Solomon questioned the government House leader, Mr. Boudria, about rural vouching, the process whereby in a rural area a person can vouch for their neighbour, who perhaps does not have identification on them. Now, this is a very important concept for rural voters, who very often know their neighbours, and it's quite often not uncommon for farmers and people in those areas to not carry identification. I guess what we're asking is whether it's possible to have rural vouching be reincorporated into this bill, and if you have any concerns about that.

Another question, if I can get it in, would be that I note in your presentation you talked about the bill providing an enforceable right for candidates and their representatives to have access to apartment buildings and condominiums. I think that's good, but hand in hand with that, we noticed that in regard to the permanent voters list that was referred to earlier by an honourable member opposite, there were problems with that list, particularly with respect to apartment buildings and condominiums, where quite often someone would find that people were not registered or their husbands had died or so forth.

• 1210

So we're asking again if it's possible that a recommendation be made to make it mandatory to enumerate all apartment buildings and multi-unit complexes in order that we might have the greatest number of voters registered to vote as possible.

Thank you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comment Mr. Earle just made.

We did pick up from the testimony Mr. Solomon provided two days ago the two matters that have been brought forward today, and we have prepared an alternative you may wish to consider—a practical alternative that would do away with vouching but not do away with vouching. We're masters at this.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It would simplify the process enormously from an administrative point of view and yet would still allow the practice to occur under controlled situations.

We have provided, in English and in French, a one-pager on this, which I would like to leave with the committee and which you may wish to consider. It is also possible that it may apply under other circumstances for other people who do not usually carry forms of identification.

I would also like to add that with respect to the necessary identification that is required, we are having very interesting discussions, to which the New Democratic Party representative is significantly contributing, at the Advisory Committee of Registered Political Parties, which this committee will remember was struck at the request of this body. This is working out exceedingly well, and a marriage of the two may well allow this to remain a practice but be of general application.

One of the essential features would be to ensure that.... What word is it?

Ms. Diane Bruyère (Assistant Director of Operations, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): The definition?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Could I ask Ms. Bruyère to briefly explain this to you, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: That's fine.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Or would you rather deal with it later?

The Chair: This is the hybrid proposal that you're talking about?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: This is the whole issue of vouching. If you wish, you can deal with it later. Diane will be around.

The Chair: I know we'll have an opportunity to deal with it later.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Okay, thank you.

The second question dealt with what the minister referred to and what was referred to in the question by Mr. Solomon, picked up by Mr. Earle: the issue of mandatory enumeration of certain areas. Under the present law there is of course a massive impact on the process of revision.

We have set up administratively a system of targeted revision, where the returning officer, together with candidates, identifies areas of high mobility—apartment buildings, for example—where the turnover is very high, as the term implies; areas of new construction, where we have nothing in our files; and areas where people are institutionalized for long periods, if not for the rest of their lives, where the turnover is deemed to be high as well. We have dovetailed procedures for each of those cases, and we train returning officers in this. They in turn share this and are trained to share this with candidates.

Ideally what we're aiming for is a regime whereby candidates, all of them together, would agree with the returning officer about where to do targeted revision, where those high-rise buildings are, where those residential areas are, and where those institutionalized facilities are where we will have to send revising agents to do the job on the spot or, in the case of high-rises where we already have all the right addresses but the names don't coincide, where we would greatly facilitate the revisal process by dropping off revisal forms. A lot of it can be handled by telephone.

But all of that targeting we wish to do with the candidates. This is what we're trying with the by-elections right now. So it's not just a returning officer decision.

• 1215

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): I want to thank the Chief Electoral Officer and his team, because it's not easy to do a good job without some backup. Your work is always appreciated, but even more so when one is fortunate to emerge victorious.

You are responsible for implementing the provisions of the Canada Elections Act. Could you possibly tell us a little more about some of the improprieties that occur in federal ridings. You claim that 75 per cent of the workers had no experience. That is a considerable number of people and that must represent a major challenge for you.

Do you consider this particular recommendation to be essential in order to face, as you so aptly put it in your report, the challenges of technology, of shorter election campaigns and so forth? Is recommending that returning officers be appointed on the basis of merit, through a competition process, critical to the success of future election campaigns, in light of the considerable technological challenges you face now and will continue to face in the future?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I make the same recommendation every time because I believe it is a critically important one. When a process is described as anachronistic, it means that it has outlived its usefulness and it's time for something new. If my recommendation is not adopted this time, then it will have to wait until the next electoral reform process. However, I'm hoping that it will be adopted this time around.

The existing political climate is a reality. The number of political parties in Canada is growing. The divisions between the parties is greater than in the past and political philosophies vary more widely than ever before. All of this doesn't make the Chief Electoral Officer's job any easier. Any decision, however benign it may appear, has political overtones for certain people and credibility becomes a very important issue. I won't get into this any further. I've already said enough by mentioning the differences in party philosophies. When we try and get people to agree on targeted reform, if eight of the nine candidates don't really have any confidence in the returning officer, then it's difficult to achieve a consensus.

Mr. André Harvey: Since you yourself have qualified this recommendation as critical, it takes on significant import. You do realize that?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Of course.

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you.

I have one final brief question. In referring to polls, Mr. Justice Bastarache said that polls can help citizens to vote strategically, but that ultimately, they do not necessarily influence people's judgement. Could you explain that statement to me?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: As I understand this ruling, Mr. Justice Bastarache argued that a poll could prompt a person to vote in a strategic manner, but he didn't believe that a poll could make a person vote against his best interests. He also issued a word of caution about false polls.

• 1220

On the basis of the Royal Commission's report and my previous recommendations, the government is proposing that within the first 24 hours after the results of the poll are released, that the name of the firm that conducted the poll be released, along with the name of the sponsoring organization, the questions asked, the response rate and the margin of error. If all of the facts are made known, the average Canadian - who we must assume to be reasonable intelligent otherwise the very foundations of our electoral system crumble—will understand and view the poll in the proper perspective.

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Knutson, five minutes.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Kingsley, I'd like to get your opinion on the timing of the passage of the bill and how much lead time you would need to implement this bill so it can have its impact on the next federal election. If we assume for the sake of argument that we're a year and a half away from the next federal election, that we're looking possibly at spring of not next year but the following year, how much time would you need to get ready for a spring election of 2001?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I need six months, no more, to implement this legislation after passage. That's what the law allows me. After those six months I put a notice in the Canada Gazette, and as a result of that notice the new law is fully in effect. That's all I need, six months. That's the message I was trying to convey in my last remarks to the committee. We can do this job in six months, the whole job, the whole statute. So after you pass it and royal assent is given in the Senate as well, six months after that, no later, it's in law. That's all I need.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Right. Can you explain to us when the bill would come into force and which measures would be put into place to ensure a smooth transition? Can you just give us some details on that?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We would obviously, as part of that six months, set up wide communications programs for the Canadian public to understand the changes that are coming for the next election. We would also set up communications programs that we would gear at the Advisory Committee of Registered Political Parties, where all ten registered political parties sit and where we discuss all this. They would advise us—why don't you do this first and that second instead of what you're proposing? We would listen with all ears, because it's a committee that's functioning extremely well and whose advice I now cherish.

So that is how we would go about it: advise the Canadian public of what's coming, advise the political parties of what's coming, and ask them to advise their candidates about the new law and what it will mean for them.

We would also set up all of our training programs for returning officers. We would reset all of our training programs for DROs that would flow from this. We would, of course, gear up at head office for the registration of third parties, but that is essentially a piece of cake. That's what we did for the referendum in 1992.

So basically we have the systems down pat. With the way we now do planning at Elections Canada, operational planning as well as strategic planning, everything is computerized, everything has an objective, everything has timeframes, and everything is followed to the minute. So my answer stands.

Mr. Gar Knutson: All right.

On the issue of returning officers, I understand your recommendation to the committee and I understand your reasoning, but I only want to make one point and get your reaction.

I ran in 1993, and originally it was a Tory-appointed returning officer. I've worked in provincial elections that had returning officers appointed by political parties. I recommended and had appointed a returning officer in my own riding who was the returning officer in 1997. My own experience is that these people do a fine job. Any partisanship they had prior to being appointed they quickly lose, in part with your guidance and instructions and pointing out what the law is.

So somebody, an outsider, coming in during my election in 1997 and observing the behaviour of the returning officer wouldn't know whether they'd been appointed politically or whether they'd been hired on merit. It wouldn't have made any difference at all. My sense is that's true across the board, that you get good appointments in the current system. That's basically what I'm saying.

• 1225

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: As you well know, since I'm in charge of 301 returning officers and having to lead them into the campaign, I'm not in a position to say that the overwhelming majority of them are dogs, because they are good people and they're trying to do their best. Many of them do just that. There is a minority, and that's to be expected.

I think the issue we're trying to address here is that very perception amongst many, as well as the fact that they may be competent but they may not be the most competent; others might have been able to do a much better job had there been a competitive process. This I think is the issue that joins the people and touches the people directly.

The issue that joins other candidates is the perception. If you're going to phone all the parties one after the other about something you've decided, which party do you call first? That has an impact on the others if they happen to be the last and the party in power always happens to be the first.

These are conceptual, perceptual problems. They do exist. We live with them. I don't want to give the impression that this is rampant throughout the system. If it were rampant, I would have raised it as that exactly. That's not what I've done in my reports. I've calculated my words very carefully.

Mr. Gar Knutson: To close, I also know that if I happen to appoint somebody who is, one, incompetent or, two, is going to act in an unfair manner, I'm the person who's going to pay the price for that politically. So I have a certain amount of motivation that I present a name based on merit as well, and I suggest that I'm not sure you'd get an overall better returning officer through your office than you would through our own.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That's a fair comment and I accept it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Before going to Ms. Catterall for a round, I wanted to acknowledge the presence at the hearing today of some students from the School of Community and Public Affairs at Concordia University who are here with the Honourable David MacDonald, a former and esteemed colleague.

Secondly, on a very important business matter, there are light refreshments in the room now, and it was our expectation that members would make provisions for themselves. After that had been done, we would invite our witnesses and officials, if they felt it appropriate, to partake of some of those refreshments. So I offer that on a first come, first served basis.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): There are a couple of things I'd like some clarification on.

One, on the third-party advertising the issue of collusion has been raised a couple of times, and I would ask you to spell out more specifically what the provisions in the act are and if you have to refer to other legislation as well. I can see it being quite easy for an organization to anticipate ahead of time an electoral event and prepare by forming other organizations, encouraging others to form organizations supporting the same objective. I'm not sure how you can in fact limit or prevent that. There is a reasonable expectation of a right to free association, so I'm wondering how you think this act achieves that.

• 1230

Ms. Patricia J. Hassard (Assistant Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): I'll try to answer that, Ms. Catterall.

I think there is a challenge associated with a collusion offence. There is no doubt about that. We think the scheme would be very incomplete without that type of offence being in the act. But recognizing that it is one that will be.... We will feel our way through the first prosecution. Obviously it will depend a lot on the facts of the particular situation. The existence of the offence may serve to be a deterrent. There are higher penalties in the bill than there are in the current legislation.

So putting all of that together and including experience with other collusion offences under, say, bankruptcy or competition legislation, because there are precedents in other legislation, we would of course have to study that and look at that. I can't say at this point that we have nailed down all of the criteria and the circumstances where this would be a successful prosecution.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Secondly, regarding the issue of parties that have been deregistered maintaining their funds, are there limits on that?

Ms. Janice Vézina: Do you mean time limits?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes. Are parties deregistered if they don't run people again at the next election? What happens the following election, and the following election; what happens to those funds?

Ms. Janice Vézina: They will be required to report their expenses until the amount of their net assets is exhausted, and they must run candidates—and that's plural, not just one candidate—at the next general election. If they fail to meet these conditions they will be basically wound up at that point. If they continue to meet the conditions under the act, they will continue with their assets.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: So forever they could continue to run two candidates per election, raise money, and spend money they already have gained through contributions, and that could go on for 50 years?

Ms. Janice Vézina: Yes. The only thing is they don't have the right to issue tax receipts, so whatever fundraising they're doing is without the benefit of tax receipts.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Does that seem reasonable if they have $1 million in the bank?

Ms. Janice Vézina: I don't really have a comment on the reasonableness of these liquidation provisions.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay. What if a party ceases to exist?

Ms. Janice Vézina: If it wishes to cease to exist?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes.

Ms. Janice Vézina: It will be voluntarily suspended. That is the term now rather than deregistered. And if they have a balance of net assets, that would be turned over to the Receiver General. If they're deregistered for non-compliance, they would also be wound up in a similar fashion to the current act. The value of their net assets would be paid over to the government, to the Receiver General.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm thinking of a very real situation where a party now having official status, in fact official opposition status, in the House of Commons is proposing to form a new party. What happens to their assets? Do they have to turn them over to—

Ms. Janice Vézina: A merger?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes, a merger. Is that provided for in the act?

Ms. Janice Vézina: Yes, Bill C-2 does have provisions for the merging of two or more registered political parties.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: What if it weren't a merger? What if it were an existing party creating a new party?

Ms. Janice Vézina: It has to be two or more existing registered parties. They have to be already registered.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay. I think this is fairly important, because what you are essentially saying is that if the Reform Party were to form a new party called the United Alternative it couldn't transfer its assets to that new party.

Ms. Janice Vézina: The merging provisions deal with two or more registered parties merging.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay.

Ms. Janice Vézina: So it would have to be two or more existing registered parties.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay.

I just wanted to ask one more quick question. In your verbal comments you talked about requiring members of Parliament to disclose contributions. Now, members of Parliament don't receive contributions, certainly not contributions that are tax receiptable. So I wondered what you had in mind and what kind of problem you were identifying there, if any.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well, I think the operative phrase is “if any”. But the issue really is that when addressing the matter of electoral financing one must look, if one is attempting to widen the black hole, not just fool around at the margin, at all possible sources of contributions that are being given to various persons for electoral purposes, and that includes members of Parliament possibly receiving contributions during elections.

• 1235

I'm not in a position to say that any do, but I'm not in any position to say that any don't either. I don't know if members around this table do receive contributions between elections as members of Parliament or if automatically they're sent to the local party association or if automatically they're sent to the party. That's not covered under the Parliament of Canada Act that I'm aware of and it's not covered under our statute. The purpose in the recommendation was that it's only one part of a total scheme, which is what happens at the local association should all become public. That even includes if the local association is bypassed and a sum of money is given directly to a member of Parliament, so people would know who contributed and people would know how much.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: So it's a fishing expedition. You're not aware of a problem.

The Chair: We have exhausted the time, Ms Catterall, I've been reminded by several members already.

We'll go to Mr. White, Mr. Earle, and then Mr. Bergeron, and that should allow us to conclude.

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

Don't worry, Marlene. We've read the clauses of the bill. We know exactly where we're going here.

Mr. Kingsley, I have a short question from one of my constituents, who asked me whether it's going to be possible on the Elections Canada website to put in a postal code and find out which electorate a person belongs to. Perhaps you could enlighten me on that.

Mr. Bergeron expressed a concern that electronic voting may not be confidential, but I would put forward that in my opinion there are terrible loopholes in the present act in terms of people voting who shouldn't be voting. Paragraph 56(d) tells us that no person shall “wilfully apply to have included in the Register of Electors the name of an animal or thing”. Now, just the fact that this clause is there saying you can't register an animal or thing implies to me that you can in fact do it without detection, and I think if I were to fill out the paperwork for Rusty Briggs to be registered, and in fact he's my dog, I would say that you would never determine that he was on the voters list and in fact somebody could go and vote in his name.

So I would ask you whether there's a concern in Elections Canada that there are animals and things getting onto the voters list and that without the proper proof of identity, particularly when a person goes to vote, there is a major risk that there are people on the voters' list who aren't actually legitimately there.

Finally, Mr. Kingsley, could you please indicate how often a person asks for a ballot at a polling station in the name of someone who has already voted? There's a clause there that deals specifically with that, that if a person asks for a ballot in the name of someone who has already voted, that person can give an oath and vote again. How often does that happen? Is it a common thing?

I do have other questions, but I'll approach you afterwards because they're not of wide interest.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Your first question related to what we call the search engine we have at Elections Canada, and I forget where we sit in terms of putting that on our website so people could look up their own riding. Does anyone here know?

I'll come back to the committee in writing on that one, sir.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With respect to the two other questions, dogs on lists and number of times people ask for a ballot and the name was already taken...

Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Every dog I know votes Reform.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I would ask Diane Bruyère to answer those questions, please.

Ms. Diane Bruyère: That portion of what's in the Canada Elections Act relating to animals or things dates back to Bill C-114 in 1993. We had a few occasions when we were doing enumerations when people would give the names of their dogs or an enumerator would go to a door and hear the name of a dog and think it was the name of a child or a husband or a spouse and put it on the list. Because of that, it was added to the act at the time to ensure that if someone deliberately did that, they could be prosecuted.

• 1240

Now, with the provisions requiring identification for registration at the polls or registration during a revision period, chances are you're not going to see that again, obviously, unless someone can forge a signature. But if it did happen deliberately, if somebody fraudulently provided a piece of identification, we could still prosecute.

That's why it's still in there for animals or things. Hopefully we don't have any. We haven't found any, anyway.

In terms of your other question relating to anybody having voted on behalf of someone else or having voted in the name of someone else, this type of information is sealed in the documentation that comes back from the polling stations after polling day. We have no way of knowing how many times this has or hasn't happened, because we cannot open the documentation without a court order.

Mr. Ted White: Could you just add to it?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: In the poll book, yes.

Mr. Ted White: I have a little supplementary to that. Under the existing act, would it be possible for me to add, say, 100 people to the voters list by using, say, the disabled persons provisions that are in here, whereby a registered elector can register somebody else? Theoretically I could register or have my friends register up to 100 or 200 people and actually bus in 200 people from another area to vote in those persons' names on voting day. I just need to know whether it would be possible under the bill for someone to do that.

Ms. Diane Bruyère: To register someone else on the list of electors, you still have to provide identification documents for that person. You would need to have the necessary name, address, and signature of whoever you wanted to register. If it's someone who is not a relative of yours, you also must have a letter saying you've been given permission to add him to the list. There are all kinds of safeguards to make sure you can't do what you described.

The Chair: Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I have one final question on behalf of my colleague Mr. Solomon. I'm not sure whether he's just seeking information or making a recommendation. My guess is that he's just looking for information.

Mr. Solomon pointed out that in the 1997 general election the voter turnout was about 67%. It was down from 70% in 1993. In previous federal elections, the turnout has averaged around 75%. He's pointing out that Canada's turnout rate has been consistently lower than the international average and is continually dropping. Is there anything that can be done to reverse this trend of apathy toward elections? How can we increase voter turnout? He proposes this question: has Elections Canada considered compulsory voting, such as is done in Australia?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Compulsory voting is nowhere in the recommendations I've made. If we had considered it and I had decided that it was the way to go, I would have made a recommendation, which is a backhanded way of saying, no, we've not considered it.

But there are other measures that are of concern to us in terms of increasing voter participation. We do a lot more, and we're very persistent about reaching out to new Canadians—communications means. We've now set up a program with Canada's Assembly of First Nations to study how to increase the participation of those aboriginal persons who wish to vote. We're thinking of extending this as well. We're planning to extend it to other aboriginal groups. We also reach out to the disabled in a very significant way—for which we've been recognized by them, by the way.

We also reach out to Canada's young people, because it's between the ages of 18 years to 25 years that the participation rate is the lowest of all, hovering at 50%, hence the school programs we have established to reach out to the schools, with various kits that we give to the schools to facilitate the vote, to teach them how not to be afraid of an electoral process.

For many people, the electoral process looks like a bureaucracy, and it's difficult to decide to go and vote. We're trying to familiarize more Canadians with the process, with the friendliness of it, and I think we're having a certain amount of success. But when one looks at the dropping rates, one can only say that there are other places...that something else is happening, and perhaps it's not in the hands of Elections Canada. Perhaps it's in the hands of others.

• 1245

The Chair: Thank you.

I'll go to Mr. Bergeron for the final round.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have one quick question. First of all, I noticed that you did not comment at all on my observation concerning the appointment of deputy returning officers and polling clerks. I won't press the point, but I will likely draw a number of conclusions.

I have to say that I was somewhat taken aback by Ms. Bruyère's response that there is no way to trace attempted irregularities. If I'm not mistaken, a record is kept. Is this record sealed and inaccessible? If that's the case, then I think the Elections Act should be amended. I think that you should make a recommendation to this effect immediately so that we can eventually trace these kinds of irregularities and, if necessary, take the appropriate corrective action.

I hate to contradict you, but for your own sake and for the sake of the recommendation you made concerning the appointment of returning officers, I'd like to quote from your own report on the administration of the 35th general election. You note the following on page 63 of your report:

In any democratic system, it is vitally important that the electoral process be administered efficiently and that the Elections Act be applied with impartiality. Elections Canada staff must be independent of the current government and shielded from partisan influence.

This recommendation stems from the 1991 report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing. I repeat that this recommendation was not merely formulated by the Chief Electoral Officer, but also by the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing.

That being said, I'll conclude quickly by mentioning two things. First all, our committee has discussed the matter of trusts at length and has even formulated a fairly specific recommendation. The committee backed a proposal by Ms. Catterall and incorporated it into its recommendation respecting candidates trusts, particularly trusts that members have established outside the electoral process and that add to their campaign coffers.

The minister testified before the committee on Tuesday. I'm prepared to believe that he was being straightforward when he said that there was no recommendation to this effect in the committee report, but I made it very clear to him again that there was in fact a recommendation, and I preceded to quote it for him. I'm confident that the minister will eventually incorporate this recommendation into his proposed amendments, otherwise the committee might want to act on this since it had already made a unanimous recommendation to this effect.

As for spending by third parties, I'd like to raise an important point. If, for the sake of democracy, we deemed it advisable to set a limit on spending, then all the more reason for us to set a limit on spending by persons not directly involved in the election. In accordance with the decision that you quoted to us, it would seem logical that this spending limit be substantially lower than that set for candidates and parties actually in the running.

I too could ask Mr. White to give us an example of countries in the world where the absence of a limit on spending for parties has not influenced in any way the electoral process. I think we could come up with a slew of examples. Similarly, and for the reasons I have invoked, the spending limit for third parties should be lower than the limit in place for individual candidates and parties.

The Chair: Mr. Kingsley.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With all due respect, I don't wish to contradict you, but I did comment about deputy returning officers and polling clerks. I did say that I was of two minds, that I had mixed feeling and that I thought I could live with the current system, given the checks and balances in place.

• 1250

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: However, you didn't comment on the option of parties submitting a list of names in order to simplify the process in the various riding across Canada.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No, I didn't comment on this proposal, but this is something worth bearing in mind because it affects you more closely than it does me. It will be up to you to weigh all of these recommendations. The table that I distributed to you this morning should help you tremendously because it highlights the provisions in Bill C-2 as well as the Royal Commission's recommendations.

It has just been brought to my attention that in 1992, the Royal Commission recommended that the Governor in Council continue to appoint returning officers, but that if it failed to do so 90 days before the deadline, the task should fall to the CEO or to the commission. Obviously, the Commission was inspired by your words, although it didn't go so far as I or other government authorities did. I have shared this information with you to clarify the roles of the various parties.

Since you have stated your position on trusts, I don't think I need to say anything more. That's all. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Kingsley and officials.

As colleagues know, we are now going to move to what we described as a briefing from officials, a kind of overview of the bill. It's not dissimilar from the perspective of either the minister, who appeared before us earlier, or Mr. Kingsley and his officials, who have appeared here today, but it may provide an opportunity for some additional questioning and some perspective.

Thank you very much to the witnesses at the table. In all likelihood, we will be in touch later on in the process, but not too much later on. We look forward to exchanging views in the process over the next two or three weeks.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

The Chair: I think we could probably suspend for about one minute while awaiting the new witnesses. It's not really long enough to do much, but we will suspend and come back on record in about a minute or two.

• 1252

• 1256

The Chair: Colleagues, I'll call the meeting back to order, and we'll resume.

This is the briefing portion of the meeting. From the Privy Council Office, we are pleased to have with us Mr. Michael Peirce, director of legal operations for legislation and House planning; and Isabelle Mondou, counsel for legislation and House planning. Of course, both are expert in the legislation before us, and we now have an opportunity to receive the benefit of their perspective on the legislation in the hope that it will assist all of us in picking up on the general thrust and the details.

I want to welcome you both. We've allocated about 45 minutes for this purpose, and your chair will leave one question that perhaps we didn't nail down sufficiently prior to this.

The Chief Electoral Officer has indicated very clearly that he needs no more than six months. A six-month implementation period for the new legislation will allow him to fully implement it. I did note in the bill the existence of a 60-day application period for groups wishing to become registered political parties. If there is a “60 days prior to E-day” provision in the bill, then as I read it—please correct me if I'm wrong—if an election were called two days after the bill was put into force by the Chief Electoral Officer, that would therefore involve a retrospective placement of the 60-day time clock.

Most of us around the House don't like doing things retroactively or even retrospectively unless we have to, in the public interest. Could you comment on whether or not that scenario of an E-day called within a week of the bill's implementation by the procedures and the CEO would in fact involve a retrospective application of that 60-day application requirement for registered political parties?

You can answer that later on in your presentation, or you can answer it now.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou (Counsel, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office): In fact the party can register or can table or give an application to the CEO for registering right now, so they can do that before the act. They don't have to wait for the act to come into force.

Your example, though, is very good in terms of the new provision to allow merging parties to keep their assets. In that case, you also have a period to give the CEO the time to do all the papers. In that case, if the act was to come into force, to be able to merge under these new provisions before the next election, a party would need this 30-day period that is in the bill.

The Chair: Therefore, does it mean that in wishing to accord fairness to all parties, we should be looking at six months plus 30 days or six months plus 60 days as we try to gauge how this bill should be implemented, or is the current six-month provision fair enough?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: If we delay the six months, it will not change anything, because they cannot take advantage of these provisions before the act comes into force. I guess we can only hope the act will come into force way in advance of the next election in order to give people or merged parties the time to present the application to the CEO.

• 1300

The Chair: Okay, it's worth noting.

Please proceed with your intended submissions.

Mr. Michael Peirce (Director of Legal Operations, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office): Just to follow up on that, essentially the answer is that it would be possible for an election to be held directly following the six-month period, but it would perhaps not be ideal from the point of view of administration of the act, and from that of ensuring that all provisions in the new act would be enforced and able to operate.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Michael Peirce: Well, good afternoon. It's certainly a pleasure to be here today to try to assist all members of the committee by providing information and providing explanations of the provisions that are here in the bill. We've had a couple of excellent presentations already by the CEO and, of course, by Minister Boudria. They've covered some of the territory that we had intended to cover, so I will endeavour to cut some of that material out and make adjustments so that we're not too repetitive. I think the idea here is for us to really serve your needs rather than making a grand presentation today.

What I'd like to do is explain the new structure in the bill, because it has been consolidated and is considerably different. I will also then walk you through the bill to indicate where the new provisions lie, where there are some substantive changes. I hope this will facilitate your being able to work with those provisions.

What we have here is a bill with more than 500 clauses in it. That may look somewhat intimidating to try to get through, but at the same time it should be appreciated that there are not 500 clauses worth of substantive changes in this bill. In fact what you'll see is that for the first 300-odd clauses in the bill, there are only a handful of substantive changes in those provisions, and I hope that will facilitate your study.

This standing committee previously recommended that the act be consolidated. We have done so. We have redrafted the act to modernize the language. That's one of the reasons why, as you go through the bill, some provisions in which there is not a substantive change may not appear at face to be the exact same as the previous provisions. It's simply a modification in the drafting of the language, with no intention to actually change the provision in many cases.

There are a number of provisions that were anachronistic, that have fallen into disuse, and those have not been included. As well, the arrangement of the act, the actual structure of the act has been changed to make it more user-friendly, in order to make it accessible to both the people who have to work with the act, such as election officers, and the general public.

To give you an idea of how substantive the reorganization and consolidation is, three acts have been repealed, including the Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act.

The functions in the Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act dealt with the establishment of an inquiry to investigate corrupt or illegal practices. Those activities are now carried out by the commissioner, as provided for in the act. The commissioner can do that, so that act was no longer necessary. That's an old statute from 1876.

The Disfranchising Act has also been repealed, or will be repealed, and those provisions are currently dealt with again in the new bill and are actually in the existing act itself.

Finally, the Dominion Controverted Elections Act has been consolidated. It has been simplified and clarified and updated, and has been included in this bill, in part 20. You'll see that change as you read the bill.

In terms of the structure of the bill, those of you who use the act fairly regularly will know there is not an entirely clear structure to the existing act. It has been amended a number of times since 1970, and it doesn't present itself in an accessible fashion. This bill has been redrafted to change that, to make it accessible.

• 1305

We start with a definitions section, like all bills. I'm going to give a quick run-through of the parts of the bill in general so you get an idea of what the flow is.

The electoral rights are in part 1 of the bill. The intention was to put that right up front to ensure that at the beginning of the bill we have a strong statement about those electoral rights. The electoral rights are things like who can vote and the right to be eligible to vote.

Parts 2 and 3 of the bill deal with the people who run the elections: first, the CEO and his staff, and then election officers. Part 4 is the register of electors, which you will remember from Bill C-63.

Parts 5 to 15 follow in chronological order the steps of the electoral process, beginning in part 5 with the issuing of the writ and ending with the return of the writ in part 15. So when you're using that you ought to be able to find the provisions in question just by knowing where they fall in the electoral process, the stages.

Part 16 is the communications provision. That's where you'll find the blackout provisions and the requirement for poll methodology.

I'm sure part 17 of the bill will draw considerable attention from the members of the committee. That deals with third parties and is entirely new.

Part 18 of the bill is the financial administration part. What we've done here is bring together all the financial provisions in the act to put them in one part. We think we have a workable structure within that so that it is accessible. Previously in the act, the financial provisions were all over the place and it was very difficult to follow responsibilities through.

Part 19 has the enforcement provisions. We brought all the offences of the act together. We've broken the offences down by the various parts of the act so that individuals who are responsible for carrying out particular duties under the act will be able to find out what offences apply to them. They can go to one place and they can look in one part. We've also consolidated the punishment provisions, the penalty provisions, so that they can be found beginning in clause 500.

We're almost done here with the quick walk-through of the parts. As I mentioned, part 20 deals with contested elections and replaces the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, simplifying the procedures that existed and updating them. Parts 21 and 22 are general provisions and the transitional provisions.

What I would like to do now is go back and begin with part 1. I'm going to identify the areas where we have made substantive changes.

In parts 1 to 5, there are essentially three substantive changes.

[Translation]

Pursuant to clauses 3 and 4, returning officers and responsible persons are entitled to vote and to have their names included in the list of electors for the polling division in which they normally reside. The duties of election officers are now set out in one place, namely Part 3 of the Act, rather than mentioned throughout the legislation.

[English]

In part 6, we have the verification of nomination papers. We have a 48-hour period for verification, and there shall be verification of nomination papers, a change from the old provisions.

At clause 73, we've provided for the electronic filing of nomination papers. What we've done is expand this to permit electronic filing for all constituencies.

In clause 81 of the bill, we've ensured the right to enter buildings. This is condominiums or multi-residence units. What we've done here that's new is to provide a penalty to make this enforceable so that candidates can enter.

• 1310

We've also created the possibility to replace the official agent if warranted, dismiss the official agent for cause, in effect, at clause 87.

Moving to parts 7 to 9, you've heard already of the possibility for the Chief Electoral Officer to adjust voting hours to deal with the daylight saving time situation and the problem that arose in Saskatchewan previously. That's in clause 129.

Clause 131 deals with by-elections, standardizing the hours for by-elections, from 8:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. as long as the by-elections occur in just one time zone. If you have multiple time zones, say a by-election in British Columbia and one in Nova Scotia, you would then use the adjusted hours that currently exist, the staggered hours that exist under the act for a general election.

We're going to specifically permit foreign observers and also the Chief Electoral Officer's staff to attend as observers at the polling place.

The bill has eliminated the vouching in rural ridings, and I know there will be further discussion of that issue among members.

Turning to part 10, we have the special voting rules. These have been included in the bill. I want to emphasize that we have not made substantive changes to the special voting rules. We have taken the rules that were previously in schedule 2 of the act and brought them within the act itself. I know many people had difficulty, because we would get phone calls from people trying to find special voting rules. They're actually in the act now, but it's not a substantive change.

One small exception is in clause 228, which allows residents who are temporarily abroad to vote through the embassy. Previously, a resident temporarily abroad could vote, but through a mail-in ballot. We've tried to facilitate the process by permitting voting through embassies so that can be sent through the embassy.

In parts 11 to 15, the most significant change is that we've established uniform rules for the reimbursement of all recounts. The amount is $500. That's in clause 310.

As you can see, we're at clause 310 now, and I can't say exactly how many provisions I've enumerated, but certainly far fewer than 20 at this point in time, so those of you reviewing the bill will be able to go to those specific provisions where there have been substantive changes. That doesn't mean I want to discourage you in any way from looking at all the provisions, and if we've made a substantive change in a provision, it's incidental and we'd certainly be inclined to address that.

In part 16, the communications section, we have the blackout on election polls and political ads. As you are well aware, what we've done is require the methodology for polls when they are published or broadcast, within 24 hours after they are first published or broadcast. We have also established a 48-hour blackout the day before polling day on polls and political ads.

• 1315

One thing I want to emphasize in regard to political ads is that the previous blackout that applied at the beginning of the electoral period has not been recreated. All that has been re-established is a 48-hour period at the end of the electoral period.

The right to display signs in condominiums and apartment leases can be found at clause 322.

A prohibition has been established at clause 330 dealing with the use of a broadcasting station outside of Canada.

The third-party regime, part 17. Perhaps I won't go through this again, although I'm more than happy to answer questions that may arise on this.

Part 18, financial administration provisions. The nomination deposit will now be fully reimbursed, as indicated in clause 468.

The merging of registered parties has been permitted at clause 400. There are also a number of related clauses on merging of political parties, for instance in the broadcasting section, to deal with reallocation of broadcasting time, based on the merged party status rather than individually.

The regime for the suspension of registered parties is at clause 388.

I want to respond to a question that was raised earlier about the length of time this can go on when a party is suspended for having failed to nominate 50 candidates. A party that fails to nominate 50 candidates has to give a snapshot of their assets and liabilities at the time at which they fail to nominate 50 candidates and they become a suspended party.

What happens from that period on is that they are treated otherwise essentially as a non-registered party or a third party, so they don't get any benefit, except for the fact that.... I shouldn't call it a benefit, but we've changed the provisions so we no longer liquidate them, so they don't have to turn over all of their assets right away. They do have to report on their net assets versus their expenses until such time as they have expenses that equal those net assets that they had just at the time when they failed to nominate 50 candidates.

You would expect, in normal circumstances, for that to transpire rather quickly, and certainly in almost all circumstances prior to the next election. Normally when a party is deregistered for failing to nominate 50 candidates, they only have a small amount of money left over.

The tax credit has been increased, the cut-off that is for the 75% tax credit, from $100 to $200 in clause 560. The disclosure of contributions, in lockstep with the change to the tax credit, has been increased so it's only contributions over $200. The ability to vouch for expenses, the threshold, has been raised from $25 to $50 in clause 410. Auditors' fees have been increased, the maximum amount, from $750 to $1,500.

There are a number of requirements for publication by the CEO of estimated spending limits. The CEO may authorize registered parties for late filing of returns and for some minor corrections, the same as with candidates, which were dealt with in Bill C-114, and the CEO has the discretion to correct minor errors in their return.

• 1320

The registered party return requires now a statement of assets and liabilities, and revenues and expenses, to improve transparency; a statement of transfers between the party and its local association; and a statement of expenses for each by-election. There's also a requirement to report on party trust funds, although, as has been mentioned, not on candidates' trust funds. Those are dealt with in subclause 424(2). The candidates' return is dealt with in clause 450. Here one change is that an unpaid claim after 18 months will become a contribution.

Looking at enforcement—this is in part 19—what we've done is rewrite and re-categorize the offences, tailoring them with new punishment, fines and imprisonment. We have also changed the effect where someone commits an offence that is an illegal or corrupt practice. There is no longer a removal of the right to vote when someone commits an illegal or corrupt practice. But they are excluded, in the case of an illegal practice, from sitting in the House of Commons for a period of five years, or for a corrupt practice a period of seven years.

The Chief Electoral Officer explained to you the voluntary compliance agreement scheme. This is a situation that was transpiring, to my understanding, unofficially previously but now is officially provided for in the bill in clauses 517 to 521, drawing in part on the alternative measures provisions in the Criminal Code.

There is also an injunction provision in clause 516 of the bill. Previously it was technically possible to get an injunction, but one could only get an injunction if one was able to meet a rather stringent threshold, including establishing irreparable harm. To my knowledge, no such injunction in the normal course of the electoral process had been secured. Now the injunction power is tailored to the electoral process. The possibility of getting one is made somewhat easier, although I would hesitate to suggest in any way that it was easy to secure an injunction. It's certainly an extraordinary remedy and would only be able to be used in an extraordinary circumstance.

Part 20 is the consolidation of the Dominion Controverted Elections Act. Those are simply procedural developments that have been changed and been brought within the Canada Elections Act.

Then we've already spoken about the transition provisions and the coming-into-force provisions.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Michael Peirce: If you're all still with me.

The Chair: It was useful to some of us, if not more.

What I'd like members to do is focus on clauses or procedures in the bill rather than the policy underlying it, and to keep the questions short and targeted on the precise clause or proposed mechanism in the bill. So let's all try to do that. Keep the questions short. If we all just ask one question or two really short ones, we'll be able to cover a fair bit of territory quickly.

I'll start with Mr. White, then I'll go to Mr. Bergeron—I'd like questioning to be a lot less than five minutes—Mr. Harvey, and Mrs. Parrish. Okay, Mr. White.

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

I observed by reading that there were quite a number of differences between Bill C-83 and when this bill became Bill C-2. There were a number of changes, including the addition of part 22. I'm going to ask some specific questions about clauses. I don't expect a verbal answer. In fact I'd be very happy, because they're technical questions, if some sort of written response could occur and then there's more time for people to ask questions.

Clauses 326 and 327 require the first person who transmits the results of an election survey to also publish a list of other information. My question is why only the first person? Why not change the word “first” to any person so that full disclosure would have to accompany any release of the survey? If there's a good reason for having the conditions apply only to the first person, then why not amend subclause 326(1) to require provision on demand of the full disclosure when there are subsequent releases?

• 1325

In subclause 48(2), there appears the phrase “along with a signed certification that the elector has Canadian citizenship.” What exactly is a signed certification, and why does the wording not read “along with acceptable proof of identity and Canadian citizenship”?

In subclause 125(3), what is the relevance of the phrase “in accordance with the instructions of the Chief Electoral Officer”? Why would the Chief Electoral Officer be instructing an RO about the itinerary of a mobile polling booth in a particular riding?

Subclause 323(1) was changed to remove references to an offence related to the publication of polls on the Internet. I'd just like to get some feeling from counsel on how they would intend to enforce provisions if people advertise on the Internet.

And on one final section—

The Chair: One more.

Mr. Ted White: I don't expect a verbal answer, Mr. Chair. I would appreciate written answers to these.

Have officials of Privy Council had any discussions with the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the preparation for the wording for the third-party provisions of this bill?

Those are my questions. Thank you.

The Chair: You have requested written answers, have you?

Mr. Ted White: Yes. Expert though the witnesses may be, because most of them are technical in nature, I don't believe they could possibly answer some of those without consulting the bill.

Mr. Michael Peirce: Could I respond quickly?

On the third-party issue, there has been no consultation with the Supreme Court of Canada on that issue, certainly not by members of the government.

The Chair: All right.

Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You mentioned the possibility of voting in embassies. Does that include all Canadian missions abroad, or merely Canadian embassies abroad?

You stated the following in reference to trust funds:

[English]

“although it has been mentioned about the candidate trust funds.”

[Translation]

My tendency would be to say “and what”?. Further to our meeting last Tuesday with the minister and in light of my clarification of the committee's recommendation, does the minister intend to add a provision to the legislation respecting candidates' trust funds, or is this option not being considered for now? When I spoke to the minister on Wednesday morning, he hadn't heard about the clarification I brought on Tuesday. I'd like to know, given the circumstances, whether there has been any change in the government's position on the matter?

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: The sealed envelope containing the ballots would be delivered to embassies, high commissions and Canadian Forces bases. In the absence of such facilities, the Chief Electoral Officer could designate a location where electors could go to hand in their ballot, which would then be forwarded to the embassy, high commission or Canadian Forces base.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In a large country such as Russia, where naturally there is an embassy as well as several consulates, would all consulates necessarily be designated locations?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Absolutely.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Would you care to respond to my question regarding trust funds?

[English]

Mr. Michael Peirce: On the issue of trust funds, I think it would be more appropriate for the minister to answer that. I understand the minister is likely to reappear before the committee, and that it would be appropriate to put that question to him. We will inform him of your inquiry, though.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Merci.

The Chair: Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I suggest we revisit third-party advertising from this perspective. If, for example, the National Citizens' Coalition were to decide to spend their $3,000 limit in each riding and another branch was also to decide, there should be some upper limit to the global amount being spent. For example, if the limit on the Liberal Party is $11 million or $12 million—I don't know what it is, but whatever the millions are—I think that for the joint spending of all, whether they're favourable to the ruling party or they're against the ruling party, there should be a global limit to the amount spent by third parties. Why should an accumulation of third parties, whether they be diverse or similar, be able to outspend one of the official parties, which literally has candidates' necks on the line?

• 1330

I would like to either see a rationale for not putting in an upper limit like that, or see a serious reconsideration of doing something on an upper-limit basis of $12 million or $15 million, or matching whatever the largest party limit is for a single party.

Mr. Michael Peirce: I think the difficulty of that proposal would be its application. If you had an upper limit, you would need coordination among the third parties because you would have a small pot.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Could it not be on a first come, first served basis? In other words, you spend quickly at the beginning of the campaign if you're a third party with deep pockets. You pre-empt others, but you've blown your firecracker out at the beginning of the election.

Mr. Michael Peirce: I think that would give perhaps an unfair advantage to those with deep pockets, because they could immediately outspend smaller parties, smaller people, individuals who wanted to have a commentary. It would also force all of the communication to take place at the outset of an election, rather than allowing it to respond as things developed during the course of the electoral period.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Well, Mr. Chair, I would like to submit, through you, that I think this is a landmine of difficulties. I think that as well as Mr. Kingsley thinks he can take care of no collusion, it will be impossible. I think this whole thing has to be looked at again, because it makes me very nervous. I can sit here and, in my head, quickly come up with all kinds of ways to manipulate that—and I'm not the smartest guy on earth—although it's not that I ever would, for the record. But this one scares me, and I think it has to be looked at again.

The Chair: That's why you're here, Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I know.

The Chair: It's to help us.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: That's why they brought me back after a year in isolation.

The Chair: Procedurally, colleagues, is it possible that we could deal with a routine motion? Monsieur Bergeron, I just wanted to try to dispose of a procedural motion in order to take care of what we have already partaken of. The sense is that since this committee is going to be meeting beginning at 11 a.m. on several days, and because the agenda takes us well into and through the lunch hour—we can just note the clock today, it being 1:30 p.m.—it is going to be necessary to have refreshments for members and others. Could I ask members to consider a motion that would authorize the clerk to do this for the purposes of these hearings?

I'm going to ask somebody to move the following motion: that the clerk, in consultation with the chair, be authorized to make the necessary arrangements for working lunches when it appears that the committee will be sitting beyond 1 p.m.

Mr. John Solomon: So moved.

The Chair: Mr. Solomon, thank you.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

Continuing with questions, Ms. Parrish, did you finish your round?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, I did, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. White has some more bullets for us.

Mr. Ted White: Just one additional technical question.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Just send them in writing.

Mr. Ted White: I'd like to get it on the record, but thank you anyway, Mr. Bergeron. I took the time to read all 253 pages of this bill, and I'm going to get my questions in.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We have a subcommittee at 1:30, and we don't want to be late for question period.

Mr. Ted White: In subclause 30(4), reference is made to duties that cannot be performed by an assistant returning officer appointed under subclause 30(2). Looking at the reference to sections and subsections in subclause 30(4), I'd like staff to please explain why the assistant returning officer is not permitted to inform the Chief Electoral Officer if the returning officer has become unable to act. That's in subclause 28(1).

If this sounds confusing at the moment, I'm sure you'll get it later in reading the transcripts. I could give it to you in writing too.

Can staff also explain the rationale behind the rather confusing references to duties that this assistant returning officer cannot perform under subclause 60(2) and subclause 70(1). I think there are some misreferences there; if you take a look at them, I think you might agree with me that there's something wrong there, and maybe that can be straightened out.

• 1335

The Chair: Thank you.

I see no further questions coming up at this time. I want to thank the witnesses, and I want to point out to colleagues that in this bill—it's a fairly large bill—we will undoubtedly have some amendments coming through. One of the areas that may deserve some attention is the concordance between English and French. In some cases the bill will have been drafted initially in French and translated to English. In other cases it will have been drafted in English and translated to French. So we'll keep our eyes open for those.

Also, there are a number of practical issues related to campaigning that I know will come up. I hope members will keep an eye open for those. I would like to think we can accomplish some amendments from all parties in the House. I see the likelihood of substantial consensus on some of these areas with amendments coming from members around the table.

With that, the main committee will adjourn to the call of the chair. We now have a steering committee portion to follow. I'll adjourn the main committee now.