PRHA 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, May 14, 1998

• 1113

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, as you can see from the agenda, we are considering the Canada Elections Act. In particular, we're resuming consideration of the discussion paper on substantive issues, part I. Then we will proceed to consideration of the discussion paper on substantive issues, part II.

I've had word from the NDP there will not be a member here. It is a PC opposition day today, so there will not be a member here from the Progressive Conservative Party.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): If I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by clarifying a few points about the last meeting for the benefit of committee members, our researcher and the transcript.

In reading the transcripts of our last meeting, I noticed that some of my comments could be misleading. I would like to clarify today a matter regarding the right to vote for returning officers.

What I meant on Tuesday, was that I don't think we can consider this matter unless and until we have some clarification about the appointment of returning officers. As to whether returning officers should be able to cast the deciding vote in the case of a tie, I would obviously be opposed, whatever happens and whatever appointment procedure is used. In such a case, I think that if we give them the right to vote, we give them the right to vote and if there is nevertheless a tie, then there must be a by- election.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, and that's duly noted. I thank you, Stéphane.

Colleagues, we're on page 4 of the discussion paper on substantive issues, part I, and on page 4 the topic is nomination procedures.

Randy White

• 1115

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): On a question of clarification, has there been any full agreement on any of these issues yet? I believe the answer is no.

The Chairman: I believe that's correct. We'll check as we're proceeding.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Would you please repeat the question?

[English]

The Chairman: The question was has there been full agreement on any of the topics so far.

Mr. Randy White: The answer is no.

The Chairman: But you will recall, colleagues, the object of the exercise is to prepare the draft report so we have all the subjects that have been raised by our witnesses and by the submissions we've received in the report, with some sense of where the committee stands. If the committee is divided, it will say “The committee is divided”.

We will start with number 1, “Nomination Procedures”.

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): This was a recommendation made by Mr. Kingsley in his report after the last general election.

He is basically suggesting in 1, 2, and 3 that the nomination procedures be simplified and clarified. The first one is that right now in the nomination of candidates, the nomination papers are due at 2 p.m. on the day for closing of nominations, but there is actually no provision to check the nomination papers.

The returning officer receives all these papers, but there's no provision for him or her to check that the requisite number of signatures are there and the people who have signed are in fact qualified to sign because they live in the riding, and so forth.

The suggestion is that there should be some specific authority given to the returning officers to confirm and check the nomination papers.

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I wholeheartedly support this, and there should also be a process by which the nomination papers can be rejected if they don't conform.

My committee checked the nomination papers of both the Tory and Reform candidates in my last election. Neither of them had the requisite number of signatures of Canadian citizens who lived in the riding. The onus was on me to object, and I would have been big bad Carolyn Parrish trying to eliminate all the opposition, so we let it go. But legally I did not have, except for the NDP, a legal candidate against me last time, and the onus was entirely on me to do something about it, which is not right.

So there should be a proviso that it be checked and rejected and the candidate be given 12 hours to get substitute names.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): I agree with what Carolyn has said. As you know, I ran against Sa Tan in the last Parliament—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: And you won.

The Chairman: It must have been a good match.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm not talking about the Liberal Party here. I'm talking about an actual candidate who's name was Sa Tan. We went through the same problem you mentioned, Carolyn, where all the signatures were from prostitutes, drug dealers, arms control experts, and all the rest of it. They put these down as their occupations.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: They're valid voters, Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: They could have been, but there was no way of verifying it because the act needs to be strengthened. So I agree.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan, quickly and briefly.

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): I was quite surprised to find out that nobody checks the lists, so I'm wondering why we bother getting names at all. Maybe the deposit should suffice and you would eliminate the need for collection of names.

The Chairman: Why don't we note that the committee is concerned about the matter dealt with in number 1—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ):

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

[English]

The Chairman: —and proceed to number 2.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There was one other point, Mr. Chairman, about arriving and doing it at 2 p.m.

The Chairman: That comes a bit later. Again, for continuity we'll have a straw vote.

Those generally in favour of this item? Those against? I see all members. There we are. Randy breaks the tie.

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Number 2, James.

Mr. James Robertson: Number 2 is related and would go along with what Ms. Parrish suggested, that there be a 48-hour period. At the end of 48 hours, the returning officer would provide a document confirming that the nomination papers were in order. Is that correct? There would be a way of ensuring that just filing your papers, even if you did so by the deadline, would not be sufficient. Some document would also have to be received from the returning office.

The Chairman: Are there any comments on that item?

Chuck Strahl.

• 1120

Mr. Chuck Strahl: You would also want the proviso Carolyn mentioned in there, that if it came back and you had forgotten to sign a certain part, you would be given a few hours, another day or something to fix it, if it were some simple problem.

Mr. James Robertson: You're talking about clerical mistakes or minor mistakes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, I mean minor mistakes, like if a witness forgot to sign or something.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Wrong address.

The Chairman: Again, remember we will see the draft report and we hope we will see legislation.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I am very reluctant to give candidates another chance. If I were to write an NSF cheque, even if I said I was sure that I had enough funds in my account to cover it, I would have to pay a charge, would I not? Deciding to run as a candidate is a serious matter. If a person cannot even ensure that the nomination documents meet the requirements of the Act, I think that there is a problem. I am very reluctant to give candidates another chance. The returning officer for each riding should check the nomination documents and candidates should ensure that everything is there. That's all.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

I hope the sorts of comments we make will be captured in the document.

Straw vote. In the light of this discussion, those generally in favour of number 2? Those against? I see none.

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Okay. Number 3.

Mr. James Robertson: This again was designed in the last report of Mr. Kingsley, and it basically just calls for the simplification of the nomination procedure so it's clear exactly what is being required and what is required for formalities of signatures and witnesses.

It's just, if the committee is generally in agreement with this, in redrafting the legislation there would be some consideration given to clarifying and simplifying procedures.

The Chairman: Okay. It's almost an administrative issue.

Those generally in favour? Those against? I see none.

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Okay. Number 4.

Mr. James Robertson: Currently, with polling, if you are in the voting station at 8 o'clock you're allowed to vote, whether or not you vote after the close of polls. But right now, if you have not actually handed over your nomination paper by 2 o'clock, there is an argument under the current wording that the returning officer is not allowed to accept the nomination paper. This would merely clarify that if the candidate or candidate's representative is in the returning office at 2 o'clock, he or she would be allowed to hand over and be validly nominated, even if that occurs a few minutes after 2 o'clock.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would just like to make a comment, Mr. Chairman. I do not really oppose this wording, which provides some flexibility. However, in my own case, I should tell you that I went to hand in my nomination documents to the returning officer at an appointed time. The procedure set out here, even with the added flexibility, is nevertheless quite rigid. Could we not make a provision that would recognize a mutual agreement made between the returning officer and the respective candidates, rather than just have this procedure that takes place at 2:00 p.m.?

[English]

The Chairman: This refers to the last possible time you could do that.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Okay, parfait.

The Chairman: In the light of that discussion, those in favour—

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): We all tend to think of ridings like our own, but in a very large riding that's very widespread, is this sufficiently flexible? I guess that would be a question before the final report.

The Chairman: Either Jacques or Diane Bruyère.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard (Director, Legal Services and Registrar of Political Parties, Elections Canada): I think that for practical reasons the Act must set a deadline. I think it is possible. If we went beyond 21 days, the procedure would start to be complicated. We should not forget that that is the deadline, and that candidates may be nominated any time after the proclamation.

[English]

The Chairman: In light of that, those in favour? Those against?

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Number 5.

Mr. James Robertson: Currently, as I understand it, in certain ridings that are listed in schedule 3, which historically are rural ridings, you can file your nomination papers by facsimile or electronic mail. In his annex in 1996, the Chief Electoral Officer recommended that the same provisions be made available in all ridings so that even if your riding isn't listed in schedule 3 you would still be entitled to file your nomination papers by electronic means.

• 1136

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: If we require the signature of the person supporting the candidate, I wonder how we could transmit that by electronic mail. It could be done by fax, but could it be done by electronic mail?

[English]

The Chairman: James Robertson.

Mr. James Robertson: The following one, number 6, recommends that they be followed up by sending it in by hand or by mail. This is merely to make sure you meet the deadline. You could do it by electronic means. The original would still have to be provided to the returning officer.

The Chairman: Schedule 3, I believe, refers to the large ridings, in which, for example, the MPs get an extra allowance because of the size of their riding. That's the one we're dealing with.

Mr. James Robertson: The actual wording of this recommendation would basically delete, as I understand it, schedule 3, which does have some pay implications, but really that should be in the Parliament of Canada Act rather than in the Canada Elections Act. The Parliament of Canada Act does refer to this schedule 3 and it really should be clarified as part of any legislative changes.

The Chairman: Number 5, those in favour generally? It's a straw vote.

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: With item number 2, we've now added 48 hours for the returning officer to give official notification. Does that still allow time before the printing of the ballots to resolve any problems?

Ms. Diane Bruyère (Assistant Director of Operations, Elections Canada): We could probably still make it in time. We might want to look, at some point, at changing the deadline from day 21 to two days earlier to reflect the extra 48 hours, but even if it remained the same we could probably still do it.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Is there time to resolve any problems, though, after the 48 hours?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: I'm sorry....

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Anyway, I'd just ask if they could have a look at that.

The Chairman: Would you look at that?

Do you want to add anything, Jacques?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: For the benefit of committee members, I would just like to add that the other distinction made in section 80.1, which refers to Schedule III, is that the number of signatures is different. At the moment, candidates must submit their nomination documents and include 100 signatures, while only 50 signatures are required for candidates whose riding appears in Schedule III. This is another difference between some ridings. The suggestion here, therefore, is that the number of signatures be the same for all candidates.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have two concerns about this recommendation, Mr. Chairman. First, I think it's a little long to give candidates 10 days after sending the documents by electronic mail or fax to send in the originals. This could mean that the deadlines for the voting procedure for candidate registration could be extended. This could complicate things. We know that there are various ways of sending documents quickly here in Canada, and I imagine that that is true of most communities throughout the country. I therefore have a reservation about the 10-day period.

My other reservation is that we must ensure that the documents sent to the returning officer are exactly the same as those that are sent by fax. Having this 10-day period should not mean, for instance, that names could be added to the nomination papers, if the prospective candidate is not sure they have the required number of signatures. For example, if there are doubts about 10 or so of the 100 people who signed as to whether or not they really live in the riding, a preliminary copy could be sent by fax to solve the problem, then the candidate could continue to collect signatures and include them with the final document. If this were the case, the rule would not be fair for all candidates. I would like it stated clearly that the document sent to the returning officer must be identical to the document sent by fax or by electronic mail.

[English]

The Chairman: We've got to the second, and that will be noted. We'll catch it in the report.

With regard to the first, the length of time, do you have some thoughts? What is the length you're thinking of, Stéphane?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Cinq jours.

The Chairman: Again, it's for the purpose of....

In light of those comments, colleagues, those in favour of number 5?

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: We'll proceed to number 6, which is related.

Mr. James Robertson: The next one follows, and basically, if this procedure is adopted, clearly there needs to be a provision for failure to follow up with the original documents. In light of Mr. Bergeron's point, we'll add in a comment that there has to be a check that the documents are identical to those that were filed by the deadline.

The Chairman: Are we agreed, colleagues?

Stéphane Bergeron.

• 1130

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I haven't any problem with this provision. However, when we say that appropriate provisions should be established to deal with candidates who do not comply with the rules, to what provisions are we referring? I have no problem with the recommendation, but I find it too vague. The recommendation actually says nothing.

[English]

The Chairman: James, your interpretation.

Mr. James Robertson: This is the wording of Mr. Kingsley. I believe he is merely saying that in drafting a bill there would have to be powers given to the returning officer to delete the nomination if the documents were not received or if the documents were not, as you suggested, the same as those that had been received electronically.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I find that clear.

[English]

The Chairman: In light of that, those in favour, colleagues? Straw vote. Those against?

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Number 7.

Mr. James Robertson: This is an issue that has come up, I believe' every election and with which some members have had problems in the past. Basically, the Elections Act currently allows candidates in federal elections to be able to get a leave of absence without pay from employers as long as those employers are federally regulated. It does not allow a candidate who was employed by someone who is under provincial jurisdiction to do so. This would extend that right, that if you are a validly nominated candidate for a federal election, you are entitled to a leave of absence without pay. The employer could give pay if they wanted, but that would not be required by any employer in Canada. This would be similar to the provision currently in place that says every Canadian is required to be given at least three consecutive hours to vote on election day, whether they are employed by a federally regulated or provincially regulated employer.

The Chairman: Randy White.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, there are lots of small companies in this country where one person absent for the period of a campaign would be very detrimental. I think that employer would want the choice. Frankly, I have a business to run, and if you want to go off and play politics, that's your problem. But I can't keep a job open for you. I can't support that.

The Chairman: Anyone else? In the light of that discussion, then, let's get the straw vote again.

Those in favour of this? Those against? You should know that the committee was evenly split on that issue and we have so noted.

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Can we move on to the—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's a deciding vote, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes, yes.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Come on, pay no attention.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's just a straw vote.

The Chairman: It is not a straw vote. The word is "paille" in French, is it not?

[English]

“Campaigning”, number 1. James.

Mr. James Robertson: This is an issue that came up, and I believe some of the party representatives addressed it as well. Mr. Kingsley has recommended both in his annex and his last report that the act should explicitly state that there are no exceptions to the right of a candidate or representative to enter any apartment building or multiple residence between 9 a.m and 9 p.m. for the purpose of conducting a campaign.

The Chairman: The idea is to have more teeth to this. It's to give more teeth to a right we have.

Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Is it clear in the act that this includes nursing homes, for instance?

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: It's not clear in number 2.

The Chairman: We'll go to number 2.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay.

The Chairman: In light of that, those in favour of number 1? Against? I see none against.

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Number 2.

Mr. James Robertson: This would deal with buildings that are not residential and would allow access to commercial and educational sites, places of business, including government buildings, and allow the same right to campaign. I think the intent here is not that you people go to where the people are working—

The Chairman: Not to interrupt.

Mr. James Robertson: Not to interrupt people who are working, but to allow them access to the site—in the case of a government building, for instance, the common areas people can get into so that they can meet the people who work in that place.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think this needs to be clarified. I think it's important that during election time you have access to voters. Everyone has to use their own good judgment about not interrupting people, and as long as it's clear that access to the workplace would not interfere with work, then I think it should be extended to the workplace as well.

• 1135

I also think it needs to be clarified for residences so that it's very clear that you have the right of access into apartment buildings, condominiums, and collective dwelling places. While I think that's in the act today, a greater clarification would help everybody.

The Chairman: Okay. In light of that discussion—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: In light of that discussion, I'm not clear that in fact this does include a nursing home. A nursing home is a residence, not a business. It may happen to be a business as well, but....

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: The intent at the drafting stage is to include that. As it is now, in our opinion, it did include them, but we've been challenged every time.

The Chairman: That's duly noted.

Randy White.

Mr. Randy White: On number 2, the clarification that's required, is that clarification to exclude, or include, or—

Mr. James Robertson: To include.

Mr. Randy White: To include.

The Chairman: I think it's simply to strengthen it, Randy.

Mr. James Robertson: I don't believe at present the legislation makes any reference to places of business or non-residential.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Actually the only references are to apartment buildings and multiple residences.

Mr. Randy White: That would include—

Mr. James Robertson: So this would be a new provision.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I think we need to include provisions about people in nursing homes, hospitals and other such institutions. They are voters, but there may be cases where going to see them would be inappropriate, for medical reasons. Obviously, it might be possible to verify the medical reason.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That is a nurse talking.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Patients become very worked up after seeing a candidate. It's hellish for the staff.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Or they have a heart attack.

[English]

The Chairman: That's a good point.

Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I think if you're dealing with someone's primary residence, even if that is a nursing home, a primary residence is one thing. I am a little reluctant to give wide open access to all commercial, educational, and government buildings.

I don't know. It just seems to me that if we start that process, I'm not sure what that's going to mean as far as the campaign of posters, the what-all, in a government building.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No.

The Chairman: It simply has to do with access.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I know, but if you and your supporters go down with a bunch of placards to the elementary school.... I'm not sure what it means. It just seems to me that's going in the wrong direction.

I don't think most people would do it, but it's just that do you want someone to say you have unfettered access to your high schools?

The Chairman: I hear some cautionary remarks, and—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Think of the other side, for example, big malls. You don't have access to big malls. I think you should have access.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Why? Somebody owns that.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: But the view there is somebody also owns apartment buildings and condominiums. During election time, the candidates should have access to voters. You're going into places where the public gathers, and as long as you're not interfering with the conduct of business.... I think that's the limiting criteria.

The Chairman: I think, colleagues, we have both sides. They're in there. The commentary is there. So with respect to number 2, in light of our discussion, those in favour...?

Mr. John Richardson: Could I have a clarification here? You have a redundancy here when you say “apartments or multiple buildings”. Multiple buildings include apartments; it's overkill there.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. James Robertson: It will cover university residences and so forth.

The Chairman: Those in favour? Those against? So there is a majority, but a minority against.

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Number 3 is the same...this is the teeth, I think.

Mr. James Robertson: This would create an offence for non-compliance, so whatever provisions are put into the legislation, you must allow candidates and their representatives access. If you did not do so, there would be a penalty provision.

The Chairman: This isn't a sequence, you realize. These are recommendations that different people proposed to us that we have grouped together under “Campaigning”. So it's not necessarily a logical thing we're following through.

In light of our previous discussion, number 3, those in favour? Those against? One.

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Number 4.

Mr. James Robertson: This was a proposal by the Liberal Party. It says that apartment leases and condominium declarations frequently prevent the posting of any signs whatsoever, or only with permission. This would say that does not apply in respect of a political campaign and election posters.

• 1140

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'm afraid I don't agree with the Liberal Party. Most condominiums have very strict rules on posting any signs, and if you were going to make an exception for politics, you'd get a hue and cry all over the world. They have rules that govern the outside appearance of buildings. The guy who lives right next door to somebody with a big Liberal sign on his balcony may be objecting strongly.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Absolutely. I can see that.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No, more likely they'd object if it was Reform. But if you have community living like that, you have to be courteous.

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: If we were going to do it, again, we try to generalize it up above, and we shouldn't be specific about apartment leases.

The Chairman: Is there any other discussion of this?

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I would like to ask a question about this. In my view, freedom of expression exists in this country. Let us imagine a situation in which I live in an apartment building and I decide to put up a sign for the Bloc Québécois. If the owner forbids me from doing this, I think I could go to the Human Rights Commission. I'm just raising that as a question, I don't know the answer. I'm not a legal expert, but I think there is—

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: There have been cases where municipalities refused to allow posting of posters on municipal property, and those have been successfully challenged, but I guess this would prevent people from having to go to the courts to enforce this right.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron and then Chuck Strahl.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would like to support what Ms. Dalphond-Guiral just said. Once we allow owners to decide whether or not signs may be posted, there's a very good chance that this prerogative will be used for partisan purposes. If, for example, the owner of the building is a Bloc supporter, and I, as a Liberal, want to post a sign for that party, would I not be allowed to do so in the building because the landlord is a Bloc supporter? Or vice- versa?

So I think this right should be given to all individuals who want to put up signs. I think it's a matter of freedom of expression. We've seen people issue calls to arms for far less than that about signage in Quebec these past years. So I think that the expression of all opinions should be allowed during an election campaign, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Again, I don't know how the report will read in its final draft, but there is a difference between prohibiting and restricting. Somebody has mentioned it would be reasonable to restrict in a small condominium complex; 8x14 signs on the front lawn is a reasonable restriction. It may not be reasonable for someone to put a lawn sign on their balcony. It's reasonable to have a restriction on a commonly owned area, which is what we're dealing with here.

Restrictions are different from prohibitions. I don't know if that can be included, but it just seems to me there has to be some amount of reasonableness in there. I agree, nobody wants to have a 4x8 sign on a nice, neat little condo plot, but a small window sign might be acceptable.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: What about restricting it to postcard size?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, a reasonable size. I don't think you'd see that.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The owners in condominiums undertake to follow a certain number of rules. For example, if they decide to change their windows, they don't have the right to choose the model themselves. The windows have to go with the rest of the building. I think that people who freely accept certain restrictions will respect them. However, if we're talking... You know, there's the front of the building and then there's all the rest behind it.

[English]

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Not all condominiums are highrise apartment buildings. There are townhouse condominiums, and the people in those townhouse condominiums frequently have small front lawns. There has to be an acknowledgement that they have a right to put a sign on their lawn of whatever party they wish to choose. Just as we override the right of condominiums to disallow anyone to come into their building for the purpose of soliciting or canvassing, similarly we have to say people have a right, if they have—whether it's a window or a piece of grass—to display their choice and participate in democracy.

The Chairman: Okay. In light of all of that—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to put a question.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Richardson raised a question that I think is relevant and interesting about the restrictions imposed on signs by some municipalities.

• 1145

This isn't just about signs in public buildings but also in the municipalities themselves on things like utility poles. Would such a provision's effect be to prohibit or limit this abuse by municipalities? I'm thinking more specifically about municipalities who demand a deposit from political parties who want to be able to put up signs. Would such a provision eliminate this kind of abuse by municipalities?

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: No, I don't think so. The Supreme Court handed down a judgement in 1992-93 that clarified once and for all the rules that prevail in the matter of signs put up for political but also for other purposes... In the case in question, it was a sign for a show. The courts stated that there was no restriction possible except, of course, if it was a matter of security. So the person putting up the sign must make sure that the sign will not be a nuisance, say, for traffic.

What the Charter does protect is freedom of expression. I think the municipality will always be authorized to put some conditions on the exercise of this freedom of expression, for example, by demanding a fee for taking down signs after a campaign. I don't think that a provision like that will change that aspect.

[English]

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'd just like to make one point I missed in my remarks. You can distinguish between common areas and individuals' units and private space, and it's within the private space that we should permit displays of election signage.

The Chairman: By the way, it's my sense that virtually everybody here thinks number 4 is phrased in too strong a fashion. On the other hand, having accepted that, if you do, those in favour of number 4, generally speaking, in light of the discussion? Those against?

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Could we proceed then to “Advertising and Information” on page 6?

James, number 1.

Mr. James Robertson: All of the recommendations in this section came from briefs submitted to the committee.

In the first one, the Green Party argued in their submission that when an election is held, whether you have 10 seats, 2 seats, or 150 seats, parliamentary parties should be treated equally in media reports. They said there is no recognition of parties that do not have representation in Parliament. They suggested that clear guidelines for media coverage be developed.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, that kind of recommendation surprises me somewhat. In my opinion, it's not up to political parties to determine the directives the media are to follow in the matter of media coverage. I think that, to date, the way the media have done things was quite appropriate insofar as media coverage was proportional to the importance of each political party, which seems quite all right to me. If the voters decide to change their choice during the next campaign, we'll see that media coverage will change in the same way.

[English]

The Chairman: I'd just comment on your being surprised. Do you realize, Stéphane, we've included here all the recommendations we've received? That's why it's in.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Absolutely. Absolutely.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

Are there any other comments on this item?

In light of that discussion, those in favour of number 1? Against?

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Oh, isn't that just lovely!

[English]

The Chairman: Number 2, then.

Mr. James Robertson: Number 2 was another suggestion by the Reform Party.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: The Green Party.

Mr. James Robertson: The Green Party; I apologize.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Same thing.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, we are very green-oriented.

The Chairman: I missed what you said.

What did he say, Chuck?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: He said “Reform Party”.

The Chairman: Oh, really? How on earth...?

Mr. James Robertson: I apologize.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Although I would point out that the whip's office of the Reform Party did win the greenest office of the Hill award the first year I was there. So I just want to point out that we are very green, but we are not the Green Party.

Mr. James Robertson: It was the party colours.

The Chairman: In light of that discussion, those in favour of number 2? Against? Straw vote.

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Number 3.

Mr. James Robertson: This would not necessarily require legislative action, but it was suggested by Mr. DeVillers that a study be undertaken on allowing negative advertising.

• 1150

The Chairman: But I wonder if that isn't the sort of thing that could go to the administrative list.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: What does "negative publicity" mean?

[English]

The Chairman: Attacking advertising.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Oh, okay.

The Chairman: I wonder if that couldn't go to Mr. Kingsley and the advisory committee, colleagues.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: If I'm not being talked about, it's not negative publicity.

[English]

The Chairman: John Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson: We may not like it, but there's always going to be a negative side to a story, and you don't know where it's going to come from. You have to curtail it.

The Chairman: The recommendation is for a study. It's not to condemn it; it's to study it.

Those in favour of this motion? Straw vote. Those against?

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: May I suggest, Mr. Chair—and others may disagree with this—that we might want to, as a committee, though, include some comments on negative advertisers in our report.

The Chairman: I assume the fact that this is here means it won't—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Just comments to the parties. I happen to find it reprehensible.

The Chairman: My assumption is that where we can, because something is listed here, it's going to be mentioned in our report somehow. At that point we could maybe flesh it out, if you wish. Okay?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes.

The Chairman: Number 4.

Mr. James Robertson: This was a recommendation by Madame Tremblay that the publishing of articles by analysts, journalists, or corporate lobby groups be banned for at least 72 hours before election day, as is done with opinion polls and a certain kind of third-party or party advertising.

The Chairman: Yvon Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): In French, it says "72 jours" (72 days).

The Chairman: 72?

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: How do you say “slippery slope” en français?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: "Jours", in French.

The Chairman: Jours!

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Which one is right? What is Ms. Tremblay's idea? Seventy-two days or seventy-two hours? What is Ms. Tremblay's idea?

[English]

The Chairman: It's 72 hours.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I don't really mind, but Ms. Tremblay usually speaks French. Now, in French, we have "72 days".

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No, it's probably—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Listen, that's just a summary.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No, no, it's—

[English]

The Chairman: She certainly said “hours”, Yvon.

Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The only comment I want to make is this is a very slippery slope and interferes with our freedom of expression.

The Chairman: I would have thought there would be charter implications immediately.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes, absolutely.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes.

The Chairman: In light of that discussion, those in favour? Those against? The committee is against.

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Number 5.

Mr. James Robertson: This was a recommendation by Mr. Proctor. He raised with the committee the example of a person who had been on the CBC Town Hall questioning the Prime Minister. That clip was used in a party advertisement. They had got the permission of the CBC, which filmed it, and the individual had signed a general release for the CBC. However, she had not authorized the use of that clip or her image in any party advertising, and she objected to that.

Mr. Proctor suggested that before any such clips be used, the party should be required to get their authorization and consent.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'll just repeat briefly what I said when that presentation was made. I just think that's unenforceable. When somebody gets on the public newscasts and allows themselves.... It's repeated endlessly, maybe 100 times; a party picks it up and says it's been on the news 100 times, so it's part of the public domain as far as they're concerned, and they play it. That's just the way she goes.

Otherwise, somebody could do something or say something and be a complete bonehead and deserve to be on the news—or vice versa; it may be something very incisive—and you can't use it because they just decide suddenly they're getting weak feelings about being on the news.

If they go and get interviewed, do they sign a release saying, “I'd love to have all the publicity of being on that newscast, but I demand the right to cut it off when I say so”? I don't think so. Once you're in the public domain and you've started in on that news story, you're just part of the public domain.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: My view is that before a person is affiliated with a partisan ad, they should have to give their consent.

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: You're dead wrong on this one, Chuck. If you sign a consent to go on the CBC news, you know you're going to be used that way, but if it's then subsequently farmed out to something else and used for an intention you did not sign for, it's an infringement of your rights.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I agree.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: It is enforceable.

• 1155

The Chairman: In light of that discussion, those in favour of number 5? Those against? Two against.

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: We'll proceed now to broadcasting issues, number 1. James.

Mr. James Robertson: Currently there is a broadcasting arbitrator who is appointed under the Canada Elections Act and who arbitrates between the parties with respect to various broadcasting issues.

The general concern in number 1 is that there is currently no provision for new and emerging parties to be granted a share of broadcast time. The suggestion the broadcasting arbitrator has come up with is that there be a baseline, a minimum amount of time that would be given to any party that nominates at least 50 candidates and therefore is entitled to be registered and have its name shown on the ballot.

The Chairman: Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, and then Carolyn Parrish.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The New Democratic Party has had the word "new" in its name for quite a long time. What does "new party" mean here? Does that mean the first time the label is used? Is that what is meant?

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: It would be the first time it was registered. A new party generally does not have many representatives in Parliament; in many cases it will have no representatives in Parliament.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Okay.

The Chairman: Ms. Carolyn Parrish, then Yvon Charbonneau.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: It's too easy to abuse. Remember the Natural Law guys that used to fly? They were only using it because the magician thought this was the cheapest form of advertising in the world—to register 50 candidates across the country, and the people would come out and do yogic flying. That's ridiculous. It's an abuse of public broadcasting.

The Chairman: Yvon Charbonneau.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I like yogic flyers. They inspire me.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I think the first part of the proposal makes sense. On the other hand, the second, according to which the powers of the adjudicator could be extended to the new parties, seems an abuse. There are two ideas in this paragraph, Mr. Chairman. We can be in agreement with the first, but I think the second is a definite exaggeration.

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: If I could respond to that. Mr. Grant has said this has been a problem in the last two election for him. He is giving two options, if the committee wishes to indicate its choice of which option.

As far as the Natural Law Party is concerned, it is a registered party. They have been in the last two elections, so they are entitled to a share of the broadcasting time, whether we like it or not.

The Chairman: In spite of that, it might be appropriate for us to consider this one in the two halves. There's the first sentence and the second sentence.

In light of this discussion, then, with regard to the first sentence, “There should be a base-line minimum of paid broadcast time...”, those in favour?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The first part?

The Chairman: Yes, the first part.

[English]

Those against?

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm just getting messages right now. Okay, I'm ready to vote on the second part.

The Chairman: We're now going to the second part, the alternative. In light of the discussion, those in favour of the second part? Those against? Three.

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: That's fine. Thank you, colleagues. Number 2.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Was the result of the first vote a tie, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chairman: The first one was 4 against and 3 in favour. The second one was 3 against and 2 in favour.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Did everyone quite understand what we were voting on? I'm surprised.

[English]

The Chairman: No, some people didn't vote. It's only a straw vote.

[Translation]

Okay?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, yes, but I'm a bit surprised.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm sorry. Can I put a question? Does that mean that the people against the first part are against the fact that broadcasting time be granted to political parties running during an election?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: And paid time, at that. I don't get it.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Because, if that is the case, the Act will have to be changed in that direction. What conclusions are we to draw from the vote we just held on the first part? It seems a bit contradictory to me. I'm a bit like Ms. Dalphond-Guiral: I'm not sure I quite got it.

[English]

The Chairman: I don't think we have to over-interpret the votes. As we've said, they are straw votes. Interpreting that—I mean, it seems to me that by a narrow margin the committee is against a baseline minimum for new parties and is against extending the powers of the broadcast arbitrator. Again, without over-interpreting the vote, that's my sense. People have some concern about this.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But the first part?

[English]

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall.

• 1200

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Let's wait to see what James writes up on those two topics.

The Chairman: Yes, but I think it is important.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Because the first part, Mr. Chairman, doesn't simply address the new parties, contrary to what you just told us. It addresses the parties that are now registered and the new parties. So does that mean that political parties will no longer be granted paid broadcasting time during elections?

[English]

The Chairman: My understanding, Stéphane, is that the inclusion of the minimum will help with this problem of newly registered parties that have 50 candidates. That's because the—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's not what the motion says, Mr. Chairman. The motion mentions the parties fielding up fewer than 50 candidates during a general election, whether these are already registered parties or new parties.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

Jacques Girard.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: In his report on general elections, the adjudicator said that he finds it inequitable that the new parties who manage to present 50 candidates only have five or six paid minutes. This is what it's all about.

It's not a matter of questioning the system that already exists for the parties already in existence. This is essentially about new parties. It's with that in mind, promoting the emergence of new parties, that the adjudicator recommended a minimum, whether it be 10, 15 or 20 minutes. It will eventually be up to the committee and Parliament to decide, but he says that there should be a minimum that applies to all parties which would, of course, include the new ones.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: By voting against, we're doing away with this minimum for all which I think is an abuse. The committee agrees on that point. We refuse granting the new parties more time at the adjudicator's discretion. But if we vote against the first part, what's left? Nothing.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: There is a problem, Mr. Chairman, and it's a serious one. The committee has just voted against granting minimum paid broadcast time to registered political parties whether they're already registered or new. That's a problem for me. Are we collectively ready to deprive our different political parties of any minimum paid broadcasting time? That's what the vote seems to indicate; at least, that's my interpretation of it and it also seems to be Mr. Charbonneau's.

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: That's not how I understand it. You have to keep in mind that the arbitrator's recommendation is not to start from scratch, but to add to something that's already in place, to add to the allowance of air time, free or otherwise, already in the law, an additional clause that grants both the new parties and those that already exist, a minimum of time.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But that's not what's written here, Mr. Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: It's because it's a five-page summary.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I agree, but... That's what we have just been voting on, Mr. Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: That's right.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I agree with you, but we have just been voting on that item.

[English]

The Chairman: So, colleagues, you followed that discussion. The concern is that because of the nature of the straw vote, we have suggested that we don't want a consideration of broadcast time for new parties.

My sense is that we would be glad for that to be looked at. Is that right?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes.

The Chairman: Stéphane, do you understand that? I agree with you that the two negative straw votes suggest that we're not interested in this matter. My sense is we are interested, but when we were faced with these two alternatives, we had some concerns about them. Am I right?

Perhaps in our report it should say something to the effect that the committee is interested in some better way of dealing with newly registered parties that have 50 members in terms of broadcast time.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Without changing the rules that apply to parties already registered.

The Chairman: Yes, precisely.

[English]

Is that reasonable, colleagues?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes.

The Chairman: So in light of that, can we proceed? I do accept it. This is a very informal way, but we're simply trying to get these points in. So that is a point we want considered, right? Okay.

Now we'll go to number 2.

Mr. James Robertson: On number 2, currently the Canada Elections Act says that the rates charged to political parties for their paid advertising is the lowest rate charged to equivalent advertisers. The difficulty is that in the current broadcasting system, there are a multitude of different rates. Rate structure is based on low and high viewing times, times of the year, and everything else.

• 1205

Mr. Grant, the broadcasting arbitrator, has recommended that the wording be clarified so that it will be clearer what rate structure should be charged to political parties. I think it's a fairly technical one that reflects changes in the broadcasting system since the act was last amended.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion of this item? It's suggesting a clarification. That's what it suggests. Are we in favour of being clarified? Those in favour? Those against?

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Okay, on to number 3.

Mr. James Robertson: The next one is that right now, networks are required to provide free broadcasting time. There are certain stations, such as Global, that are not technically considered networks and are therefore exempt from this requirement, but they have a fairly extensive audience. Mr. Grant points this out in his report.

The Chairman: Global is the example?

Mr. James Robertson: Yes.

This is not a problem in French-speaking Canada because the licensing of the CRTC does not create the same problem. It is solely in English-speaking Canada that this is a difficulty.

His recommendation is that independent television stations should currently be required to provide free time. He does not make any recommendation about specialty services, but he feels that this should be looked at as specialty stations become more prevalent in our system.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would just like a clarification on what Mr. Robertson just said concerning the difference between the French and English television stations. Why is there such a distinction?

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: French television stations in Quebec all have a network licence and are consequently subject to legislation. In the case of Global Television, the broadcaster Global is not a network broadcaster, it's a so-called independent station, and therefore the law doesn't apply to it. This is a question related to the licence granted by the CRTC.

The Chairman: Thank you. Are you satisfied?

[English]

Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I would like to understand a little better our researcher's comments on that. Did he mean Quebec stations or French-speaking stations?

Mr. James Robertson: Mr. Grant's wording, if I summarized it correctly, was that because of differences in licensing, this is only a problem with respect to English language television.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: So that's English language television, not English Canada.

Mr. James Robertson: English language television.

The Chairman: Okay, that's correct.

In light of that, colleagues, as for number 3, all those in favour? All those against? Four are in favour while perhaps two are not.

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Colleagues, I really appreciate your efforts here today. Could we move on to substantive issues, part II?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I thought we were done.

The Chairman: We'll begin—

Mr. James Robertson: There's a technical point in number 1 under “Special Voting Rules”.

The Chairman: Yes, I'm sorry. It's page 2, “Special Voting Rules”.

Okay, go ahead.

Mr. James Robertson: Currently, if a disabled voter appears at a regular polling station, he or she is entitled to ask somebody for assistance. Presently, if a disabled voter takes advantage of the special voting rules and goes to the returning officer's office to vote, there is no provision to assist that person if requested.

On occasion, objection has been taken where an election official offers or provides assistance. This would clarify that they are entitled to assistance.

The Chairman: It sounds like a technical thing, but I assume it requires a change in legislation.

Mr. James Robertson: Definitely.

The Chairman: That's why it's here.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: What we have to do is find a person who would protest someone helping out someone with a disability. We've got to find that person. That's the secret here.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It happened, though.

Mr. James Robertson: It has happened.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Why don't we just change the rules so we don't have to look at them?

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It might be a better use of our time.

The Chairman: They go through it. They get all this experience from the election.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It's just incredible that someone would complain about that.

The Chairman: That's why we talk about it.

In light of that, all those in favour? All those against?

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Number 2.

Mr. James Robertson: In its brief to the committee, the Reform Party suggested that overseas voters, that is Canadians who are overseas and outside of Canada who are using the special voting rules, should be given a ballot listing all of the people running in their electoral district.

Right now, they do not get that. They can get that information through the Internet, embassies, and so forth, but they do not actually see the same ballot seen by a person in Canada at a polling station or an advanced poll.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Do we have any idea what the cost implications would be?

The Chairman: Jacques Girard. Also, what are the time implications?

Mr. Jacques Girard: Of course we'll have to look at the cost of assessing such a measure, but I think the problem we will be facing here is the fact that, nomination day being day 21, it takes four or five days to print and assemble the ballots, which brings us to day 16. That means we have to mail the ballots overseas by day 14. Two weeks before polling day, the ballot has to go somewhere and come back to Canada in time. We don't think that will be possible.

• 1210

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl is first, and then Stèphane Bergeron.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: The way it is now, you don't have any list in front of you.

I propose this. Once all the nominations are in, then all the names are listed on every riding's website; you could make up a ballot overseas from the list on there.

The problem is, there's no list. So if you have a write-in ballot, if you know the person, that's fine. But all it's saying here is we could consider—and again, the rules would be changed to that—access to a proper ballot with the names of all the people on it. I don't know if those ballots have to come from Canada or whether they could come off the website, just so that people have the list in front of them.

The Chairman: Okay.

Stéphane Bergeron is next, and then Elinor Caplan.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, for the clarity of the recommendation, I'm not sure if "overseas" has a wider meaning, but in French the word "outre-mer" is rather restrictive. I think it would be preferable to speak of voters who are abroad rather than voters who are overseas. If you are in the United States or in Mexico, you are not overseas, but you are abroad. This is quite an important distinction in French, but I don't know if the "overseas" can be used in a much wider meaning in English.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, we will change that.

Elinor Caplan and John Richardson.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think you're referring to “out of country” as opposed to “overseas”. I think “out of country” would be a better way of describing it.

The concerns I have are, one, the cost, and two, how difficult it would be in each one of the different places where people who are out of country can go to vote. I think what you could do is have a provision that the information be provided. The embassies have access to the websites, but I wouldn't make that the ballot.

I think there has to be some consistency in balloting. I do think you could put in there that there's an obligation that this information be provided to the person coming into the polling station.

It is consistent with what happens when you go into a returning office. On the wall there's a list of who all the candidates are, so I think it's a perfectly reasonable suggestion that this information be provided to people who go to a voting place out of country. Is that a reasonable...?

The Chairman: Diane Bruyère.

Ms. Diane Bruyère: We do, in fact. Anyone who requests a special ballot, from either a returning officer or from Elections Canada in Ottawa, does get a printed list of all the candidates in the riding with the blank ballot. It's also on the website. It is sent to all the consulates and embassies across the world. So we are sending it out there as much as we possibly can.

The Chairman: John Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson: I want to carry on that, because when we used to have large numbers of armed forces personnel outside of Canada, they came with a book and every riding was there and it was listed in looseleaf. Before you could go in, they would tell you your riding and they would give you a ballot, or a facsimile to that ballot, from that book. I don't know how it's handled now, but that happened for years when we were in NATO.

There's still a large number of people who may be disenfranchised in Bosnia and elsewhere around the world. By having that, we could take all the embassies and all of the armed forces personnel and all of the non-governmental agency people offshore. We're talking about a fairly heavy chunk of people.

The Chairman: What did Lortie say about this? Does anyone know?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: That topic was widely discussed when the special election rules were broadened, in 1993. A person whose name appears on the international registry gets a blank ballot which should be mailed as soon as the elections are called. The Lortie Commission recommends that voters be given the possibility of voting for a party; therefore the name of the riding candidate need not be known, and this would speed up considerably the reception of the ballot in Ottawa. But again, although the topic was widely discussed in 1993, this measure was not adopted. It is nevertheless always possible to change the law to that effect. The advantage would be undeniable: more ballots would arrive in time in Ottawa, and would be counted.

• 1215

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It would be possible to vote either for the party or for the candidate.

Mr. Jacques Girard: That's it: for the candidate if you know his name or, failing that, for the party.

[English]

The Chairman: In light of that discussion, it seems to me there's interest in this topic. The way it's phrased is perhaps a bit strong for some members, but on the other hand there's interest in improving the situation for out-of-country voters.

Those in favour of number 2? Those against number 2?

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Can we go to number 3 then, please?

Mr. James Robertson: This was again in the Reform Party brief. It was a suggestion that Elections Canada investigate whether a secure system could be devised for ballots to be sent by people out of the country by fax or over the Internet.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It doesn't say out of the country.

Mr. James Robertson: I think that was the intention.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It's not the same.

The Chairman: This ties in, does it not, James, with page 6, number 6?

Mr. James Robertson: Yes.

The Chairman: Colleagues, we're looking at number 3, page 2, but if you look at number 6 on page 6 where it says the Chief Electoral Officer should be authorized to study and experiment with electronic voting, I do believe the two are sort of related.

Mr. Jacques Girard: There's also the first one on page 7.

The Chairman: It's on testing electoral procedures. As long as you bear those other two in mind, let's look at number 3.

Stéphane Bergeron, then Chuck Strahl.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I may have old-fashioned ideas about the voting procedure, but as far as I'm concerned, when you decide to go to vote, you accomplish a solemn act, an official act not only because it's your right, but because it's your duty, as a citizen. When you want to express your will as to who will represent us and will participate in managing the affairs of the State, the least you can do is to take the trouble to go to express your opinion. There is a tendency, among those who think they know best, to say that everything can be done from your office or your home, including, in the end, voting in the House of Commons.

I'm a bit against this line of thinking, especially given, Mr. Chairman, that this time we have no guarantee about the confidentiality of the vote that will be cast. Both fax machines and E-mail give a clue as to the identity of the sender. Personally, Mr. Chairman, I'm strongly opposed to this motion and will fight it as much as I can.

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane, it's our understanding that this refers to out-of-country voters.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Well that wasn't really apparent when you read the motion.

[English]

The Chairman: It's true—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I realize that, but even for voting abroad, Mr. Chairman, I find that the current mail-in ballots are quite appropriate and, again—this is my second reason—fax machines and E-mail do not currently provide sufficient confidentiality protection. I'm still opposed to the motion.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Carolyn Parrish, Elinor Caplan, then Chuck Strahl.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I agree with Stéphane on the basis of security and privacy and all the other reasons he mentioned. If you want to cluster all three of these considerations in one fell swoop, municipal politics have a very low voter turnout rate. They have a very high voter refusal rate in Mississauga because we have something similar to a mechanical thing where you put a card in and you have to pierce holes.

Ethnics, seniors, and people who are uncomfortable with the whole process, as soon as they know that's what it is, refuse it. The refusal rate in Mississauga is very high. There's a very low voter turnout as soon as you get into the electronic stuff. It's the same as some people saying they believe you should show identification. I think it's one of your recommendations.

• 1220

Consistently, Elections Canada has said not to do that because it makes people less likely to vote. We want to make it as open and as free as possible. As soon as you bring in the electronic age now, with so many of our residents older, including me—I'm 51 and I don't use computers—as soon as you become mechanized, you have a lot of people who are not comfortable with the process. People want to put an X or a check mark and they want to have a traditional voting system. So I think all of this hanky-panky can wait another ten years until the generations catch up.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan and Chuck Strahl.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: In fact, I know Elections Canada is looking at and starting to get advice on how people feel about this. I agree with Stéphane. I attended a round table, and many of the issues that were raised by parliamentarians in particular I thought were very important. It was not only the right to vote; it was also the right to actually go out and mark the ballot.

But there were other big issues, such as the loss of secrecy, the power imbalance in a family, the influence of how you are going to vote if you don't have the opportunity to go to a place where it is secret and you mark your own ballot and nobody can tell you what to do.

This happened to me in the last campaign. I went to one household and the person who answered the door was actually almost abusive. He wouldn't vote for me ever, and so on and so forth. I left and crossed the road. He had come out of the house with his wife and I waved, and I saw his wife waving at me. There was no question that if he could influence her vote, it would not be the same as if she could go in privately to cast her ballot. That was very instructive.

We all know about knocking on the door and meeting one person and having the person behind making gestures to indicate an alternative. Those are very important. I think there is a potential for abuse in the use of electronic voting, and we shouldn't assume that just because we can do it, we should do it. I think it needs a lot of study.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This recommendation is in conjunction with point 2, for overseas. That's how that recommendation came about. Point 6 later on is for the electronic voting. I don't know what the fear is about consideration being given to whether it is even possible to do it. If we wait until everybody in the world who has never used a computer has the option to do that, you may have to wait fifty years for everybody to die—maybe longer.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It's very elitist.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No, it's not. If you asked young people right now where they are getting their information about political parties, they are getting their information from the Internet. That's where young people go to get information, and to say to them, after you do all that.... It's not even snail mail; it's worse than that.

Because a lot of young people are very interested in the process, I would argue, you should start now to investigate whether you can devise a secure system so that some time ten years from now we can have something in place. I think it's wrong to tell young people, that's the way it is because that's the way our grandparents did it and that's the way it has to be. Young people will say, listen, I'm buying, I'm selling, I'm investigating, and I do it all on the Internet. They're going to be interested in this process. I don't think there's any harm in looking at it, and that's what this motion would do.

The Chairman: In light of that discussion with respect to number 3, and bearing in mind we come back to electronic voting and recommendations for studies later on, those in favour of number 3? There are a substantial number against.

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Number 4, James.

Mr. James Robertson: A number of members who filed briefs with the committee noted that there were difficulties with the special balloting procedure. I think they were particularly concerned with the special balloting procedures in ridings in Canada. They were concerned about undue influence in situations where they go out to a hospital or to a nursing home of some sort, and there was monitoring by the hospital staff and the lack of monitoring by candidates' agents and so forth. These are here now. Whether they all require legislative change or not, this issue of special ballots and mobile polls was also referred to the committee composed of Mr. Kingsley and representatives of the recognized parties.

• 1225

The Chairman: So it is already on the administrative items list, and it is here simply because of the possibility that legislation would be required. If you will bear that in mind, colleagues, the technical side of this is being looked at by the advisory committee.

Are there any comments?

I see the names of our colleagues following it. I think Yvon Charbonneau also commented on this when we were discussing it.

It is a review we are talking about.

Those in favour of number 4? Those against?

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: We'll go on to number 5.

Mr. James Robertson: This is a fairly technical issue, which we could have put in our technical list but we didn't, so it is here.

Basically there are two provisions under schedule 2 for the counting of special ballots. They have slightly different criteria as to when a ballot should be rejected. Mr. Kingsley has recommended that the criteria for rejection of such ballots be identical in both cases. It is just that at one point, one section was changed and not the other one, I presume.

The Chairman: So it is for consistency. Those in favour? Against?

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Colleagues, I see it is approaching 12.30 p.m. If we could do “Voting Procedures” on page 3, I would be most grateful. Would that be reasonable?

Mr. James Robertson: The NDP suggested that the poll book be revived. It used to be required. It is not used any more.

It would be where the names of the people who voted were written down. It was replaced by crossing out the names, initialling, and checking off from the list. In its submission, the NDP indicated that this was a useful thing for monitoring who had voted, and they suggested that it be revived.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Do you have a question, Mr. Bergeron?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have a technical question. Please excuse my ignorance, or maybe I am just not familiar with the terminology. What is the poll book?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: It's also called the cahier du scrutin in French. This is used by the returning officer and the poll clerk. At this time, there are two things: the poll book and the voters' list. If the voter is registered, his or her name is struck from the list when he or she comes and a check mark shows that he or she has voted. In the poll book, currently, you simply make a note for exceptions, for instance the name of those who register at the last minute or those who must take an oath.

Both are currently used in tandem. Previously, they had to be registered in the poll book. In addition, on the list, we used to write the name of all those who came together with their addresses.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It makes the exercise longer.

Ms. Diane Bruyère: It's very long.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the NDP here. This should be revived because it helps in tracking voters. What is your view on this?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: My feeling is that they want to return to previous practice, that is to write again in the poll book the name of each voter coming to vote.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It makes no sense.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: My understanding is that they want to revive the poll book, but I'm trying to figure out how useful that is.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: This is one way to know for sure the name of those who voted and those who didn't. That's all.

Ms. Diane Bruyère: They would have it in the order they showed up to vote. But you can also do tracking with the voters' list.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Those in favour of number 1 in light of that discussion? Those against?

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Next is number two.

Mr. James Robertson: The recommendation was made in the submission by the Reform Party that identification be required from every voter to receive a ballot. Currently, no identification is demanded or required. When you go to the polling station to vote, you can identify yourself and get it without requiring any kind of identification.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The scrutineers can request—

The Chairman: They can request it. This says specifically “be required”.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I fully support this motion, but I would like this right that would be given to election officers, i.e. returning officers and clerks, to be extended to candidates' agents who could then make representations to election officers.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: But not if this becomes a requirement in order to vote.

[English]

The Chairman: I missed the last part of that.

Jacques Girard.

• 1230

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: Maybe it's a problem with the translation. "Scrutineers" is translated by "agents des candidats" in French.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Very well.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay?

Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I agree with it. I've done election monitoring all over the world, and we're the only country that I know of—and I don't know about the United States—that doesn't require some sort of identification. At the very least, everybody is sent a voter card. If they come and present it, it says this is a person coming from this house. I don't think it's an infringement on your privacy. It doesn't matter if they don't drive a car, don't travel, or don't have a passport. At the very least, they will have a voter card mailed to their house.

I lost an election over this—a municipal election. Truckloads of people were going around from poll to poll voting. I wouldn't have been here today, so perhaps it was a mistake!

The Chairman: My gosh. We should certainly correct that, then.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I think for consistency, since we go to other countries and monitor them, and some of those people get ink on their finger that glows in the light.... We're the only country in the world that just says any Tom, Dick or Harry can come in off the street and say they're somebody else.

The Chairman: And Mary.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: And Mary.

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm going to put the opposite point of view. I think we've tried consistently over the years to make voting easier and more accessible. People already have to get on the voters list to start with. I can't imagine how many complaints—and I'm sure the elections office can tell us—we've had about somebody coming in and voting and then somebody coming in later saying they're that person, indicating that the wrong person voted with that name and address.

I mean, your name and address is already on the list. We have a relatively sophisticated way of having our lists up to date. I just think it further bureaucratizes and creates all kinds of delays at the polling station.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I agree with Marlene. You don't want to put up additional barriers to voting, and mandatory presentation of identification I think would be a barrier.

My view is that if the poll clerk or the scrutineer wants to, they can request it. I think that works well, and I don't think you should have to show identification if you're on the voters list and you vote.

The other issue where I do think we have to tighten it up is when you want to get on the list on election day.

A voice: That's dealt with somewhere.

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes, we dealt with that elsewhere. That's the only place where I think we can tighten things up a little bit more, so that you don't just present a phone bill and somebody has to vouch for you or something. We've dealt with that.

But here, I don't want to put up barriers to voting. And very often in those polls the DRO, the poll clerk, and/or the scrutineers know who the people are. If they have a concern, they can request identification.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I cannot speak for the rest of Canada, but I know that in my riding, very often, people ask if they need their voter's card in order to vote. We tell them it is not required. I think that as a society we have reached a point where we recognize the usefulness of an id card.

Presently, in Quebec, we have our picture on our driver's licence and on our health insurance card. I don't know how things stand in the rest of Canada, but there has been a change: 25 years ago there would have been a hue and cry if such a proposal had been made, but nowadays this has become quite acceptable. As far as I'm concerned, I would be very much in favour of... Anyway, it would be worth discussing the voter's card again.

[English]

The Chairman: In light of that discussion, we'll have a straw vote on number 2.

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Okay. Number 3.

Mr. James Robertson: The question of mobile polls came up in a number of submissions, and I think in Mr. Rocheleau's submission he indicated that he had some problems with the existing operation of mobile polls. I think he raised general issues, but his main concern was the fact that candidate's agents are not allowed to be present. I understand they may be allowed to be present.

I think there have also been problems with respect to when mobile polls are scheduled—that often candidate's offices are not given a lot of notice of these, so they don't have the time to arrange to be present.

The Chairman: Jacques, is this a matter of application of existing rules, or a matter of a change?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: These are administrative measures, procedures which already exist. It would certainly be quite possible to give stricter instructions to the returning officers, ordering them to immediately inform the candidates of any change.

I would like to point out that where the presence of agents of candidates is mentioned, the law expressly allows each candidate one representative at the mobile polling station.

• 1235

According to the current legislation one could answer...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues, should I ask that we refer this item to Mr. Kingsley and the advisory committee as an administrative item?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's a good idea.

The Chairman: Why don't we do that?

Number 4.

Mr. James Robertson: My recollection is that in the Canada Elections Act there are two ways you can have recounts. One is, if the election results are extremely close, within a specified amount, there's a recount.

The Chairman: That's an automatic recount.

Mr. James Robertson: Yes. In other cases, where it's further apart, one of the candidates can apply for a recount.

There is some uncertainty in the existing legislation about the reimbursement ceiling. Perhaps Mr. Girard could—

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: That's exactly the case. Whether it's requested by the DRO or the candidates, the rates they'll reimburse are not the same. There's no rationale for that, so we just say, let it be the same.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Consistency.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes, consistency.

The Chairman: Okay.

In the light of this, those in favour? Those against?

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Colleagues, thank you very much.

By the way, before we leave, I want to thank you for your work on this. Believe it or not, with regard to this part II, there's much less time in the remaining pages, because you will notice that number 4 of the next section, “Offences and Enforcement”, contains a great number of subsections. So I would urge, one, that you and your staff look very carefully at these others, and then, two, at our next meeting, on May 26, that you would come prepared to deal with the first of the financial items that we will be dealing with.

I would strongly urge that each party consider bringing that week a technical person or someone who they might wish to give them advice on the financial issues. It would be very useful.

I hope you all have a good break. I'll see you all on Tuesday, May 26.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman—

[English]

The Chairman: Go ahead, sir.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, do you have any idea when we are going to resume examining the substance of the bill?

[English]

The Chairman: Oh, yes. What I was trying to explain is that when we come back, we will continue with the substantive issues. I was pointing out that there is much less left than you would think. So I hope we'll do that quite quickly, and then at the same meeting we proceed to the financial. Okay?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you, colleagues. The meeting is adjourned.