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, June 11, 1998

• 1117

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, if we could begin, our main item of business is to begin consideration of our draft report on our Canada Elections Act exercise. Before we do that, Carolyn Parrish has something very brief to report to us with respect to private members' business.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): We just came out of the subcommittee on private members' business, and Mr. Charbonneau, who was the chairman for a period, and I, who have been chairman of it for quite some time, are insisting that a resolution be passed by this committee to ask the House leader to present to the House the bill that's gone through this procedure and House affairs committee on changing the regulations, getting the hundred signatures—all that business that we put through months ago. It's stagnating somewhere, and we would like at least to have a resolution passed asking the House leader when he intends to do something with it. A lot of work went into that over two parliaments, and it's dead somewhere.

The Chairman: Good. Okay. We appreciate that report. Can we deal with that at the end of today's session?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No, because we'll all be tired.

The Chairman: No, we'll deal with it at the end of today's session.

Could we look, folks, at the material we have before us? We're supposed to have, first of all, the first 28 pages of our draft report that was circulated to our offices yesterday, so this is something that's been in your hands since yesterday. That's one.

Second—and that by the way, is in double column format. Not in double column format, we have another 18 pages. So we're supposed to have two documents, and I'd be grateful if you would look at those.

Then in addition, there is a document that says Appendix, and it begins “Electoral Maps”.

Jamie is going to tell us, first of all, what this material is, and what material there is that is still outstanding—that is not before us.

Jamie, would you do that?

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): The first segment, the side-by-side format, deals with the issues that were in the discussion paper on substantive issues, which are basically the non-electoral finance issues, and were discussed over the course of about two and a half meetings of this committee. All of those are dealt with in this first part, which was circulated, as the chairman said, yesterday afternoon.

The second part, which is headed “Registration of Parties” deals with the first two-thirds or three-quarters of the electoral finance issues that were in the discussion paper on that.

This basically takes us up to the end of the committee's discussions at last Thursday's meeting.

• 1120

The appendix is referred to in the first part. It is basically the issues of an administrative nature that have been referred to Mr. Kingsley and the representatives of the recognized parties. The chairman sent a letter outlining most of these issues, and this includes the list of issues in that letter. There are three or four that have been added on at the end, and there may be one or two other ones that the committee in its deliberations felt were more administrative issues and should be added to that list.

The only part that is still to come is the issues that were discussed on Tuesday of this week. There were two meetings, as members will recall. There was a meeting at 11 a.m., and then there was a brief meeting starting at 6.30 p.m. Those issues are the last part of electoral finance, starting with reimbursement of parties and candidates.

It also dealt with the miscellaneous issues, of which there were 10, and the list of technical or non-controversial issues, which were completed by the parties but then were reviewed by this committee. The narrative part of those issues has been sent to translation this morning. Unfortunately translation, I think, is fairly busy because of the extended hours of sitting for the House.

That's where things stand now. That is the only section still to come, which is the discussions on Tuesday.

The Chairman: Do you envisage the technical issues being dealt with in the body of the report or as some sort of an appendix, or both?

Mr. James Robertson: The way it's been done up is in the body of the report. It basically takes the chart that was circulated on the legal-size paper, summarizes that with some background, and then, as in the other part, tries to summarize the main points that were made in discussion. I decided it was better to do it like that so that we could do it on a side-by-side format rather than as a chart, which would be more problematic.

The Chairman: Very good.

Colleagues, you've heard Jamie's description—and by the way, I think we really should thank him. This is an incredibly dense report, as you all know, and it's remarkable what he's been able to do.

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Thanking him for being incredibly dense?

The Chairman: Dense has a number of meanings! Substantial, actually—substantial is the word.

The problem we're faced with is how to deal with this wonderful material. I would put these things before you now. We can discuss it a bit if you wish, although I think it's something we should, again, discuss towards the end of the meeting.

I think we might have a meeting this evening. The House is sitting. We will be here. We might try to have a meeting tomorrow morning. This would depend on the sort of reports we're getting on translation and things of that sort. We might consider meeting next week.

I discussed the last time, just very briefly and very tentatively, the possibility that if we are very close to conclusion—and a lot of it is detail, semi-colons and things like this—it might be possible to ask for comments in writing. They would be submitted to the clerk by a certain date. She would then circulate those comments in some simple way so that people can understand them, and then we could meet—either all of us or the steering committee—in a conference call and discuss them. Or you could send in written comments. You could write in the top of a corrected section that this is okay, and so on.

I don't know if you want to consider those various options now, or whether we should start work on this and do as much as we can. But we have to consider that. I mean, we've gone to great lengths.

By the way, my understanding is that in the adjournment motion there will be a clause that will allow chairs of committees to table reports after the House is closed until June 24.

Did you want to proceed now and contemplate that while we're doing it, and then let's say at 12.15 or close to 12.30 we would come back to it, or what?

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): It would be extremely difficult for Stéphane and myself to attend a meeting of this committee tonight.

The Chairman: And tomorrow?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Tomorrow, I have no problem.

The Chairman: And next week?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I won't be here for part of next week. Wednesday, our caucus meeting begins at 11 a.m.

• 1125

[English]

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Well, if I were being really difficult, I would say the members of the private members committee probably won't be able to attend any more meetings until our issue is dealt with.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: But you're not being difficult.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Oh, yes, I am.

The Chairman: We've agreed with her that—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: What do you say, Charbonneau?

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I have an issue to be dealt with, too, but I'm not issuing any threats or blackmail.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I am.

The Chairman: On the business of supply—

John Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): I just read the background on this. So often we've come up to the altar and it's one at a time. You have to go back, as we're doing now. There's a history of not facing and getting the job done. I'd like to see it closed. I would come back any time next week to do that.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan's the same.

Colleagues, all I would say is I think we've committed ourselves to producing this report, and I'm simply giving you ways to do it. It may well be that by tomorrow morning, perhaps, we can have done virtually all of it, and we're left with a lot of things that can be dealt with by mail and so on.

Is that okay? Should we start?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Look at the two-column report, the material you've had in your hands overnight. Perhaps I will go page by page rather than item by item and see how that works out for the time being.

The first page is the introduction. We're looking now for comments of any type, of substance or of design or anything of that sort.

Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I've had a chance to review the whole report. I'm happy to go page by page, and I'll only make comments where I have a concern, but on this document, I think it's excellent. It is an excellent portrayal of what actually occurred at the committee.

I just wanted to make that comment in advance.

The Chairman: Good show.

Colleagues, there's something I suggested to Jamie yesterday. It's page 3 of this text, before the bullet point at the end, three paragraphs up, at the thank yous. I suggested to Jamie:

The committee also benefited greatly from the participation of party officials during the deliberations, especially Peter Julian...and Lorraine Godin of the Bloc Québécois.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Bonne idée.

The Chairman: Okay.

Jamie, remind me of those things again.

Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Is it also appropriate for us to acknowledge the able assistance of our staff here? They're too humble to put it in themselves, but I think we should.

The Chairman: D'accord?

Some hon. members: D'accord.

The Chairman: Everybody agrees with that. Even George Baker agrees with that.

By the way, Marie and Jamie, we are most grateful to you. We know what it's cost.

I have a comment on page 4, if I might, at the end of the first paragraph, where it refers to Thomson Newspapers.

Is that an appropriate reference, Jamie? I don't know why you put Thomson Newspapers in.

Mr. James Robertson: That is how the case is referred to. It was launched by Thomson Newspapers. The full name would be Thomson Newspapers et al v..... We can put the full title in there.

The Chairman: No, as long as—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: We're not just picking on them.

The Chairman: That's right.

In the last paragraph on that page, I simply wondered if there need be any indication that we expect this committee to report to us or to operate through us, or words to that effect.

Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: The word “secret” is missing.

The Chairman: That's right. I almost used it in trying to identify this advisory committee. We have to stop that.

So I just wondered about that. It says, “the Committee will monitor these issues and will re-visit them”.

Is that enough? It's enough, I see.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: On page 4, the middle paragraph, I don't think it completely captures items from the Lortie commission report that we have not dealt with. I would ask Jamie to go back and have a look at that. I'm thinking of the issues I'm aware of, the controls of nomination expenses and so on, but there may well be others. I certainly haven't gone back through all the papers.

• 1130

So if we're going to put it in there, I think we should be comprehensive in terms of how we describe those issues.

The Chairman: Not to be defeatist, but it might be better to put “including”, just in case we do miss one.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: On page 4, first paragraph, there's a reference to our discussion on surveys, blackouts and so forth and I get the impression that it's not to evacuate... The Supreme Court judgement hadn't come out yet. Shouldn't we say that, in any case, it's a concern for some members of the committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It's my recollection that we actually had a big discussion at the committee and that this, in my view, doesn't reflect the discussion at the committee. I'm sure we'll find, when we get down into some of the other issues, the point at which the committee made a recommendation. There's no recommendation here, but I think we'll find the recommendation further down.

Is that correct, Jamie?

Mr. James Robertson: Yes. In the discussion about the blackout period, there is a discussion, the recommendation there being that if at all possible, both advertising and polls should be prevented on election day itself. If that is not possible because of the Supreme Court decision, then advertising would be permitted at the same time as the polls were permitted.

The Chairman: Ça va, madame?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Ça va.

The Chairman: Let's look at page 5. In terms of the continuity and the approach—and we've already discussed technical—you actually go through and deal with the administrative issues, for example. We deal with things before the court and so on. I wonder if we need to put in something like, “The remaining issues, which are substantive and financial in nature, form the body of this report”, etc., mentioning that it would be substantive, financial and technical, so that it shows what's coming.

That's one. The other one is that perhaps at the very beginning there should be contents. Given the way this is being dealt with now, we are very clear in our minds what these issues are and what the packages are, but even if you just took the main things, like election officials, and we put that at the front—and I don't think technically it's too much of a problem—people would then scan the contents page and find the stuff in this very substantial—rather than “dense”—report.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. James Robertson: I have no problem with that. I think we can endeavour to add a contents page.

In the introduction the chairman had also suggested that we add a paragraph, which I've drafted up as follows:

One of the committee's aims was to synthesize

—that was his word; he's the academic—

the work that has previously been done and to gather together in one place the various recommendations that have been made. This in itself is an important contribution to the debate. It also quickly becomes clear how interrelated many of these issues are.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Perhaps to the academic, isn't “synthesize” and “gather together in one place” the same thing?

The Chairman: I was in science.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No, it's not the same thing. To gather together is to pick it all up, and to synthesize is to condense.

The Chairman: But you got the sense of that. I gave Jamie this stuff yesterday. It would go at the beginning. I thought it would capture part of our objective.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: And it gives it a Peter Adams flavour.

Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Chairman, couldn't we also work in the word “eclectic” somewhere?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Only to describe our views.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes.

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall.

• 1135

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Just as a general comment as we go through the report and how we want to approach this, we did straw votes to give us, the chair and our researcher, I think, a sense of whether there was united opinion or divided opinion. We did not take votes that would allow anybody to conclude that the Liberal committee members feel one way or another, and I have a bit of a problem with that.

If we look at the second complete paragraph on page 6, the one just below the middle of the page, I think it's extremely important to distinguish between the views of the Liberal members of the committee and the views of the Liberal Party, and the way they're juxtaposed there almost makes it seem that they are the same. They may or may not be. So I think we should discuss whether in fact we want to have opinions identified with members of certain parties on the committee or not, because we did not take that kind of vote and I'm quite uncomfortable with this.

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I think if you go through the whole thing and delete party reference and say “some members”, that would indicate it was not unanimous, that there was some disagreement. It would cause people to focus on those areas as areas of concern. I agree with Marlene. The composition of the committee kept changing too, and I think if you take out party affiliations—

The Chairman: John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): With respect, Mr. Chair, I disagree. I think the references to the parties are extremely important.

For example, if the Conservatives and the NDP disagree, we're obviously in the minority and we couldn't stop the recommendation from going through. If the governing party disagreed, then there's a rationale and some other explanation, which is logical. The way it's written is acceptable to us. And it is historical; we know who is saying what now. Down the road, when this is reviewed again, we'll see how things change. If nothing changes over time, fine, but I think it's very important as a reference point.

The Chairman: I must say that we're talking here not about the Liberal Party or the Liberal position that's been presented to us, but about the views of the Liberal members. Could we not consider it on a case-by-case basis?

Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'd be perfectly comfortable with what John's saying had we in fact had a vote and had all the Liberal members voted a certain way. In a number of cases, not all of us agreed. The fact is, we did not have votes, and that's the problem.

The Chairman: Jamie?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: If I could, Mr. Chairman, let me add that I have no problem with the Liberal Party, because we specifically consulted the party. We can talk about the positions of the party. But we—

The Chairman: By the way, with respect to that, I don't think we can do anything about it.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: —had talked about us as members here representing the views of the Liberal Party.

Mr. John Solomon: Marlene, I think the way it's written is really important. If people want to look at who said what, they can dig up the 4,000 pages of Hansard, but why would they want to do that when we can put it in a brief report? I think it's extremely important that we keep it, otherwise you're really neutering the report, emasculating it, and it doesn't become as relevant to anybody.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think this is worth a bit of time, though.

The Chairman: Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral and then Ken.

Mr. John Solomon: Then you're censoring it, which, I think, is not appropriate.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I know there was no formal vote, but I know that there were rather clear exchanges of views. Any observer sitting at the back of the room would have noticed fairly easily that there was an important split between the government side and the members of the opposition.

If a report is to be as faithful as possible to reality, I think we should recognize that when this was discussed, the members from the government caucus who were there were opposed to the fact that the chief electoral officer should be appointed through competition rather than it being simply a political appointment. That's all. But you can change your minds. You can say that you've changed your mind and that you now agree with us. That would be a good thing.

[English]

The Chairman: Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: I think this is fairly innocuous, actually. If I would have written this first complete paragraph on page 6, I would have said that everybody except the blinking Liberals agrees with the recommendation.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

• 1140

Mr. Ken Epp: But I didn't write it and I think this is quite accurate.

What I would suggest, perhaps, for the writing committee, is that we say somewhere in the introduction that where references are made to members of the committee they are not to be construed as unanimity or something like that—just a description—because I know there were some votes on which we did not agree.

The Chairman: What if, then, we were to describe somewhere in the methods the straw vote procedure we used?

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes.

The Chairman: Marlene, would that be okay?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm still very uncomfortable with it, but if the committee wants to proceed this way.... I'm very uncomfortable with it because there are a number of cases in which members on this side of the table voted in different ways.

The Chairman: Jamie.

Mr. James Robertson: First of all, the report sort of evolved as it was written, so this part is not necessarily representative of later on. More importantly, on the straw votes the clerk and I only wrote down the numbers. We did not write down the party affiliation of the people voting for or against. So unless it was extremely clear that the members of a particular party were against it, I have not, for the most part, indicated what the party positions were.

In this case, I think, the reason the parties were identified was that the Liberal Party was very clearly on record as supporting or opposing a particular recommendation.

This can be reworded to satisfy your concern. For the most part, though, it is indicated whether a majority of the committee supported or opposed, without indicating party affiliation.

The Chairman: Can I again proceed to my suggestion, Marlene, that we look at it case by case as we come to them? I don't recall that many. And I must say that I am less concerned than you obviously are about it, but that's one member, so....

Mr. James Robertson: And we will add a paragraph at the beginning describing the straw vote procedure and indicating that the position of individual members is not necessarily reflective of their party's position on any of these issues.

The Chairman: Yes. I think it's a useful thing to put the little procedure we used into the text. Okay?

Page 7—and let's look out for those. You will, I'm sure.

You may have them marked, Marlene.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Perhaps a correction could be brought to 1.2, on page 6.

[English]

The Chairman: Page 6.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The translation for "poll clerks" is "secrétaire de bureau de scrutin". I would suggest "officiers d'élection" instead.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: On page 7, in French, 1.5, at the end, concerns our expressed about the removal of the right to vote. I think there was a mix-up between vote and strike.

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: That was a mistake in the translation. We'll make sure it's corrected.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: There's the proof we've read it, wouldn't you say? I think they do it on purpose, anyway.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Page 10?

Page 11. By the way, I was quite surprised here. Obviously there's the usual range of opinions, but how often we agreed!

Page 12?

Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Chairman, just as an aside, we are surprised at how many of the motions of the government that we are supporting in the House. Are you not surprised at that too?

The Chairman: Yes, that's good.

Page 13? Page 14?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: In paragraph 5.2, at the very end, I don't know what a résidence primaire is but I do know what a résidence principale is.

The Chairman: Résidence principale.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's the literary translation for primary residence.

Mr. Jacques Girard (Director, Legal Services, Elections Canada): In the act, the term used is résidence ordinaire. That's the concept in the Elections Act.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Anyway, I still prefer ordinaire to primaire.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes, it is preferable. At least, it picks up something that's already in the act.

• 1145

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The usual place of residence.

[English]

The Chairman: All it says here is “usual”.

Mr. James Robertson: I think the context here may have been incorrect.

Some members thought political campaigning should be allowed on residential property but not on other private property, such as shopping centres and factories, which are private properties that are not residential. I think what it probably should say in English is “on private property that is not primarily residential”, and we will ensure that is reflected in the translation into the French version.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Madeleine, it's okay?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, that was 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.

[Translation]

Ms. Dalphond-Guiral.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: On page 17, in paragraph 8.2, in French it's électeurs d'outre-mer. It would be preferable to use électeurs à l'étranger or à l'extérieur du Canada. If memory serves, that comment was made.

[English]

The Chairman: I remember that. What is it supposed to be?

[Translation]

Mr. James Robertson: Hors du Canada.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: À l'étranger or à l'extérieur du Canada.

[English]

The Chairman: I remember that point they made.

Pages 18, 19, and 20.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: On page 19... You're going too fast, Mr. Chairman. Have a thought for my age.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm sorry. I wouldn't give it a thought.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Paragraph 9.2 is about the ability to ask the voter for identification. I remember very well that during our discussions it was established that the electoral officers had that power but that the candidates' agents, who are there to make sure that the proper person is voting in the proper place at the proper time also had that power. So I think we should perhaps add the agents.

[English]

The Chairman: Jamie's just reading it. He's forgotten what he did last week.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: In the middle of 9.2 it says:

Members, however, feel that it is not unreasonable to require voters to bring some piece of identification—at the very least, the voter's notice of confirmation of registration—

Does that imply as long as you have the card that was mailed out you can't be challenged further for identification? Those mailed-out cards are pretty easy to get. Real estate agents can get them out of mailboxes when they know nobody lives there.

The implication to me is that as long as they show that, they can't be challenged any further, and I disagree.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: As I recall, the discussion we had was that as a matter of course the scrutineers can challenge anyone they want to challenge. But this is different.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I think that insert, at the very least, about the voters confirmation should be deleted, because it's confusing. People will read that to be a recommendation that it's adequate.

The Chairman: Can we just hold that? We'll go back to Madeleine's point.

Jamie.

Mr. James Robertson: I had intended it to be clear that currently in English it says “While it is possible for identification to be requested, it is not required”. I didn't indicate who it could be requested by. We will clarify that so it could be requested by either the election officials or the candidate representatives.

The Chairman: Let's go back to the other one.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: The inserted clause.

The Chairman: Is there a general concern about the point Carolyn is raising?

Mr. James Robertson: I could take that phrase out between the two dashes.

The Chairman: Then we'd strike “at the very least, the voters notice of confirmation of registration”. So it would simply read, “to bring some piece of identification to establish his or her identify”. Are we comfortable with that?

• 1150

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I remember this part of the debate. There was real concern about not only a barrier being established, but since that's not the requirement now, if that becomes a requirement there really has to be an effort to make sure people know and understand it is a new requirement. We don't want people getting to the polls without identification and having to go back home.

We also discussed that the disadvantaged in society may not have photo IDs. That was why we actually said if they had a voter identification card it should be sufficient. That was part of the debate and the discussion at the committee.

I'm very reluctant. In this particular paragraph, it notes the reluctance of members to support this recommendation.

The Chairman: I think the paragraph captures exactly what you said. We're dealing with the specific point about the voter card. Let's get some sense of this here.

Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I can remember when I worked in elections rather than ran in them. Sometimes a person who was illiterate or whatever would come in with a spouse and they would have a hydro bill in their hand or purse, and that was acceptable. I think you have to allow the people there to show some good judgment.

The Chairman: I think we caught that. We're only discussing this reference you're concerned about to this, as you say, easily available—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: But if this says “at the very least”, it tells me a hydro bill is not acceptable, and I disagree.

Mr. John Solomon: It says “a minimum”. If you don't have a hydro bill.... People don't all have hydro bills. But I think we have to keep this in here as an example. Rather than “at the very least”, it would say “for example, a voter...”.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: “For example” would be fine.

Mr. John Solomon: “For example” is probably better because it's really important that we don't disenfranchise people.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I agree.

Mr. John Solomon: Provincially in Saskatchewan anybody can walk in and sign an affidavit saying “I am John Solomon. I have no ID but I do so swear...”. They sign it and vote, and if there's a problem with respect to a controvert, they can then check into John Solomon's real ID.

The Chairman: So to deal with this point, we put in “for example”.

Are we all agreed with that?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Agreed.

The Chairman: Ça va, Stéphane?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): For example what?

The Chairman: It would be “for example, the voter's notice of confirmation of registration...”. It's the middle of 9.2. The little card.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: My understanding and from what Ms. Parrish said—maybe I misunderstood—was that in itself this confirmation of registration is not proof of identity. I'm not sure that the words "for example" would solve the problem. Ms. Parrish's suggestion was to get rid of that part entirely and I rather agree with her. I don't think that substituting "for example" for "at the very least" would solve the problem raised by Ms. Parrish.

[English]

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: We're on the same wavelength.

If I'm a returning officer and someone who comes in and shows me that card looks highly suspicious—for example, if a female name is on a card and it's a male presenting it—I don't want the implication to be that it must be accepted. I want the returning officer to have the ability to say “No, I want you to go further. I have suspicions that you're not who you say you are.”

If you say, “for example, the voter card”, it doesn't say as long as they present that voter card you can't challenge them, but it does put the voter card in there as one means of identification. I want to remove the idea that as long as they present that card they can't be challenged any further. I think that's where we're on the same wavelength.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think it's a matter of interpretation because if the act were to say something like what we want to suggest, like "for example, the voter's notice of confirmation of registration", the scrutineer could decide that just showing the notice of confirmation of registration would be enough. He or she would not go any further with the verification of identity.

[English]

The Chairman: First of all, I think the paragraph in general captures the concerns we have on the one side about too much identification and the concerns we have about none.

We're only talking about Carolyn's concern that this is a very easily available piece of paper. So in your mind, Carolyn, putting in “for example” allays your fears.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: It does to a certain extent. But I would prefer to have the whole thing right out of there.

• 1155

The Chairman: I looked around, and there are members around the table here who do not agree with that.

Stéphane, the point is, the “for example” is a compromise here.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Does "for example" open the door to interpretation? All citizens might not be treated the same way because for one scrutineer this notice of confirmation of registration would be enough while it might not be for another..

My concern is that all citizens showing up at the polls should be treated the same by all scrutineers and this door we're opening can lead to all kinds of interpretations by the scrutineers. I fear that all voters might not be treated the same.

[English]

The Chairman: Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, and then Elinor Caplan.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I consider that exercising one's franchise is something important that deserves to be taken seriously. In the workplace where I worked for quite a long period of time, we had to carry an ID card with our picture and our name. That was the rule. I figure that the little piece of cardboard isn't worth much and I've always told people that it wasn't necessary to exercise your franchise because very often people would show up and say: "I don't have my card. Is that serious?" Well, no. You don't need that to vote.

I'm so and so and I live at such and such an address. That's what the act says and that's all. If there's no reason to ask you to identify yourself otherwise... That's what the act says right now.

[English]

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'd like to be very clear that I feel very strongly that we should not require an identity card with a photo ID. I believe a hydro bill should be acceptable. I believe this identity card should be acceptable, and I think there should be a statement in the act that says it is an offence to take someone else's voter registration card and use it at the polls without identification. I think that would help solve the problem.

The Chairman: Colleagues, before I go to Peter Julian, let me remind you of where we're at. Even what has just been said is captured here and in our record. One day we all hope we'll be faced with legislation, and at that point it's going to say, you need three photographs, and whatever it is, and then we can discuss it at that point; so I would remind you of that.

Peter Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian (Assistant Federal Secretary, New Democratic Party): Ms. Caplan's point is a very valid one. One of the situations that exists right now, particularly in disadvantaged areas—I'm thinking of downtown Vancouver, the downtown east side—is you have rooming house residents who don't have photo ID, who don't have hydro bills, because they pay the rooming house—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: They don't have photo ID.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: They don't drive a car.

Mr. Peter Julian: —they don't have telephone bills. So they are disadvantaged. In the last campaign, because of the interpretation, a lot of these folks didn't have the right to vote.

So the problem we're facing currently is that some folks, particularly the poor and the most disadvantaged in our society, are disenfranchised by that existing structure on identification. So to have an example of the voter's notice of confirmation allows a tool that's open, even to the very pore, for them to provide that identification and have the right to vote.

The Chairman: Might I suggest, looking around here, that this....

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I might have a suggestion. Of course, we don't have innate knowledge of everything going on all across Canada, but in Quebec, for example, it's virtually impossible to not have an ID card with your picture on it because there's one on your driver's licence and on your health insurance card and it applies even to the poorest of the poor. Generally speaking, the poorest of the poor have their health insurance card and it has their picture on it.

I don't know if it's the same thing in all the other provinces and that's why I'm asking this. Do all the health insurance cards in all the provinces have the holder's picture on them? How does it work?

[English]

An hon. member: Not in Saskatchewan.

The Chairman: Not in Ontario.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Not in Ontario.

[English]

The Chairman: Again, colleagues, we're re-engaging in a debate that was supposed to have been captured here, and this concern—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, that wasn't a debate, that was a question.

The Chairman: It was a question, and you have your answer.

It's difficult for me, Stéphane, because I like to listen to you in this ear in French and this ear in English, and I'm not like the translators; I'm not used to listening to the two. I compare the two, and it's a bad habit I have. I should listen to you more carefully.

• 1200

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Now we'll listen to it all the time.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: As usual!

The Chairman: Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Chairman, I think the two issues we're trying to manage here are first, that only people who are qualified electors vote; and second, that no one who is qualified votes more than once. I think what we ought to do is consider for the second part perhaps a stamp on the hand that shows a person voted.

The Chairman: Somebody might consider that. You realize this paragraph ends up with the majority of the committee supporting the Reform Party's proposal, with some concerns.

John Solomon.

[Translation]

Mr. John Solomon: In general, I agree, but there are still some exceptions.

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues, I would stress to you that we have debated all of these things. I think paragraph 9.2 on page 19 captures a lot of this stuff. I would suggest that around the table a substantial majority of people favour having it say, for example, “at the very least, for example, the voter's notice of confirmation of registration”.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What choice are you giving me, Mr. Chairman? I'd like to be sure how to vote. You're giving us a choice between "at the very least""and "for example"? If that's the case, I will of course vote for "for example". But if you're giving me a choice between "for example" and doing away with it completely, I'll vote for eliminating it completely. I want to know what the choices are.

[English]

The Chairman: No, the choice.... If we do our straw vote thing again—I'd be glad to do it all, if you like. I can ask those who would like to eliminate completely, and I'd be glad to do that.

Those who would favour eliminating “at the very least, the voter's notice of confirmation of registration”? Those against?

It's a tie. By the way, I have to vote. I decide that it stays in.

Mr. Ken Epp: Have we changed the words “at the very least” to “for example”?

The Chairman: No, not yet, and that's the next step.

Mr. Ken Epp: Let's do that, and I think that will clarify it.

The Chairman: We're about to do it right now. So it's going to stay in.

So now I ask, those in favour of replacing “at the very least” with “for example”. Those against? I see substantial....

That's what we'll do, if that's okay, colleagues.

Again, it always amazes me how useful these little discussions are. They are. They're a very, very useful part of the process. And the people who write legislation have to read all this stuff! That's great, eh?

Page 20.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Would it be possible to improve the wording to make it clear that the scrutineer is free to ask for an additional piece of ID, as the case may be, if the first one doesn't seem to be good enough?

[English]

The Chairman: First of all, I'm quite willing to accept comments on that. I would only say that we are going to one day hopefully be facing legislation that may or may not have this included in it.

Stéphane Bergeron and then Elinor Caplan.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In my view, our role is to give indications to the drafter of the legislative text. So the drafter has to know about this very interesting and relevant discussion we've just had to the effect that the scrutineer must feel free, if the notice of confirmation of registration doesn't seem to be adequate, to ask for another piece of ID. I'd simply like to add a few little words indicating that we want to leave this door opened to the scrutineer. As we've decided, in all our wisdom, to open the door to arbitrariness and the judgment of the scrutineer, let's indicate to the scrutineer that this freedom does exist.

[English]

The Chairman: Jamie, would you care to address that? The other possibility would be that Stéphane could perhaps come up with a line for you.

• 1205

Mr. James Robertson: I was going to suggest that at the end of that sentence we've amended, where it says “to establish his or her identity”, we could add “, with the right to request additional identification being available”.

The Chairman: Peter Julian.

[Translation]

Mr. Peter Julian: I have a question and a comment. What does the present act say?

Mr. Jacques Girard: I'll read you the clause because it's perhaps the only clause that is clear in our act.

122. (1) If there are doubts on the identity of a person or that person's ability to vote at their poll, the scrutineer, the poll clerk, the candidate's agents or the candidates themselves may ask that person to produce sufficient proof of identity.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The candidate's agents can ask...

[English]

The Chairman: Just a minute.

Peter.

Mr. Peter Julian: Given that it's already in the law, what this committee has done has enlarged the possibility of folks voting who have the right to vote. To add that clause restricts it again, adds additional layers of identification, and, as I mentioned before, particularly for the poorest.

We already have a problem. There are folks who are Canadian citizens who did not vote in the 1997 election because the identification requirements were too stringent. If this committee adds on additional levels of stringency, then we're faced with that same problem not being corrected. In the committee report here there are moves towards correcting that problem.

The Chairman: Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: I think it's not unreasonable to ask people to bring along their confirmation of registration. All we would have to do is to print on it, in very large letters, “This card must be presented to vote”.

Someone who is supposed to make a decision on who is going to represent them in Parliament should have at least that competency—to be able to get a card and bring it.

I would suggest that we do that. And instead of saying, “bring some piece of identification”, could we change it to “bring adequate identification”?

Mr. John Solomon: It's in the act now.

The Chairman: Can we keep that sort of in mind, Jamie?

Now we'll go to Elinor Caplan. I apologize—I missed Elinor. She was on the list.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: This is something I feel very strongly about. That is, for those who are disenfranchised—and I don't want to echo again what Peter has said—I feel we should not have too stringent a requirement, so that if someone receives a voter identification card, they can use that along with their hydro bill or anything else. If they don't have a hydro bill, the voter identification card should be sufficient.

Under the present law, if there is a concern about that person, the scrutineers, the party representatives, and the returning officer already have the authority to challenge and question and request additional and other information.

I only supported the proposal on identification because I also saw that as a method of ensuring that individuals who were perhaps illiterate.... If you send a voter identification card that says “you must take this to the polls”, they wouldn't know anyway, because they're functionally illiterate.

So I disagree with the concept of a photo ID identity card for voting. I disagree that the person coming in, who is legally entitled to vote, should have barriers placed in front of them to vote because the request for identification—for someone living in a rooming house and so forth—may be for something not readily available.

From my own experience in Ontario I know that there are many people who do not even have a health card, and that those sorts of pieces of identification that many of us assume everyone has are not available. That's why I support the idea of someone being able to use their confirmation of registration—

The Chairman: For example.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: —for example, as a legitimate piece of identification. I don't think that creates a problem, provided it's clear in the act that it is an offence to misuse that confirmation of registration for any purpose other than identifying a legitimate voter.

The Chairman: I've extended the list here, but remember what we're doing. We're not being prescriptive here. By the way, we should include examples and suggestions, that kind of thing. The way I see it, someone is going to be writing legislation, we hope. We all hope that. This is what this exercise is for. They're going to be looking at 9.2 for the appropriate parts of the legislation. That's the first thing they will look at. Then they will look at the record of discussions of topics in 9.2 in the minutes of our meetings.

• 1210

By the way, they will look at the briefs and recommendations from previous reports. We have to remember that. This is the exercise. They're not going to be looking at this and wondering what we said they should do. We are framing the climate in which they write this legislation.

I have a list: Stéphane Bergeron, Ken Epp, Jacques Girard, and Carolyn Parrish.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I think I'll put an end to this discussion. I'm withdrawing my proposal. In any case, it's already included in the act. As Mr. Girard has read the provision in question, the debate is becoming a bit convoluted.

Anyway, I'd like to add one thing. There's a sort of a myth that seems to have taken hold in this committee and that is that the poor show up at the polls without any ID, can't identify themselves and so they're stricken from the rolls. I think this is a myth because there is a provision that allows you to state under oath that "I am so and so " and that allows you to vote.

We shouldn't be saying that our poorest citizens and those who have no ID are automatically stricken from the rolls. That's not the case. Let's not encourage this myth.

[English]

The Chairman: Ken Epp, Jacques Girard, Carolyn Parrish, and Peter Julian.

Mr. Ken Epp: A person who is illiterate or does not understand the official languages that are used has to have some help. Somebody has to say that this is their voting card, otherwise they're not going to show up to vote anyway. They're going to get assistance in any case. I really think we need to guard against people voting who aren't qualified to vote.

It happened a great deal in one of the ridings next to me. A number of people reported that they showed up to vote, but their names were already crossed off. That's a problem.

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: I just wanted to remind the members of the committee of the second paragraph of that section I started to read earlier. It reads as follows:

A person may, instead of showing satisfactory proof of identity, take an oath in the form established by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Basically, I'm confirming what Mr. Bergeron just mentioned.

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish, and then Peter Julian.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I would like to get on the record that we're being awfully condescending to poor people. I've been in countries monitoring elections all over the world in emerging democracies. I've been in Bosnia, where they don't have running water or hydro. The regulations for voting there are much stricter than they are here, and the obligation to vote is considered a distinct honour and privilege there.

We have one of the easiest countries in the world to defraud at the polling station. I'm tired of hearing that it's just poor people who can't vote because we're so mean to them. I think we have a sophisticated society that has sophisticated ways of cheating. I think simple societies and poor societies are the ones that have the most sophisticated voting systems. They have a great deal of honour attached to it. I just wanted that on the record.

I think Stéphane is correct that it's in the act. As long as it stays there, I have no problem with this.

I think we should move on.

The Chairman: Peter Julian.

[Translation]

Mr. Peter Julian: It's not a myth, it's a reality. That's what happened during the last elections. Maybe we could discuss the number of people who are affected, but it really happened in some areas of the country and even in the Eastern part of Montreal, Mr. Bergeron. So it is a problem and I'm happy that the committee has tried to solve that problem and made suggestions that will help us to correct it.

[English]

The Chairman: The paragraph reflects both sides of this discussion. I believe it does.

Okay, page 20.

Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chairman, can I just go back to page 17 for a moment for some information?

The Chairman: Colleagues, we're going back to page 17.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I just want to check some information in 8.2.

The Chairman: That's 8.2, on page 17.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The second sentence says:

The Committee was advised that anyone requesting a special ballot, either from a returning officer or Elections Canada in Ottawa, receives a printed list of all the candidates....

My recollection of the discussion was that there wasn't necessarily time to send them a printed list of candidates.

Mr. Jacques Girard: That's not correct.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I wondered if that was accurate.

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

• 1215

Mr. Jacques Girard: I just added it to the text. I didn't have a chance to read it prior to the meeting. So if you'll allow me to read it....

We were asked to provide it, but it's not the case now.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: That's what I thought. So could we correct that?

The Chairman: Thank you.

Pages 20, 21, and 22.

[Translation]

Is that OK, Madeleine? Not too fast?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No, no, everything's fine.

[English]

The Chairman: Page 23.

Stéphane Bergeron.

Okay.

Pages 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. There's a small part on—

Mr. John Solomon: Page 27, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: It was attributed to me, with respect to the preamble, and I think what I was saying in regard to the 11.5 is that in terms of the duty and the priority of a member of Parliament, it is really the responsibility of the candidate to explain to his or her constituents why they want to be a member of Parliament and why they want to work for our country. I don't know if you want to put that in the preamble and give everyone the answer.

I like to ask the candidates, why are you running for office? Why should I vote for you? I don't want to give everybody the answer by saying, in the act it says I can represent my country and my constituents; that's why I'm running. I think we should have some flexibility and let people make up their own minds why they're running.

It's just an aside, a small point.

The Chairman: Yes. It says “underline” John. It doesn't say the only thing, I guess.

Mr. John Solomon: Add the words “and candidates”.

The Chairman: And candidates.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: What page are we on?

The Chairman: We're on page 27, 11.5, the first part of it, and—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Change the word “party” to “candidate”.

The Chairman: Or “and candidates”, he says.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Or “and candidates”.

The Chairman: This is the second last sentence, right?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes.

The Chairman: So it would read: “more appropriately dealt with by individual political parties and candidates”. Right?

Colleagues, are you comfortable with that?

Stéphane Bergeron, is it the same point or another?

It's at the end of 11.5, Stéphane, on page 27, the second last sentence, and it is to add something at the end of that sentence, so it says: “more appropriately dealt with by individual political parties and candidates”.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's added?

The Chairman: That's it.

[English]

Did you have another point, Mr. Bergeron?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On paragraph 11.5, I remember jumping in rather vigorously and saying I didn't think it was relevant for us to add something about loyalty in the Elections Act and if there was anything anywhere concerning loyalty, it should certainly be found in the Parliament of Canada Act. If it is true that the Reform Party wishes us to swear allegiance to our fellow citizens, which I totally agree with because they are the ones who give us the mandate to represent them, it would have to be reflected in the oath of allegiance we now give to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.

So, if the sole purpose of the exercise is to amend the Elections Act, I must say that I don't believe it's relevant to have this in the Elections Act. If it were to be relevant, it would have to put into another act.

[English]

The Chairman: I remember you making that point. So there would be another sentence in there, colleagues, that would reflect what Stéphane has just said.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): I would like to amend this further, because if you take it this way, one argument that I was unable to present the last time—and the reason I am opposed to the so-called primacy of loyalty to a constituency—is if a constituency tells the member to separate from the country, the kind of loyalty to the constituency is wrong and misplaced from my point of view. The constituencies exist for the country. Therefore, if the loyalty to the constituency means separation from the country, then the member of Parliament ought not to follow that because it is destroying the very Parliament of Canada itself. So I would like it reflected in the report.

• 1220

The Chairman: By all means.

My thought is, Rey, that this was reflected in this as it's stated. In other words, again, if we're trying to capture it, there's the Reform point of view that was being addressed, which is the item of the constituents, and then there are the arguments that you put so well, and the argument Stéphane has mentioned that we have not included yet. I think that frames this discussion. Okay? That's what this does.

Mr. Ken Epp: Can you read the last sentence.

The Chairman: The last sentence says: “The majority of the members of the Committee disagreed with this proposal”—by the way, the initial proposal of the Reform Party.

Again, I'm writing the appropriate part of the legislation and I say, first of all, what did the committee say? There are a range of things here we have to take into account. Some people think it's constituency and so on. Then they go back to the record to see what was said. So, Rey, I thought your point was captured.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: But will this be the final part of the report with no modifications?

The Chairman: This is the report, yes. We're not making recommendations.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I would suggest that the argument of a separation from the country as a demand of the constituency is a very serious consideration and an argument against loyalty to constituencies.

Mr. Ken Epp: They can demand that if they want to.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I'm a bit uncomfortable. We're getting into a whole other area and engaging in a whole other debate. If we want to engage in this debate, I'm quite agreeable. I was elected in 1993 and again in 1997 by an absolute majority of my fellow citizens who knew exactly what my platform was. These fellow citizens of mine, with an absolute majority in both cases, sent me back to Ottawa to promote Quebec's sovereignty. I don't get the impression I owe my loyalty to the country. I owe my loyalty to my constituency. So I'd really like that aspect to be spelled out.

Also, what Mr. Pagtakhan raised is not a true reflection of the views of the members of this committee.

The Chairman: Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: In his brief presentation, Mr. Pagtakhan said that electoral ridings existed for Parliament. I think it's the opposite. I think Parliament exists for the voters.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Absolutely, and the country exists only because the people want it to. The day the people don't want the country... Laws are not made for people; people are the ones who make the laws.

[English]

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think in the interests of the work of the committee the wording as contained in the report on page 27 accurately reflects the debate. I would not suggest any changes with acceptance. I think we can leave it just as it is.

The Chairman: Okay. And that is just as it is—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: With the sentence from Stéphane.

The Chairman: —with the sentence from Stéphane—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes.

The Chairman: —and with John Solomon's suggestion of “and candidates”.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's correct.

The Chairman: Okay?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: John Solomon asked that we change one word, and during the original debate Stéphane made a point...did not deal with the issue of separation.

Do you want to give us the sentence?

The Chairman: No.

Rey, if I might say, I think the two sides of the argument are framed here. Okay? The debate isn't, but I really do think so.

Colleagues, do we generally agree?

Ken Epp, briefly.

Mr. Ken Epp: I just want to say one thing. The intent here, as I remember it and as I understand it, is to try to connect the politicians to their constituents on an ongoing basis and put that into the preamble. It's not going to be—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That was rejected.

Mr. Ken Epp: I know.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It was rejected because politicians feel they are connected.

Mr. Ken Epp: But what I'm saying is that it was suggested.... The majority of the committee disagree that this should be in the preamble. I think the little paragraph there adequately describes what went on here. When I think of trying to get into here what the electors can send their members of Parliament to Ottawa to do...if we're going to start prescribing that even in a preamble, I think we are on dangerous ground. We really are.

The Chairman: Can you imagine someone writing this legislation, this preamble, or whatever it is, twenty years ago? They wouldn't have considered the argument that Rey and Stéphane engaged in, in any substantive terms, and they wouldn't have considered the point that has been such a feature of the Reform Party's platform. They are now going to do so because of this paragraph.

• 1225

Colleagues, can we move on?

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: This only reflects my own sentiments, so I would propose a very minor amendment. I respect the views of the Bloc, of course, and what they reflect to their constituencies, but to more accurately reflect my view as quoted, because it's alluded to me, is that loyalty to one's country includes and has primacy over loyalty to one's constituency.

The Chairman: We understand that. I understand the argument.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: But I would like it to be included there.

The Chairman: I understand. Rey's suggesting that the part of his argument dealing with the primacy of the one over the other is not included here. He would like the part that's attributed to him to say “Loyalty to one's...”.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: ...“includes but has primacy...”.

The Chairman: Okay, Jamie.

Mr. Ken Epp: He's being coerced. Let him say it the way he wants.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Exactly. That's the point.

The Chairman: Do you agree with that? So we're going to put in.... This is something in the same way, Stéphane, as....

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I know it very well, and may I be mistaken, but it seems to me that the sentence as it is written here does the spirit of what Mr. Pagtakhan was trying to say when he said that loyalty to one's country of course includes loyalty to one's constituency. There is no contradiction between what Mr. Pagtakhan is saying and what is written there. That seems absolutely logical to me. So I don't see why anything should be added or changed.

[English]

The Chairman: Just a second. Rey, Stéphane's point is that “includes” sort of means there is the loyalty to one's country and that subsumes the....

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Exactly.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: There is a conflict of loyalties. As a member of Parliament, I only speak for myself. I am prepared that my loyalty to my country takes primacy over my loyalty to my constituency. My constituency may not vote for me at the next election, but that's fine because that is my political belief. I would like it accurately reflected because it is alluded to me.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: This is what I understand when I read the sentence written there.

The Chairman: Mr. Pagtakhan went on to state that in his mind loyalty to one's country includes and has primacy over loyalty to one's constituency.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Right, exactly.

The Chairman: I think Stéphane's argument would be there's a redundancy there.

Are we comfortable with that, colleagues?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's redundant. Let's just let it "redounded".

[English]

The Chairman: So it says “includes and has primacy over”. Rey, that will be changed.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Good, thank you.

The Chairman: Before we leave, if we want to do it properly here, there would be a sentence in there where we are quoting Marlene Catterall and Rey Pagtakhan, then Chuck Strahl and so on. It says:

Stéphane Bergeron, MP, argued that the Constitution Act, 1867, contains the oath of allegiance and that it is inappropriate to include this in the Canada Elections Act.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think we have to go a bit further. If we really want to specify allegiance to one's fellow citizens, it isn't in the Elections Act that it should be done. I'm told that the Constitution Act, 1867, contains the oath of allegiance and I'm quite surprised. I don't know what specific clause of the 1867 Constitution Act dealt with the oath of allegiance for MPs. I was under the impression that it was actually in the Parliament of Canada Act, that an amendment should be made to that act which is not what our committee is actually considering.

[English]

The Chairman: Do you want to think about that, Jamie?

Mr. James Robertson: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay, colleagues, we'll leave that.

Page 28—that's the end of that section.

It's now 12.30 p.m. Bear in mind there's a possibility of a meeting tonight, a possibility of a meeting tomorrow, and, if we don't complete things, then....

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Not tonight.

The Chairman: Not for tonight because of the Bloc, so tomorrow.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Tomorrow is fine.

The Chairman: Can we continue for another half hour with this as it is until 1 p.m.? By the way, 1 p.m. is not late.

• 1230

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, we don't really have time to look at that.

[English]

The Chairman: I was going to suggest a ten-minute recess to read this and then twenty minutes to look at it.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, you must be an absolute genius. I for one am unable to read those 17 pages in 10 minutes. I recognize my deficiency.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's a sign of wisdom.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's it. It comes with age, but there those who age without acquiring it.

[English]

The Chairman: So, colleagues, I am sort of in your hands. Can we discuss this generally? We do have one point to go back to and some other things.

I think we are all very keen to see this report completed in an appropriate way before the end of the session. If we have a meeting tomorrow morning, we would have this material before us, which we would have read. The other material—

The Clerk of the Committee: I was told we would get translation tomorrow at 9 a.m.

The Chairman: We will receive how many pages tomorrow at 9 a.m.?

The Clerk: We'll receive 13 pages.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Are the 13 more pages that we will receive tomorrow at 9 a.m. the technical issues that were in graph form?

The Chairman: Almost all are. There's a small section of financial.

Mr. James Robertson: There are a few financial miscellaneous issues, but mainly the technical. I think the technical will probably take up the bulk of it.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The technical was the easy stuff. My view is that we could manage that, because it's still fresh. If we receive that at the meeting and we take ten minutes to review it at the meeting, we can then deal with it to save time tomorrow.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: At what time tomorrow?

The Chairman: We haven't thought about that yet, because then, failing that, my suggestion before you came in, Stéphane, was that we have a meeting next week. That would be by far the simplest.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's fine with me.

The Chairman: Failing that, we get back into the discussion of a conference call or of a mailing of the document, with changes indicated, so that people could sign it.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I quite agree that we should have a meeting next week and another the following week, if need be. I have no problem with that, but a conference call horrifies me to the highest degree. First of all, technically speaking, it's very difficult to organize and then, how are you going to manage simultaneous interpretation over the phone?

[English]

The Chairman: Ken, how would you be for a meeting next week, if necessary? I'm trying to get a sense of how we finish it.

Mr. Ken Epp: For me, whether the House is sitting or not, I have plans to be here. So that's perfectly fine.

The Chairman: Okay.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'll be here.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: What date?

The Chairman: We don't know that yet. We haven't got to that yet.

Colleagues, listen, I'm hoping we won't need a meeting next week, and I'm hoping we won't need a conference call.

Now, can we think about a time tomorrow morning? The House starts at 10 a.m.

Mr. Ken Epp: Unless there's a special order, it starts at 9 a.m.

The Chairman: No, I was thinking much more of earlier than 10 a.m., if we could.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: At 8:30 a.m.

[English]

The Chairman: What about 9 a.m. tomorrow? Okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Why not 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. rather than 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.?

[English]

The Chairman: It's Question Period tomorrow, Stéphane. It is actually difficult for me, but I'm sure we can work it out.

Peter.

Mr. Peter Julian: So that I understand, it's 9 a.m. until 11 a.m. tomorrow and a possibility of next week. I would like to say we would oppose having a conference call, for the same reasons Mr. Bergeron—

The Chairman: As you know, I'm trying to avoid it. I was simply saying what we might have to do.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We'll come back; we have no problem with that.

The Chairman: I know you will, along with anyone else. There will just be you and I here, Stéphane. That would be good, though.

Is 9 a.m. tomorrow okay with you, Peter?

Mr. Peter Julian: Unfortunately, the advisory committee for Elections Canada, for Mr. Kingsley, is meeting tomorrow from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m., so I won't be here. But I think Mr. Solomon will be here.

The Chairman: Okay, it will be 9 a.m. I would suggest that in a moment we adjourn this meeting.

Yvon Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Let's not forget the matter raised by Ms. Parrish at the beginning.

[English]

The Chairman: I haven't forgotten. I'm going to come back to it.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: You were going to adjourn.

The Chairman: Yes, okay.

• 1235

Colleagues, I urge you to read the material you already have. Tomorrow we will receive the remainder of the material at 9 o'clock and we will read it then.

I want to mention, just so it's on the record, in case I forget it tomorrow, that we will return to the business of supply. The committee has received strong representations about the business of supply from the Reform Party, from Marlene Catterall, and also, and particularly, from John Williams of the Reform Party, very recently. We were unable to get to it. It was on our agenda and we simply could not get to it. We got through an enormous amount this year.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The flag debate made things difficult.

The Chairman: I won't comment on that.

They were all important issues, and the committee is committed to revisiting the business of supply when we return.

We are also committed to return to the matter of the rules for joint committees. It's our understanding that our report is being considered by the Senate and that it will table a report in its own House. There will then be further consultations between the two Houses. That's another topic that we're committed to dealing with next time.

Now we go back to Yvon Charbonneau.

Do you want to bring up the matter of private members' business?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: The idea we were advancing, Carolyn Parrish and I, stems from a concern we also have as members of the subcommittee dealing with motions and private members' bills. Last fall, we worked at coming up with new rules that were approved by this committee and then we never heard a word about the subject again. Since last February, we've no idea where it's at.

We'd like to know where it's at. Aren't they any good? Did someone, somewhere feel that it wasn't worth submitting them to the House? Why? At least, we should know why. What's going on?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We should ask the government leader to explain.

[English]

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan, and then Ken Epp.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I mentioned this at the first meeting I attended, I think, and that is the construct of the private members' committee and the rule that says private members' bills cannot and should not have financial implications. It seems to me that when I raised that, I was told that this committee just automatically sent the recommendations to the House. My own view is that this committee has a responsibility to make sure that bills should not proceed if they contravene those rules of the House that say private members' bills should not have financial implications.

As a member, I've been very disturbed over the past year that private members' bills that have had financial implications have gone forward. I would like an opportunity, Mr. Chair, to talk about the private members' committee and the rules, perhaps, that have been recommended and the practice of the committee, the way it actually works, in order to ensure that the appropriate action is taken by this committee.

The Chairman: First of all, it's my understanding that we did devote considerable attention to it. We have a subcommittee that works away diligently. Yvon has been chair of that. My understanding of his and Carolyn's suggestion is that the committee exhort—or whatever the expression is—the government to act on a set of recommendations we've already made.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: But did those recommendations take into consideration the fact that we have seen private members' bills?

The Chairman: No, they did not, as such. It had to do with speeding up, and—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I understand that.

The Chairman: —with due respect, I think it's a very special thing they're asking us to do.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Okay.

The Chairman: It's something we suggested about the way members can get signatures and can move their bills forward.

By the way, in the same way that I tried to do things on the record with the business of supply, you're now on the record, and I think this committee has a mandate to follow through and study private members' business and I suspect.... We've all done it before and we're all more than willing for the committee to readdress that matter, but let's go back to this, okay?

Their suggestion is that I be directed, I suppose—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I'd like to make a comment, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: —to contact the government, whoever they are, to advise them that the committee is looking for action on its last report.

• 1240

Do you want some discussion of that matter?

Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: When I first asked for the floor, I didn't plan on saying this, but I'm going to say it now. I would recommend to Madam Caplan that she get a copy of the report we did. Then her question would I think be addressed in great part.

Secondly, with respect to financial implications, we always get advice on whether or not those would be acceptable under the rules of the House. Usually when you say they have financial implications—or at least you think they do—if you look at the exact reading of the motion of the bill, it says if the government “considers”, so you can pass that and then they have to consider it. And they may say they don't want to spend the money and that's the end of the matter.

The Chairman: But like Yvon is saying, we want the government to act on it. We supported it then, we support it now, and we want the government to act on it—and this is our 13th report, I believe.

Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Chairman, that was the part that I wasn't going to say, so now let me say what I was going to say when I asked for the floor.

I was told when I moved concurrence to that particular motion on that report that it would be an automatic whipped “no” vote, because the cabinet had not yet had an opportunity to look at it. That's what I was told by the government. They asked me whether I would defer the concurrence and I said, “No. We want to move this ahead.” So that's what I did, and in fact it was then defeated by the government.

That's just the political or the organizational reality of it, so I think the correct method of solving this or dealing with it, Mr. Chairman, would be for this committee to write a letter, probably to the House leader of the government, and ask him to please increase the priority of this in regard to the cabinet dealing with it so that it—

The Chairman: And that is what Yvon is asking for, and that is what Carolyn spoke to at the beginning of the meeting.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: One brief point on the private members' business is that when we look at the financial implications of private members' bills, let us be sure that when we speak of bills, we include or not include—but make a clear position—private motions, because there's a financial—

The Chairman: With due respect, Elinor raised it. She hasn't been on our committee for some time. It's a very valid point, but it's not what we're discussing now. We're discussing our own report, number 13, and the fact that the government has not acted on it.

Along the lines of what Yvon said and that Ken, I think, concurred with, is there general agreement? We probably should vote on it, shouldn't we?

Yvon will move that the chair write to the government House leader and urge that action be taken on our report number 13 concerning private members' business.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Exactly.

The Chairman: That's Yvon's motion. Those in favour of that motion?

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: That's fine.

[English]

The Chairman: Is there any other business before we adjourn?

Yvon Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I'd like direction from you. With your experience, could you tell us how we should proceed to deal with the kind of problem we were confronted with yesterday or the day before? One single member can hold hostage the whole House of Commons by purposely filibustering. How can we engage in a discussion to deal with that and find a way to change certain rules? Do we have to set up a subcommittee? Do we have to ask your researchers for an expert advice? How do we go about it? There must be a way. We could say that instead of a single member, there must be three or five or something like that. It would just be a simple change to one small rule. It wouldn't cost millions of dollars. How do we go about it?

[English]

The Chairman: First of all, the standing orders are the “responsibility”, if that's the right expression, of this committee, and we devoted a good deal of time to it.

This matter, Yvon, you'll recall, was particularly discussed with respect to electronic voting. One of the points made in our discussion of electronic voting was that it wasn't so much that things would be speeded up by the pressing of a button or something like that. In fact, it was that in order to speed up voting, by whatever means, we needed some change to our standing orders.

• 1245

I recall examples being cited of other parliaments where they had ways of dealing with this, and of course there's a balance. We certainly don't want to stop small numbers of members of Parliament being able to be effective, but there was a strong view here that one was too few.

So to answer your question, it seems to me that this again is something the committee should return to this fall.

I understand that a summary of our consideration of the standing orders this year will be ready when the House of Commons resumes—a summary of all of our debates on this matter. We could take that summary and then have the debate or the discussion or the advice that you wish.

Yvon Charbonneau, then Marlene Catterall and Rey Pagtakhan.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I don't want to revive the matter of electronic voting. There is always someone, somewhere who can block the process. That's another story. Electronic voting would cost millions of dollars. It's another matter entirely. I'm simply talking about finding a way to change one or two clauses in the Standing Orders to avoid having a single person systematically holding all the other hostages. If there was a rule providing that to do that, you need three or five people instead of a single person, it seems to me we could circumvent the problem and avoid all that.

[English]

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I frankly don't remember where we left this discussion, and I'd appreciate it if somebody could refresh my memory as to whether there was general agreement among the parties on the proposition Yvon is putting forward. I just don't remember.

But there's no reason we need to leave a specific issue like this until we do a comprehensive review of the standing orders, because I think all members of Parliament were incensed with our abusive treatment the other night, frankly. It just seems to me that if there is agreement among the parties, this is something we could proceed with. We have done other changes to the standing orders on an individual basis when there was a need to do so. We don't have to wait for a comprehensive review.

Mr. Ken Epp: We can change the standing orders by unanimous consent.

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The issue that Yvon raised of course has an urgent appeal to it, because we know that for democracy to continue to survive, it cannot be ruled by tyranny. How to balance that is the eternal challenge to us all.

One potential change—that one member can object to giving consent or whatever—I think was done in the history of Parliament when the Speaker was not yet elected but was appointed by the government of the day. Now that the speakership is elected by all members of the party in a democratic process, one potential idea I would like to propose when this issue is pursued further, or ought to be pursued further, is to give the Speaker the discretion to ascertain a so-called frivolous intervention in the House. He rules on a point of order; he may as well rule on this as well. If you make it that, say, two or three would be okay, we will be faced with the same issue come the time when you have two or three members of Parliament of like mind.

So we have to have a mechanism. The idea is to prevent so-called frivolous intervention, if you can call it that.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Yes.

The Chairman: It's not so much the fact that it's one person; it's trivial cases.

But colleagues, I only mentioned electronic voting because that was part of our discussion on the standing orders. A summary of our considerations in this Parliament of the standing orders will be ready for when we come back.

I don't see, Marlene, how we can act on this. I welcome your advice. My thought would be that we would have that summary available and we would undertake to return to our consideration of the standing orders, which is our mandate, with particular respect to this point when we return.

Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Again, rather than looking at how many it takes to give unanimous consent or to block unanimous consent, we have a specific problem, and that is that we don't have in our standing orders something that has now become a practice of the House, and that's the application of votes.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Exactly, exactly.

Mr. Ken Epp: So all we need to do is put into the standing orders dealing with that particular issue, and then it goes away.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I agree—recognize that as a legitimate way of taking a division as requested by the House.

• 1250

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The House leader is agreeable.

The Chairman: Again, I just remind you all—and apparently it will be in the summary too—that we had a considerable debate on this matter, and I remember the clerk being here. Really there was no consensus around the table then, and there may not be the next time, but perhaps there's enough urgency in the issue now for us to do something.

Mr. Ken Epp: Why don't we look at it in our meeting tomorrow morning and then pass it before we leave?

The Chairman: Tomorrow morning's meeting is going to be full.

Mr. James Robertson: We drafted it. There is a draft.

Mr. Ken Epp: Is there a draft?

A voice: Yes.

Mr. Ken Epp: Well, then maybe we can.

The Chairman: Tomorrow morning is devoted to this other topic.

Colleagues, this is not our last meeting. We'll meet tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock in this room. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.