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]

Tuesday, May 12, 1998

• 1120

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, if we could begin, we have two items of business. The first one has to do with our subcommittee on private members' business. You'll see it on the agenda under A, and it's consideration of a draft report from the subcommittee.

Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much. This week we have some very interesting bills and motions. We've been accused in the past of picking easy ones. I don't think there's an easy one on here.

The first one is an act to amend the Competition Act, which is aimed at protection of those who purchase products from vertically integrated suppliers who compete with them at retail.

The second is an act to establish the rights of fishers, including the right to be involved in the process of fisheries stock assessment.

Then the motion that the government should bring in legislation making the tax deduction for contributions to charitable organizations no less than the tax deduction for contribution to political parties.

The last item is that the government should seek majority support, through an official vote in the House of Commons, prior to committing a significant contingent of Canadian military personnel to an active military mission beyond the boundaries of Canada.

As I say, these are all very controversial. They should inspire, and that's how we select them—whether they will inspire healthy debate in the House, which I think each will. I would move those four as votable items.

The Chairman: We have a suggested motion here. Would you care to read it?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I have to read it? You want me to behave?

The Chairman: Why don't you?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: The proposed motion is that the report from the subcommittee on private members' business be adopted as the committee's 33rd report to the House and that the chair present the report to the House.

The Chairman: Mac Harb.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): I'm not going to say anything on this; I think we should let it go. But I think in the future we somehow have to go back to the original rules of the House when we're dealing with private members' business. My understanding is that there are some strict guidelines governing a votable bill. There are at least a couple of bills that went through the House and were defeated anyway, but probably should not have been votable.

I wonder whether the subcommittee could in future meetings look at those rules, and either change them or make sure we conform to them.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): The question I have is whether you're permitted to have private members' bills that commit the government to money—for example the one on the tax bill. Where I came from, in Ontario, private members' bills were not permitted to have fiscal implications.

The Chairman: Carolyn will accumulate these.

George Baker.

Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): The first motion that broke that rule in the Canadian House was a motion introduced by a government member to allow for the payment of jurors to receive their unemployment insurance while they were on jury duty. That was the first bill that broke the rule, and it was accepted by the chair. This was just a few years ago—about eight years ago.

Mr. Mac Harb: I remember; seven or eight years ago.

• 1125

Mr. George Baker: And I think probably we're the only legislature, as it was formerly called under the British parliamentary system, that allows an expenditure of money to be introduced by a private member. But since that has become the custom in Canada now, most people who know the history of the system would look at it and say this is a terrible precedent and the Canadian Parliament should never allow this to happen, because somebody could introduce a bill to say “Let's give everybody $1,000.”

Mr. Mac Harb: Good idea!

Mr. George Baker: Anyway, the point being that spending is a prerogative of the government and not a prerogative of private members or the House of Commons.

But Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you, sir—

The Chairman: Yes?

Mr. George Baker: —that this committee has to take a position at some point as to whether to respect this tradition of the House of Commons or to stop it.

The Chairman: Rey, very briefly, and then Carolyn is going to take these under advisement. So comment very briefly and we'll go to the question.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): On the same issue, I would just like to indicate my recollection of that private member's bill. It was allowed to prosper with the expenditure attached to it only with the consent of the government, to my recollection. So, in other words, there had not been a breach of procedure and precedent, if my recollection is correct.

But the point raised by my august colleague is very well taken, and definitely I sustain that the committee should re-look at that, even to apply the—

The Chairman: Rey, I'm going to go to Stéphane Bergeron and I'd like to finish this item. We have at least an hour and a half of work.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Let me just conclude my sentence by saying that the committee should look into this, even to apply the decision to the present private member's bill.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron and Randy White.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): I simply want to go back to Mr. Baker's argument. If it is, in effect, true that the government has the power to spend, it is also true that the government can spend nothing unless authorized by Parliament. It's up to Parliament to allocate the budgetary envelopes to the government and it's up to the government to spend them. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Parliament is the authority that allocates budgetary envelopes to the government.

[English]

The Chairman: Randy White.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to confirm this. I understand the subcommittee looked at seven bills and eight motions, did they, for a total of 15?

The Clerk of the Committee: Yes.

Mr. Randy White: Okay. And of that, there were five Reform motions and five Reform bills?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes.

Mr. Randy White: How many vacancies were available?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Two of each.

Mr. Randy White: Two of each.

The Chairman: Okay?

Mr. Randy White: Just for the moment, while I collect my thoughts on this.

The Chairman: Okay.

Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'd like to respond to some of these.

First of all, I have to point out to you that the composition of this committee has changed dramatically since the last House. At that point we had two Liberals on the committee and one each of two opposition parties. We now have four opposition parties; the chair, who doesn't vote; and one single Liberal. So this committee is dominated by opposition.

So we are working our way through a new set of criteria, which we have and will be bringing to the committee shortly, as soon as the members who sat on the committee look at it. They're not going to change dramatically, however. They're going to streamline the process.

Secondly, this is a motion; it's not a bill. A motion only says to the government, “You will go away and consider this and maybe formulate a bill with this in mind, if in fact you like the notion of the motion.” It doesn't restrict the government to spending or not spending any money.

We can, however, have bills that reduce taxes. We can't have bills that cause the government to spend. If government spending is involved, it has to be addressed before third reading. So there's nothing about these motions that breaks any of the rules, and they shouldn't cause any angst on anyone's part.

An hon. member: You're wrong. A bill is a motion; a motion is a bill.

The Chairman: Carolyn, please carry on.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: My understanding and the understanding of the lawyer who advises us—

An hon. member: Change your lawyer.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: —is that a motion merely asks the government to consider, and when it goes to the House and is voted upon, it is then sent to the government to refine.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: “Should bring in legislation”?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: “Should consider legislation”.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It doesn't say that.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Anyway, at any time, if anybody else on Procedure and House Affairs would like to join the committee, we'd love to have them, because it is not exactly the funnest time of the month.

The Chairman: Is the committee ready for the question?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, I would like to move an amendment to the motion.

• 1130

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The amendment is not to apply the motion to motion number 318, pending resolution of the issue.

The Chairman: Speaking to the amendment, Chuck Strahl, then Randy White.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: It is essential that we defer the vote on the particular motion. Serious concerns have just been raised, not known to the subcommittee in full. The committee, I understand, will be taking this undertaking now to look into this issue. It will not be intelligent for this committee to vote on something on which it has questions.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl, then Randy White.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): I'm sorry I missed the very start of the meeting. I take it my motion M-318 is causing some hassle here.

Just to speak to that first, there is nothing in there that says this will cost the government anything. It can change the make-up of the political contributions or the charitable contributions any way it wants—both ways. It can make the political contributions less favourable or make the charitable contributions more favourable. It could bring them both to one of the levels now or take them to the other level now. This can be a revenue-neutral bill. It won't necessarily cost the government anything. I'm just saying to make them the same. It may well be a revenue-neutral thing, so I don't know why this is a problem. Am I missing something? I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but there's nothing in here that says this will cost the government anything.

The Chairman: Colleagues, I wonder if we could get unanimous consent to kindly withdraw the motion and we can consider it again on Thursday.

Mr. Mac Harb: That's a good idea.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No.

The Chairman: No? Okay.

I have Randy White, then Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to haul this out once again. I have gone through these bills, of which there were five of seven from my caucus. Now we're talking about an amendment that would even remove one of the motions of which five of eight were out of my caucus. I have some real problems with the selection process. There's something wrong here, and I want some answers.

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, could we put the question?

[English]

The Chairman: Is there any further discussion of the amendment?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I just would like to make a comment. We go through this every time we bring a report to this committee. We've refined the selection criteria. We don't, Mr. White, consider what party they come from. They're supposed to be non-party-affiliated.

I think one of the things the committee should also consider is the composition of the committee. We're having great difficulties. It's very large and unwieldy.

As far as my understanding is concerned, we've had motions like this before that may generate or may not generate a cost. They're simply motions. They go through without any difficulties. As a matter of fact, if you look at the record of the number of motions in private members' bills that have been made law in the last six years, I think there are three. So the great risk to the government is very minimal on this.

The Chairman: Ms. Catterall, do you want to say anything about this amendment?

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): No, but we set up a subcommittee, and they all have worked very hard on this. They're the ones who have the experience and have had to sit there and weigh the pros and cons of every bill against their criteria. Except for overwhelming reasons, I don't see why we should be second-guessing them, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: May I speak, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: I'm going to call the motion on the amendment.

Mr. Mac Harb: Can we close debate please?

(Amendment negatived)

(Motion agreed to)

• 1135

The Chairman: We move then, colleagues, to the second and main item of business.

For the new members, particularly Chris Axworthy, but for other new members, the situation we're in is that with regard to the Canada Elections Act, we sort of divided up the material that had been presented to us. We're dealing with technical and administrative matters in a particular way: in one case, by circulating a list of material for comment; in the other case, by referring material to an advisory committee of the parties and the Chief Electoral Officer. The remaining items we divided into two groups: one called, for convenience, substantive issues; and one called, for convenience, financial issues.

This week we're considering the list of substantive issues. The document you have before you from Jamie Robertson, “Discussion Paper on Substantive Issues—Part 1”, deals with roughly half of the substantive issues. It is our hope that we will deal with that half today, those items. They're listed.

Following discussion that we had the last time, we have the substantive issue.... If I could give you an example, on page 2 of the Jamie Robertson document the substantive issue is election officials. Beneath it we have a list of recommendations, which were made to us by witnesses or by written submissions or by the Chief Electoral Officer. In each case it indicates at the end of the recommendation whence the recommendation.

For example, again under “Election Officials”, we have number 1, a recommendation. As we discussed last time, this would be the best way to try to handle this material. It says “CEO 1997, Annex 105”. That means that recommendation was made to us by the Chief Electoral Officer in his 1997 report, in annex 105. And so on as we go through the list.

Again, mainly for Chris Axworthy, but to remind ourselves, the object of this exercise for the next month is to produce a committee report, which we will submit to the House of Commons, and which will contain not only things upon which we agree, but topics on which we've agreed to disagree. For example, if we reach no agreement under “Election Officials” in various of these recommendations, my understanding is we will simply say so.

The value of this, which we agreed on the last time, is that we will have extracted something from our work following the last election on the Canada Elections Act. So we're going to use the momentum of this first year, rather than delaying it, as has happened in the past, until things are done very hurriedly closer to the election.

Now I would point out to you that today's exercise on part 1 of substantive issues is the first stage of this process. We will have a draft report in which we will be able to consider these substantive issues again. Once this report, which contains items of agreement or disagreement, is submitted, if legislation appears dealing with election officials, for example, we will be able to deal with it again. All of these items we have dealt with before.

I hope that people enter into the spirit of this exercise we're doing. My suggestion is that we proceed through this first half of the substantive issues today, in the order in which they're indicated in the document you have. Okay?

So we could look at page 2 of the document, “Election Officials”, at number 1, the recommendation that “Returning officers should be appointed for 10-year terms by the Chief Electoral Officer on the basis of formal competitions, rather than by the Governor in Council.” Bearing in mind that we've discussed this, we can have some comment on this and then try to deal with it as it might appear in our report.

Are there any comments on this? Chuck Strahl.

• 1140

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I think this has been a longstanding recommendation by the elections officer and it's something I fully agree with. I move that we accept recommendation 1.

The Chairman: Okay. I thought we weren't going to move by resolution.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Oh, okay. I'm sorry.

The Chairman: That's all right.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I withdraw the motion.

The Chairman: My recollection of any discussion of the parties is that most parties agreed with what Chuck Strahl just said, but one party, the government party, did not.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Oh! What a surprise!

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's it. They agree.

[English]

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, may I point out one possible problem? When you spoke of election to a term position, the term of the Chief Electoral Officer could end on the very day the election is called. Now, the opposition is grimacing at this, but that is the reality of what has been said in this recommendation. So unless we address that issue, we cannot, hook, line, and sinker, say it is for a ten-year term fixed to end at a certain period of time, because that period of time may happen the day before the election is called or the day after the election is called. We have to take that into account. That is the reality.

The Chairman: I think that's a good point, and good points were made on both sides when we discussed it the last time.

My suggestion, colleagues, in the spirit of what we are trying to do, is that we set out the positions and the arguments on both sides for item 1 and have it in our report on that basis. And we have the arguments on both sides.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Agreed.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Based on what Mr. Pagtakhan has just said, if we could find the basis for an agreement, I would find it ridiculous to get rid of that resolution simply because it doesn't contain the specific things Mr. Pagtakhan would like to see. On the other hand, are we going to discuss possible amendments at length to witness the Liberals opposing them, at the end of the day? That's another matter.

On the other side, is there any interest in discussing some possible accommodation? Otherwise, it's useless to discuss this any further. But if there's the possibility of agreement, let's discuss it and see what can be done.

[English]

The Chairman: My sense is that in the spirit of what we were doing, I'm quite willing.... Obviously in the committee we have discussions as we wish. We have been through this before. We have discussed it. So my suggestion is we leave it and we present the arguments on both sides. Okay?

Mr. Mac Harb: Yes.

The Chairman: And bear in mind that items 2, 3, and 4 are relevant to this, because they are a similar topic.

Item 2: “Poll clerks should be selected on the basis of ability, experience and impartiality...”

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I quite understood. What happened to the first one? Was it voted down?

[English]

The Chairman: No. The suggestion, Stéphane, is that it be included in our report as an item on which there was disagreement, and the arguments on both sides will be presented.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: But shouldn't we...? I'm not sure that people disagree with it or not. We might disagree with it or not. Couldn't we have a quick show of hands or something? How else are we going to know if people...? If we already know all the answers, what are we doing?

That argument of Rey's is just so silly that I can't get into it. Don't you think you could make some kind of provision that if it falls on an election period that it extends it for a few weeks or months? It's so easy to handle.

If we know all the answers, what's the point of this?

The Chairman: I have thought that the draft report, which will be a draft, will include.... I'm hoping there are some items in here we can agree with.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Do we already know what they are?

The Chairman: No, I don't; I'm hoping we will find them.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay.

The Chairman: Then we'll present the arguments both ways. And by the way, on the draft report we could possibly vote at that point.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay.

The Chairman: If the procedure will work, if we want to produce a report, I don't see how we can argue every one of these points again.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No, I don't want to. I don't want to re-argue. If the government wants to have that and they're going to insist on it, they're going to win. Rather than get into this kind of argument, which is a total waste of time, just ask who likes number 1. The government says they've all been told to vote against it. Okay, then it's gone. We all like it, or we might not. Maybe they do like some of them.

• 1145

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan, then Marlene Catterall.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, the Reform opposition is trying to put a conclusion to my thinking when I have not yet made a conclusion. I have not indicated if I oppose the proposed recommendation. I thought the purpose of the discussion, Mr. Chair, was to make it as good as possible.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That will be fine, Rey.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The Bloc opposition saw the wisdom in my commentary, Mr. Chair, and therefore would be pleased to accommodate such a change. I object to a conclusion with respect to my thinking when I have not made a conclusion, Mr. Chair.

Secondly, Mr. Chair, I would like to get data. It is one thing to make a proposition for a change if there is in fact valid proof that it will better the present system. So I would like to know, perhaps by way of history, if we have had problems with the Chief Electoral Officer over the last three or four decades with respect to the current process of appointment. If there are none, why change something that is good?

The Chairman: Rey, my recollection is that we have considered these before. I can recall the debate. I can very clearly recall the discussion when the representatives of all the parliamentary parties were there.

Randy White, then André Harvey.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, I would be the last person to conclude what Rey is thinking.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Randy White: It seems to me that we should have at least a show of hands on who agrees or disagrees. I don't think one person disagreeing would constitute a disagreement. It would be better to do it that way. We'd have a better....

The Chairman: André Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Chairman, I've travelled all around the world to get the best possible electoral system. I think a very positive improvement would be an appointment procedure for our returning officers that would allow us to call upon the most qualified of our fellow Canadians.

In this spirit, I think you have perhaps presumed a little too quickly in the matter of the opposition of your government colleagues to the first resolution which seems so essential to me. Instead of making political appointments, where qualifications don't always prevail... I think we're asking extraordinary things of our central officials here, in the ridings. The appointments are based on purely partisan criteria.

I considered that the first resolution was an important signal to send all our fellow Canadians, even coming from the party in power, to try to improve, if I may express it that way, the basic qualifications of those who manage the whole electoral process in our ridings.

In my opinion, if such a resolution were to be voted upon, your colleagues in the party in power might very well be in favour of it. I'm not sure that they're against steering the committee's action with a view to getting the most qualified people to manage the electoral procedure in our ridings.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I will repeat the question I put. Based on what Mr. Pagtakhan was saying, perhaps we could come up with a wording satisfactory to all members of the committee. Instead of disagreeing on a single point, on a proposal that would be opposed by the party in power, perhaps we could find some middle ground that could allow us all to vote in favour of the motion.

Thus, we would not have to present two opposing positions in the report. I would like that. Mr. Pagtakhan expressed some reservations concerning the length of the term. As a suggestion only, I'd simply like to quote him clause 505 from the Quebec Electoral Act which specifies:

505. The term of the returning officer is ten years. Despite the expiration of the term of office, the person remains in the office until reappointment or replacement.

That means that if, in the meantime, there's an election, that person is still in office. So the returning officer's position is not vacant. This would be one way of allaying the fears expressed earlier.

[English]

The Chairman: Again, colleagues, my concern is whether we—before the break—are going to extract anything from the exercise we went through this last winter.

• 1150

If I could—and I'm open to your suggestions, by the way, on how to accomplish that—let me suggest that maybe we can go with shows of hands, which are simply straw votes, with respect to this point that there's an item on which there's disagreement or agreement so that we can set out the arguments, which have been developed in our discussions, for the report.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Once again, Mr. Chairman, I would ask our colleagues from the Liberal Party if there is any interest in discussing what I've just addressed. If there is any possibility of agreement, we'll discuss it and settle it quickly without wasting time. Is there any sign of open-mindedness here? I can see some in Mr. Pagtakhan. How about our other Liberal colleagues?

[English]

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think what we're trying to do today, Mr. Chair, is as we discussed when we approved this work plan. We all know we're in for a fairly long and heavy work session between now and June. I thought we were going to try to get through as much of this as we could and discover where there was consensus—because this committee has generally operated on consensus—and to treat it with a fair bit of goodwill on all sides.

And Chuck, honestly, it's not helpful to start off by saying that the Liberal members have been told how to vote. They haven't. Because if anybody would be telling them it would be me. And I can tell you that the House leader who would be responsible for amending legislation has said he's genuinely interested in hearing the views of this committee, in hearing where there's consensus and where there's not.

I wonder if we can just proceed, as we usually try to on these kinds of things, to see where there is consensus and report that. And where there's not, we can report that as well.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: And I'll take that, Marlene, on good faith. Because we're so early in this process, the reason I want a straw vote.... I only ask members of the committee to be very open-minded, very broad-minded, at this stage. If you look at whether the voting age should be lowered to 16, at this stage it's easy to say yes, let's consider that. Then when we get to the report we can winnow it out.

But if we start now, at the very first point, by saying.... This is something that's been asked for by the chief electoral officer time and again, and if we just say no because there might be something wrong, we'll get nothing out of this. The whole approach at this stage has to be broad-minded. Then, as we come down to it and say it is just not practical, we can winnow it out later, Mr. Chairman.

But we had better get moving through it and just say yes, let's try it. Then when the report's written we can take it out if we can't come to a final agreement. At that time, the concern of Mr. Pagtakhan and others could be addressed, if that's all it is. But we need to have a fairly open mind with respect to a lot of stuff. When we get into the details we can say it just can't be worked out. Otherwise we'll just reject it all.

The Chairman: Okay. Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'll do this quickly, Mr. Chairman, because I can see we're getting to be a bit scattered on both sides.

I'd simply like to add, as an amendment to point one, the following:

The term of office of the returning officer is ten years. Despite the expiration of the term of office, the officer remains in the position until reappointed or replaced.

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane, my understanding of the plan was that we were not going to vote, but for an amendment like this, how would it be if we included the amendment in the draft report in the same way we're including these things?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I've just found a point that could lead to a consensus, Mr. Chairman. So if it's possible to not vote on the whole thing, well then, let's just vote on the amendment and we'll see after that. If the amendment is voted down, I'll rally Mr. Strahl's opinion and we'll vote very simply and very quickly on point one itself.

So I'll repeat the amendment. We'd simply add to point number one:

The term of office of the returning officer is ten years. Despite the expiration of the term of office, the officer remains in the position until reappointed or replaced.

[English]

The Chairman: Again, what I'm struggling with, colleagues—and I'd welcome your advice—is that if we're going to have a debate and amendments and subamendments on each one of these items, we are simply not going to accomplish what we're setting out to do.

I am more than willing to include Stéphane's amendment in the draft report. When we get to the end of the month and we have a draft report before us, we can go through it item by item and vote. At the moment, what I would like to do.... By the way, I could ask first of all for an indication, a straw vote, of support of the motion as it exists, and then I could ask for an indication of support for the motion that is before us as amended. This is, by the way, not procedural. Those straw votes would be included in our report and we would deal with it at the draft report stage.

• 1155

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, I just say that I'm not anxious to proceed that way. Obviously, if there's disagreement there's disagreement and let's just include that in our report. Let's include the blank comments that Stéphane and Dr. Pagtakhan have raised. It would be a problem that would need to be addressed if this were to be proceeded with.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: My sense is that the original proposal from the chair, which was if we feel there's consensus we move ahead, and if there's not, we just note there's no consensus, is a much better way to go, rather than starting to have straw votes on everything. Clearly on this one there's no consensus.

The Chairman: Stéphane, do you understand what I'm trying to do? Your amendment would be there. It will still be there in the draft report. I will try now to get an indication here of agreement or disagreement on the two.

Can I have an indication of agreement on number one as written before us? Let's just have a straw vote. Can I have an indication of those who like it as it is? Can I have an indication of those who dislike it as it is?

Marlene, Yvon, okay, you have a rough idea.

Now there is the amendment that Stéphane proposed; that is,

[Translation]

The term of office of the returning officer is ten years. Despite the expiration of the term of office, the officer remains in the position until reappointed or replaced.

[English]

Can I have an indication of support of number one as amended in the way suggested by Stéphane? Those in favour? Can I have an indication of those opposed to the amendment?

Okay, you have a rough idea from that. There's no consensus.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Can the result of the votes be included in our report, Mr. Chair?

The Chairman: Absolutely. I understand. We're keeping a rough account. That's fine. Stéphane, we can have a vote when the report comes.

Can we move on to number 2?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: On the process, Mr. Chair, the suggestion by Ms. Caplan is well taken that we do it by consensus. My approach, Mr. Chair, unfortunately, is easily misread by the Reform.

I thought the process you indicated in the beginning was excellent; that is, look at each of the recommendations, and if we would have input at this time, the research staff would take note of that and there would be no further debate.

The Chairman: Okay, Rey, but let's keep it moving. We've spent two weeks trying to design this procedure.

Number 2...Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Points two and three are not relevant if point one has no consensus. If you're just going to appoint points two and three on political association, then competence is irrelevant.

Mr. Mac Harb: Very good point.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: You're never going to get consensus on points two and three.

Mr. Mac Harb: Let's junk those two.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'd simply ask for clarification on point number two, Mr. Chairman. The French translation isn't very clear to me.

Where it says polling stations' secretaries, does that mean the ones that used to be called polling clerks or is it all the staff at the polling table? In other words, is this exclusive of the deputy returning officer?

An Hon. Member: The main office.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So that means that at the polling table, only the secretary would be appointed on a basis—

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard (Director of Legal Services and Political Party Registrar, Elections Canada): Mr. Bergeron, to the best of my recollection, when the proposal was made by the Reform Party, it was meant for all election officers in the field. In fact, in French it says the greffier but also the scrutateur.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Also the deputy returning officer. So these would be the election officials at the table.

Mr. Jacques Girard: That's it.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm comfortable with it. By the way, does anybody have any comments on the point that two and three are related? By the way, they're not going to disappear. You should know that. They're going to be here, and we would move on.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: On item 2, may I pose a question to the electoral official for clarification?

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Pagtakhan.

• 1200

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In the experience of Elections Canada, with the current process of appointing for clerks, what will be the magnitude, if you know, of those who have proved to be without competence?

Ms. Diane Bruyère (Assistant Director, Operations, Elections Canada): That would be very difficult to answer. We know there are problems recruiting people. Part of the problem is the fact that the parties themselves or the candidates are unable to provide sufficient names within the deadline required, so the returning officer has to find people at the last minute. In terms of competence, incompetence, it's very hard to tell.

The Chairman: Okay, Rey, number 4....

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, are we to proceed with this hurriedly, with no real meaningful debate and study of the issue?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I really find it very difficult, Mr. Chair. Much as I would like to hasten the process, if we have legitimate concerns we have to be allowed.... If not, Mr. Chair, it would be very difficult.

The Chairman: No, Rey, I'm certainly not trying to cut people off. I'm trying to interpret what I thought was the committee's plan, which had been worked out with some difficulty over a period of two weeks. Parts of the plan are already functioning. These lists are out there somewhere and things are being dealt with. Here we are in the first half of the first week of our deliberations, and I'm not trying to be awkward. I can think of arguments myself on some of these things, believe it or not.

My thought is that we should try to get some sense of where we stand, having discussed them before, and being able to discuss them again when we have the draft report, in order that we can get a report together. Otherwise, colleagues, there's a mountain of material we have dealt with which is going to go to waste.

So, Rey, continue with your question.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I was asking myself if I were to agree to recommendation 2, the inference to me is that up until now we have not been doing this election on the basis of ability, experience and impartiality. That is the implication of this recommendation. I happen to believe that we have been doing that. Whether the process is via the Governor in Council under the bill, or what have you, I do not believe that it has been without merit and impartiality.

So that is why I am trying to wrestle with this in mind. And so I pose the question to the electoral officer. If we do not hold the magnitude of so-called incompetence, how can we then be reasonable in proposing for a change? I will it leave at that, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Okay, I have to go on.

Seriously, colleagues, I'm going to try to move on to number 4. Let's have Ken Epp, Chuck Strahl, and then Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): It seems to me that when we vote in the House of Commons or when the electors vote in an election, the goal should be to try to get the best candidates, the best policies. That should be the goal.

Mr. Mac Harb: That's what we have.

Mr. Ken Epp: And I think it is an unfair juxtaposition to say that if you vote for the party that appears as if it's going to win, then you have a chance to get a job in the election process next year. It's political patronage at a low level indeed. It would be advisable to improve the electoral process in Canada to take that element out of it. That's why even though I know you've already decided on one, I think on one and right down the line we should really give serious thought to that.

The Chairman: It's my hope that we've done it.

Chuck Strahl and Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just quickly, Mr. Chairman, again on the process and with all respect to Mr. Pagtakhan, the reason we can't debate this is there's no time. All of the arguments have been made. The submissions have been done. The Reform Party submitted a document and you can read their arguments. If you don't like it, vote against it.

You just see something there. Hiring should be merit-based with positions advertised locally. If you like that idea just agree to it. If you don't like the idea just disagree with it. We can't debate the whole thing; the arguments were made. We just have to whistle through these things—yes, no, yes, no, right through.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I tend to agree with what Mr. Strahl has just said. To take Mr. Pagtakhan's premise into account, according to which nothing can be changed because the system we have in place is excellent, we'd just better stop right there and decide not to change anything at all. Based on such an assumption, we'd have to go back to what was done in the old days, 30, 40 or 100 years ago. In those days, the vote was a simple show of hands for however long the vote might last as long as the polling station had a voter for at least an hour.

• 1205

The rules have changed since then because it was actually considered that they could be improved. It's not because what was being done before that was totally terrible, but simply because there was room for marked improvement. Today, I think the system can be improved again. And even if we had to recognize that it has certain failings, then let's recognize them. I think the beginning of wisdom is to recognize that there are certain problems that have to be faced.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, and I think we're trying to help by putting these positions and the arguments behind them into our report. That's what we're trying to do.

If I could go to question 4—Jamie, could you briefly introduce it?

Mr. Jamie Robertson (Committee Reseacher): This was a recommendation made by the Chief Electoral Officer in his annex, which came out in 1996. Currently, the Chief Electoral Officer is appointed by the House of Commons. The deputy or the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer is appointed by the Governor in Council. This seems to have been done for historical reasons. The argument is that all other employees of Elections Canada are appointed by the public service, and that when the present incumbent retires or resigns, the successor should be appointed by the public service rather than by the government.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I like that. That's a good recommendation.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: And number 5?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: The next one is more problematic. This is a recommendation made by Mr. Kingsley, which would remove the right to strike from Elections Canada employees. The argument is whether they should have the right to strike with the exception of during an electoral event, or at all times.

The Lortie commission, when it looked at this, concluded that it cannot be just during an electoral event, because you never know when one will be held. You could end up having an election or referendum called in the middle of a strike, and it would mean the government or the Governor in Council could not call an election or referendum at that time.

The Chairman: Okay, and you've heard that again. That is actually a summary of arguments we have heard.

Those in favour of number 5? Those against? Again, it's mixed.

Now we'll proceed to the second item on the list of substantive issues.

Mr. Randy White: Why don't we just ask the members on the other side what they want done?

The Chairman: We are. We're going to vote at some point.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Right on.

The Chairman: Now, register of electors. Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In regard to item 5, since the consensus is to remove the right to strike—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No. There was no consensus on that.

Mr. Ken Epp: You voted against it, remember?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I did not vote at all.

Mr. Ken Epp: Oh well. You should have.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: This is the problem with the Reform—to be judgmental on many occasions, Mr. Chair.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: Rey, as I interpreted what—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It's not a judgment.

An hon. member: No, not at all. He's just making up things.

The Chairman: Let me interpret what we just did. There is concern, by the way. Obviously in terms of the Charter of Rights, there are some concerns, so we have some concern about it. There is concern about the fact that one of the compromises that was suggested in our discussions earlier the past week was that it simply removed the right to strike during an election.

Jamie has expressed that there are concerns about that as well. And then I got a rough idea that there was no consensus. Now what happens is our draft report is going to say that. Legislation, if it appears, is going to deal with it in some way. It's going to say the right to strike will not be taken away, or it will be taken away. That is the way I see it's going to happen.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: May I offer perhaps just a friendly suggestion, Mr. Chair, that perhaps one way of resolving that impasse would be to suggest that if in fact the right to strike would be taken off, then perhaps a binding arbitration could be introduced? There ought to be a mechanism. Let me just offer it as a suggestion, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Register of electors, item number 1. Jamie or Jacques?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Jacques.

The Chairman: Jacques, would you care to introduce number 1 for us?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes, of course. Essentially, within the framework of the discussions that were held, as had been the case in 1996, when the original Act was discussed, the members of the committee had raised the possibility of adding phone numbers to the electors' lists, in other words that we gather the telephone numbers and communicate them to you.

Last week, Mr. Bergeron raised the matter of the date of birth and I think Mr. Solomon raised the matter of occupation.

• 1210

I would remind the members of the committee that the Privacy Commissioner appeared before your committee to discuss those aspects. He might have something left to say in that respect.

[English]

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I want to express a reservation about both occupation and date of birth. I know the argument made was that the date of birth appears on some provincial lists, but a lot of people are very sensitive about that. A lot of people—and it's not just women—generally don't like others to know their date of birth.

As well, I think “occupations” is open to.... How many people want to put down “unemployed”?

I think those two are extraneous pieces of information, and when you're doing the report I would like you to look at those in particular.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be equally interesting to add the sex of the voter to the voters' list because given names can sometimes lead to confusion.

[English]

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: There are three points under the first number. I don't remember all the presentations, but if there was a consensus on having the telephone numbers on, I wonder whether that's practical or doable. There may well be that consensus.

The occupations, I think, are already part of when you register.

Mr. Mac Harb: It's yes or no; it's not optional.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. But in terms of telephone numbers for political reasons, this is a big issue. We can separate the other ones out. I would hope there would be a consensus that telephone numbers would be considered, because that is a separate issue, and then we could deal with the other issue. Maybe there is consensus on that one point.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan and then Jacques.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The concern I have on telephone numbers is the privacy issue. It's my understanding that the privacy commissioner felt very strongly that telephone numbers not be included. We also know there's the issue of people who request unlisted telephone numbers. There's that reason as well.

I think we have to listen to the privacy commissioner on this one if they have strong feelings against telephone numbers.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: A few brief comments. In the past, the sex used to appear on the voters' lists that were circulated. At the request of the Privacy Commissioner this was done away with in 1996 for matters of privacy as Ms. Caplan reminded us.

As for phone numbers, the problem for us at Elections Canada, and you'll agree, is keeping them up to date. It's not easy. There would also probably be data considerations to examine. It's a 10-figure input and there's no such field at the present time.

Finally, I'd like to address the occupation and this requirement, at the federal level, disappeared during the 80s. In Canada, at this time, only Saskatchewan demands that occupation be listed on voters' lists.

I would also like to add that it might have been possible when we created the register. Now that it's been set up, it would be difficult to write to everyone and ask them for that. And it's also another piece of information it would be hard to keep up to date.

[English]

The Chairman: I wonder, colleagues, if, because of the privacy commissioner on the privacy matter, we might have agreement here that in our report we raise that concern and recommend that the committee itself return to this item in the fall and invite the privacy commissioner to appear before us.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, I think Jamie would recall the discussion this committee had in the 35th Parliament around concerns about personal security and so on, and some of this information.

The Chairman: What do you think about my suggestion that it would appear in our report, tagged as having been raised before us, and then we would have that recommendation ourselves?

Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: We could do that, Mr. Chairman. Again, these are fine-tuning the issues, but I think if you took the telephone book in my area, the publicly known telephone book now associated with somebody's name publicly, dovetailed it with the voters' list, and took only those numbers, I don't see what harm there is in that. I mean, there's no privacy issue in that. If somebody has an unlisted number, it's still unlisted. I don't understand the problem with it, really.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The concern is having your phone number on a public list.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: But it's in the phone book.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I rather tend to agree with Mr. Strahl on that point. I would like to add that as far as updating is concerned, the telephone companies in Canada do it regularly every year. It would be enough just to buy their list and integrate it into the electoral list to have that information added.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the question be put, as an indication, on each one of these elements and that we add sex to it, of course. Contrary to what our Liberal colleagues were saying, sex is not mentioned anymore on the federal voters' lists. I was saying myself, that does create some difficulties in the case of some given names. I'm thinking of Dominique, Frédéric and Stéphane. In English, Stéphane is often a girl's name.

• 1215

[English]

The Chairman: Can I be permitted in the same way to join the others then? Those in favour of number one as it stands, just roughly speaking? Those against? So there's a disagreement. So it will appear in our report—

Mr. Mac Harb: Can we do what Peter was suggesting? I think we have a consensus here about the telephone number. I think everybody will—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No.

The Chairman: Is there agreement? Let's just have a straw vote on the telephone matter alone. Those in favour?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We'll vote on each item.

The Chairman: We'll vote, get an indication.

Mr. Mac Harb: A straw vote.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Straw vote.

Mr. Mac Harb: That's a good idea.

The Chairman: Okay, a straw vote. Telephone numbers, those in favour and those against? Occupations, those in favour, again straw vote? Against? Some are opposed. Date of birth. For? Against?

Now do you want me to mention gender because gender was mentioned? Those in favour? Against? Again, we have a sense of that.

We move to number two. Ken, please.

Mr. Ken Epp: I don't know if this is the place to bring this up or not, and it really is too late, but one argument with respect to the date of birth is if someone comes up to the poll and says “I want to vote”, I think an excellent test would be to tell your birth date.

The Chairman: We have identification lower down here.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: We've dealt with this already.

The Chairman: If you look at number two, colleagues, I might suggest that this is an item we could in fact refer to the Chief Electoral Officer's advisory committee as something that is administrative.

Number two, Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's a translation problem again. The English text reads:

[English]

In areas where requiring traditional identification or proof of address...

[Translation]

and the French version:

Dans les régions où l'obligation de fournir une preuve d'identité ou de résidence traditionnelle...

The qualification "traditionnelle" is not appended to the same word in French as in English. So I'd like to know which one of the two words is officially—

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: I would have to check the transcript of the meeting at which the New Democratic Party made this suggestion. We could check the transcript and modify the recommendation accordingly. I cannot remember exactly which words were used.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: My problem is knowing what I will be voting on: the traditional residence or traditional identification.

[English]

Mr. Mac Harb: I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, where there is a problem, say for example in a traditional low-income neighbourhood, people may not have access to their Canadian citizenship or whatever. They should be able to come in with say for example their telephone bill or their hydro bill and then—

The Chairman: To answer the question, it's referring to traditional identification, not traditional address, if that's the question, and we'll correct the translation. But going back to my suggestion, this strikes me as administrative. Do you agree that we refer it to the committee of Mr. Kingsley and our party representatives? Is it sufficiently administrative for that?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, I would respectfully disagree: I think it's quite a matter of policy, and I'm quite happy with it.

The Chairman: Okay. So looking at number two, Jacques Girard.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: I would just like to make clear that the current rules already include Mr. Harb's suggestion. Voters may use their telephone or hydro bill to identify themselves. They need a combination of documents showing their address, their name and their signature.

Mr. Mac Harb: That cannot be requested at the moment?

Mr. Jacques Girard: This is a suggestion made by the NDP. It was not a suggestion of Elections Canada.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, those in favour of this proposal as it stands, generally speaking and straw vote? Five. Those against, generally speaking?

Number three.

Mr. Randy White: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it was just a question again on this consensus. If there is no consensus it goes in the report that goes to the House, right?

The Chairman: After we vote on it, though; there's a draft report and then a vote. So I would see it that something like this would go in and there would be arguments for and against it in the report and we'd be voting on that basis. We wouldn't have to agree then; we would say the committee considered this, and it was an important proposal put before us. We could easily engage in debate on it: these are the arguments for and against, and if legislation is to be drafted we hope the government will take this into account.

• 1220

Mr. Randy White: Okay.

The Chairman: Number three, Jamie.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: This was made by Mr. Chrétien. It is a point he was making. I believe there has been a problem in the province of Quebec with people using cottage properties, as opposed to their principal residence, as the place where they are enumerated. His concern was that this is also possible under the federal Canada Elections Act, and that the law should be clarified to ensure that people can only be enumerated at their principal residence and not at a cottage property or otherwise.

The Chairman: Okay.

Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It is my understanding that the federal law is very clear that you can only be enumerated at your principal residence. I'd like clarification.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: At the federal level, the situation is very clear: individuals may only have their name on the voters' list of the riding in which their residence is located. They have no choice about that.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: So this would not be necessary.

The Chairman: Okay.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Is there a clear definition of "ordinary residence", Mr. Girard?

Mr. Jacques Girard: I think so. We go so far as to say that it is the place where a person sleeps or eats, the place to which he or she returns after being away. I would say that it is 99.9% compatible with the concept set out in the Quebec Civil Code. It is essentially the same legal concept.

[English]

The Chairman: Do we have any sense, in the light of the fact of what Elinor Caplan just said and what was agreed to, that this is unnecessary at present? Is there agreement on that?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Agreement.

The Chairman: Agreement that it's unnecessary? Those against? Okay. That's number three.

Number four.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: The next recommendation was made before the committee by Mr. Milliken. His point was that before 1993 people in rural areas could register on election day, and people in urban areas could not. In 1993, as a result of a recommendation by the Lortie commission, it was made the same for all Canadians, whether you were in an urban or rural riding.

Mr. Milliken's point was that if we're going to go to the time and expense of keeping a permanent voters list, it no longer is necessary for people to come up on election day to register, and therefore this should not be permitted. His point was that the parties and candidates like to have as complete a list as possible prior to that for their compaigning purposes.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan, Mac Harb, and then Stéphane Bergeron.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I feel that it is important to be able to include someone who has legitimately been left off the list. Having said that, I do think that what we have in place today is open to potential abuse and I think it could be made more stringent in the form of requiring an oath, that you swear you are entitled to vote and that you have not voted in any other place. I'd like to—maybe that's administrative vote, or as a matter of policy—suggest that rather than saying no registration on election day, what you do is just require an oath before you can vote and register on election day.

The Chairman: Mac Harb and Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Mac Harb: Ditto.

The Chairman: Okay. Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would like some clarification about the French version, Mr. Chairman. It states that election day registration should be discontinued. Does that mean on election day or the day before? I think this must be clarified.

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: I believe Mr. Milliken's suggestion was that it simply be abolished.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, but the English version is quite clear, whereas the wording of the French version is not.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Perhaps we should simply replace the word "arrêter" with the word "abolir".

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: "Abolish election day registration". Yes.

The Chairman: Does everyone agree?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. With regard to this one then, all those in favour? This is number four.

Some hon. members: No.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I have a suggestion. I'd like to make the suggestion that while we vote against this, perhaps we could include a recommendation from the committee that you require an oath if you are going to register on the day of the vote.

The Chairman: To generalize, the idea is to become more formal. Okay?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes.

The Chairman: It's to become more formal in some way, and that we include this in our report.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: You don't just have to walk in and show your phone bill.

The Chairman: It should not be a casual thing.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's right.

The Chairman: Is that the idea?

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have a question for Mr. Girard. I understand, and I would like this confirmed, that in some elections, voters may be identified by someone else.

• 1225

Mr. Jacques Girard: I can't think of the word in French, but vouching is possible in rural polling divisions only. It is a sort of archaism that has remained in the act, whereby someone without identification may ask another person to vouch for his or her identity in rural ridings.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That is assuming the person has no identification?

Mr. Jacques Girard: That is correct.

The Chairman: Is that all right, Mr. Bergeron?

[English]

Can we go on to number five?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Before we go any further, I think we should abolish this distinction between rural and non-rural ridings, that we eliminate this option, in keeping with the spirit of Mr. Milliken's recommendation. Whether a person lives in the country or in the woods, everyone has some sort of identification, that we could show at a polling station to eliminate the need for vouching.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It's the same now. What he wants to do is eliminate—

A voice: No.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I understand it's the same. You can get on the list whether you're urban or rural on election day.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: It is true that there is a registration process that applies everywhere. Sometimes a distinction is made: in rural polling divisions, individuals may be accompanied by a vouching elector, rather than having to show identification. Apparently, from the information we received, the reason is that people often turn up at the polling station without any identification documents. We find it somewhat surprising, I agree, but apparently that is the case. That is why in 1993 the registration period was extended up to polling day in urban areas, but the practice of vouching was kept in rural areas.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Personally, and following up on what was just said, I would suggest that we state it no longer will be possible to register through the vouching procedure. Anyone could be able to vote in that way. Everyone has some sort of identification, whether they live in the woods or in the countryside. It makes no sense.

[English]

The Chairman: Can we go to Mac Harb, and then Elinor Caplan?

Mr. Mac Harb: I think we should just kill this motion and move on.

I'm against the whole notion of oaths, because I think to take an oath you have to take it before a commissioner or lawyer or—

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: There is a special provision in the act which states that election officers may take the oaths provided for in the Act.

[English]

Mr. Mac Harb: Okay.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm opposed to number four as it stands. I believe that it's a separate question, but if you're going to look at the ability to vouch, my feeling is that the same ability should be available in urban areas as well. Notwithstanding those provisions, I still think there should be the requirement of an oath before you're permitted to vote on election day to say you are who you say you are.

The Chairman: I would suggest that we capture the oath and the vouching in our report.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Contrary to what Ms. Caplan was saying, I would recommend that we not extend this practice to urban areas, but rather we abolish it in rural ridings.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I don't have a problem with vouching. Say I know the person and I have identification. I can say that I'm Elinor Caplan—here's my identification—and that I know her. I will swear that I know her, and she's going to swear that she is who she is. Then I think she should be able to vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Everyone has some i.d. That makes no sense at all. Come on! This is 1998! No, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this practice be abolished in both rural and urban areas.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Not always.

The Chairman: We've got the point about urban and rural as well. We will capture this discussion in this part of the report. Okay?

Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I just have a short comment on that. It's one thing to know somebody and vouch that you know who that somebody is. Often, you don't know for sure whether they are a Canadian citizen or not.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: So I have to swear.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, that's my concern.

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

Let's go to number five, which is that the voters list should be allowed to be used for certain non-electoral purposes, such as emergencies.

Jamie Robertson.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: When Bill C-63 was passed just before the last election, various concerns were raised, so protections were built in regarding the use of the voters list for anything other than an electoral event. That was very important for the privacy commissioner and many other Canadians, including many of the members of the House.

However, an issue came up recently, I believe, with Elections Canada whereby a member of the Bloc, during the ice storm, contacted Elections Canada to ask whether the lists could be used for non-electoral purposes in connection with an emergency.

The question is whether the committee wishes to reopen this, which is to allow the register of voters and the lists that are generated from that to be used in certain specified cases.

• 1230

One suggestion that is made is that the act could specify it. The other thing would be to give Mr. Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer, some discretion about the use of them in certain situations.

The Chairman: Okay.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I fully agree that we must minimize the use of the voters' list and act very cautiously. I believe our colleagues' suggestion was that it be possible to use the lists in emergencies, such as the ice storm this winter. You have to have experienced a situation of that type to realize how invaluable the voters' list can be in providing assistance to people.

Therefore, I would suggest that in very specific cases, such as emergencies, and at the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer, it be possible to use the voters' list in the best interest of the public.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

Colleagues—Stéphane does represent the Bloc—in the English version, it says “such as emergencies”, but it actually means “in emergencies”. It doesn't mean “for example, in emergencies”; it means “in emergencies”. Right?

Mr. Mac Harb: Such as emergencies.

The Chairman: That's not what it says.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: I worded this one. It could well be that it needs to be reworded to accord with what Mr. Bergeron is saying.

The Chairman: Stéphane, do you accept that, that it reads that in fact in emergencies it should be possible to use the voters list?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: With the agreement of the Chief Electoral Officer.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: If it had telephone numbers on it, it would be really useful.

The Chairman: Listen, with that sense of this, those generally in favour...?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think the municipal lists are actually more accurate, frankly.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But we can't use those ones either.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Why not?

The Chairman: But with that sense, those generally in favour of the possible use of the electoral list during emergencies...?

Mr. Mac Harb: Excuse me for one second, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Harb.

Mr. Mac Harb: I thought the whole idea was for the Chief Electoral Officer to share those lists for provincial elections when we developed it. So I think this is a little bit redundant, because they would get those lists in any event. Isn't that the whole idea of having a national voters list?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: The act has built-in protection, so that even where Mr. Kingsley enters into an agreement with the provincial jurisdiction to share the lists, they're bound by privacy considerations and they're also not allowed to use them for anything other than electoral purposes. So they have access to the list, but they cannot use them where they would be charged under the act.

If the Quebec electoral officer had received a list from Mr. Kingsley and he allowed somebody to use it for an emergency, or a member of Parliament did, they would be in breach of the act as currently written.

Mr. Mac Harb: I would be extremely concerned if there's a stated emergency somewhere for which I had to go to the voters list in order to contact my constituents, frankly, because of the turnover that exists—15% of constituents in urban ridings move out every year. So this is really going to defeat the purpose.

I wonder whether we are putting ourselves in an awkward position by making it look like it's the most up to date, by sanctioning, passing it on to other levels of government in case of emergencies. Then we have to guarantee it's really up to date, and if we can't guarantee that, I don't think we should do this.

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: Regarding Mr. Harb's comments, I would just point out the current Act provides that federal members of Parliament may use the list to get in touch with their voters.

In the case you mention, a member of Parliament could use the list, for example, in the case of an emergency to contact people, to make sure that everything is all right.

The problem we had was that the member of Parliament in question wanted to give the list to the municipality to help in distributing the compensation cheques. So, in the end, the member of Parliament was not using the list to get in touch with people; he gave it to someone else, for, we agree, perfectly commendable reasons. However, this was a violation of some of the restrictions set out in the legislation.

I believe this example was mentioned by a Bloc Québécois member at the committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Again, colleagues, for the purposes of now, I think we have a range of views on this, which we can articulate in the report, and it raises the point about the specific case of emergencies; it raises concerns about abuse of the electoral list.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: First, with reference to Mr. Harb's comment, I would like to say that the objective of having a list of the type just established by the Chief Electoral Officer is precisely to have a list that is constantly updated. I think we really have no problem in this regard; it is very likely that the list will be continually updated.

In order to reassure our colleagues who have some concern about the misuse of the voters' list, I would point out that two safeguards were added to the proposal.

• 1235

[English]

The Chairman: Can we do voting now, colleagues?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We added two safeguards to the proposal: first, this should occur only in emergencies, and second, with the agreement of the Chief Electoral Officer. Since these two safeguards have been included, I really see no problem. I would therefore invite my colleagues to vote for this recommendation.

[English]

The Chairman: We will include that in the report.

Colleagues, could I ask you to try to do the voting items? Then we can continue at the next meeting, okay?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: There are two issues here.

The first issue is reducing the voting age to 16, a proposal made by various groups. I believe the NDP took a position in favour of that at their last convention. None of the other witnesses or submissions to the committee raised this.

Items two and three are related and deal with a second issue under voting.

The Chairman: Okay. We've got number one.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Incidentally, the Lortie commission, in its report in the early 1990s, looked at the issue. The commission had various representations made to it and recommended that the age of voting stay at 18, although the members of the commission did say that the matter should be reviewed from time to time.

The basic argument is that in many provinces you can do various things, like get a driver's licence and so forth, at the age of 16. The argument against that is that the age of majority in most provinces remains at 18 or older, 19 or so, for drinking and for various other things like that.

The Chairman: Okay. Those in favour as it stands? This is just a straw vote. And those against as it stands? So there is disagreement.

Number two.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: This was a recommendation made by Mr. Kingsley in his last report as a result of the last federal election. It is somewhat related to the appointment process.

Basically, at present returning officers do not have the right to vote. If there is a tie in elections, they cast the deciding vote. That has happened, I understand from Mr. Girard, once in the last 130 years.

There is an argument under the Charter of Rights that denying returning officers the right to vote is an infringement of their charter rights. The argument against that, of course, is that in order for them to be objective and to be perceived to be objective, they should not have the right to vote.

If they were given the right to vote, they should not then have the right to cast a deciding vote in the event of a tie. So recommendation 3 says that if you give them the right to vote, you have to make some other provision for dealing with a tie. Mr. Kingsley's recommendation is that you have a by-election. There's obviously a cost involved in that. A by-election can cost up to $500,000, although it would be cheaper if it were held right after a general election.

But there are other ways of doing it, like for instance giving Mr. Kingsley or some other individual the right to break a tie vote.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I feel rather uncomfortable about these two proposals, because as long as returning officers are appointed in the current manner, I would be quite opposed to giving them the right to vote, because I know very well how they would vote if there were a tie. That is obvious.

However, if returning officers were to be appointed as a result of a competition, on the basis of their objectivity and their competence, in that case, I would be totally in favour of giving them the right to vote and the right the cast the deciding vote.

If appointments were to continue being made as they are at the moment, I would be completely opposed to giving returning officers the right to vote or the right to cast the deciding ballot in the case of a tie. If the party in power is the Liberal Party, obviously, if there were a tie between the Liberals and the Conservatives in a riding, or between the Liberals and the Reform Party, or between the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois, they would vote for the Liberals. Similarly, if a Conservative government were in power and there were a tie between the Conservative candidate and a candidate from another party, clearly, the individual would vote for the Conservatives.

Thus, as far as I'm concerned, if the rules regarding the appointment of returning officers remain unchanged, I am opposed to giving returning officers the right to vote and the right to cast the deciding vote.

If the rules regarding the appointment of returning officers were to change, I would be quite prepared to consider these two possibilities.

[English]

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Just very briefly, particularly for my colleague across the way, returning officers in the province of Ontario are appointed in exactly the same way as federal returning officers.

During the 12 years I was at Queen's Park, the returning officer, who remained the returning officer throughout that period of time, was the one who was there when I was elected. She had been appointed by the previous Conservative government.

I have always believed that returning officers should have the right to vote. I believe that you set in place an alternative mechanism for dealing with the tie that happens once every 100 years. But I don't think that whether they have the right to vote or not should have anything to do with how we select returning officers. I know that there are many returning officers in place across this country who are not necessarily of the same political party as the government of the day. I had that experience myself.

The Chairman: Okay. Those in favour of number two as it stands. Those against?

Those in favour of number three as it stands. Those against?

Colleagues, I urge you to look at the remaining items before Thursday so we can start, hit the ground running. We have another list for Thursday.

The meeting is duly adjourned. Thank you very much for your patience.