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 26, 1998

• 1108

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Could we begin, colleagues?

We're continuing consideration of our work on the Canada Elections Act. As you know, the last time we got part-way through the discussion paper on substantive issues, part II. The actual item scheduled for today and Thursday is the paper on financial issues, but could we begin with the discussion paper on substantive issues, part II?

Go to page 3 of that report—this is the report we were considering the last time—and just more than halfway down the page is the item “Offences and Enforcement”. It's my recollection that that is where we were. I would suggest we proceed in the same way we did last time.

Again, to remind everybody, the object of the exercise is to generate some opinion about these items, but in such a way as they can go into our report as items the committee thinks are of interest, whether we have consensus on them or not.

So could we begin with “Offences and Enforcement” on page 3, beginning with number 1?

Jamie.

Mr. Jamie Robertson (Committee Researcher): The offences and enforcement consist of five separate recommendations, one of which is quite lengthy. Basically these were recommendations, except for the fifth one, that were made by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Currently the enforcement provisions of the Canada Elections Act are very antiquated. They have not been amended for many years. They are contained in a number of separate statutes that are quite old and in some cases have not been used, or the procedures set out in them are very unwieldy. So the Lortie commission and Mr. Kingsley have recommended that these should be modernized and streamlined to make them more efficient and effective.

• 1110

The first one is that the Commissioner of Canada Elections, who is the official under the act who is authorized to investigate and prosecute alleged offences under the Canada Elections Act, be authorized to enter into compliance agreements and compliance orders. This would be a better way than going to court, if you get the person involved to agree to a certain course of action.

The Chairman: Are there any comments on that one?

So number one, it's antiquated—

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Right now he doesn't have the ability to enter into these agreements. His only remedy is to go to court, which is both expensive and unwieldy and not always necessary.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): It seems to me to be a very reasonable change. You want to be able to move to agreements rather than having to go to the courts all the time. I don't have any problem with that.

The Chairman: Are there any more comments on that? Okay. Again, we'll go to a straw vote procedure.

All those in favour? Against? Okay, most are in favour.

Number 2.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: These are two separate statutes that are really more of historical interest than anything else. They date back I think to the Victorian era, the early days of Confederation, when elections were very corrupt and all sorts of problems resulted.

The Chairman: Not like nowadays.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Not like nowadays.

I don't believe these two statutes have been used for many years. There is no need for them, because alternative procedures are set out in the Canada Elections Act. They've just never been repealed. So the recommendation of the Lortie commission, I believe, and certainly of Mr. Kingsley, is that they should both be repealed.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Maybe we should strengthen the Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Just don't engage in them.

The Chairman: Or equally disenfranchise more people.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: This doesn't deal with corrupt practices so much as inquiries.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Oh, okay. Well, then, I guess...

The Chairman: We'll deal with numbers 2 and 3 together, again with a straw vote.

Those in favour? Against? That's fine.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Number 3 deals with a slightly different issue. This is where there is a controverted or challenged election. There's a statute that sets out the procedure for dealing with these kinds of provisions. Again, it's very unwieldy and has never been used that we're aware of.

The Chairman: I thought we dealt with that one.

We've dealt with that one as well, colleagues.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: This one is a bit different, because it involves setting out a new procedure in the Canada Elections Act, which is what is set out on pages 4 and 5. I don't think the details are that important so much as that it basically would give the authority to adjudicate controverted elections to the Federal Court of Canada and would set out a more streamlined procedure than is currently the case under this antiquated statute.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just so we're clear, then, if we repeal what's in number 3, which I think we've already done, then we assume what's in point number 4 is what's going to replace it, right?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Unlike number 2, which is already dealt with in the Canada Elections Act, we would have to put in a new procedure in the Canada Elections Act for a controverted election.

The Chairman: Okay? Everyone agrees, so we'll vote on number 4.

Number 4 you'll see has a good number of subsections.

Jamie, what do you think is the best thing to do?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Essentially this would be the basic procedure. It is an updated, modernized version of the existing procedure set out in the Controverted Elections Act.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: This is the procedure that's recommended by Elections Canada?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: That's correct, and I believe it's based on recommendations of the Lortie commission.

The Chairman: John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): In 4(a), should that be “contested election results”?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Yes, “election results”.

Mr. John Solomon: Okay.

The Chairman: Very good. Fine work.

Do you want to look at those items? This is a suggested compliance approach to the matters that were dealt with in the items we just discussed. Do we want to just read those through, have a look at them, and check for other spelling mistakes and so on?

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): What procedure are you suggesting?

• 1115

[English]

The Chairman: I thought we could just read them through now and see if people find any problems with particular items, Stéphane.

While you're doing that, my suggestion would be that at the end I would say, “Are we agreed in principle?” We're not recommending the actual detail of these items, just “Are we agreed in principle to this approach?”

That's what I thought I would say at the end.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Legislation will have to be brought in—

The Chairman: And we're going to discuss the legislation. This is going to go into our report. Then we're going to discuss the report. Then it has to go into legislation, and we're going to discuss the legislation.

John O'Reilly, do you have the material we're discussing here? We're on page 4 of the document, “Discussion Paper on `Substantive' Issues—Part II”.

John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a couple of points. In paragraph 4(c), delete in the middle of the paragraph, “of the discovery”, which is typed in twice. Delete one of those.

The other question I have concerns paragraph 4(f). Is 15 days an adequate timeframe in which to file a defence? My sense would be that it's not. I think we should make that 30 days.

So if we're going to make a recommendation on 4(f), it should be that an MP be given 30 days to defend rather than 15, for all kinds of reasons, whether they're out of town or on business or illness or whatever.

The Chairman: Bear in mind, we're going to endorse this or otherwise in general principle, so are there any thoughts on that in principle, that it should be longer? Thirty days has been suggested.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: You don't want it too long, of course. If the contestation is successful, you've let that member of Parliament sit for quite a long time. So it has to be fairly short, but whether it's 15 or 30, it's probably not the end of the world.

The Chairman: Mac Harb.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): My question pertains to the trial division of the Federal Court. Now, if we're talking about someone who is contesting an election with regard to a fraud, and a conviction, does that mean you would move the case from the Federal Court into another court, or would you be able to deal with it at the federal level?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard (Director, Legal Services and Registrar of Political Parties, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): Those are two completely separate procedures. The one could be initiated by the Commissioner for an offence; similarly, a procedure in the Federal Court would be completely separate from the criminal side. So the two would function independently, as is the case at the moment in civil and criminal matters—there is no connection between the two.

Mr. Mac Harb: What are the advantages of not having both before the court as is done at the moment? We would not need to go to the Federal Court sometimes and to a different court on other occasions.

Mr. Jacques Girard: This is merely a suggestion. First of all, the suggestion is broader as regards the Federal Court. I think we have debated this before and we will be debating it again in the next few days. At the moment, the courts of competent jurisdiction on elections issues vary from one province to another. It is not the Federal Court. We have often suggested that the Federal Court of Canada be the court of competent jurisdiction on elections issues. So that is the decision that must be made.

If we were to conclude that the Federal Court is not the court of competent jurisdiction, then, obviously, the recommendation here would have to be changed. The reason why these procedures cannot take place before the same court at the same time is that, often, the degree of evidence required is not the same. In criminal affairs, the role is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, whereas in civil affairs, the balance of probabilities applies. That is why the two procedures are separate.

Mr. Mac Harb: Would it not be preferable for us to provide directives or standards for the provincial courts in this area? Would that be possible? If there were a problem with an election, I would like to be able to go before the same court if possible in both cases, in the case of an electoral matter, and in the case of an issue that could involve a conviction.

Mr. Jacques Girard: That is procedure. When we come to drafting the recommendation, we will certainly have to take into account the reaction of the Department of Justice lawyers. I'm not convinced that this can be transferred to the Federal Court, because responsibility for administering criminal justice is a provincial matter. So this issue requires more research as regards the drafting period.

Mr. Mac Harb: Yes.

Mr. Jacques Girard: However, we will bear your concern in mind.

• 1120

The Chairman: Is that all right?

[English]

Mr. Mac Harb: I don't know, Mr. Chairman. I think for this one, if it's possible, we can leave it with the electoral office for a little bit to mull it over and then come back at a later time.

Just from a logistical point of view, I think this will become a nightmare for somebody who will just be taking Federal Court time to deal with that question of whether I won or you won. Also, in running to another court, it would be yes, you did the regularity, or no, you didn't.

My preference would be to deal with them in the same court if it's possible, but if not, I'd be willing to proceed with the—

The Chairman: I would say, first of all, that we can leave it open.

Second, our report can reflect your concern, and I think that would be in it.

Mr. Mac Harb: I don't want to delay the procedure.

The Chairman: Okay.

Rey Pagtakhan, we're on page 4 of the substantive issues, number 2. We're considering number 4 in its entirety. Are there any other comments?

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that I have some difficulty with (g) and (i), in particular, in that they give the adjudicating judge the power to annul the election, or to declare another candidate elected. So the judge has some latitude and even some arbitrary authority given that he is allowed to decide whether another candidate is elected.

We might think logically that the person declared elected would be the candidate that placed second, assuming the candidate with the most votes is found guilty of fraud. We can assume that the judge would declare the second-place candidate elected, but what is there to say that had the people who voted for the candidate who placed first known about the fraud, they would have necessarily voted for the candidate that placed second?

I therefore think it is preferable to leave it up to the people to decide who will represent them following another election, a by-election in that particular riding.

I think the only thing the judge should be able to do is to declare the election void and to call a new election.

The Chairman: Mr. Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: I would just like to say that the proposal that appears here is what is actually done at the moment. According to the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, the judge may decide that another candidate is elected. The same is done in some provinces. We simply adopted the same approach. Now, if people have a problem with that in logistic terms, and decide that if an election is declared void there must be a new one held, this would be the committee's decision.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Personally, I don't think we can assume that, had people known the nature of the fraud before the vote, they would have necessarily voted for the other candidate that the judge would declare elected. I think we have to leave it up to the people to make the decision. It is up to them, not to a judge, to decide.

[English]

The Chairman: John Solomon and Ken Epp.

Mr. John Solomon: My sense is that in a general election or a by-election, if there's been a controvert, and the controvert is successful for the reasons put before the court, I think the only fair way to decide who the new member of Parliament will be is through a by-election.

We've undergone controverts in Saskatchewan provincially. Even though the margins were so slim and there were controverts found to have been successful, in every case the by-election was called. And it doesn't necessarily result in one of the top two parties getting elected.

I would like to see a more democratic system such that when a controvert is applied for, if the decision is made that the winner is no longer the winner, then the people living in the constituency should decide who the winner ultimately should be.

The Chairman: Okay. I'll go to Ken Epp. If Jacques has some comments, we'll go to Jacques.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): I had this one underlined as well. I tried to think about a situation where the judge would be able to declare another person elected.

One that came to my mind was if the person who was guilty of the fraud or whatever was relatively close to the runner-up and was disqualified, but the second person was way ahead of the third. Then you could avoid the cost of a new election by just declaring that the runner-up in this particular case gets it.

• 1125

That was my justification, which is sort of the counter to John's argument. I can see it both ways.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think if you use the term “may” and also include “or may call a by-election”, in the case where it's very close, it would be discretionary either to go to the next or to call a by-election if that were appropriate. You could have arguments before the court as to what was the reasonable way to proceed. But if the reason was that you had two that were very close, it might be the...

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, it is precisely to...

[English]

The Chairman: Does it relate exactly to this point?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I was going to say that this is too easy an approach, in the case of a tie or almost a tie between two candidates, to declare fraud against the first candidate in order to get the one who placed second elected. I think that ultimately, it is up to the people to decide. As John pointed out quite rightly, there's nothing to indicate that voters would necessarily vote in the same way during a by-election, in light of what happened in the first election. So, ultimately, it must be left up to the people, not to a judge, to decide who will represent them.

[English]

The Chairman: André Harvey and then Mac Harb.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): I too tend to think that when a majority of voters supported someone and then, unfortunately, something illegal happens, it is difficult for a judge to rule and to declare elected someone who was not really elected. How many provinces use this provision, Mr. Girard?

Mr. Jacques Girard: I know of three: Manitoba, British Columbia and Quebec. And there's the federal government at the moment. At the moment, at the federal...

Mr. André Harvey: Quebec also gives judges the power to declare someone elected?

Mr. Jacques Girard: They have that option, unless the provision has been amended recently.

Mr. André Harvey: Has an adjudicating judge ever actually had to make this decision?

Mr. Jacques Girard: Not to my knowledge. The federal Act states that in the case of corruption, if, for example, there is proof that a candidate has bribed someone, votes are taken away from that candidate. Consequently, the election results are different, and that avoids the need for a by-election. There was a vote deduction system. I am simply telling you what the current Act states.

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

Mr. André Harvey: That's fine. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues, I think it's been a very useful discussion, and the report will reflect this discussion.

With regard to number 4, could I ask for...? Bearing in mind that we're agreeing with this approach in principle—it's a shift away from the existing antiquated practice—we're not saying this is the way it's going to be.

In principle, in light of the discussion we've had in number 4, could those in favour so indicate, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Are you having us vote on all of number 4?

The Chairman: Yes, that is the general idea.

[English]

Stéphane, en principe? Those in favour, again, if you could so indicate? Those against?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: So people are generally in favour.

We will move to number 5. Jamie.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Number 5 is at the bottom of page 5. This was a recommendation included in the brief from the Reform Party. Basically their submission was that Elections Canada workers should be made aware of the seriousness of their duty and the importance of impartiality. The legal penalties for serious election offences for such workers should be reviewed.

The Chairman: Any comments on that? Bear in mind, we're dealing with compliance and enforcement here.

Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Should the report include the aspect of making sure the workers are informed, not only of the penalties but also of the overriding principles under which this is done?

• 1130

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Yes, I will ensure that in the final version of the report or in the draft report we include the first part that I read, as opposed to just this one sentence.

The Chairman: Thanks, Ken.

Okay so we move on to page—sorry, Stéphane.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would just like to know why our friends in the Reform Party think that the penalties provided for at the moment in the Elections Act are inadequate punishment for people found guilty of offences under the Act. At first glance, it seems to me that the penalties already provided in the Elections Act are harsh enough, particularly temporary loss of the right to vote.

[English]

The Chairman: That's a question to the Reform Party, I think, although perhaps we could have some more general comment on it.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Oui.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: This isn't something that I've submitted. It's something that came from the party officials. It's a pretty loosey-goosey recommendation—to review the thing to make sure that both sides of what Jamie read out are put in place. In other words, there is some question—and I would agree with it—of whether people even know about the seriousness of what they're taking on. In other words, part of the training, part of the discussion, should be to say this is how serious it is, these are the kinds of penalties there are, and so on.

So I think this part of it is a review. That's all it is. It's just a review of it, and we can talk about the process. The penalties may well be severe enough, but we were wondering about whether they're communicated to the people seriously enough. I don't know that they are, it's just a review of that process.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think that's an issue, given the debate at the committee that should really be referred to Elections Canada. I don't know that you need it in the act, but what you want is them to know we feel it's important that election workers be given good training and an understanding of the importance of their role and the penalties for infractions.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I think that's what the essence of the brief was. Not that it may not be—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: They don't want it in the act?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No, it doesn't really even need changes in the act. It's a review of the process, a review of the thing, and so it can be referred to either the all-party committee or whatever.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Could that perhaps be referred to the advisory committee?

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, exactly, it could.

If I might say so, Stéphane, when I was reading it through I noticed it was a review. I thought it completed the thought about offences and enforcement. That's what I thought, a review of these things.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: The other reason for including it here is that if, as a result of the review, there are changes required to the legislation, the idea is they should be brought forward with whatever other packages of legislative amendments are brought forward. But I agree that the actual review should be conducted by people who are more familiar with the process.

The Chairman: Is that okay, Stéphane?

If we could move on to page 6, then, it's a group of general items. Jamie, perhaps you want to speak to number 1 about the floods.

Mr. Jamie Roberts: Currently there is provision under the Canada Elections Act for the Chief Electoral Officer to postpone the election in some ridings or a riding. As people will recall, this arose last year during the Manitoba floods.

The Reform Party, in their submission to the committee, suggested that perhaps the grounds for postponing an election should be broadened, thereby giving the Chief Electoral Officer greater discretion so that perhaps, rather than focusing on whether people will be able to vote on election day, there should be more attention paid to whether the candidates can conduct an effective campaign leading up to election day.

The Chairman: Any comments? Are people generally for this?

John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: I have a question. What exactly are the grounds for not allowing the election to proceed in a riding or numerous ridings?

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: The act refers to the key word “impracticable” in section 13 of the act. That's the criterion that must be followed by the CEO. The act refers to “for reason of a flood, fire or other disaster it is impracticable to carry out the provisions of this Act.”

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Would that also apply at the very end of the government's term, for example?

Mr. Jacques Girard: This recommendation refers only to withdrawing a writ during an election period.

• 1135

Mr. André Harvey: If a government were at the end of its fifth year in office and a serious incident occurred, the term could be extended.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes, it could be used even at the end of the fifth year, when, because of a huge disaster, the vote could not be held.

Mr. André Harvey: That would extend the government's term.

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: It's like a bad cold. It's impractical.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just so I'm clear, does this have to do with postponing the overall election campaign, like a general election, or is this riding specific?

Mr. Jacques Girard: It's riding specific.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So there wouldn't be any thought of it necessarily at the end of a mandate, but if you called the election and the Saguenay floods hit in the middle of it, you would say this is just—

Mr. Jacques Girard: Impracticable.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: —impractical, and not enough people can gather their minds around this to have a serious election in this riding. So it's riding specific. That's important.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes.

The Chairman: My interpretation of the reaction so far is there's not a great deal of interest.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: My sense is the precedent covers it. I haven't seen any arguments to suggest you need any additional powers.

Mr. John Solomon: I agree with that.

The Chairman: Is there general agreement? Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: The point we're trying to make is that being impractical to hold an election is different from not being able to have a serious election. You can always have an election. So what we're trying to say is it's hardly ever impractical to have an election.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It's always a judgment call, and that's what the Chief Election Officer's job is. Then we'll criticize him if we don't think his judgment call was right. But it's his judgment call under the act, and even if you beef it up, it's still his judgment call.

The Chairman: Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: I think the attempt here is to broaden it so it's not just a case of whether we can provide sufficient polling places that some number of people can reach. It's whether it's also possible for the citizens in that area to make themselves aware of the issues and vote intelligently, rather than just saying they're going to vote and it doesn't matter what they vote.

So it's broadening in the sense of... We sometimes use the word “campaign”, but I think in the highest sense we want the people to be informed about the candidates, issues and policies of the different parties they're being asked to select from.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I don't think there's anyone who disagrees. My view is that it's covered in the present act.

Mr. Ken Epp: But that isn't.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I don't know that anybody could determine whether or not people are going to be able to vote intelligently or not.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: We have a very legalistic approach. The question we asked at Elections Canada was: Can we have polling stations? Can people go and vote?

However, in light of what happened last year, as Ms. Caplan was saying, this could be described as a judgment call. We looked at the situation as a whole and assessed candidates' ability to inform and voters' ability to take in that information. In this century, we must look at voting in its broader context. It is not simply a matter of placing a ballot in a ballot box.

[English]

The Chairman: I think we've likely had enough time, so I would suggest the report will reflect the discussion we've just had. We'll go to number two. Jamie.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: This was a recommendation included in the brief for submission from the Green Party suggesting that all registered parties be involved in the drafting of any new legislation.

The Chairman: You will recall that the parties represented here in Parliament appeared before us and the other registered parties did not. Any comment?

Mr. John Solomon: Is it not the process that when we review this we have all parties around the table and we invite other parties to participate, like we've just done? I'm not sure whether we need this in a law. That's sort of the precedent that's been set.

The Chairman: In this case they were invited to make written submissions and the others were invited to appear, so they were part of the process.

Are there any other comments on this one?

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): I think it would create a dangerous precedent to place the drafting with the courts, because we have enough legal expertise in the lawmaking body of the country, so I would object to the first component.

• 1140

The Chairman: Okay. No other?

Mr. John Solomon: You can kill that one.

The Chairman: Again, Jamie, did you get enough for that?

Number 3.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: The Marxist-Leninist Party recommended that an elected electoral commission be established in each constituency and that there be a national electoral commission to oversee all aspects of the electoral system. I should note that the Lortie commission did recommend a national, but not local, electoral commission that would be chaired by the Chief Electoral Officer.

The Chairman: Any comments on this one?

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: My immediate question, of course, would be who will supervise the election of the national electoral commission?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I think it would be a real issue if we had to pursue this, and I object.

The Chairman: Okay.

I don't see much interest around the table.

Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: In the Lortie commission recommendation on the national one, how were the members selected?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: We'll have to get back to you on that matter. I don't recall. I don't think they were elected, as in this recommendation.

The Chairman: Janice?

No one knows the answer, so they'll get back to you, Ken, on that.

I would suggest it would reflect a lack of interest here on the committee, but it will be there.

We'll go to number 4.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: This is a recommendation by the Reform Party. Currently under the Parliament of Canada Act a by-election for a vacancy must be called within six months, but there is no maximum date by which it must be held. The by-election could be called within six months but for a date two years down the road.

The recommendation here is that the by-election I think be held within the six-month period so that there is no greater period of time in which people are without an elected representative.

The Chairman: John Solomon, Mac Harb, Elinor Caplan.

Mr. John Solomon: My inclination is to support this. We have a law in Saskatchewan where we have a four-week campaign provincially in Saskatchewan. The federal one is five weeks long. Now that we have a permanent voters list, it seems to me that calling an election and having it completed within six months of the vacancy is a reasonable request. You have a six-month opportunity—or basically four months and three weeks—to get your act together to call an election by the end of the six months.

I would support this, just in the spirit of cooperation. With the experience we've had in Saskatchewan, it's worked very well.

The Chairman: Mac Harb and then Elinor Caplan.

Mr. Mac Harb: I have a little bit of concern about this. It really ties the hands of the government, or the House of Commons, in a sense.

For example, say we have two vacancies. Rather than just going with one by-election within six months, and another one in the following six months, from time to time what we have been able to do historically is combine the two at the same time, thereby saving quite a bit of money and resources.

So I would be a little bit leery of this. I think what we have now has really worked to a large extent. While the intent is good, and it does clearly state that elections have to be called within six months—which is fine—I still want to maintain the flexibility in here.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan, Chuck Strahl, Rey Pagtakhan, and Stéphan Bergeron.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: On this one I'd be interested in what the experience has actually been. I think everyone likes the intent of having a by-election as quickly as possible, and to be called within six months I think generally is the rule across the country. I don't think there have been many experiences where it's been held beyond that, except one that I can remember, and that was when a by-election was then subsumed by a general election that was called.

So I think you have to have the flexibility that would allow for those kinds of circumstances that would either save money or allow for a general election.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: There are a couple of principles here. One, this absolutely does tie the hands of the Prime Minister. That's the whole purpose of the thing. I'm going to be quite up front about that. The idea is, it's not a good idea to leave a constituency without an elected representative for more than six months.

As party whip, I had to represent our riding in the interim between the resignation of Sharon Hayes and the general election. I mean, the amount of representation—people don't come to you. There's nobody there. They don't have a person to go to. They feel unrepresented.

You can do your best—and I made public appearances and all the rest of it—but the truth is, they just feel they're out in the cold. They're not represented for that period of time. I think it's wise to say to constituents that they deserve an elected representative. It's not fair for the Prime Minister to say he's going to wait until he thinks he can win it, or whatever he might say. Just say that this isn't fair, Mr. Prime Minister. You need to call it within a certain amount of time because they deserve representation.

• 1145

I don't think the cost saving is a legitimate concern because we have a permanent voters list now. It's not like there's a big cost savings to run them together. I just think it does tie the hands, but the purpose of the thing is to make it fair for the constituents. It's not to be fair to the political parties, it's to be fair to the electorate.

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan and then Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: To the witnesses, from the point of view of the electoral office, how do you look at this recommendation in terms of practicability and cost? How do you see this recommendation, the timeframe?

The Chairman: They're resource people, not witnesses.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes, thank you for the correction, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Jacques, Elinor posed a question as well. I should have gone back to you for that.

Go ahead.

Mr. Jacques Girard: To answer your question in terms of whether or not it's practical, whether it's six months after or before, for us it doesn't really change anything, except that if it were to be held in six months we would know that, by such a date, the election would have taken place.

In terms of cost, I guess it wouldn't change anything in the field. Maybe there would be some savings at the head office, of course, because if we set up an inquiries unit for callers, there would be about the same number of people whether there's only one by-election or more than one.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm slightly curious. What has been the experience across the country and in the provinces? I'm assuming it's a six-month call across the country, as a pretty consistent standard, and I'm curious as to what the experience has been with calls. How far beyond this—

Mr. Jacques Girard: My recollection is that it went as long as nine months in some cases, but I would have to provide you with a table that I have at the office. Had I known, I would have brought it this morning. It's not usually that long.

The Chairman: I think we would all be interested in that table.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Okay, I'll bring it to you.

The Chairman: Elinor, does that cover your—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes. I don't think anyone disagrees with the principle that you want them to be called as soon as possible and you want people to have representation. I think it would be helpful in making a decision as to whether to change anything to see what the actual experience has been across the country.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Is there a problem—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Is there a problem or not?

The Chairman: We'll go to Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I certainly understand the argument of those who want some flexibility. I think a six-month period gives the prime minister all the flexibility required to hold an election perfectly decently, within a perfectly reasonable length of time.

Unless we want to continue to allow the prime minister to exceed the six-month period, if everyone agrees that six months is a reasonable period of time and that it provides enough flexibility to hold a by-election, let us go with six months. Let's not try to extend the time period.

I agree with Chuck to some extent. In a democracy, we cannot defend having a riding and voters without a representative for longer than six months. I don't think there is any defence for that. There's no monetary or financial justification for saying that people in a riding can be without a representative for longer than six months.

It is the fundamental right of all citizens in a democracy to be represented by a member of Parliament in the House. I even think that six months without a representative is too long. So we should not extend the time.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, I think it's been a very, very useful discussion. Again, as a straw vote, generally speaking, which people are in favour of this?

I'm sorry, one more point, Elinor.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'd like to have the information to see if it's a problem. As I say, in principle I think we all agree, but before I vote, I'd like to know if there is a problem.

The Chairman: Could I suggest that we'll get the table and we'll come back to this item next week, at the next meeting, or whenever we can. So we'll do that. Colleagues, is that okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I don't understand, Mr. Chairman. What is it she wants to know? Does she want to know whether there have been any problems in the past? That does not change anything. We want to avoid any problems in the future.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No, how far beyond the six months are we actually finding calls now?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No. We do not want to know if there have been problems in the past. We want to avoid any problems in the future. So I see no relevancy in finding out what happened in the past. We must rather avoid problems in the future.

• 1150

[English]

The Chairman: John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: There's another dimension to the issue, and the dimension is the perception taxpayers have about politicians and governments, which is a pretty low perception. If you don't have something that's pretty clear in terms of a six-month call...people are quite cynical when they look at the Prime Minister of the country in a very negative way and say he's manipulating the system. I think it would be a positive thing for the government if they were to have a more closed period. We have to consider what the electors think as well.

The Chairman: I would go with a straw vote now.

We're going to get the material next week, and bear in mind it's a straw vote. If there's legislation, we have a chance to discuss the legislation; we have a chance to discuss the report. Those in favour? Those against?

It's six for and seven against.

[Translation]

André.

Mr. André Harvey: This is an important proposal. The only problem we have with it would be in cases where the general election is too close. The researchers could perhaps make a suggestion to cover the last eight or nine months of the legal term of a government—that is the fifth year. Clearly, if there are nine months left in the government's mandate, it might not have to hold a by-election within six months. However, during the preceding four years and three months, the government would be forced to hold a by-election. Perhaps we could find a suggestion along those lines.

[English]

The Chairman: I would remind André and all of us of the exercise we're engaged in. We're not now writing this stuff, but we are going to get some more information next week. We've had this straw vote now, and when we have the information, perhaps we'll return to this. We can return to it when we discuss the report, which is soon, and we can return to it again if and when the government introduces legislation.

Colleagues, could we move then to number 5. Jamie.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: This was a recommendation in the brief from the Reform Party. There is currently no preamble to the Canada Elections Act, but they're suggesting that one should be included, which would underline the importance of fair elections and state that the first duty of elected officials is to their constituents.

The Chairman: Discussion?

Marlene Catterall and then Rey Pagtakhan.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: When I get elected to the federal Parliament, my first duty is to my country.

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Marlene almost read my mind. I think we have—

The Chairman: She is the first one to do so this year, Rey!

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: We ought not to see a contradiction, when we say we pledge our loyalty to our country, that it is not a first loyalty to the constituency. It is a matter of how you view the situation in a given time. I think we should strive for the greater whole rather than for a smaller part, because the parts constitute the greater whole. I would like to sustain Marlene's position.

The Chairman: Any other comment?

Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: This is obviously just a short point. I have no trouble with people saying their duty is first to their country and to their constituents. Of course, the point of this is that we all know there's far too much commitment to political parties and to prime ministers, and this is a direct attempt to address that problem. When you come here, do you vote as you're told or do you vote as your constituents would want you to? This is an attempt to address that.

We could get into a big row over that. I have no problem with being committed to Canada. I have no problem with being committed to my constituents. But when you have conflicts between your party and all those things above, do you do what your constituents would love or do you do as you're told? That's what this whole thing is about.

The Chairman: Mac Harb, Stéphane Bergeron, and then John Solomon.

Mr. Mac Harb: We take the oath. What about your duty to your country, to your constituents, to your party, to your family—

Mr. Chuck Strahl: We don't take an oath to the party.

Mr. Mac Harb: —to your children, to your fellow human beings, to the environment? Anyway, I'm not for this.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron and then John Solomon.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I find recommendation five somewhat amusing, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that it may not be in the right place.

• 1155

Perhaps we should not be amending the Canada Elections Act to include the principle of elected officials' first duty being to their constituents. The fact is that when elected members come to Parliament, they swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen.

Is our first allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen or to our constituents? If our friends in the Reform Party really think that our first duty is to our constituents, we should amend the oath of allegiance and swear allegiance to our constituents.

There is a contradiction in this idea of including a provision in the Elections Act specifying that our first duty is to our constituents, given that the first symbolic thing we do when we get to the House of Commons is to swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth. Therefore, if our first allegiance is to our constituents, we should be amending the oath.

Mr. Mac Harb: That's it.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: My sense is this is something that would be more appropriate for the political party constitution of your choice, in which they would outline the responsibilities of their elected officials to their party and their country.

Mr. Mac Harb: You're making sense.

Mr. John Solomon: So I think to put this into an elections act is inappropriate, and members who get elected will decide who they're responsible and accountable to, and that's the freedom of choice that makes our country so great.

The Chairman: Okay. It's a straw vote, and the report will reflect the discussion.

It's a majority against.

Can we move on to number 6, please?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Number 6 was contained in the submission from the Reform Party. It can be read with number 7, which is a recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer in his 1996 annex. Basically, I think both are designed to authorize in the act the Chief Electoral Officer to innovate with alternative systems and procedures in a continuing effort to make the electoral system better.

Mr. Mac Harb: Good idea. We support that.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We had an opportunity to speak about this issue not long ago. If the issue is whether it is more appropriate to vote by pushing a button than making an X to avoid rejected ballots, I have no objection. However, if the objective is to ensure that we can vote from home by E-mail, with all the consequences that might entail, not only as regards confidentiality, but also the pressure a person could feel in voting, then I have a problem.

Therefore, we need to know what is meant by “study forms of electronic voting”. As I was saying, does it just mean that people vote by pressing a button rather than making an X, so as to avoid spoiled ballots, or does this refer to voting from home? If that is the case, I am not very keen on the idea. I agree that the issue should be studied, but in its present form, the recommendation goes much further than just a study. It states:

6. The Chief Electoral Officer should be authorized to study and experiment with electronic voting.

I feel quite uncomfortable with this wording. I would like clarification with what is meant by “electronic voting”. Are we talking about voting from home, or the procedure for voting once at the polling station?

[English]

Mr. Mac Harb: The French translation is not right.

The Chairman: Okay. Well, Jacques can comment on that too. Is there any technical point before I go to Jacques? That's all. Rey's is a technical point, so Jacques can incorporate it in his reply.

Jacques Girard.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: This recommendation is based more on the findings of the Royal Commission, to the effect that the Elections Act is so detailed that it has no flexibility. The idea was to find some way of keeping pace with technological change.

You are asking me how this would be used. Since I don't know what will happen in the future, I cannot give you an exact answer.

We're saying here that if some opportunities occur in the future... As new technologies develop, it may be reasonable to think that in five or six years there will be some safe, effective and confidential ways for people to vote.

• 1200

We're saying that we will come and see you and explain the new system to you. We say that after consulting the committee, if you agree, we would test the new procedures. At the moment, this would not be possible under the current wording of the Act. In fact, this suggestion was based on a provision of the Quebec Elections Act, which states that the director general, in consultation with the advisory committee, may, at the time of by-elections, test new voting procedures. This recommended amendment is something of a follow-up to that.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Excuse me, Mr. Girard: I don't want to question what you are telling us, but I would be very surprised if the Reform Party's recommendation was inspired by the Quebec Elections Act.

Mr. Jacques Girard: I am referring to recommendation 7, from the Chief Electoral Officer, which uses—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm discussing recommendation 6 at the moment.

Mr. Jacques Girard: I do not wish to—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would like to know what you expect will happen in the future. You say that someday the technology will be safe, efficient and so on. Do you expect that someday people will be able to vote from their homes?

Mr. Jacques Girard: That could happen. There is a great deal of pressure throughout the world for voting by Internet. I'm not saying we will go that far. I'm not saying this is the solution. We are saying that if there are some viable solutions, we must at least be able to test them.

The Chairman: André Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

[English]

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan, very briefly, please.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: My only comment would be, certainly we should welcome the information technology, but what I would like is to encourage the electoral officer to make a proposal of research design. Then the committee will review that, because we know the political implications of that and all the concerns we have. If we're satisfied with the proposed design, then we can so authorize thereafter. So, in this instance, we would be assured that our concerns are put into this type of thing.

At this point, I think it's premature unless we know the implications of that research proposal.

The Chairman: I would point out, colleagues, that the items in here are simply items that have been presented to us. As a result, there's a fair amount of overlap and interrelationship.

I think, Rey, your point is covered by number 7, the next item, and if we were all to look back to page 2, number 3, where we discussed Internet balloting and so on, it relates to that, as well.

Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: To follow up on Stéphane's comment, what I'm sensing from around the committee is a willingness to look, a willingness perhaps to test, but I'm not so sure we want the flexibility in the act for Elections Canada to be able to go forward without a full and thoughtful review.

I know I have a lot of concerns about what I describe as the slippery slope of what the implications might be. I'd like those concerns reflected in the report. I'm not sure I want the act too flexible, because a committee down the road, in a few years from now, might say, well, they did give them the flexibility in the act to do this and therefore we shouldn't question it. So I want it to be clear that we're questioning it today and don't want Elections Canada to have the ability to have that flexibility.

The Chairman: Given that we still have to deal with number 7, might I suggest we have this—again, it's a useful discussion, Jacques; you're comfortable with that—and we proceed to number 7 and then I ask for a straw vote on number 7.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What happened with number 6?

[English]

The Chairman: I was suggesting, in the light of this discussion, perhaps we should just leave it. I can ask for a straw vote on it, if you wish.

Again, it would be a straw vote in the light of the discussion, but I simply thought we didn't need it, because number 7 deals with part of it.

John Solomon.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Allright.

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: My question was going to be with regard to numbers 6 and 7. What is the purpose or objective of these two points? Is it to maximize voter participation, or is to do something else? I think that has to be asked before we would agree to them.

The Chairman: Bear in mind, one comes from the Reform Party, so they might want to respond to that, and the other comes from the Chief Electoral Officer, Jacques Girard.

Shall we go to the Reform Party first? Chuck Strahl.

• 1205

Mr. Chuck Strahl: In general, Mr. Chairman, we're so far from shaking the world here, shaking this outfit to its knees. I just don't understand the—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: That's coming.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: —reluctance from the committee to say, why don't we review a policy? Review? Look at something? How about this one: ask him to study? But it's “Oh, I don't think so. We'd better not study that because, holy smokes, he could actually look at it, and we'd better not.” So I just don't understand this reluctance at all.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's not fair representation. That's not what was said at all. In fact, there was a consensus to review and study and look, and there wasn't a consensus on moving ahead until after the review, the study and the look were complete.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I know, but all through this stuff...that's why I'm doing other work here now, because this is pretty nearly a totally useless exercise, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, because this—

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Don't say that. I'm—

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm sorry, I interrupted your other work. What we're doing here is we can't even agree to... Why don't we study and let him experiment, not change the Elections Act but let him experiment with something? Instead, we're probably going to approve number 7 here unanimously, and then he'll come back and consult with this committee on anything, and if I was Chief Electoral Officer I would say this committee is a waste of time.

Anyway, I'm discouraged with the overall emphasis that the status quo is just the way we like it, and that this side all votes one way, and this side all votes the other. What a procedure this is!

The Chairman: Let me say I know that when we get into these individual items... Let's all go back... I think we all agree, Chuck, that the value of the exercise is not in the individual items; it's that if in the first year following an election we don't get something down on paper to encourage the government to do something about reforming the Canada Elections Act, it will be left to the fourth year, the way it's been done in the past; it will be hurried through, and many of these things that have been around... So you have to take some satisfaction from that.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: But, Mr. Chairman, just to reiterate one more time, I'm probably not going to say anything more for the rest of this review, because what we're doing is saying we can't even agree that we should look at something. Therefore, Jamie has to try to write something that says, therefore this committee agrees that we can't agree to study anything, so...whatever.

The Chairman: Okay, in the light of this discussion—

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I just think that “whatever” is a little...I just don't understand the purpose of this.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would just like to make a clarification, Mr. Chairman. If Chuck understood from what we said that we would like to keep the status quo, I will have to conclude once again that our friend from the Reform Party has understood absolutely nothing.

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I agree.

The Chairman: In the light of this discussion, those in favour of the intent of number 6?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Number 7.

The Chairman: We're doing number 6, because you asked us to go back.

Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): Okay, go ahead.

The Chairman: On number 6, those in favour, those against?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: In favour.

The Chairman: We're doing number 6. We're doing against now.

So we have five for and three against.

Number 7 is next. We've thought about it now, we've looked at number 7, so can I ask the same question? Those in favour of number 7 and those against?

Colleagues, before George disappears, could we look briefly at the next document. And I want to welcome here if I can, Janice Vézina, particularly, because we're moving into the financial section. I welcome Peter Julian, who's assistant federal secretary—if that's the right word—for the NDP.

Stéphane, could you give us the names of the colleagues you have with you? You will recall, colleagues, that we invited all parties to bring staff for the financial part. We're going to do a small amount. I apologize to those who've come for the financial today, and we'll continue with it next time.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would like, for the benefit of the members of the committee, to introduce Lorraine Godin, the Bloc Québécois' official agent. Also with us is Louis- Philippe Bourgeois, organizing director of the Bloc Québécois, and some people that you have seen with us over the past few weeks, Sylvain Boyer, parliamentary assistant to Madeleine Dalphond- Guiral, and Jean-François Lafleur, my research assistant.

• 1210

[English]

The Chairman: I welcome you all. The thought was that as we got into the financial side, it would be valuable for all parties to have this sort of advice. Janice Vézina from Elections Canada is a specialist in financial matters there, so she is a resource person with us.

Please look then at the document, “Discussion Paper on Electoral Finance Issues”, by Jamie Robertson, and the items that begin on page 2. I would point out that under “Registration of Parties”, number 3 in the English and the French, there should be a “not” included in English. It should say “Religion-based parties should not be registered”, and

[Translation]

in French “Les partis religieux ne devraient pas être enregistrés.”

[English]

There are a couple of other typos later on, which I'll draw to your attention.

Could we look under “Registration of Parties” number 1. Jamie Robertson.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: The first recommendation was made by the Chief Electoral Officer. There is currently no provision in the Canada Elections Act for registered political parties to merge. Currently, the procedure would be for one party to take over the other one and have all of the other assets transferred to it. The second one would then have to apply for de-registration.

The provision of this recommendation is that there should be a specific provision, as there is for non-profit and business corporations, for political parties to merge and create a new entity in the result.

The Chairman: Comments.

I understand some provinces have this. Jacques, am I right? Okay.

Are there any comments? Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The sense I have is that it's a useful provision. It's more administrative than anything else. I don't have any objection to it.

The Chairman: Okay.

John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: If the Elections Act now calls for full transparency and full disclosure of the result of a merger in terms of assets, I think that's what we want. If it's not transparent and there's not full disclosure, then perhaps we need an amendment to provide for that.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There's no provision today that would permit a merger. It would be a takeover. So instead, they're proposing a new section that would permit a merger with full transparency and disclosure.

Mr. John Solomon: So when two political parties now unite, there's no transparency and there's no full disclosure of the assets as far as the Elections Act is concerned. My sense is there is.

The Chairman: Janice Vézina.

Ms. Janice Vézina (Director, Election Financing, Elections Canada): Right now, if the parties are winding up, they're de-registered. They have to liquidate their assets and turn the proceeds over to the Receiver General for Canada.

Prior to de-registration of one or the other party, there would have to be an agreement between the two under the existing legislation, which is not provided for. So it would be a deal on the side between the two parties, but no one would be aware necessarily of what transactions took place or what happened.

Mr. John Solomon: For example, if the Reform Party merged with the Conservative Party and they cut a cheque—

Mr. Ken Epp: We were thinking of NDP with Liberal.

Mr. John Solomon: —to empty their bank accounts to the Conservative Party before the de-registration, and they de-register with no assets, that's—

Mr. Randy White: They don't have any. They owe $10 million.

Mr. John Solomon: So we're looking for something that's more transparent, which we would support.

The Chairman: Okay.

Chuck Strahl. I'm glad you're rejoining us, Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have to ask a question here. If one party folds, right now Elections Canada or the... I don't know who gets them, but somebody takes over all the assets of the party, right? If you run less than 50 candidates, you're not a recognized party and you lose your assets to...

Ms. Janice Vézina: The chief agent must dispose of them. They must sell them at market value and provide the proceeds to the Receiver General for Canada.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Do we deal with that issue in this paper anywhere?

• 1215

Mr. Jamie Robertson: No. That is currently before the courts, because the Communist Party and its leader, Mr. Figueroa, are challenging the provision that says there is automatic de-registration and all of the assets are transferred to the Receiver General. Because that's before the courts, we're not dealing with it specifically.

The Chairman: It's one of the packages we put on one side.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I just wondered if it was going to be dealt with later on. I happen to agree with Mr. Figueroa, but we'll just leave it for the courts.

The Chairman: Okay. Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: I don't know whether you can answer this question, but does this mean that if, for example, the PC party were to fold, the Receiver General would become responsible for the $10 million debt they have?

Mr. Mac Harb: That is the banks' problem.

The Chairman: Sorry. Ken?

Mr. Ken Epp: No, I got my answer.

The Chairman: Okay.

Colleagues, in light of this discussion, could those generally in favour of this item indicate so?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chairman: Go to number 2, Jamie.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Number 2 is a recommendation from the Marxist—Leninist Party. As is indicated at the beginning of its brief, the Communist Party of Canada registered for electoral purposes as the Marxist—Leninist Party of Canada. The problem is that if names are too similar, they will be registered in a different name. You cannot have two registered parties with similar names. I presume that this party has been caught by this provision in the past. They are requesting or submitting that this provision should be deleted from the act.

The Chairman: Are there comments on number 2?

Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: I found this very confusing. Really what it says is that this section should be amended. Does it not already require this?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: They want to get rid of this provision. The provision is that if there are two names that are so similar they will confuse the voters, then the Chief Electoral Officer cannot register them. They don't like that because it meant they had to be registered under a name different from the one they wanted. They want to get rid of this.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: We don't want voters to be confused, so we don't support their request.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Thank you.

The Chairman: Okay. Those in favour of number 2? And those against number 2, please indicate.

Some hon. members: Against.

The Chairman: Number 3, please.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: The third recommendation was contained in the brief from Madame Tremblay. Her suggestion or recommendation to the committee was that “religion-based parties” should not be registered under the Canada Elections Act.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron, then Marlene Catterall.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Would it be possible to remind members why Ms. Tremblay made this recommendation?

[English]

Mr. Jamie Robertson: My recollection is that she did not give reasons. It was one of the recommendations that she was suggesting the committee look into or adopt.

The Chairman: The general discussion was about...what are they called?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: The Natural Law Party.

The Chairman: Yes, the Natural Law Party, Stéphane. Do you remember? There was some discussion about it and Suzanne made the point.

Marlene Catterall, then Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Initially I said, no, I'm against this. But it does seem to me that it might be useful to look at whether there shouldn't be a provision that an organization registered with Revenue Canada as a religious organization, with all the tax benefits that go along with that, should not also be registered as a political party. That's something we might want to look at.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: With the exception of that provision, the concern I have with this was, first, the charter implications, in that I don't think it would meet a test of the charter, and second, who's to judge if it's a religion-based party? That would be my concern: in whose judgment? Would the courts then have to decide whether this party has a religious base? Someone suggested the Natural Law Party. I'm not so sure that it's a religion-based party. Someone else suggested that possibly the COR Party has a religious base.

Mr. Mac Harb: How do you determine it?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: How do you determine what a religion-based party is? I think it's just fraught with danger, with the exception of perhaps looking at a provision such as has been suggested by Ms. Catterall. I don't support it.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would go so far as to suggest that we immediately go with what Marlene suggested regarding religious groups, that is that they already benefit from tax relief because of their status.

[English]

Mr. Jamie Robertson: The only comment I would add is that it's one thing if the organization that has the tax status as a religious organization applies to be registered, but there's nothing that would prevent the individual members of the religious organization from separately combining to form a new organization, as I believe the Natural Law Party has done, which would be registered as a political party.

• 1220

The Chairman: I don't know how you want me to deal with this. Should we leave it that—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Include it in the discussion of the draft.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Let's vote again.

The Chairman: Okay. Those in favour? Those against?

That's in light of the discussion we've had, so that would be it.

Colleagues, we have about ten more minutes, so if we could continue with the constituency associations part, as I see it, Jamie, numbers 1 and 2 are sort of alternatives. Do you want to deal with them that way?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Yes, numbers 1 and 2, somewhat, are alternatives.

The first recommendation was a recommendation made by the Lortie commission. This has been pointed out by various people in the past. Currently, one of the loopholes or the black holes in the electoral system is that independent or individual constituency associations are not required to be registered and are not required to file anything with the Chief Electoral Officer. The Lortie commission recommended that they should be registered.

That recommendation was taken by Mr. Kingsley in his annex in 1996, and rather than requiring that they be registered, it was in fact a suggestion that they file certain documentation with the Chief Electoral Officer. Rather than requiring that the executive be named and everything else, which gets into internal organization, there is a requirement that they be registered. This ties in to the fact that if you're going to allow the agent of local organizations to issue tax receipts, there needs to be some provision for the organization to be registered.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You really have to know how things work in the ridings to understand that what is being suggested is completely impractical and unachievable. At the riding level, volunteers do the work. There is no paid staff. Some ridings are much poorer than others, from a financial standpoint. So what is being asked for here is totally unrealistic.

It might be possible to do a breakdown for Elections Canada of income and expenditures by riding, so that Elections Canada could have an idea of what is happening at the riding level. Maybe it would even be possible to provide the names of executive members of the various ridings, but to ask for each riding association to be formally registered with the Chief Electoral Officer... That would involve enormous costs and an administrative apparatus that would not be possible in all ridings, given that these organizations operate through the sheer dedication of volunteers.

[English]

The Chairman: Ken, I'm not sure how you want to discuss it, but you see the idea of registering the parties, and then number 2 simply takes the person who is currently the treasurer of an association and, the suggestion is, designates that person—that person, not the president but the treasurer—and then it follows through that this person would be entitled to issue tax receipts and so on and so forth.

Do you see how it is?

Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: I would like to speak very strongly in favour of what's proposed in number 2 and indeed in number 3. Really, I think it's high time that the local constituencies be given the ability, in a practical way, to build a war chest and to do this correctly and out in the open and to be accountable for it.

About dissolution, I'd also like to say that any constituency association that dissolves should have to return the value of its assets either to the Receiver General for Canada or to any other constituency association, regardless of the party. That would also then permit any mergers or anything like that to be handled in the same way we had in the previous—

The Chairman: I would point out to you, actually, that all the way through this material we're dealing with—and that we have dealt with in previous meetings—there are a lot of things that are linked.

• 1225

For example, Ken, part of what you just suggested is number 3 of this section. As we go through the financial section, you'll find that parts of it tie back to the organizational things we had been discussing before.

Are there any other comments on this? We're dealing with numbers 1 and 2.

Chuck Strahl and then Mac Harb.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just quickly, the only concern I have is just to ride herd on it. When you start issuing tax receipts, that's a pretty powerful tool you have when you have that power.

Maybe it can be done locally, but you really have to ride herd on it because people in a very small constituency association with maybe 20 or 30 people could form an association in which they could start issuing tax receipts up the hoop and you'd never know about it until two or three years down the road.

So there's just a caution on it. This is more powerful than a charitable association.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Except that it would have to be the local association of a registered party, so you would have to meet the qualifications to be a registered party of which there are only 10. It would only be a local association of one of those.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes.

The Chairman: Mac Harb, Stéphane Bergeron, and John Solomon.

Mr. Mac Harb: I want to make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman. I'm glancing through this report. I'm saying that it's really imperative for us not to rush through it. There are so many implications. Every time I look at one of those recommendations, there are more implications than I can think of.

I thought that maybe we should allow our respective parties to digest it a little bit and at least come back with some sort of a reaction.

The Chairman: That's why these people are here.

Mr. Mac Harb: Yes, but I don't see anybody from the Liberal Party here.

The Chairman: We're here.

Mr. Mac Harb: I know, but frankly, I can't tell you about the implications that exist. So I won't be able—

The Chairman: Mac, I'm not rushing this at all. I'm quite willing to have—

Mr. Mac Harb: John's suggesting to put it aside for a while.

The Chairman: I'm quite willing to have evening meetings or whatever this week. I'd be glad to do that.

[Translation]

Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, if I understand you correctly, you are taking comments on the three points in general, not just the first one. Since I already spoke to the first point, you know my position on that one.

Regarding the second point, in paragraph (a), it seems that that is already in effect. There are riding agents whose names are transmitted to the Chief Electoral Officer. Point (b) does not pose any problem at all.

As far as points (c) and (d) are concerned, primarily for the reasons that I've already given, I could not support them because enormous resources and efforts would be required to manage the taking of contributions and the issuing of tax receipts, especially since it might considerably complicate the work of the official agents in the area of centralized accounting.

Moreover, point (d) also stipulates that the financial report is to be audited. Might I tell you that some riding associations do not have the resources required to have financial statements at the local level audited? For these reasons, points (c) and (d) are not at all acceptable. There are no problems with respect to (e). Of course, as proposal number 3 follows on from the adoption of proposal number 2, I think that we will not be able to go ahead with it. Proposal number 3 is not really relevant if the preceding proposals are not accepted in their entirety.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Stéphane.

John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I have some reservations about number 1, and in a couple of ways.

Before I get to that, my riding association does file an annual report. We do audit our books on an annual basis. It is possible to do, and you have an organization that is a going concern.

I can't say that for the other party associations in my constituency, however. As you know, these are run by volunteers, and volunteers come and go, and the quality of volunteers varies as well and so do their skills and expertise.

I think these sections would open a Pandora's box of a whole lot of problems as opposed to solving them. I'm not sure what the purpose is of these particular clauses other than to create more work for the Chief Electoral Officer by creating perhaps a lot of small problems and perhaps some big ones for all of the parties that rely on volunteers.

• 1230

As you know, training volunteers to do certain things takes a lot of resources, and to have them deal with money at the local level, in between elections, would in my view create more problems than it would solve.

The other concern I have is that in the New Democratic Party, we receipt our contributions at the central level so that there is less opportunity for mistakes or money being lost in whatever way. To do it out of a 301-riding level across the country I think would just be one big dog's breakfast of disaster.

So I would not support these two.

The Chairman: Jacques, do you want to make any comments in light of what's been said?

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes. I'd like to comment on the fact that, in our mind, when we put forward those recommendations, they were optional. We don't want to interfere with the way in which a party is structured and how it arranges things. If, for instance, your party has centralized its operation in such a way that all the receipts are issued by the national office, so be it. There's no problem.

The point is, if your party wished to delegate this authority to an agent, you would tell us, name the agent, and then delegate this power. It's always optional, what we're talking about here.

The Chairman: Any other comments on these?

John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: I need to have a review or a clarification as to what would be the extra costs to the chief electoral office. As well, for what purpose are these amendments desired?

Mr. Jacques Girard: The main purpose is transparency and disclosure. We know by now that there are moneys, but we don't know where they come from or where they go.

For instance, Jamie referred to economists over the past few years who have denounced it as the black hole of financing in Canada. One of the arguments we heard is the fact that as a candidate, you get a rebate of 50% of your election expenses. That can be transferred to the local association and vanish. I mean, we don't know what happens there.

For some people, that's public money. It comes from the public purse. There is no transparency there with regard to what is being done with that money. So that's one of the purposes—transparency.

Mr. John Solomon: But each political party has an accounting process. For example, my annual audited report goes to my political party, and it also goes to my annual meeting, where my membership can scrutinize every detail of the audited report and ask where the money came from, and where and why it was spent. My party has that information too.

I'm not sure why the electoral office needs to know this, because all the parties registered in this country are obligated by law to report to the chief electoral office as a party. So I find this a bit bureaucratic and a Pandora's box that I think we should leave closed.

The Chairman: In light of that discussion, with regard to numbers 1 and 2, those generally in favour and those generally against.

Mr. Ken Epp: I'm generally in favour, but I was too slow to indicate it.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm generally in favour of some parts and I'm generally against several others.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Yes, I know; it is “in light of”.

It seems to me, from what's been indicated, we're generally in favour of increased transparency, Jamie, but there are concerns about the actual way that would be implemented in the report.

Mr. Mac Harb: Exactly.

The Chairman: Okay?

With regard to number 3, then, to complete this little section—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I guess the other concern that should be expressed is that we don't know what are the implications here. I think John raised a very good point, that in order to implement these things, how large will Elections Canada have to get in order to be able to monitor and do all of this work?

On these kinds of things I have some concerns about the size of the bureaucratic entity that would result from some of these changes, and what would be the value or...

The Chairman: The return.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Exactly.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I am very uncomfortable with the vote that you just held. It seems to me that it is a bit of a pot luck with a little of everything.

I think that it would be much simpler if you asked us to vote on each point individually rather than voting on the package. If you will hold a vote again, I will vote for some items and against others because there are some aspects that I agree with completely and others that I am completely opposed to. I am very uncomfortable about voting neither for nor against, or voting for and against. It would be much easier if we voted point by point.

• 1235

[English]

The Chairman: I've always tried to say they're straw votes and they're in the light of the discussion, Stéphane. Earlier on, when we were discussing the procedure, I think the committee felt that some sort of straw vote approach would be useful.

I think you will find that some of the points you have made come up again later in this report. You'll find them appearing again, so you'll have a chance to discuss them. And then, if and when legislation comes, we have a chance to discuss them again.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If you do not want to hold a point by point vote, Mr. Chairman, register my vote as being for and against the package of points. I will abstain on all the points as well.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Number 3.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: In number 3, there is a correction to the French. It should be «si la recommandation précédente est adoptée». This follows from the previous recommendation. Since the previous recommendation doesn't really have a lot of support at this point, we don't need to get into number 3.

The Chairman: Okay?

Colleagues, I'd like to suggest we finish at that point. We have one more item on our agenda. I'm grateful to the staff for being here, and I hope that if we can have studied this, we'll proceed with this matter on Thursday.

The second item on our agenda, you will notice, under “Other Business”—

Mr. Mac Harb: It's the third item.

The Chairman: Is it? Well, whatever it is... The first item under “Other Business” is the tabling of the report of our subcommittee on private members' business, and it's just the second report of that committee.

I would like to table it now. It's late. You will receive copies of it this afternoon. Carolyn Parrish, the chair of our subcommittee, is away this week, and she's simply asked me to table it. So it's here, and you will be receiving copies in your offices this afternoon.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, under “Other business”, I would like you to summarize the discussion we had in the follow-up to the Blais report.

[English]

The Chairman: The draft report has been prepared, and I would propose that we have an additional meeting next week, probably on Monday, and that we bring the draft report in, consider it, and then proceed to the House.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Would it be possible to plan that meeting for sometime this week?

[English]

The Chairman: I could look into that, Stéphane, if you wish.

John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: I have a question of procedure, Mr. Chair. The House of Commons does not sit on Friday, so my question is do we revert on Thursday to the Friday sitting hours, and if so, is our meeting cancelled on Thursday?

The Chairman: As far as I'm concerned, our meeting is not cancelled on Thursday, simply because we've agreed we're going to meet and deal with financial issues. So it's my sincere hope that we deal with financial issues on Thursday.

Mr. John Solomon: Okay, but if we go on Friday hours on Thursday, Question Period is at 11 o'clock.

The Chairman: I believe we do not. If we do, I will phone your office.

Mr. John Solomon: Okay, no problem.

The Chairman: Colleagues, thank you very much. The meeting is concluded. On Thursday we continue with this.

Sorry. Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: You had no motion or anything on the tabling of this report from the private members' business subcommittee.

The Chairman: It's simply tabled here. It will be discussed at a future meeting of the committee.

Mr. Ken Epp: We will have this?

The Chairman: Oh, yes, we will, Ken.

The meeting is adjourned.