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, June 9, 1998

• 1846

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, if we could begin, we are continuing our consideration of technical issues with respect to the Canada Elections Act.

We have the list of technical issues, summary of responses, the sort of elongated document. We are on English page 4. I suggest we look again at number 13. We have finished number 13 but the NDP members were going to say whether they wanted to be in the yes or no column.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Our view is that we prefer to keep the status quo on that, mainly because we are exchanging individuals at the polls. Sometimes you have to spend 10 or 15 minutes briefing each other. So we would rather just keep it as is.

We are very efficient and thorough. We want to make sure all the is are dotted and the ts crossed.

The Chairman: The NDP goes in the no column.

We move on to number 14.

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): Currently my understanding is that parties provide a number of different lists of names to Elections Canada and to the returning officers of individuals to fill different positions. This leads to a certain amount of duplication and administrative problems. So the suggestion is that the parties only have one opportunity to submit the names for each category of election officers. As you will see, three of the parties don't agree with this suggestion. The Reform Party supports it. The NDP wanted to discuss it.

Mr. John Solomon: On this matter, we have been asked on more than one occasion for lists. For example, we needed 150 names. We provided 165. Some couldn't serve. The returning officer who was not of our party came back and said since the NDP has such big lists of volunteers, can we give him some more names, which we did. Not just for our party but for other parties sometimes we will get calls after the deadline is reached and the returning officer is actually desperate to find more names. It's very rare that the returning officers I have been involved with have had a surplus of names. They get a whole list of people. When they go through training they end up weeding some out because some just aren't capable of doing it. So I would prefer to keep it as is again.

The Chairman: The NDP is in the no column.

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): I agree with what John has said to a large degree. But I think this is the sort of issue that if there's an administrative problem the advisory committee could look at it to see what the administrative problem is and make some technical recommendations.

I think number 14 as written is too rigid, and certainly what you want is the flexibility to respond to the needs of the district returning officer in an appropriate timeframe.

The Chairman: For our newer colleagues, the idea is we are trying to get some background. We are at the very end of a process of considering hundreds of items, many of which we have inherited from the Lortie commission and from other groups.

• 1850

These are technical issues. In other words, they don't involve great changes. We have solicited opinions as you can see from all the parties represented in the House of Commons. This is a summary of those responses and our record shows the sort of discussion, some background for each of them.

I propose we go to number 15.

Mr. James Robertson: This is again a fairly technical change. At present the official addition requires that the ballot boxes be opened and actually checked. It was felt this is unnecessary for the official edition. It really could be done by just using the statements of votes transmitted along with the ballot box and it would be only if the statement is unavailable or if there are any questions or problems regarding it, whether it's been changed, would they actually have to open the ballot box. This would be time saving on the day after election.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Whoever on our behalf said they had some concerns about it may not have fully understood what this really is. I think this is technical. It's a duplicate as I understand it. One remains in the box and one goes in the envelope and I don't think there should be a problem with this.

The Chairman: Unless I see dissent from the Liberal side, Liberal goes in the yes column and we delete the comments.

Number 16.

Mr. James Robertson: This is an extension of the time for the report from the chief electoral officer on the election from 60 to 90 days to account for the fact that to prepare this report requires a fair amount of work if it's to be meaningful, and 90 days would be more reasonable. In many cases Parliament isn't even recalled for 90 days following the general election. All parties agreed to this.

The Chairman: Number 17.

Mr. James Robertson: Currently I don't believe there's any provision for a report on a byelection to be published. It goes into the next report of the chief electoral officer. This would allow a report to be published and if it is feasible to include the poll by poll results or they could be published separately again if the timeframe is not feasible. All parties agreed with that.

The Chairman: Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Jacques Girard (Director of Legal Services, Elections Canada): Just to be more precise, the act as it stands now provides that if there's a byelection in March, for instance, like the one we just had, we have to wait until December to publish the results, which is irrelevant.

The Chairman: Thank you. That's useful. Again for our newer colleagues, this background is important. We are almost at the level of being a focus group rather than a committee in reflecting views. There's been discussion of virtually all these items at great length over a number of years.

Number 18.

Mr. James Robertson: Number 18 would allow the chief electoral officer to submit a report to Parliament whenever he feels it's necessary. Currently there is no provision for this. The chief electoral officer does not file an annual report with Parliament. The only report basically comes after an electoral event. The provision here would allow him, if he feels it's necessary, to report or to bring something to Parliament's attention. It would also be similar to a provision that was made for the Auditor General to table reports periodically in Parliament. All the parties except the Liberal Party agreed with this. The Liberal Party did not indicate its reasons for objecting.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: My sense of this is the reason for objecting has to do more with the notion of the chief election officer's feeling compelled to file an annual report and we don't think they should have to file an annual report. On the other hand, if there is something they want to bring to the attention of Parliament, we don't have any objection as long as it's understood we don't want them hiring a whole lot of people to go through making annual reports between elections when it's unnecessary.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): It seems to me the procedure is fairly well established that the chief electoral officer uses this committee at any time he wishes to bring things to the attention of Parliament, and this committee reports to Parliament on those concerns with some comment if we deem it necessary.

The Chairman: I was interested to see in the Hill Times our suggestion that he set up a secret committee.

• 1855

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm just curious what's secretive about it.

The Chairman: That's one of the reasons I mentioned it. We unanimously supported the idea that he would regularly consult through the advisory committee which we have been openly discussing here for months.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): I don't remember anything about this.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: We waited until you were out of the room.

The Chairman: In light of that discussion, should we leave 18 as it is or do you want us to put a comment in that the Liberal concern is about the submission of unnecessary or some phrasing to that effect?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Also that the chief electoral officer at any time can come before the procedure committee and that committee can take the report to Parliament without a formal reporting to Parliament. We just didn't understand why we needed—

The Chairman: That is not a recommendation. That would simply go in comments for the Liberal point of view.

Number 19.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: Essentially, recommendation 19 will formalize a practice that has already been in place in Elections Canada for many years. This is the publication, after a general election, of what we call the Orange Book, although it is in fact grey. This extremely thick volume contains election reports for candidates and for parties. Everyone wants it, academics, journalists and other media people, yet it is not in the Act. We feel this is a publication that ought to be included.

[English]

The Chairman: I see the parties are in agreement here.

Number 20.

Mr. James Robertson: Currently finance returns must be published in at least one newspaper published or circulated in every electoral district, which means at 301 this is an extremely expensive proposition and the proposal is that the chief electoral officer would have discretion as to how the returns would be distributed or publicized.

A similar provision was included in Bill C-69 regarding electoral boundaries and the public consultation process regarding proposed boundary changes.

Mr. John Solomon: Just on the provision that all the political parties are informed in their own ridings as to what the other parties have spent, now we access it through newspapers but we should make a strong suggestion that at least all the political parties are informed of each other's expenditures and so on as per the newspaper ad.

The Chairman: Are the other parties comfortable with that? Or it could go in as an NDP comment.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): We say it should be put on the net.

The Chairman: We are getting a bit precise but we could include that too, the net.

Mr. John Solomon: I think each candidate should have a written copy or, if you have e-mail, have it e-mailed to your candidate's address, whatever the address you have on your nomination papers.

The Chairman: We will put it in as an NDP comment, if that's okay with you, John.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: I would just like to tell Mr. Epp that the next edition will be made available on the Elections Canada site, and that the figures can be played around with. There will be more than one page.

[English]

The Chairman: It goes a bit further here, though, because John's point is that it should be sort of in the hands of the candidate. That's the NDP suggestion.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: The practice will be continued. The reports will, as you know, be provided to returning officers and are accessible to everyone for 60 days.

[English]

The Chairman: The comment is useful. We will put the comment in.

Number 21.

Mr. James Robertson: This would clarify that the calculation of 15% is based on valid votes cast, not total votes cast. They would have to be valid. I think it's a clarification and a precision to the existing legislation. All parties have agreed to that.

Mr. Ken Epp: It's probably too late because we have gone through this before, but if candidates are going to get their deposit back, is 15% too high a threshold? I'm thinking particularly of one of the candidates in my riding who worked like a slave. She really did a good job. She was an excellent candidate. She got zero because she didn't get 15% of the votes.

The Chairman: I'm not convinced this is the best place to discuss it, because we have. It's been discussed a number of times.

• 1900

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I know in the Ontario legislation that it is also 15% of the vote. I haven't heard any arguments that any other number would be better and I think that is a reasonable threshold.

What you want to do is permit people to run, but you don't want frivolous entries that make it difficult for everybody. If you have 30 people on the ballot, the cost of doing that is outrageously expensive.

I think that setting it at 15% to get your rebate back has worked well in the past.

The Chairman: Ken...?

Mr. Ken Epp: I want to ask a question of the officials. The answer is probably in the report, but I would like to know how many candidates fail to get their deposit back and their rebate on expenses.

The Chairman: Janice, do you have any sense of that?

Ms. Janice Vézina (Director, Election Financing, Elections Canada): There were 801 candidates who received 15% or more of the vote out of 1,672.

Mr. Ken Epp: So about 50%.

Ms. Janice Vézina: Yes, just under half.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Jacques, do you have anything to add?

[English]

Mr. Jacques Girard: This proposal is only for the deposit. It is not for the rebate, as it was referred to.

As you know, the deposit is $1,000 and the candidate is entitled to $500 if he files his return, and the other 50% if he gets 15% of the vote. That is for the deposit, not the rebate.

The Chairman: Is that okay, Ken?

Mr. Ken Epp: I still think that some of these people, election after election, add something pretty positive to the whole electoral process. I don't know, but maybe if the same candidate runs four times in a row they should get something back at a lower threshold.

But let's not worry about it now.

The Chairman: Colleagues, if I can comment again, what we have been doing in this exercise during the last few weeks has been to act as a sounding board to get some of these opinions on the record, and we have this on the record.

The next item is number 22.

Mr. James Robertson: The Canada Elections Act provides that during the time when the polls are open the returning officer or, in his or her absence, the deputy returning officer has the powers of a justice of the peace. This was in the days when it was quite common for a mob to descend on a polling station and create a disturbance. It is an anachronism. My understanding is that now, usually, the returning officer will call the police if any disturbances occur.

The recommendation is that the provision that they be considered justices of the peace be deleted. There was no consensus, however, from the parties on this issue.

The Chairman: I notice that the NDP and Reform wish to discuss this. We will hear from John Solomon first, then Reform and then Elinor Caplan.

Mr. John Solomon: I have a vague memory of this, but when you file your nomination papers isn't there a form that you fill out as a candidate that requires a commissioner of oaths or a justice of the peace?

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes.

Mr. John Solomon: It can't be the returning officer?

Mr. Jacques Girard: No.

Mr. John Solomon: All right. I wasn't clear whether that happened in some cases or not.

The Chairman: Reform?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I wish I knew what I was going to discuss, but that's not my comment so I am not sure what the party had in mind.

The Chairman: I should have asked the NDP which column it wanted to go in. Or do you not want to express an opinion?

Mr. John Solomon: Another question I had was, why do they want to delete this? Why is it a problem?

Mr. James Robertson: I think the rationale of the Chief Electoral Officer in his report was that this is an anachronism and serves no useful purpose. I think one of the purposes was to modernize the legislation.

Mr. Jacques Girard: When it comes to training people and explaining what a justice of the peace is, what they can do or what they can't do, it is so confusing that nobody uses them any more. If something goes wrong, they call the police and that's it.

Mr. John Solomon: Why do the Liberals want to keep it then?

The Chairman: We are going to get to the Liberals. We have a speaking order.

Mr. John Solomon: I have no position at this point until I hear what the Liberals have to say.

Why do they want to keep it? I don't understand.

The Chairman: All right. At the end we will return to the NDP.

• 1905

We will now hear from Reform. Have you got a preference for a column, Chuck? That is all we are asking.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No.

The Chairman: What should we put?

Mr. Ken Epp: Put “Ref” in the yes column and “orm” in the no column.

The Chairman: We will say that Reform abstained.

Now we will hear from Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The serious reason was that we wanted to make sure that the returning officer had the status and the authority required to administer the office during election day.

The frivolous reason was that we thought election officers probably would enjoy being able to marry people.

The Chairman: That would be a union of neither the left nor right, but of two people.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): When everybody is there on election day? I am not sure they would have the time to do that.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Stéphane, do you want to talk about a united alternative?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: On the issue of authority, I think it was a question of status. The issue of authority for the district returning officer was probably the reason for the concern. If you take that away, you take away the status and the authority.

Is it a serious concern? To be honest, I also questioned, if it is an anachronism and it is not necessary, why do we keep it?

But I think we should concern ourselves with making sure that these people have the authority and are seen to have the authority to be able to make the decisions that are so important during the voting process.

The Chairman: John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: I am really thinking hard now, but it doesn't seem to come off my file very easily. The thought I am having is that I recall our returning officer signing something that I had to sign or using her power as a JP to authorize my signature on something. I forget whether it was in 1997 or in 1993, or whether it was on something else.

The Chairman: Mr. Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: That is in another section, which provides that every election officer, in the capacity of his or her duties, can receive an oath. That is not taken away from anyone.

Mr. John Solomon: Yes, because they receive some oaths.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes.

Mr. John Solomon: This has nothing to do with that.

The Chairman: Jacques, would you care to comment further?

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes, I would like to address Mrs. Caplan's concern. The act, as it is now drafted, says that those powers are with the returning officer for the whole election period and with the election officer when they are on duty. Maybe we could remove some of the powers of the election officers and leave some for returning officers for the whole period.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think that would be very reasonable. It is the returning officer who actually has the authority, but not all of the election officers. The authority is clear and the status is clear. I think we would support that.

The Chairman: John, are you comfortable with that?

Mr. John Solomon: Likewise, yes.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I am a little concerned about doing this without a little more thought. We have a lot of ridings in this country that are very large, where the returning officer or the election officers may need to take action and may need to be protected from the consequences because the police may be a hundred miles away.

Mr. John Solomon: That is a good point.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The returning officer probably is a hundred miles away also.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: That's right, yes.

Mr. John Solomon: My riding is 200 kilometres from end to end, which is a fair hike, and there aren't police in all 37 communities.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: There aren't returning officers in every community either.

Mr. John Solomon: In my riding there are. There are deputy returning officers, DROs, and they would be allocated that authority, on election day only I presume.

The Chairman: Could we leave it at that and put in a comment to the effect that consideration should be given to the returning officer retaining the powers but not the others?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The authority of the justice of the peace.

The Chairman: The authority of the justice of the peace. The returning officer would retain it, but it would be taken away from the other election officials.

Are you comfortable with that, colleagues?

• 1910

Don't forget, you will see this again in the draft report. The comment will simply say that consideration should be given to the returning officer retaining the powers of a justice of the peace, but that only the returning officer retain the powers of a justice of the peace. It is just a suggestion. Okay? You will see it again in the draft report.

Now we will address number 23.

Mr. James Robertson: Number 23 relates to the estimates. Currently most of the expenditures of Elections Canada are statutory. There are some expenses which are, primarily if not exclusively, staff salaries, which come under the vote. The proposal is that it is such a small portion of the budget that it should all be transferred to statutory. It therefore would not come before Parliament as part of the estimates or the Appropriation Act.

Treasury Board has been consulted. They agree this makes sense in the circumstances and feel that if it is a question of accountability to Parliament, or an opportunity to provide Parliament with a chance to review the budget, or to review the operations, that that could be achieved in other ways.

The concern, when this has been raised in the past, was that having Elections Canada appear before this particular committee on the estimates every year was an important part of the process.

As you can see, three parties were in agreement with this proposal. The NDP wanted to discuss it and the Liberals said “absolutely not”.

The Chairman: Could we begin with the NDP?

Mr. John Solomon: We will vote no on this. Thank you.

The Chairman: You see the PC note, André, which says that Treasury Board should be consulted.

Janice, would you care to comment on this?

Ms. Janice Vézina: Treasury Board was consulted before the recommendation was put in the annex and they agreed that we should propose an amendment to the act. What they had proposed is that we would present our budget to this committee before it went to Treasury Board for inclusion in the estimates. So there would still be the submission to Treasury Board—

The Chairman: There would still be a relationship with this committee.

Ms. Janice Vezina: —which would be tabled in the House of Commons, as with other estimates, but there would be accountability here, as the budget would be presented to this committee. That was the thought behind it.

The Chairman: That actually is an interesting piece of information.

Can we elaborate on the comment by saying that Treasury Board has been consulted, but, on the other hand, some suggestions have been made and there would be a comment about continuing the reporting relationship with this committee?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think it should be noted that someone on behalf of the Liberals said “absolutely not”, as opposed to just “no”. Obviously that was an exclamation.

The Chairman: And that is going to stay in, as far as I am concerned at the moment.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It was a big no.

The Chairman: A big no, yes.

We have deleted “the NDP wishes to discuss”. We have put the NDP in the no column. We have noted the PC's comment, which has been very appropriately picked up, and we are going to elaborate a bit on the Treasury Board thing.

Next is number 24.

Mr. James Robertson: As members will recall, in its brief to the committee the Progressive Conservative Party suggested that this ad hoc committee was a useful exercise. I think when the parties appeared before the committee they all agreed that this was a useful exercise.

In his appearance before this committee on the estimates, Mr. Kingsley announced the establishment of this consultative committee. I think the idea of this provision would be that by putting it into the legislation it would ensure that it would continue to operate in the future and would have a statutory base.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I don't mind if it functions informally if it is going to be in the act. However, I think it is quite improper that it be chaired by the Chief Electoral Officer. If it is there to advise him he should not be chairing it.

The Chairman: If it is in the act. Is that your point?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I have a concern, not about the committee, but I sort of agree that it doesn't necessarily need to be in the act. I think if you have it in the act it gives it a weight and status that may be seen as more than just consultative.

• 1915

The concern of course is that it's seen as a secret committee. If it's in the act, I think that would be a concern also because it wouldn't be public meetings. Whereas if it's an informal consultation, if it's not in the act, anything they recommend would come before the committee and I think would be seen as less secretive if it's an informal consultative committee. Perhaps you could do it by reg. I'm not so sure it's a good idea to have it in the statute. My concern is that it gives it a status that may be beyond what we want it to have.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: My impression is rather the opposite. I feel that, as soon as the existence of the committee is clearly established, no one can get the impression that anything new has just been created when it is reactivated, as recently occurred when all that was being done was reinstating a committee that had already existed.

The other problem arises from the fact that there is no legislative provision on the existence of this committee, and the decision can be made at any time to terminate its activities and to reinstate it. If there were provisions on this, its existence would be assured.

As for whether this committee should be chaired by the Chief Electoral Officer, I say that it should. I wonder who else could do so, initially, and be responsible for appointing the head of this committee. Under the circumstances, I do not believe there is anyone more neutral that the Chief Electoral Officer himself. I prefer the Chief Electoral Officer as chair, knowing that as chair, he cannot voice personal opinions, whereas if he were merely a committee member, he could do so at any time. I believe that having him chair the committee would be a double safeguard.

[English]

The Chairman: Should the comments then include a sort of general comment that there was discussion on whether this should be legislated, because we have the Progressive Conservative Party comment? There was also discussion as to whether, in either circumstance, the chief electoral officer should be the chair. Is that the way to put it?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Number 25.

Mr. James Robertson: The Canada Elections Act has been amended a number of times over the past few years and this has led to a fairly complicated, complex piece of legislation. It's also important to remember that the Canada Elections Act is a fairly unique piece of legislation because it doesn't really have regulations under it. Everything is in the act so that the government, through the governor in council, doesn't implement things through regulation. The result is some very technical sections and because of things like the establishment of the permanent voters list major parts of the act have been removed and new sections have been added, so you have 71.13 and it becomes very complicated.

The chief electoral officer in his report on the 36th election did recommend that if any amendments are introduced to the Canada Elections Act, consideration be given to trying to streamline the numbering of the sections to make it easier for people to refer to.

I think the Progressive Conservative Party opposed this on the basis that such a renumbering could be done as part of the consolidation every 15 or 20 years but that may not occur for quite a while or as part of a miscellaneous statute amendment act. I think Mr. Kingsley's position is that if amendments are brought in that would be the appropriate time to do it.

The Chairman: On this one we are agreed.

Number 26.

Mr. James Robertson: This I think is designed to address the fact that the act provides who can be present at polling stations. On occasion there are observers from outside Canada who are here as guests of the chief electoral officer who do not technically have status, and other individuals. This would allow these people to have proper right to be present at a polling station.

Mr. John Solomon: My question pertains to other observers and staff of the CEO. There's only one CEO, Kingsley. This is only for the purposes of other countries, foreigners coming in to observe the process. Is that what it's for? We don't have that authority now?

• 1920

Mr. Jacques Girard: We don't have the authority now. The act is very restrictive as to who can enter a polling station.

Mr. John Solomon: Put us in the yes column.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): She just thinks it's time Canada came into the real world because we have election monitors in every other country in the world and I think it's a good idea.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: My view on this was that it was updating a long overdue updating of the act and it allows for the flexibility still at the discretion of the chief electoral officer. It's not anyone who can give prior approval. I think it's tight enough that we don't have to be concerned.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I am rather in favour of the recommendation. It will give more flexibility, but I am thinking more of the image. This takes us back to the famous dilemma about whether a glass is half empty or half full.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): In your case, it is empty.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If outside observers are needed, is this because we represent a model that should be exported all over the world, or because many countries need to ensure that the electoral process is carried out in an appropriate and transparent way and that assurance requires outside observers?

Mr. Jacques Girard: The first clause is...

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I guess it depends on your point of view.

The Chairman: Number 27.

Mr. James Robertson: This is fairly technical, insurance and other purposes. For some reason the position of the powers that be in the government is that all the people who work for Elections Canada are not subject to the Compensation Act and the benefits. This would extend that coverage. I think Mr. Girard can explain a bit more.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: Essentially, as the committee members know, this recommendation is based on the principle that the federal government does not insure itself, it provides its own insurance. Until 1993, up to and including the 1993 election, when enumerators had an accident, this being unfortunately the most "dangerous" job, they were included in the coverage for government employees.

Not long after the 1993 election, we were informed that a legal opinion had determined that this was no longer the case, that they were no longer covered Of course this included more than just the enumerators, although there are no longer any of these, but also the revising officers and the deputy returning officers, and so on. If they got hurt, it was at their own risk, we were told.

We tried to remedy the situation, but were not very successful. We then had to get insurance to cover 150,000 people, providing compensation if they got hurt. I will be frank with you, people do get hurt. Some people have even died. These people are serving the state, and if they are injured, they should be compensated by the state.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: A lot of these employees are part time. They come on for a very short term. I want to know whether this would also mean they would be eligible for severance pay and all the other benefits as they get promotions and so on.

Mr. Jacques Girard: In terms of their pay and everything it's taken care of with the tariff of fees for election officers. The only thing we are talking about is people being injured in the course of their duties.

Mr. Ken Epp: Is this going to cost less money than just buying some insurance for them when they are there?

Mr. Jacques Girard: You would have to check with the compensation regime in place because my understanding is that there is an agreement between the federal government and each provincial regime.

Mr. Ken Epp: What has been happening in the past? I have never heard of an election employee actually being injured on the job, but I imagine it could happen.

Mr. Jacques Girard: They were covered by those public regimes in the past.

• 1925

Mr. Ken Epp: So there was a special insurance fund for them.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Actually, the status was that in the past under the labour Canada ruling they were considered employees so they were covered. It just happened that they changed their minds for obscure reasons in 1993.

Mr. Ken Epp: They get credit for UI and all this as well. Did they before? Will they now?

Mr. Jacques Girard: That's another issue because the rules are strange now. Those who meet the criteria under EI are entitled to benefits.

Ms. Janice Vézina: Just to clarify, there is a proposal I guess in the works now with HRDC to extend benefits to election workers who were previously exempt. There was a 25 day limit. If the election worker worked more than 24 days, they were subject to deductions for EI and Canada pension plan. They are proposing to reduce this now to 35 hours. So the election workers who work more than 35 hours during the electoral period will be subject to deductions for employment insurance and the plan is for Canada pension plan.

The Chairman: It's not directly relevant to this point.

Ms. Janice Vézina: It is not related to this situation.

The Chairman: The point here is there was a change in 1993. Prior to that it wasn't a problem. These people were covered. If somebody fell they were covered. Since 1993, for whatever reason, they have not been so covered, right?

Mr. Jacques Girard: Right.

Mr. Ken Epp: You are saying that this then has only to do with insurance coverage in case of injury.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Injury or death, unfortunately.

Mr. Ken Epp: I was declined life insurance when I became a member of Parliament for the first time in my life. That's way off the topic but it still bugs me when I think about it. I should have claimed discrimination based on my personal characteristics.

If it's just insurance, why don't we just buy insurance for them?

Mr. Jacques Girard: That's what we did in 1997, but it goes against government policy.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The government self-insures.

Mr. Ken Epp: If we do this then we save money. Is that what you're saying? Come on, talk me into it.

Mr. Jacques Girard: It's difficult to assess because I don't know what's going to happen in the future. If the election is in winter, there are likely to be more injuries than if it's in the summer. I believe it was the case before because going from door to door, climbing stairs, people were falling and they were getting injured. It's very difficult to make an assessment like that off the top of my head whether it's going to be cheaper. Again, the problem is that we are not respecting government policies in terms of self-insurance.

Mr. Ken Epp: So you recommend that we say yes to this.

The Chairman: So we strike Reform wishes to discuss and put Reform into the yes column.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question. Are there people at the present time who are disabled because of an accident occurring during the last election?

Mr. Jacques Girard: I think not. Unfortunately, however, someone did die...

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien:, I will get back to that later.

Mr. Jacques Girard: ...in a by-election, I think. Sometimes these things are work-related. If a person has a heart attack because of going downstairs, is it really work-related? Would he or she have had one anyway? That is another story. I do not think so. People have been injured, yes. Have they been disabled as a result? I do not think so.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: How many accidents in all of Canada?

Mr. Jacques Girard: Perhaps 300 or 400 claims, I think.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Will enumerators one day have to be asked to have a medical?

Mr. Jacques Girard: No, but I should point out that enumeration was by far the most risky job, because you had to go door to door. There will be no more enumeration, so one could expect a significant drop in the number of injuries.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: , Thank you.

The Chairman: Is that ok, Guy?

[English]

Number 28.

• 1930

Mr. James Robertson: The act requires the deputy returning officer before the opening of the polls to initial all the ballots. The proposal by Mr. Rocheleau is that this should not happen beforehand because it creates opportunities for losing ballots or misplacing them or whatever. It would be better to initial them as the ballots are required as voters come in to vote.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It's my understanding that whether the ballot is initialled or not it's still a valid ballot. Correct?

Mr. Jacques Girard: Correct.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: My view and I think the view of the Liberal Party is that it could say “may” to give some flexibility to the discretion of the deputy returning officer to see what the situation was in the poll where they could do them a book at a time rather than requiring that they all be done before the polls open. Instead of being required to initial papers as needed, make it permissive, that the decision about when to do the initialling was discretionary.

The Chairman: Jacques Girard, you have the booklet I think.

Mr. Jacques Girard: I brought one to show you. There's a place for initials but there are also two numbers that serve as safety measures.

Mr. Ken Epp: What is the purpose of initialling of that paper?

Mr. Jacques Girard: Initially it was was to make sure that the ballot given to the voter was the one given back to the DRO before it was put in the box to prevent fraud.

The Chairman: It was one of the ways to make sure it was the original ballot.

Mr. Jacques Girard: The same ballot.

The Chairman: But we have the two numbers which do the same thing, right?

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, but since a ballot without initials is still a valid one, what point is there to the initialling?

Mr. Jacques Girard: That is a very good question, but it is the law which states that a ballot without initials is still accepted.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Why then are the deputy returning officers doing this for no reason?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: To justify their salaries.

Mr. Jacques Girard: For security back-up.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, but one with no value whatsoever. If I take out from the ballot box a ballot that has not been initialled, and it is accepted anyway, what difference does that make? There is no security.

Mr. Jacques Girard: At the time, when that error occurred more frequently, someone would bring a ballot and the deputy returning officer would look at the initials and say: “These are not mine. Therefore, I will reject it.”

The Chairman: I hear people saying that the practice of initialling should be re-evaluated, and it would go as a comment.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There's going to be a committee that looks at these sorts of things when talking with people. That's the sort of thing it could discuss. I also question why do this if there are other checks and balances. This is a tradition. That's why I thought it could be permissive so you could do it or not do it. It didn't really have an impact one way or the other, but I think that's the sort of thing you could look at and say we don't need that any more.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Or do the opposite. Stipulate that a ballot without initials is not acceptable. Is there some reason for this? I imagine it must have something to do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What suddenly made them decide that a ballot could be accepted even if it had not been initialled?

Mr. Jacques Girard: This goes back to the 1920s. One would have to reread the debates of the time to know why.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: There was no specific case which led the Chief Electoral Officer to say: "There has been a problem. A ballot ought normally to have been accepted but was refused because there were no initials, so the legislation needs changing".

Mr. Jacques Girard: Not in recent decades, as far as I know.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What I propose is that the proposal by Yves Rocheleau be accepted instead, but with the stipulation that a ballot which has not been initialled, which has apparently been given to the voter without the authorization of the deputy returning officer, cannot be considered valid.

• 1935

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: What is the worst thing that could happen if they weren't initialized?

Mr. Jacques Girard: I can't think of anything.

Mr. Ken Epp: That's my answer. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: At the present time, all ballots are pre-initialled by the deputy returning officer. Right? If he does not do so, but instead initials them as each voter comes to vote... Let's say I am the deputy returning officer, and I see someone and want to know how he voted. I can initial it in such a way that I put the mark right in the middle. For more uniformity, I prefer it to be done ahead of time. If I am a deputy returning officer appointed by a political party, I can find out how someone voted. That is my experience. I prefer them all to be done together, ahead of time. Otherwise it is done all throughout the day, I could use different pencils and so on.

[English]

The Chairman: I think all these points fit into a re-evaluation.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I feel very strongly that we not adopt the recommendation that says it must be initialled. If because of an error of a deputy returning officer at the time of the counting a ballot is declared invalid simply because it is not initialled, even though the numbers are there and everything else is perfectly legitimate, you disenfranchise someone who in good faith voted. We know there are no adverse consequences of not having it initialled. The adverse consequence would become disenfranchising a voter simply because the initial was not there.

I would support re-evaluating whether you want the initial at all, but if it were a choice of having the initial or the vote is invalid, I would argue we shouldn't have the initial at all.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: We would be missing the whole purpose of the initial. It was probably archaic because they didn't have crash numbering and the sophisticated printing we have now. I think it's probably just some archaic thing. When I monitor in other countries, the countries that can't do that have the initials. The ones that have sophisticated numbering don't do it. Let's get with the program here. I think that's the reason it was done in the past and we don't need it any more.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Mr. Chairman, now I am on the other side, I am a voter. I come to vote and I hand over my ballot. I know the guy, and I know he supports this or that party. As a voter, I look at him, and he looks at me, and he puts his initials on my ballot. I will have some misgivings. I will hold up the voting. I will have some doubts about the deputy returning officer.

[English]

The Chairman: I've just heard another example of useful discussion. This discussion will be reflected in the report. Are you comfortable with that?

So that concludes our consideration of technical issues.

The situation we are at now is that after a number of weeks we have now boiled down all the material we had on the Canada Elections Act. We are going to produce a draft report in which the items before the courts which we have not discussed in any detail will be mentioned. The items which require constitutional change and change to legislation outside the Canada Elections Act will be mentioned, but we have not discussed them in detail because we are focusing on the Canada Elections Act. Our purpose is to produce a report which will allow the government early in its mandate to consider amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

We referred a number of administrative items, which will be listed, to the advisory committee. The advisory committee has already met at least once. I believe it may have met twice. It's meeting again this Friday, I'm informed. It's our sincere hope it will report to this committee. The chief electoral officer and the registered parties are going to respond to our concerns about the administrative issues.

As far as our report is concerned, our report is going to list those issues and say they have been referred to that group.

• 1940

We have just dealt with the issues we identified as being technical. They were dealt with by the five parties represented here in Parliament and we now have our reflections on those.

Early last week or the week before we dealt with our so-called substantive issues, the important issues which did not involve money. It is our clear hope that we will have at least the part of the report that deals with the substantive issues translated by our meeting on Thursday at 11 a.m.

It is my hope that we may have more than that, but we will have at least a draft report on the substantive issues and the items that I have just mentioned by Thursday, and I hope we will consider those.

If we have more it is my hope that we will consider the last remaining group, the financial items, which will take some time to handle and then translate.

At 11 a.m. on Thursday we will deal with as much of the draft report as possible. The reason I'm going through this now is that it is still conceivable that the committee may not meet again after Thursday.

It's just a possibility and it's something that as your chair I have to take into account. I would like you all to consider that possibility. I suggest that as we look at the material before us on Thursday we consider the possibility of our having to finalize the remaining part of the report which will include a number of the financial items, perhaps by a conference call, and that perhaps the steering committee and the chair in a conference call might finalize the remaining part of the report.

If that is so, and we don't have to decide now, we then have to allow for our report's being tabled with the clerk during the recess. That would have to be arranged before the House recesses this time. In other words, arrangements have to be made for the House to receive our report while the House is not in session.

I welcome your comments on that. I would like you to think about it about for 11 a.m. on Thursday, but our objective all along here has been to produce a report which will be a basis for the government to deal with legislation before the end of this session.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, we have done all this work together and we must finish it up together. The main work has been done. We have heard the witnesses. We have received the briefs. We have had the presentations by the Chief Electoral Officer, we have read his report. We have analysed it all, recommendation by recommendation. So now we are reading for drafting.

The fact is that there is a definite possibility the House will adjourn before we have had the opportunity to finish our work and table our report, which means that the report will be tabled in the House in September. I would suggest that, if this happens, we will start looking at the draft report Thursday, that the drafting continue over the summer, and that we complete analysis of the draft report as soon as we are back in September, so as to table it as promptly as possible, before the end of September.

The Chairman: Are there any comments?

Guy Saint-Julien.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but I omitted one little point in connection with clause 28.

When the voter comes to the poll and sees the deputy returning officer writing on the ballot, he asks him why he is doing this. Then the discussion begins. This is where the danger lies.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you. We have noted that.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I guess the issue for me is completing the work of the committee and being able to table it with the clerk. We won't know until Thursday how much we are able to complete.

• 1945

I think we should give ourselves the flexibility as a full committee to meet by conference call to complete the report and use the ability we have on a group conference call to do something while it's still in our minds, rather than letting it sit over the summer recess. We won't come back until the end of September. Sometimes committee membership changes and by then we will have forgotten, potentially, some of the discussions.

I'm speaking only for myself. I would be willing to complete the report, to spend the time in a group conference call. We can have a copy of the report sent to us wherever we are and then as a committee make a decision if we want to give the chair the authority to table it with the clerk. Because the House is not in session doesn't mean the work can't be completed.

The Chairman: I raise this now as a hypothetical possibility, because it may not be necessary. As I said, I would be grateful if you would think about it for Thursday.

John, we are considering how to proceed if the report is not complete. We are going to try.

Jamie has just advised me that the introduction for all the substantive issues should be available tomorrow afternoon in both languages and will be so circulated, so members will have those. Sometime on Thursday we should have the similar information on most if not all of the financial issues.

We will meet at 11 a.m. We will see what we have, discuss what we have. We might be able to meet on Thursday evening if it's necessary.

John, we are discussing the possibility of not sitting next week and if the House doesn't sit next week what do we do with our report.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think that is what's important for us to think about. If the only issues remaining are those which we have deemed to be the technical issues then we might decide that the procedure the chair has outlined is not a big issue at all. But let's see on Thursday how we're doing.

The Chairman: When you see this material, colleagues, I hope you read the material you receive in advance and when we come here bear in mind this purpose we have had if we are here all next week. It's a purely hypothetical possibility.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: There's nothing to prevent us from coming back here and working at least one day and finishing the report.

The Chairman: There are all sorts of possibilities.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I like it here.

A voice: We want to be here.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: You want to be here until you're away from here for ten minutes, and then you don't want to ever come back for the rest of the summer, believe me.

This is not cozying up to the parliamentary secretary to my House leader, but I think Peter has done a fantastic job of getting our work organized and driving us through it, sometimes against our will. So thank you, Peter. I would not have thought it possible.

The Chairman: I hope the report will reflect all the assistance we have received, and the staff has been present these last few weeks in particular, but all those people who over the last several years have contributed to this process.

Colleagues, the meeting is adjourned until 11 a.m. on Thursday, with the possibility of another meeting on Thursday.