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]

Friday, June 12, 1998

• 0924

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, I'd suggest we begin. We're going to continue our consideration of and work on the Canada Elections Act.

We have two documents before us. One begins with “12.0 Registration of Parties” and the other begins with “23.0 Reimbursement”. The first one is something we've had in our hands since yesterday, and we're going to begin with that. It simply continues where we left off yesterday. The second one has the last part of the financial issues we discussed, and then on page 5, at 26.0, it begins consideration of the technical issues we dealt with, you remember, in the chart and the survey we have.

• 0925

So I would propose we begin with the one we've had for 24 hours, on registration of parties. I'll refer to the topics by their point number—for example, 12.0—rather than by page, so we don't have any problem with the translations.

So we'll begin with 12.0 and 13.0 in the first of these documents. Are there any comments?

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): The syntax in the fourth line is a little bit loose.

The Chairman: It's important that you say so.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: That's okay; it's nothing the committee needs to pay attention to.

The Chairman: Well, we've noted that.

We'll move over to the second page, which has 14.0 on it. We're beginning consideration of 14.0, on the election expenses.

[Translation]

Okay, Stéphane?

[English]

Is there anything on pages 3, 4, or 5? Page 5 in my text is 14.4, and in the French it's 14.2. That's important. It deals with our discussion of volunteer labour and its involvement in the process.

I'm moving up to 14.8 and 15.0, which begins the consideration of the spending limits. It's an important section.

Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): On page 6, 15.2, remember at the time when we were doing this, I wanted to bring up...? It talks about the death of a candidate. In my lifetime in Etobicoke, people were questioning it, but a candidate had to go into hospital because of a massive heart attack. Could we not put death or disability? Because you're going to get candidates sometimes who have a massive stroke or an aneurysm or a heart attack, and they're just as unable to run as if they were dead.

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard (Director of Legal Services and Registrar of Political Parties, Elections Canada): So basically what you're saying is that in such circumstances, we should allow the candidate to withdraw his candidacy?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes.

Mr. Jacques Girard: It can be worked out, yes.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'm just wondering how you'd set the standard. Obviously some doctor would have to declare this person unable to function, but somebody who's thoroughly disabled by a stroke or something should be in the same category.

I'm sorry I didn't bring it up before. I meant to.

Mr. Jamie Robertson (Committee Researcher): So perhaps it could be worded, “on the basis of a severe disability”.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, or “severely disabled”.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Okay.

The Chairman: Yes, we can't actually put “almost dead”, can we?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No, but it would have to be almost dead.

The Chairman: We understand.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: It might be up to the judgment of the doctor.

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Yes, it would have to be up to a doctor, not another candidate's judgment.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Colleagues, do we understand the suggestion? Somewhere in the third line of 15.2, where it says, “by a registered political party dies”, it's going to say “or is severely disabled” or wording to that effect. Is that okay? So colleagues, I would suggest that with that change, we proceed on from 15.2 to 15.3.

• 0930

Should we go to 16.0, then, which is Official Agents? We'll begin with 16.1.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Here, under “agent's death or legal incapacity”, you allowed them to be disabled, so that might be the term you use for the candidate as well.

The Chairman: Okay, Jamie has made note of that.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): I'd like to ask you for further explanation. I think that I had a highly nuanced opinion on that matter.

[English]

The Chairman: Could you give us the location, please, Stéphane?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm talking about 16.1. My position on that matter in general is more nuanced than that which is attributed to me in the text and I read:

Stéphane Bergeron, MP, felt uncomfortable with it, since it could allow a candidate to dismiss an official agent with whom he or she disagreed, even though the agent was doing the job properly.

It is true, but like Mr. Harvey, I said that it is important that the relationship between a candidate and his or her official agent be based on trust. Even if I agreed that a candidate should be allowed to dismiss his or her official agent, it would have to be on the basis of well-defined criteria, so that the decision would not be arbitrary.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

Jamie.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Could we add at the end of the sentence about your comments: but you agree that the relationship should be based on trust? And I can add in the fact that there should be well-defined criteria for removing an agent.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Precisely to avoid the arbitrariness of the decision.

[English]

The Chairman: So you understand the point, colleagues, that Stéphane is simply elaborating on the opinion that is cited in the text here, that it should not be an arbitrary decision but there should be some set of criteria. Colleagues, are you okay with that?

Let's go to 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5 and 16.6.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would like to make a comment. For personal reasons which I had a chance to put forward to the committee, I'm not quite comfortable with the idea—once more, it's very personal—that a candidate can personally receive money in the form of contributions. But I imagine that such things happen.

[English]

The Chairman: Again, Stéphane, the final decision will come when there's legislation. So 16.7 and I think 16.8 and 16.9 flow in a fairly straightforward way there.

Can we move on to donations, then, 17, 17.1, 17.2, and 17.3? Carolyn Parrish.

• 0935

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I've just looked through all of 17, and I don't see the recommendation that we change the base, that the 75% return is the 250. Okay.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam.

[English]

Okay, 17.4, 17.5, and 17.6. That brings us to 18, third-party intervention, with a very long set of paragraphs, 18.1 and 18.2. That brings us to 19, the blackout provisions. Any comments on 19?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No, I think it's an excellent encapsulation of those.

The Chairman: Yes, as chair I have to keep saying this.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes.

The Chairman: Because it then encourages some member to get up and say it's not.

Jamie, you've done a wonderful job—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I agree.

The Chairman: —again of framing the arguments, which is the important thing in this report. The arguments are framed so that someone looking at it and phrasing legislation has to consider the range of views that are expressed.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It says at 19.1:

There was unanimous feeling on the part of the members of the committee that, if at all possible, advertising and polls should be restricted on polling day itself.

I don't recall that we recommended that it be restricted if at all possible. We even talked about the possibility of using the notwithstanding clause in order to enforce that provision. Remember the whole debate we had on the meaning of the democratic process and what might happen if a rigged poll was published the day before the election, not leaving the candidates and the parties time to retaliate.

Therefore, in order to preserve the integrity of the democratic process, we thought it might be necessary, in case there would be no other possibilities, to rely on the notwithstanding clause to subject the rights and freedoms to reasonable limits.

That being said, I consider that the way it is written, that sentence doesn't truly reflect the unanimity of the committee. The unanimity was much stronger than one is led to believe reading that sentence.

[English]

The Chairman: Sorry, Stéphane, you're saying that the first sentence, for example, is not expressed strongly enough.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes. The unanimous feeling on the part of the committee has to be expressed more strongly.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, now colleagues, comments on that? In the English it says it should be restricted. I think Stéphane is picking that up because his sense was that it was stronger than that. Anyone care to comment on that?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I don't have the English text, but the French text says “devrait”, that is “should”, then goes on to say “dans la mesure du possible”, “if at all possible”. It is a double contingency, a double possibility when it was more of a certainty in the minds of the committee members.

The Chairman: Yes, I understand.

Elinor Caplan.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: We did have a discussion. I think the feeling was that in light of the Supreme Court decision it might be difficult. However, the committee unanimously agreed that we should suggest that they try at least for election day as a reasonable limit. I don't think it was unanimous in the suggestion on the use of the notwithstanding clause, as was mentioned by one member. If he wants that included as a sentence in the report, quoted under his name, I don't have any problem with that.

• 0940

The Chairman: John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): I agree with Stéphane. Maybe what we're looking at here is saying, rather than “if at all possible”, that there was a unanimous feeling that there “must” be a way found to do this. That would be opposed to, “if at all possible”.

The Chairman: Colleagues and Stéphane, I'll refer to the English text, I'm afraid. It would say “There was a unanimous feeling on the part of the Committee that”—and then we would strike “if at all possible”—“advertising and polls should be prohibited”.

Mr. John Solomon: I suggest “must be” prohibited, not “should be”.

The Chairman: Okay. That's the suggestion.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, as members seem to have doubts about what I am saying, I will read you an extract from the committee proceedings. I will start with a quotation from Mr. Harb who said that....

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane, if I might say, I don't think there is. I think members are agreeing with you.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's about the use of the notwithstanding clause.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Ms. Caplan seemed to be saying that the committee was not unanimous on the use of the notwithstanding clause. It's not what the transcript of the proceedings says. The committee was unanimous, even on the use of the notwithstanding clause. I can read from the blues to you.

[English]

The Chairman: Please go ahead, Stéphane.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Okay, I'll read the blues:

Mr. Mac Harb: What I would suggest is that we do whatever we can as a committee to ensure that the government looks at every single mechanism, including involving the notwithstanding clause, in order to ensure that the people of Canada have a right to decide on their own, without any interference by a third party, whether it's media or political parties, to decide on election day how they wanted to vote.

The Chairman: Peter, Ken, how do you feel?

Mr. Julian Reed: Ken's happy.

The Chairman: Our report would recommend to the government that this is to be looked at in great depth and very seriously.

Mr. Mac Harb: Yes, thank you.

The Chairman: D'accord.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Unanimous?

The Chairman: Is that unanimous?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay, let's go.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: And even if we considered applying the notwithstanding clause, there is no other way to ensure the best possible conditions for the unfolding of the democratic process.

[English]

The Chairman: And again, I thank you all for a very useful discussion.

[Translation]

It was unanimous even after Ms. Caplan asked if it was. Everybody said that it was, then the Chairman said “Okay, let's go.”

[English]

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I support the comment that it be very serious. I have concerns about this committee recommending the use of the notwithstanding clause. I would be uncomfortable with that. So from my perspective, I accept the view that we should be unanimous in asking the government to take a very serious look at blackout on election day, but personally, I would not want the notwithstanding clause invoked for that purpose.

The Chairman: But we are all agreed, it seems to me, that this section should be greatly strengthened. Okay?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes, I agree.

The Chairman: Okay.

Are we agreed, Stéphane?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: We are agreed that this section should be greatly strengthened.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Okay.

The Chairman: Jamie is going to work on that a little bit while we're continuing with our work.

I would like to point out that in the section Stéphane quoted, the chair was correctly shown as speaking French.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): That's where the trouble began.

I think Stéphane might be interested in knowing, with all this talk about unanimous, that one of the translations came through as “Four more: unanimous”.

The Chairman: Well, then, it's okay.

Jamie is going to work on that, if that's all right. I'm going to put a bracket around that part of 19, if I might, and we'll come back to it a little bit later.

Now, 20.0, 20.1, 20.2?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I was distracted, and I want to be absolutely clear in this rewriting that I totally disassociate myself from any request to use the notwithstanding clause.

• 0945

The Chairman: At the moment we are greatly strengthening this paragraph. We'll debate it when the time comes.

Now, colleagues, 20.2, 20.3, 20.4.

Okay. We move into 21.0, “Reporting and Disclosure”.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but we are at 21?

[English]

The Chairman: If you wish.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Okay.

[English]

Now we go to 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 21.4, 21.5.

There's one missing, Jamie, 21.6. We'll have to renumber these when the time comes.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: We didn't like 21.6 anyway.

The Chairman: Yes, it's like the committee we set up. It's very secret.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: So we're on 21.7, 21.8, 21.9. I think these are quite straightforward items.

Elinor Caplan and then Ivan Grose.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Every time you mention the “secret committee”, my concern is that anyone reading Hansard in the future might think there really is a secret committee.

You know how, when you use the Internet, you can use that little happy face?

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Well, I think we should put that after every time you refer in jest to this silly—

The Chairman: I will never refer to a secret committee again.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Will that help?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There is no secret committee.

The Chairman: No—the advisory committee.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's the one.

The Chairman: Okay, 21.10.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: At 21.10, I'm not sure that the text conveys the nature of the debate we had in committee. The way I understood Ms. Catterall's suggestion, which I agreed to at the time, there should be a provision in the Elections Act and not only in a code of conduct or in the Parliament of Canada Act. There must be a provision in the Canada Elections Act that specifies that if the money comes from a source like, for example, the friends of Elinor Caplan, Stéphane or Mado fund, it should be known where that money comes from and not only that a contribution of $10,000 was made to Elinor Caplan's campaign out of the friends of Elinor Caplan fund. We must know where those $10,000 come from. I think that this reflects Ms. Catterall's concern which I totally agreed with. There's nothing of that in 21.10. It is essential for me.

[English]

The Chairman: I would have thought, in the last sentence, that's what “original donor” meant.

Jamie, do you want to talk about that?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Perhaps it could be clarified—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Let me explain myself. It says:

Members agree with a suggestion of Marlene Catterall, MP, that in considering amendments to the definitions of contributions and election expenses, it should be clear that the original donor must be disclosed, regardless of how the money flows to the campaign.

For me, the following sentence in 21.10 is inaccurate:

If this practice exists, it would be better dealt with as part of a code of conduct or in the Parliament of Canada Act.

That sentence essentially suggests that the necessary changes won't have to be made to the Canada Elections Act but to another statutory instrument. I am of the view, like Ms. Catterall, that explanatory changes will have to be made to the Canada Elections Act, and paragraph 21.10 doesn't make that clear.

• 0950

[English]

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It is my understanding there were two issues. The first issue was someone directly giving Stéphane Bergeron, MP, a contribution between elections as opposed to going to his election campaign, or even to his riding association. I described that at the last meeting, when we discussed that, as an illegal act, a bribe, and that should be covered by a code of conduct.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's it.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Second is a fund that friends of Stéphane Bergeron organized, which they then wanted to contribute to his campaign. Marlene Catterall's suggestion is that if there is a friends of Stéphane Bergeron organization or fund, and they want to contribute to the campaign, then all of the contributors to that campaign, the original donors, should be listed as required under the Elections Act.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We are in full agreement, Elinor. All I'm saying is that I would like paragraph 21.10 to specify that those new provisions, the ones we are asking for, will be part of the Canada Elections Act because one has the feeling, reading 21.10, right to the end, that it only deals with the code of conduct and the Parliament of Canada Act whereas Ms. Catterall was directly aiming at the Canadian Elections Act.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Perhaps since we have paragraph 21.6 available, we should split this into the two issues and have a code of conduct in a separate bullet point and the trust—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Okay.

[English]

The Chairman: Jamie can try first, and then we'll take up that suggestion. It's a great way of dealing with the task.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: There will be two changes—and again, I apologize for just doing it in the English. Part-way down that paragraph it was suggested that if this practice exists, it should also be dealt with as part of the code of conduct.

The Chairman: Do we have that part? Can you see where that is? That's one part. Go ahead.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: So rather than say it is better dealt with, we should say it could also be dealt with as part of a code of conduct. And in the last paragraph, it should be clear in the Canada Elections Act that the identity of the original donors must be disclosed.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Perfect.

The Chairman: Are we comfortable with that? John Solomon and then Marlene Catterall.

Mr. John Solomon: I'm not clear on how this would work. Maybe we can get an answer. For example, let's say there are annual fund-raisers, a bowling tournament or a golf tournament, and no receipts are issued but they do it for the Marlene Catterall Golf Classic. They set up a bank account that then transfers the money to her riding association on an annual basis. It's cash, it's made out to the Marlene Catterall Golf Classic, for example. How does this fit in? Is this legal, illegal, a grey area? As long as it is reported in the audit statements of the riding association that they received this from a golf tournament fund-raiser, a number of people, not just one, raising small amounts, a thousand a year or something, how does that work?

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Under the Canada Elections Act, when a local association gives money to an official agent or campaign, the local association has to provide the official agent with a list of contributors over $100.

Mr. John Solomon: Over $100, okay. Before, and this has been done in the NDP, we will levy quotas on our provincial riding associations for part of our fund-raising efforts for a campaign. So the Regina—Elphinstone NDP, for example, will contribute $5,000. Where they get their money has been reported already, because they've used the tax credit, provincially or whatever. Is that allowed?

Mr. Jacques Girard: No, because at the federal level the local association does not report. The mechanism for transparency is through disclosure when a campaign is launched.

The Chairman: We have dealt with the riding association matter in our report.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I don't know where, but I think that we are dealing here with two interesting issues. First, there is the ridings report. I would say that we were clearly opposed to ridings giving income tax receipts. We came down against that.

However, I think that the committee's feeling was—and Mr. Robertson will correct me if I'm wrong—that a greater transparency in the accounting or the financing of the associations at the local level would be desirable. I don't know if it says so somewhere in the report.

• 0955

On the one hand, it might be interesting to do that and, on the other hand, I would want to be pretty sure—because John raised an important question—that a donation made to a certain group, the friends of Elinor Caplan fund for example....

[English]

The Chairman: We have a mutual admiration society going on.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: ....is used for an electoral campaign. Money from the friends of Elinor Caplan fund need not be paid at the launching of the electoral campaign. If the friends of Elinor Caplan fund pays money on an annual basis to the local association and that association makes contributions to the campaign account of Elinor Caplan, it's the same thing. Ms. Catterall's proposal also applies to this type of situation because in the end the money will find its way into the coffers of that candidate.

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Peter, could I make one comment before I go?

There are obviously some details around this that have to be worked out, and I think they have to be worked out in consultation with the parties. For instance, there are trust funds that existed for years. Some of them will donate directly to a campaign, some of them will loan. Those contributions were made years ago to set up that trust fund. There have been no new contributions there; there have been earnings on interest and investments and so on.

So it's not as simple as it seems on the surface, but at least this captures the principle. Maybe we might want to add a bit about how we need to work out the details.

The Chairman: The different parts of our report are interlinked, so we have to remember that.

Jacques, have you any comments on what Stéphane said?

Mr. Jacques Girard: Not really.

[Translation]

I think that the goal is clear: transparency. Like Ms. Catterall was saying, we will have to work out the details in order to reach the goal that was unanimously agreed upon.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: As for the transparency of the local associations, is there any mention of it in the report, Mr. Robertson?

[English]

The Chairman: It is, yes.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Under 13.1, the last sentence is “While most members of the Committee are in favour of increased transparency and accountability, there was general agreement that this proposal”, which was the proposal to register individual riding associations, “was unacceptable in its current form.” Earlier on it points out that this would involve a lot of work on the part of riding associations.

The Chairman: That's 13.1.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: It's already done in some parties, in any event. So I think the committee is not supporting the registration or reporting of individual riding associations.

The Chairman: But it is supporting increased transparency?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: This particular point in 21.10 was merely with respect to the receiving of funds directly by the MP. It does not involve the official agent or the local association. The Lortie commission said that there are instances where MPs receive funds directly, and they wanted to deal with that situation. The chief electoral officer has proposed this as a way of dealing with it, and we're saying, as we pointed out, that it shouldn't be allowed to cover up the identify of the donor.

The Chairman: All right, Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It is true that we were against the registration of local agents but I don't think that we came down against the disclosure of the financial statements of the different local associations through the national party which could.... I even remember saying clearly—I could find it in the unedited copies—that the national party report could give a breakdown riding by riding of the cash receipts and payments. We must find a mechanism that ensures a much greater transparency of the local associations. It's the first thing.

As for 21.10, it is important that this provision does not apply only to the actual members of Parliament. There can be potential candidates to an election who enjoy a very good credibility and are highly respected by the local population. Between two elections or before an election, those people can establish for example the friends of Jean Charest fund, accumulate money in that fund and contribute to the campaign when the election is called.

• 1000

Therefore, this provision must apply not only to the members of Parliament but to all people who might run for an election.

[English]

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think it's important at this point to put on the record some of the research that has been done that looks at the provincial legislation when it comes to the status of provincial-level riding associations. If anything, it reflects the discussions around the table and the different points of view very well.

In Alberta, the act recognizes constituency associations and requires their registration. In British Columbia constituency associations must register with the chief electoral officer to receive authorization to make political contributions, incur expenses and tax credits. In Manitoba, the constituency associations play only a limited role and they're prohibited from giving tax receipts; however, constituency associations must report annually the name, address, and contributed amount for any aggregate contributions of $250 or more. In New Brunswick, constituency or district associations are recognized under the act for the purpose of receiving contributions and incurring expenses other than election expenses. In Newfoundland, the current act does not apply to local associations. In Nova Scotia, electoral district associations are required to file political contribution disclosure statements. In Ontario, constituency associations are recognized by the act as an integral element of the political and election process and their activities and obligations under the act are comparable to the parties and candidates. In Prince Edward Island and the Yukon—

The Chairman: Elinor, I wonder if it could go to Jamie—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It has been circulated. Everybody should have received it, but I thought it should be in the record—

The Chairman: I understand your point, but it's not actually directly relevant to this point. It's relevant to the associated point, as I've said, of all these linkages about constituency associations.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The point I want to make to my friend Stéphane is I don't believe you can have one without the other, and that is you can't have transparency and accountability without some status and obligation on the part of the constituency association either in the form of having to register for that kind of status or the obligation of reporting to the chief electoral officer. Doing it through the party now is voluntary; every party sets up their own rules. And from what I can see, the route the provinces have chosen, including the Province of Quebec, is to give some status and therefore obligation for accountability and transparency to riding associations.

I understand where John Solomon was coming from, because Saskatchewan and Manitoba don't have that regime in place as yet. But if you review the provincial legislation across this country, overwhelmingly I think the provinces have come to the conclusion that if you want to have transparency and accountability you must have some status recognized in the act for riding associations. So it's in this line that I brought this forward at this time.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In the light of the discussion we're now having, I don't quite remember why each member of this committee was opposed to the registration of the local associations. It's not quite clear to me. In my mind, I was against local associations giving tax receipts. According to Quebec law, local associations must report their financial activities to the Directeur général des élections, that is their receipts and disbursements, but they cannot give tax receipts at the local level. Everything has to go through the national accounting.

That's why I don't really see a contradiction between the position I took and Quebec's legislation on the financing of political parties and the financial activities of parties. However, I must say that it is absolutely essential that there be greater transparency regarding the financial operations of local associations insofar as a local association might manipulate money and launch, so to speak, a pre-electoral campaign.

• 1005

Even if the law doesn't forbid it, the least we can do for the population is to keep it informed about what the committee did, what the local association did, what amount of money the local association raised and what it was used for.

I don't really have a problem with that. I don't think that I was against requiring local associations to report directly or indirectly their financial operations, that is money received and expenses incurred, through national accounting.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm going to recognize Elinor Caplan in a moment, but we're now discussing 13.1, which as I recall, was expressed in a fairly general way. Might I suggest, following Elinor's next intervention, that we again put 13.1 aside and return to it when we return to 19.0? Okay? Then we'll go back to Elinor Caplan.

I'll find out where we are now.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm willing to hold my remarks until we go back to 13.1.

I'll just briefly respond to the question of why.... I think it was the intervention primarily of John Solomon about the situation in Saskatchewan and the concern of what this would mean as far as the size of the bureaucracy that influenced the committee at that point in time. I requested the look at the provincial legislation so we could then better understand what was happening. We haven't had a chance to really discuss that yet.

The Chairman: Okay. Can we return to 21.10 and to Jamie's suggestion for it? This would be in the English text, Stéphane, but we went through it before.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: There would be two changes. The first one is in the middle of the paragraph. It was suggested that if this practice exists, it should also be dealt with as part of a code of conduct or in the Parliament of Canada Act. The last sentence would be reworded to say:

...considering amendments to the definitions of contributions and elections expenses, it should be clear in the Canada Elections Act that the identities of the original donors must be disclosed regardless of how the money flows to the campaign.

I think that would cover the suggestion of Mr. Bergeron that this would cover not just members of Parliament, but prospective candidates would also be caught by that wording.

The Chairman: Bear in mind that we aren't writing legislation here, okay? We're framing the discussion for legislation.

Let's go to 21.11. What about 21.12?

That brings us to 22, which is surplus funds. There's 22.1, 22.2, 22.3, 22.4, and 22.5.

Colleagues, now we'll move to the next sheet. Many of us had a chance to read this while we were waiting for the meeting to start. I realize that, but would colleagues like five minutes to look at this now? By the way, the second half of it—you will recall that I pointed this out—deals with our technical points. I think it is different.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: That's 26.0, which is on page 5 in English.

The Chairman: I would point out to you, colleagues, that it's the first five pages that. If you have not read them already, you should be reading now. Then, from the bottom of page 5 onward, 26.0, we are dealing with the technical issues, which is the interpretation of the chart we had. Let's look at the first five pages.

• 1010

• 1014

The Chairman: Colleagues, let's begin then with the second document.

John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: Before we begin, I'm sorry to intervene, but I've not been able to attend all the meetings as diligently as the others, and I'm curious to know what happened to my letter to the committee and the chair requesting that the candidate's deposit be changed from $1,000 to $200 non-refundable.

The Chairman: John, I twice read it into the record that you did it, but the agreement was that it's a matter before the courts.

Mr. John Solomon: Okay.

The Chairman: But it's in.

• 1015

Marie is pointing out to me that on June 19, for example, I mentioned it, and I mentioned it on another occasion as well. We made the point that it was a serious suggestion and it's in. The way we think of it, John, is that the record of our discussions of this will be the first point of contact, after our report, for anyone who's writing legislation.

So it's in that record, and from the point of view of our committee, it's one of the topics that's in the very beginning as being before the courts.

Mr. John Solomon: Just off the record, what generally would the committee think about that? Is there any interest in it, or is it just the idea?

The Chairman: Just a moment, I'll read the letter.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The microphones are on. I don't know how off the record we are.

Mr. John Solomon: I want your personal opinion, not the party position. The party positions will obviously sway decisions.

The Chairman: The letter says the deposit fee for candidates be reduced from $1,000 to $200.

Mr. John Solomon: I think the concept was that now there's no longer a $1,000 refundable deposit, we make the $200 fee non-refundable. That was my suggestion. Does it have any interest at all? If you want it off the record, just raise your hands. Does anybody have any interest in that? Nobody. Okay.

The Chairman: We will proceed to 23.0, reimbursement. Is there any discussion on 23.1, 23.2, 23.3, 23.4, 23.5, 23.6 or 23.7?

We'll proceed then to 24, which is general electoral finance. Is there any discussion on 24.1, 24.2, 24.3, or 24.4?

That's the end of the financial issues. That brings us to 25. Then we had the separate document, which was a kind of catch-all, with a number of things we had missed or that had been suggested during our discussions and so on. So 25.0 is miscellaneous items. Is there any discussion on 25.1 or 25.2?

[Translation]

Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: About 25.2. I remember us saying that if the tax credit was increased to 75% of the first $250, the subsequent credits would have to be adjusted accordingly. It's not clear in the recommendation.

[English]

The Chairman: Jamie.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Yes, I agree that was said, and it was omitted.

The Chairman: I recall exactly that. It would be that the other tax credits should be changed accordingly. Right?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: At the end of the second sentence “He suggested that the tax credit could be increased to 75% of the first $250—rather than the existing 75% of the first $100...” we would add “and that the other tax credits be adjusted accordingly”.

The Chairman: Nicely put, Jamie.

Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Would that also raise the maximum? What is it now? At $1,150 you get half, so would that alter that at all? Would that $1,150 have to go up as well?

The Chairman: Yes, it means raised accordingly. It means the whole scale will be shifted.

Is there any discussion on 25.3 or 25.4? John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: On 25.4, I'd like to register that I believe the occupation is important, not only for the candidates but for the electors. To reiterate what I had indicated earlier, which was not agreed to by the committee with respect to the voters list, I think the candidates should indicate what they do for a living before they run for public office.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It was pointed out that's only on the nomination papers and not on the ballot. Someone who wanted to say no would have to look at the nomination papers. The press can ask the question.

Mr. John Solomon: The press always cover that.

• 1020

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think that's a question the press can ask. The problem members have is that on the day of the writ, you're technically no longer the MP. It was seen as possibly giving some kind of an advantage if you were to allow an MP to give MP as their occupation. Is it fair for an MP to have to give as their occupation what they were before they served as an MP?

The Chairman: I recall the discussion list. I wonder if it would be satisfactory if the last sentence of 25.4 reads either “the majority of members”, as some of ours do, or “most of the members”, rather than “the members”.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Right.

The Chairman: So we'll go with “most of the members agree”.

Is there any discussion on 25.5, 25.6, 25.7—Mr. Rocheleau's—or 25.8? That covers our miscellaneous items.

We now go to the items that were considered in the table we had, if you will recall. It explains it there, and then we get to 26.1.

Mr. John Solomon: It is the Saskatchewan amendment I hope we are referring to.

The Chairman: That is correct.

Mr. John Solomon: Will that be dealt with absolutely, for sure, and not just the recommendation? It's kind of ludicrous.

The Chairman: Do you want to put “must be addressed” instead of “needs”?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, let's do it.

The Chairman: So the last sentence will say “must be addressed”. Okay.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I didn't notice that.

The Chairman: All I would say, John, is it's about time.

Mr. John Solomon: It's about time.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion on 26.2 or 26.3? Again, many of these we all agreed on. On 26.4, yes, Stéphane Bergeron. It's always a mistake when the chair says we agree on everything.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: At 26.4, it seems that only technical and cost reasons explain the choice of the colour black. There were reasons other than technical or financial unless one considers the fact that colours might show some logos better than others a technical reason.

[English]

Mr. Jamie Robertson: When I said technical and cost reasons I was referring to the chief electoral officer's explanation, which is that because the ballots are printed locally there would be quality control problems. If we want to add there are also objections to the use of colour because of the visual impact, I agree that was raised and discussed by the committee.

The Chairman: Is that agreed, colleagues? I recall the discussion. That will be inserted in 26.4.

Is there any discussion on 26.5, 26.6, 26.7, 26.8, 26.9, or 26.10?

The paragraph numbers, colleagues, are the same as the numbers that were in our chart. Our researcher is keeping me on track here. He pointed out a 26 has been added before the number that was in the chart.

Is there any discussion on 26.11 and 26.12? Stéphane Bergeron.

• 1025

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Okay. I think that we will have to slow down, Mr. Chairman. We didn't have a chance to read those sections.

[English]

The Chairman: I do agree, and they are long, even though we did agree to them. Yes, okay, I'll do it much more slowly.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm willing to skim through them.

The Chairman: Sure. I understand. You're right.

[English]

John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: Are we at 26.12 yet?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. John Solomon: I don't think there should be an official restriction for age limits in the polls. I'm not sure if Peter Julian indicated this when he was here, but, for example, in many campaigns I've been involved with, if school is in session, many students in grades 10, 11, and 12 will come out to various campaigns and want to volunteer for things on election day.

This is a very important component to protect for our democracy, to encourage young people to become involved in the political process. It's up to each political party and organization to determine whether those individuals are competent, not age-wise but skill-wise. We should continue to have that. I don't know what the problem is, unless there's been some child abuse.

The Chairman: John, I notice on the chart that in number 12 it is “recommended that the representatives of candidates at the polling stations be required to be a minimum of 16 years of age”, and the NDP are in the “yes” column. Peter's view, the one you've just put, is represented in 26.12 by the last sentence:

One Member felt that there were lots of other jobs in an election campaign that could be assigned to young volunteers, and that problems could occur if an older voter were challenged by a young representative.

So it was specifically dealing with the people—

Mr. John Solomon: I would like to change the NDP to “no”.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Solomon: I've done 33 election campaigns, and I've never had a problem with young people. I've had a lot of problems with older people. Maybe what we should consider is not age but a competency test. That's what I think we should have, but I'm not going to recommend it. Youth should not be a stumbling block.

The Chairman: Do you remember the process we went through for this?

Elinor Caplan, and then we'll go to suggestions.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'd like to suggest that since we have the official positions from all five parties, that remain. However, in fairness to John, we could put a sentence in here, as a quote from him, on how he feels. That's what we should do.

The Chairman: John, that's up to you.

Mr. John Solomon: I would like to strongly state that there should not be an age restriction. It should be up to the local campaigns to decide whether those individuals are competent in skill, period, not on the basis of age. We're being discriminatory here.

The Chairman: What about in the very middle? You're representing the NDP here. In 26.12, the sentence that begins, “The five recognized parties...” could read, “All recognized parties, except the NDP, supported this proposal.”

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No, I don't think that's valid, because the NDP representative did support this. John has a dissenting view, and that should be recognized.

Mr. John Solomon: No, let me be clear here.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That is not the position of the NDP; that is the position of John Solomon. That's not the same thing.

The Chairman: John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: Let me be clear here.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: John Solomon is not the NDP.

The Chairman: Okay, Stéphane.

John, go ahead.

Mr. John Solomon: And Peter Julian is not the NDP. Peter is making arbitrary decisions—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, this was not the position of Peter Julian; this was the position that was put forward by your party in this document.

The Chairman: We circulated the chart to all parties.

Go ahead, John; please speak to it.

Mr. John Solomon: Well, there's nothing more I can add, other than that I have drawn on my experience. I've been provincial secretary of the NDP in Saskatchewan. I've been on the federal executive for many years. I hire people such as Peter Julian and Jill Marzetti. The feeling in our party, not to be critical—they're both very competent individuals and they both do an excellent job for us—but on this particular matter, I think they misinterpreted what happened. My position is that the NDP support the current system in use for scrutineers on election day.

The Chairman: As chair, I do have to point out to you that we circulated the charts and we have the NDP's chart back with “yes” on it.

Now, could you address how we deal with it here? You've heard Stéphane's point that the party has already expressed its opinion. Is it enough for you that we put a...? Do we go this route and change, as Jamie suggested—?

Mr. John Solomon: If you want a letter changing it, then I'd like to have letters from everybody who had their own opinions on these, if different from their party's.

The Chairman: No, I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in how to deal with it here.

• 1030

Mr. John Solomon: If I'm going to do it, I demand that everybody else do it as well, and we'll go through all this process again, Mr. Chair, and everybody will submit their letters that Stéphane Bergeron—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: John, everybody wants to accommodate your view in the report; that's not the point. The point is whether we acknowledge the paper that was sent in—

Mr. John Solomon: Well, let's acknowledge the paper on every item, then, Elinor, to be fair—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No, I'm saying—

Mr. John Solomon: —and I'll tell you that Stéphane's and your opinions differ from your parties' position on certain matters, and that has not been—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: We've put them in with a quote.

Mr. John Solomon: There has not been a letter to that effect, stating it.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's quoted that I differed from my party.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: In the report, what we've done is put in the member's name with a statement of the point of view. That's the way we've accommodated dissent and other points of view. I think that's reasonable.

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: To be fair to Peter, there were some of us, myself included, who thought the age should be raised to the voting age, that you couldn't challenge other voters unless you were capable of voting yourself. So I wanted it raised to 18 years of age.

I think what happened with him was there was enough divergent opinion, and I think he thought 16 years of age was better than going to 18 years of age. I understand your position, and he made that quite clear. Some of us wanted—

Mr. John Solomon: I understand that, but it's not Peter and the party saying this; it's in response to something that was even older.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: But he did make your point. I can remember in the discussions that he made your point. He questioned what was on that chart.

Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Chair, I would—

The Chairman: John wants his party position changed.

Mr. John Solomon: I want the party position changed, and I will take responsibility for that with my party, and I can assure every member here that the party will support me on this, unanimously.

The Chairman: We don't need you to do that. We're only discussing a technicality here, as far as I'm concerned. I think it's an important technicality, but it's a technicality. I would suggest that we go to “All the recognized parties, except the NDP, supported this proposal”.

Mr. John Solomon: That would be fine. Thank you very much.

I would like another sentence in there, that the NDP believes that competency at the polls should be based on skill, not on age.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It might be a reversal of the situation.

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: It should be the responsibility of the parties and candidates, or whatever, to decide who's competent enough to represent them in the polls, be they 14 or 94 years of age.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Or six years of age.

Mr. John Solomon: I have some six-year-olds, Stéphane, who probably would do a lot better than some of the Bloc adults.

The Chairman: Colleagues, do you understand the intent of that? Okay, 26.12 will be changed accordingly. Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Now we'll go to 26.13, 26.14, 26.15, 26.17—it was one of the unanimous ones—26.18, 26.19—it was unanimous—26.20, 26.21—it was unanimous also—26.22, 26.23—it's a long paragraph....

Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Going back to 26.22, the second-last line, “and, indeed, the police”, that's kind of irrelevant, isn't it? It was part of the discussion.

The Chairman: We don't have it yet, so tell us again, Carolyn.

• 1035

Ms. Carolyn Parrish:

...it was pointed out that it is in large ridings where the returning officers—and, indeed, the police—are not always available where this power likely will be most needed.

I think that was part of the discussion, but it was as an example. I think throwing the police into an Elections Act discussion is a little irrelevant.

The Chairman: Are there any comments on that? I see some sort of agreement to strike “and, indeed, the police”.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: It just sounds funny, like whoa, in an election you need the police.

The Chairman: Paragraph 26.23. Paragraph 26.24 was unanimous.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think that it was not specified at 26.24 that this provision must clearly be part of the Elections Act when we had a discussion about the relevance to include a provision dealing with the consultative committee in that act.

[English]

The Chairman: I notice in the chart that the PC in their comments put “This does not need to be put in the act”, Stéphane.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, but....

[English]

The Chairman: I know. But I point that out to you. It's in their comments in the chart that we—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: ....the Progressive Conservative Party has indicated that this does not need to be put in the legislation but said also that giving it a statutory basis would formalize its existence. I remember very well having said myself that I was for the inclusion of such a provision in the legislation, but it doesn't show anywhere.

[English]

The Chairman: I'll go to Jamie and then Elinor Caplan.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: The sentence before that said there was general support among the parties and the members of the committee that the provision be made in the Canada Elections Act. Perhaps we should say there was unanimous support. I don't think the Conservatives were against it, although they thought that perhaps it didn't need to be in the legislation.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: We had a big discussion on this, starting from the point where the chief electoral officer has already announced that there will be a committee. The view was that if it's in the legislation it will ensure ongoing consultation. It may not technically need to be in the act, but it was seen as being not a bad idea.

Stéphane, what I said was that there was a discussion that said it probably didn't need to be in the act. The election officer has already announced the committee, but there was general agreement that if it was in the act it would ensure ongoing consultation.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's it.

[Translation]

I think that it is purely a drafting problem. First, the report says that there is support among the parties that provision be made in the act. Then the next sentence starts with “As the Progressive Conservative Party indicated, that does not need to be put in the legislation” as if the position of the Progressive Conservative Party took precedence over that of all the parties represented in the committee.

[English]

The Chairman: I think it's a very good point, and we'll catch that. You're absolutely right. They kind of felt.... They weren't insistent on it.

Good. Now we go to paragraphs 26.25 and 26.26.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Not so fast, not so fast.

[English]

The Chairman: Number 26.27, these were after discussion, unanimous ones. Now to 26.28.

Yes, Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I don't think this is—

The Chairman: Which number are we in, Carolyn?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Number 26.28. It seems to go around the mulberry bush. I think at the end of the first sentence, which begins with Yves Rocheleau and goes to “not in advance before voting opens—”, the general census of the committee was that numbering was anachronistic and should be discontinued. Was that not the conclusion?

It seems to diddle around a lot. I think the conclusion was, because of crash-numbering and sophisticated ballots, you don't need it any more. Could we not just end the first three lines and then put “The consensus of the committee was that it was an anachronistic practice, which should be discontinued”?

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

• 1040

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm not sure it was the consensus of the committee, but I do think it was the view of some members, as opposed to others, who felt it should be re-evaluated. I think it should read “Others felt this was anachronistic and should be eliminated”.

The Chairman: Or words to that effect, or “Some members felt that initialling was anachronistic”.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Right—“some members felt”.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: At the end of the line, Jamie, it says “initially by”. It should be “initialled by”.

The Chairman: Initialled by. Good.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: There are a few of those through there. I assume you caught that.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: You were a proof-reader in another life.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes; I was an English teacher.

The Chairman: Okay. We're agreed.

Can we look at the appendix? It's simply the list of administrative issues, you'll recall, that were referred to at the very introduction of our report. There are copies of it around. It is simply the list we transmitted to the advisory committee.

By the way, Jamie points out to me that it isn't simply a reflection of the letter of transmittal to the advisory committee. During our discussions, we sent on two or three additional items, so they are included on this list.

Colleagues, that brings us to the end of the report, except for the items we left behind. I suggest that we do 19.1 first, because that was something we were specifically doing today.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Perhaps if I could propose something that would reflect the discussion—

The Chairman: Just let me.... We're in the last paragraph of 19.1. In English, it begins “There was a unanimous feeling”.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: I would revise that last paragraph as follows: “There was unanimous feeling on the part of the members of the committee that advertising and polls must both be prohibited on polling day itself.”

The Chairman: So we've taken out “if at all possible”, right? Go ahead.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: “The committee strongly urges the government to implement such a restriction. Some members strongly supported the use of the notwithstanding clause.”

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: “If necessary”.

[English]

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Yes, “if necessary”.

The Chairman: “If necessary”, okay?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: “Members agreed that the blackout provisions at the beginning of the electoral campaign are no longer required.”

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It does say some members argued for the notwithstanding clause. I'd like it to say others strongly opposed the use of the notwithstanding clause.

The Chairman: Okay. So “Some members argued for the use of the notwithstanding clause, if necessary. Other members felt this was inadvisable or unnecessary.”

Do we have the sense of that, colleagues? That sentence will be included in 19.1.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It was unanimous? What kind of unanimity do we have here?

The Chairman: Can we go to 13.1? Section 13 deals with constituency associations. We are dealing with the last sentence of the third paragraph of 13.1. Jamie, please.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: The way it had been drafted was fairly general. The conclusion, however, could be strengthened, given the discussion today. It could read, “While most members were uncomfortable with the proposal in its current form, there was general agreement that there needs to be greater transparency of financial transactions and accountability on the part of local associations.”

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I prefer that.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: To what?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: To what's in the report now, which says that proposals—

Mr. Jamie Robertson: I'll try to read it again.

The Chairman: Yes, let's do it again.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: “While most members were uncomfortable with the proposal in its current form, there was general agreement that there needed to be increased transparency of financial transactions and accountability on the part of local associations.”

• 1045

The Chairman: John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: I need an example of the problems we're having at local associations. In Saskatchewan, where we come from, they're audited every year and the auditor's statements are turned over to the party. I'm just wondering what the problems are and—

The Chairman: If I can point this out, we have circulated and have on the record the provincial practices.

Mr. John Solomon: This is for all parties, not just—

The Chairman: We'll go to Elinor Caplan first and then to Jacques Girard.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think the bottom line is that under the Canada Elections Act, local associations are not regulated. What happens is left entirely to the voluntary decision of the party.

While you require audited statements, there is really no public disclosure or transparency, except to your party. In Ontario, there is a big difference between the provincial association, which is very highly regulated, where the returns are published with the office and it's open and transparent and the rules are clear.... And actually, it functions very well. It has not resulted in a big bureaucracy but, I think, in a greater confidence.

Frankly, being new to the federal scene, I was very surprised that there was so little transparency in the federal riding association while the parties.... While the federal Liberal Party does all the tax receipting and everything is clear and above board when it comes to donations and receipting, the ongoing operations of the riding associations are loosey-goosey, if I can use that word.

The Chairman: Jacques, will you comment on John Solomon's point?

Then I'll go to Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Basically I think Ms. Caplan was right. The reason for the recommendation is the fact that under the federal legislation there's no provision that regulates the local association. It has been referred to in the literature as the black hole of the financial system in the country. The concern is also the fact that while they don't exist, the act provides that the candidate can use a surplus and transfer it to the local association so that it just vanishes.

The Chairman: John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: I don't know how your federal associations operate, but those federal associations in the NDP that don't have members of Parliament are almost defunct between federal elections. I'm talking about the 301. Even in Saskatchewan, where we're quite active, out of our 14 riding associations each riding association basically has an annual meeting—by the constitution—around which they organize a dinner or a banquet or some other little fund-raiser. That means requiring an audited statement for one function a year for a riding association that's run by volunteers.

I guess there must be some horrible examples in Ontario and Quebec and other places, but in Saskatchewan we don't seem to have that problem. I just raise that. I'm puzzled as to why—

The Chairman: I would point out that we're not saying they have to be audited. We're simply urging greater transparency here.

Mr. John Solomon: I think that in an election year it should be mandatory, but otherwise—

The Chairman: Bear in mind, too, that we now have the information from each province on the record as well as in the documents of our committee.

Carolyn, can I go on?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Sure.

The Chairman: Can we go back to Jamie's suggestion? Look at it carefully and get it in your minds. We're now dealing—again, as you know—with 13.1, the third paragraph.

Try it again.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Most members of the committee were uncomfortable with the proposal in its current form. There was general agreement that there needed to be greater transparency of financial transactions and accountability on the part of local associations.

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I don't like the word “uncomfortable”. It sounds like we have internal disorders—

The Chairman: It's a bit like loosey-goosey—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: —or gas.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: “Unprepared”?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: “Concerned about”—

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Okay.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: We're concerned. I agree with John—

The Chairman: “Concerned about”?

Mr. John Solomon: “Apprehensive”?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No, “apprehensive”—

The Chairman: “Concerned about”?

A voice: Yes.

The Chairman: Don't forget that.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I agree with you, John. I think this whole concept of auditing is silly. We're public figures—

The Chairman: Okay, that's fine.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: —and our associations check up on us.

The Chairman: Are we agreed?

Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: My colleague just asked a very good question. We'd like to know what the French translation of loosey-goosey is.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: I don't hear anything.

Colleagues, you have some motions before you.

Stéphane Bergeron.

• 1050

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, when I arrived, you had already started. I missed a bit whilst I was getting ready. I must tell you that I am not comfortable with 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3.

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me. Could you just give us a moment?

Colleagues, we'll find 14.1, 14.2, and 14.3.

D'accord, Stéphane.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: At 14.1, on page 3, one can read:

There was general agreement that the extra expenses relating to the disability of a candidate or those related to child care or care of a dependent....

[English]

The Chairman: Just a moment, Stéphane. We need to find it. Could you perhaps give us the paragraph?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The last paragraph of page 3, in French.

[English]

The Chairman: The pages are different in the two.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's it. The sentence before last on that page reads as follows:

There was general agreement that the extra expenses relating to the disability of a candidate or those related to child care or care of a dependent should be reimbursed, but should not be included in the spending limits of candidates.

[English]

The Chairman: In the English version, it's the third paragraph on page 3.

Go ahead, Stéphane.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have a problem with that sentence and I also have a problem with the link between 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3. I remember the discussion we had about the meaning to be given to the extra expenses relating to the disability of a candidate or to child care and I recall that I illustrated rather eloquently the difficulty in establishing that expenses relating to child care really have to do with child care as opposed to travel in the riding for the electoral campaign. This is why I have a problem, all the more so since it is recommended at 14.2 that candidates' personal expenses should be included as election expenses, something I was strongly opposed to. And here's the conclusion:

Members were generally supportive of this provision, but feel that it is extremely important that there be clear definitions of what constitutes a personal expense.

I don't agree with the end. I strongly object to personal expenses being included in the candidates' spending limits because for me there is no link whatsoever between the two.

Let me give you another example. If a candidate pays more attention to his appearance, will he be put at an unfair disadvantage compared to another candidate who doesn't care so much because he will have to include in his election expenses what it cost him to have his suits cleaned 18 times instead of twice? I don't see any link between candidates' personal expenses and election expenses. Therefore, I cannot support the conclusion that “Members were generally supportive of this provision.” I am not at all in favour. I am totally opposed and I already said so. There is nothing new to what I am saying. You already know my position as I already expressed it.

Then 14.3 says:

Assuming that personal expenses are included as election expenses....

The word “assuming” is very important for me.

....it is recommended that candidates be required to submit supporting vouchers for personal expenses.

Regardless of the word “assuming”, that personal expenses be included or not in election expenses, the candidate should be required to submit supporting vouchers for personal expenses. For me, there is no link between the two. The candidate should not be required to submit supporting vouchers only if personal expenses are included as election expenses. I personally think that the candidate should be required to submit supporting vouchers whatever the situation and it is very clear in my mind that personal expenses should under no circumstances be included as election expenses.

[English]

The Chairman: So your point is that it's for personal expenses, which are clearly part of the electoral expenses. It's something like that. Can you give us some suggestions how to capture that?

Jamie, do you have some thoughts now? In 14.3, for example, I see—

Mr. Jamie Robertson: For 14.2, this was a very lengthy discussion, and I did not, I guess, totally appreciate Monsieur Bergeron's point, which would be to, at the end of 14.2, indicate his opposition to including personal expenses as part of the election expense limits. I would just clearly indicate that at the end.

The Chairman: Yes. The clear definitions part at the very end of 14.2—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I do agree with that.

The Chairman: Yes, I understand that. But what about 14.3? What if we put, at the end of the first sentence, “for personal expenses which are clearly election expenses”?

• 1055

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, please allow me to briefly come back on 14.2.

I disagree with the part of the conclusion that says that members are generally supportive of that provision but I fully agree that we should have a clear definition of what constitutes a personal expense during an election. Therefore, I don't disagree with all of the conclusion. I am in agreement with the last part but I cannot agree with the part that says that personal expenses should be included as election expenses.

[English]

Mr. Jamie Robertson: What I'm going to propose there is:

Most members were generally supportive of this provision. Monsieur Bergeron opposes the inclusion of candidates' personal expenses as election expenses.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Am I the only one against or do other members of the committee object to that?

[English]

The Chairman: We have one other member. We have two.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Especially the candidates' expenses....

[English]

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Okay,

Other members were opposed. It was generally agreed that it is important that there be clear definitions of what constitutes....

I think there is agreement on the last part of that sentence.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: As for 14.3, we could simply suppress the first part.

[English]

The Chairman: That was 14.2. Oh, sorry.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, I know but I'm talking about 14.3. I would simply suppress the first part. I would start by saying that “The committee supports the recommendation that candidates be required to submit supporting vouchers for personal expenses.”

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, colleagues?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chairman: We strike “Assuming that personal expenses are included as election expenses”.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: As for 14.1, which deals with persons with disabilities and child care expenses, there is a direct link between that statement and the one relating to personal expenses. I will come back to the example that I already gave you. Normally, I leave my daughter at the daycare in Varennes from where I go on to work in Boucherville. At night, I leave Boucherville and I pick up my daughter in Varennes. If, during the election, I was to go to Contrecoeur...

[English]

The Chairman: I think we understand the argument. How do we capture—?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You have to understand that there is really a link between the two. We cannot exclude from personal expenses included in election expenses the child care expenses if there is a link between the child care expenses and the election itself. My position is that personal expenses cannot be included in election expenses. There is just no logic to it.

[English]

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think that's captured, and I'll explain why.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You will have to explain it to me because I don't understand.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: In the fifth paragraph of 14.1 it says “There was less consensus with respect to the inclusion of personal expenses.” Then further down it says “This category is intended to capture expenses over and above those which would be ordinarily incurred.” So that captures your concern. During the election—

The Chairman: Then it goes on.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes, it goes on to explain.

The Chairman: It says: “In other words, they are additional expenses that are incurred as a result of being a candidate in an election campaign.”

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Right.

The Chairman: Bear in mind we're giving guidance to the writing of legislation, not writing legislation.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I want to be sure that the writers of the statutory instrument fully understand what happened.

[English]

The Chairman: No, I understand that. What we're doing is very important.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: If, because of the campaign, you are required to go back and forth, that would not be an election expense. You would be reimbursed for that, because it's over and above the normal expense in going to pick up your child, or custody or those provisions. Just as for a disabled person who requires special transportation that's very expensive, it would not be an election expense, because it would be unfair to include that in the limit. Similarly for child care expenses over and above what would normally be incurred. So I think that captures your concern.

The Chairman: What do you think, Stéphane?

• 1100

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Okay.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

Colleagues, you have before you some motions. The NDP have indicated they will support these motions. Would someone care to move...?

Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Would you like me to read it?

The Chairman: If you would.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I move that the chair, in cooperation with the clerk of the committee, be authorized to make such typographical and editorial changes as may be necessary without changing the substance of the report; and that the draft report as amended be adopted as the committee's report to the House and that the chair present the report to the House or the clerk; and that the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Colleagues, I want to thank you all for this extraordinary work. I want to thank our own staff—our researcher and clerk—for an extraordinary piece of work. I want to thank the staffs of the parties who have been here throughout this time. And I want to recognize Carolyn Parrish for the last time this year.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I don't know the numbers of the reports, but I would like to move—and I'm sure Madame will second—that the chair request the government to move concurrent, as soon as possible, with the two reports from private members.

The Chairman: Carolyn, we dealt with that yesterday.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: We moved it?

The Chairman: Yvon Charbonneau dealt with it.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: We moved it and we...? Good.

The Chairman: Colleagues, I want to repeat my thanks. I want to thank our translators. I want to says thanks for all the assistance we've received from staff here in the committee. I particularly want to thank Jacques Girard and the officials from Elections Canada.

Jacques, we've enjoyed having you at the table with us, and we enjoyed it previously when you were not at the table, but you were with us each day. Would you convey to the chief electoral officer that we said the work you both did was exemplary? We thank you very much. We all hope this results in a much improved Canada Elections Act.

Colleagues, the meeting is adjourned.