HAFF 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, March 20, 2001

• 1109

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): Colleagues, I'll call the meeting to order.

We have before us today an order of reference from the House dealing with Bill C-9, an amendment to the Canada Elections Act.

We are delighted to have before us—we regard this as an opportunity, and it has been on relatively short notice—witnesses who represent three political parties. I'll leave unaddressed the issue of whether the political party is listed or registered. In any event, the parties have a real existence outside of or within the definitions, as the case may be, of our legislation and our regulations and traditions.

• 1110

For the record, I'll just mention them: the Christian Heritage Party, represented by Mr. Gray; the Communist Party of Canada, represented by Miguel Figueroa; and the Green Party of Canada, represented by Mr. Chris Bradshaw.

The witnesses will have a view or statement. If there's no objection, I will invite them to make a statement. I think the statements should be approximately five minutes in length, but if a witness needs more than that, I'm sure my colleagues will defer. But under the circumstances, normally I wouldn't see a need for witnesses to go beyond ten minutes. There are three of you here today. We will follow the statements by questions.

I will just point out that because of other scheduling commitments around the House, we will have to conclude our meeting around 12:25. The House leaders will be pre-empting us from further use of this room. So let us begin.

I will simply take the order as set out in our agenda, which happens to be in alphabetical order. There is no particular priority attached to your recognition here today. We'll start with Mr. Gray of the Christian Heritage Party, and we'll then hear from Mr. Figueroa of the Communist Party and Mr. Bradshaw of the Green Party. Mr. Gray.

Mr. Ron Gray (National Leader, Christian Heritage Party of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm grateful for this opportunity to represent my party's point of view.

I have prepared my remarks and had them printed, but I apologize because I haven't had time to have them translated. For any member who would like to have a copy of what I'm going to read, Mr. Sabourin has brought some copies. He can distribute them if you would like.

The Chair: This particular committee does not formally receive written submissions that are only in one language. However, members around the table are free to collect these things and to read them, and witnesses are free to say hello and distribute whatever they wish. So I'll leave that to you. But the committee clerk won't be participating in that.

Mr. Ron Gray: Thanks. I'll ask Mr. Sabourin to make copies available to people while I'm reading.

I wanted to point out that most of our concerns actually go back to the Elections Act as it was passed in 1974, which we believe set us off on the wrong foot because of a wrong focus. That act and the revision to it that was passed last year were flawed because they're framed primarily in terms of the interests of the contending parties, and they should have been framed, we feel, in terms of the interests of an informed electorate.

The 37th Parliament is in the happy situation of being positioned this early in its mandate to do some things to correct that deficiency. Here are some specific recommendations we would like to see addressed in Bill C-9.

Clause 2 of this bill, for example, amends section 18 of the act to enable the Chief Electoral Officer to carry out studies on alternative voting means, including electronic voting. Let me say, parenthetically, I'm not enamoured of electronic voting because electrons, after all, get manipulated inside little black boxes, and the potential for mischief, I think, is greater than with paper.

Last November, as we all learned about pregnant chads and dimpled chads, Canadians were pretty confidant that our old but uniform system of voting is pretty reliable. I'm not sure they would be as confidant of a system that relied on electronics, because if hackers can get through to Microsoft, I don't think there's enough security yet in the system.

What we would like clause 2 of this act to do that it does not do is to authorize the Chief Electoral Officer to initiate studies of proportional representation with a view to implementing some form of proportional voting in and for Canada. Canada and the United States are the only G-7 nations that have not moved toward proportionality in their elections. Even in the U.K., the Northern Ireland assembly and the Scottish assembly are both elected by proportional representation, and Prime Minister Blair has said that in his next mandate he intends to introduce proportional representation into the mother of Parliaments.

• 1115

Elections Canada has devoted a great deal of effort trying to arrest declining voter turnout in Canada, which in the last election, you'll recall, was the worst ever—in real terms, as bad as the Americans, because they measure according to who is eligible to vote and we measure according to registered voters. But the other thing is that Canada's first-past-the-post system exacerbates regional disparities. On the election night maps, western Canada was coloured entirely teal, Ontario was all red, Quebec was all blue and white, and Atlantic Canada was all Tory blue. But there are substantial numbers of other parties represented in all those areas, and proportional representation would give those hidden voters a sense that their voices are heard.

My party favours mixed-member proportional representation, which is the form that is used in Germany and which would be most readily adapted to reflect Canada's geographic population and language diversities. We believe the work on that kind of amendment to the act should begin right now.

We in the CHP are in the unique position of having lost our registered party status in the midst of an election. In last November's election, we failed by four candidates to meet the fifty-candidate bar. We do not agree with the submission that was made by the Communist Party that any two candidates could be a party. We think there may be a need for a higher level of qualification than that, but we think the present fifty-candidate level is too high.

In my paper I make some review of things I think Mr. Figueroa will better be able to review because of the challenge that he successfully made to the old Elections Act. His challenge was then nullified by the passage of Bill C-2 last year, and I believe he is again challenging that. I think there are grounds for a charter challenge there, but if the bar were set at 12 candidates, as has been proposed in the bill before us, the government could at least argue that Parliament was not being arbitrary but was applying to the electoral process the same standard it uses in the House.

We agree that failure to attain the requisite number of candidates, at whatever level is set, should certainly deprive a party of financial benefits under the act, including the right to issue tax receipts. But there are other benefits that we think should not be withdrawn, and principal among those, in our experience, is having the party name withdrawn from the ballot. This is information that is potentially helpful to the voter, and I think this bill is definitely on the right track in changes that would make that information again available to the voter.

Let me interject with an anecdote that I think will illustrate my point. In the election last November, when our party failed to reach the 50-candidate margin, our party name did not appear on the ballots with our candidates' names. After the election I began a telephone survey of our party members to sound them out on how they felt we should deal with this circumstance. One woman I had talked to down in southwestern Ontario told me that when she went to vote, she recognized the name of our candidate on the ballot, but because the party's name was not there she thought this guy had abandoned us. She said “I will not vote for a turncoat”, and she spoiled her ballot.

My point is, the information that the elector required to know for whom she was voting was the name of the party that he still did represent. Denying that information to the elector was harmful to the idea of an informed electorate. It did the voter a disservice.

• 1120

For that same reason, we'd like to see clause 12 of this bill altered to delete proposed paragraph 117(2)(d) of the act.

Similarly, clause 11 of this bill unnecessarily limits the access of candidates other than those of the registered parties to voters lists. Those lists contain information that is vital to the development and growth of new parties, such as the three that are represented before you here today. That growth of new parties is a healthy aspect of the democratic system, and I can see no justification for restricting their access to the information. We would recommend that clause 11 of the bill, subsection 109(3) of the act, be altered to read “On the request of a party or member referred to in subsection (2)...”. Let us open it to any party, not just registered, not just eligible parties.

In the same way, clauses 17 and 18 of this bill perpetuate a wrong focus on the interests of the political parties, rather than the national interest in having a well-informed electorate. Broadcast time should never have been allocated to give preference to the parties in the House or preference according to the number of seats they hold in the House. Rather, broadcast time should be allocated to meet the need of the voters for information about all the choices that are before them.

We suggest that the formula for the allocation of broadcast time should be something like this: On national or network broadcast media, time should be equally allocated to all the parties that have candidates in a majority of the provinces and territories; on local media, the allocation should be prorated according to the number of candidates each broadcast has in the service area of that particular station.

Again, the focus should be on the voters' access to the information they need to make an informed choice. Unfortunately, the provisions of both the 1974 and 2000 acts make it look very much like the parties in the House, once in, are trying to pull up the drawbridge behind them. Allocating the broadcast time according to the results of previous elections focuses solely on the interests of the successful parties, or the more successful parties, not on the interests of the voters.

That orientation raises two other questions that are not dealt with by the act or by this bill but are crucial, in our view, to building voter confidence in the system and to enhancing voter participation. These both relate to election campaign financing.

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Gray, I want to bring your attention to time. You've used approximately 10 or 11 minutes. If we don't stay somewhat disciplined on this, we'll run the risk of not accomplishing the goal of the meeting.

You had prepared a submission, which was single-language—and I realize there was a shortage of time and you didn't have time to get it translated. I would ask you now to stick to point form so that you can wrap up your submission.

Mr. Ron Gray: Okay.

The Chair: That would be helpful to all of us. Thank you.

Mr. Ron Gray: My last point is simply the fact that the form of introducing public funds into election campaigns under the act, and left untouched under Bill C-9, fails the test of democratic rights and in fact I think is susceptible to a charter challenge, and probably will be subject to a charter challenge if it is not corrected, because of the principle that I'll wrap up with, this quotation from Thomas Jefferson: “It is tyrannical to compel someone to pay for the promulgation of ideas with which they do not agree.”

The allocation of tax money according the results obtained in the election compels people to support, as taxpayers, parties whose policies may be an anathema to the individual taxpayer. In this paper I've proposed a form, which I won't read in detail now, that would allow individual taxpayers to allocate their tax dollars to the party of their choice each year. If anyone wants to ask for details on this in the question period, I'll be happy to elaborate.

• 1125

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gray.

Now we'll go to Mr. Figueroa.

Mr. Miguel Figueroa (Leader, Communist Party of Canada): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I want to begin by thanking you for providing our party with the opportunity to express its views on Bill C-9.

I would just say, parenthetically, that in our previous submission to this committee in the last session with respect to Bill C-2, we outlined our position on a number of broader questions. These included proportional representation, the length of the election period, the question of broadcast rights, and so on. So I won't deal with those questions in detail this morning.

As you know, the bill under consideration has come forward mostly in response to the August 16, 2000, ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Figueroa decision. That ruling upheld, in part, an earlier Ontario court decision of March 10, 1999, by Madame Justice Anne Malloy, which struck down the 50-candidate threshold with respect to the party identifier on the ballot. It also struck down other sections of the Canada Elections Act then in force, which were also found to be in violation of the charter.

With respect to the bill currently before Parliament, our party wishes to make two main points for your consideration. The first is with respect to the process by which this bill has come about. The second is with respect to the specifics of the proposed new threshold for the party identifier. Permit me first, however, to make a few brief background remarks.

The origins of the bill now before you—and for that matter, of several other important changes introduced in the previous Bill C-2, passed in the last session of Parliament—stem from a political and legal struggle which the Communist party initially undertook almost eight years ago.

As you will recall, in the dying days of the former Mulroney government, sweeping changes to the Canada Elections Act of that time were introduced and passed with the consent of all parties. The cumulative effect of those changes constituted a profoundly undemocratic, and even draconian, attack on the democratic rights of our party and of other smaller parties at the federal level. The worst of these reactionary changes included the seizure of the assets of deregistered parties, and the 400% increase in candidates' deposits—50% of which was non-refundable if the candidate did not receive more than 15% of the total vote in a given riding.

That these changes were indeed anti-democratic, unconstitutional, and intended solely to restrict the participation of smaller parties in the electoral process was a view shared not only by our party and other smaller parties, but by countless constitutional experts and by the editorial boards of most major newspapers in this country. That was also the considered view of many, if not most, candidates from the major opposition party in the 1993 election—including candidates from what is now the ruling party, the Liberal Party of Canada.

Alas, however, the promises received from many members of the incoming Liberal government to amend the act, to remove those odious sections, were not acted upon. Our party had no choice but to seek recourse through the courts.

That legal action in turn led to the Malloy decision, which struck down several of the worst provisions of the old act: the seizure of party assets; the non-refundability of candidates' deposits; and the 50-candidate threshold for party registration.

The Malloy ruling changed the threshold for registration of political parties from 50 candidates to two. As you know, it was this last ruling that was appealed, and that led to the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that the party identifier be separated from other benefits granted to registered parties, and that that threshold be reduced by Parliament.

The appeal court ruling referred the matter back to Parliament on the grounds that the courts should not—at least on this matter—attempt to rewrite legislation. To quote Schachter v. Canada, “This is the task of the legislature, not of the courts”.

• 1130

In general, our party concurs with this approach. Legislation should be written and adopted by democratically elected bodies, not appointed ones. However, with respect to electoral law specifically, an obvious contradiction arises; namely, that the parties currently holding power in Parliament are called upon to exercise that power, to set the rules by which elections are conducted and that regulate and restrict the participation of all other parties, which might, at some point, come to challenge that power, that political hegemony. In short, there is an ever-present danger that those so empowered to set the electoral rules will do so in such a manner as to protect that power.

With respect to this problem, Justice Malloy noted in her ruling the following:

In the case before me there is no evidence that governmental reform of the electoral system is moving incrementally towards extending the benefits of party registration to more citizens. The electoral reforms in the 1970's which first saw the recognition of political parties and financial benefits flowing from registered party status have not been followed by any move towards extending benefits to smaller parties. On the contrary, the 1993 amendments worsened the situation for smaller parties....

This is not an appropriate situation in which to defer the process of supposed governmental reform; rather, the conclusion reached by Iacobucci writing for the majority in the Vriend decision seems to me to be directly applicable. He held:

If the infringement of rights and freedoms of these groups is permitted to persist while governments fail to pursue equality diligently, then the guarantees of the Charter will be reduced to little more than empty words.

It was on this basis that Justice Malloy felt it was necessary for the court to write in the figure of two candidates.

As we indicated in a previous intervention of this committee, there is, as noted by Mr. Gray, an increasing public cynicism toward the electoral process as a whole, reflected not least in growing support for some form of proportional representation. The only truly democratic solution, therefore, is for Parliament to open up the current electoral system to a genuinely broad and public review and subsequent reform.

Dealing with the specific aspects of Bill C-9, we wish to make two main points here.

First, the proposed legislation in fact, in our view, would establish two different classes of registered parties federally, one that would meet the registration requirements for the party identifier only, and a second higher threshold for other benefits of registered status. There is nothing inherently wrong with establishing different thresholds for different benefits. For instance, our party would agree that broadcast rights should be paid at a higher threshold than simple registration. How broadcast time is apportioned is of course a completely different matter. But the idea of a higher threshold for broadcast rights seems to us to be a completely reasonable approach.

It's our contention, however, that certain basic rights and privileges should be guaranteed to all registered parties at a threshold substantially lower than the 50-candidate rule. These include, as per Malloy's ruling, the party affiliation on the ballot provision, those provisions relating to the issuance of tax receipts, the ability of a candidate to transfer unspent funds to his or her party rather than remitting them to the government, and the right to receive the final voters list.

There is no legitimate reason, in our view, why all of these basic rights should not be afforded to all political parties that achieve the lower threshold and that fulfil all other requirements stipulated under the act. We would therefore urge the committee to consider amending Bill C-9 in line with the above facts.

The second point refers to the actual proposed threshold of 12 candidates. While 12 is certainly substantially lower than 50 as the threshold for the party identifier, our party agrees that the argument made in Malloy that:

...the issue is not where the line should be drawn in terms of how many candidates a party must field...but rather, whether there is a basis for drawing such a line at all.

This, by the way, refers to the question of public information, and this point was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

A party is an organization that nominates a slate of candidates, so the minimum of two candidates would be required. Anything more than one is a slate. We would therefore urge the committee to consider amending Bill C-9 to reduce the threshold for party identifiers from twelve to two.

• 1135

Finally, we would like to inform the committee, although I don't think it's necessary really, that our leave to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling has been granted by the Supreme Court of Canada, where the constitutional issue involved in party registration will finally be resolved. That the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this appeal confirms the substantial nature of the constitutional arguments we have made in favour of lowering the overall threshold for party registration. Depending on the court's ruling, further changes to the Canada Elections Act may be required.

Thank you for your attention.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bradshaw.

Mr. Chris Bradshaw (Green Party of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the committee.

I should point out that I have been leader of the Green Party, interim leader I should point out, for only one day. Things happen interestingly in politics. Our previous leader, Joan Russow, who I believe was our leader for three to four years, has resigned as of the beginning of March and I was appointed by our national council to fill that role, as is required by the Elections Canada legislation, until we go through the democratic process with full member involvement and a proper campaign, which will occur later this year.

Our party was represented in a Senate committee hearing on this matter in the year 2000, which Ms. Russow participated in, and before this committee in 1999 with Mr. Julian West. Mr. West, by the way, will be part of the event held here on the Hill with Fair Vote Canada that is occurring, I believe, in about nine or ten days. I will be speaking on behalf of the party at an Institute for Research on Public Policy event on the same subject, also here on the Hill at the beginning of May.

For your information, the last time I appeared before a committee, since I am involved in mostly local politics, was on the freedom of information and privacy legislation when I worked with the committee that worked with the late Ged Baldwin on that issue. And I'm very happy to see the positive results, even though many of my colleagues over time have felt that there's a certain cynicism on this matter that occurs over time in the halls of power at the national level.

I also want to say that I recognize Mr. Joe Jordan, who has shown a great deal of support for a measure that our party champions, which is the Well-Being Measurement Act. I appreciate that this is a private member's matter, and we wish it best of health here in the House.

Because of my short time as leader and even the shorter time that I have known about this, thanks to the member for Lanark—Carleton, who alerted us of this through our candidate who has run twice in that riding—and I thank Mr. Reid for that—we will perhaps limit our comments a little bit more to the legislation, although I would say very clearly that the party has a history of championing similar matters that have been raised by the party leaders of two parties, also non-parliamentary parties, to my right.

We feel that we have a special role as the largest of the six parliamentary parties that—

Mr. Miguel Figueroa: Geographically to your right.

Mr. Chris Bradshaw: That's right. I suppose that if we were arranged with sensitivity to such pseudo forms of geography, we might fall more to the centre of the two other people at this table.

I would say that I believe the members here are aware that our party achieved the level of 111 candidates in the past election and that we averaged almost 1,000 votes per candidate. And we feel this is recognition of the fact that we—and I'm not going to speak specifically on behalf of the other parties—smaller parties are, in many cases, young parties, not necessarily parties that have tested their appeal to the public in various ways and have done so for a much longer time. We are a part, as you know, of an international political movement. I need say no more, I think, about that at this time.

I do live in Ottawa, by the way, and it's helped me be present for this particular session.

• 1140

The main matter before the committee, I understand, is the matter of a change in threshold, which was raised by Mr. Figueroa's appeal on behalf of his party—and, thankfully, on behalf of all us smaller parties in Canada—from 50 to 12 candidates. And I would say that our party is supportive of that change, without suggesting that we find anything in the literature so far to justify that number as being a specifically wonderful one. We would love to see that reviewed over time, but we think it's a significant change, and not one that in any way makes fun of the review process by the courts. It is a significant change, and we think it's moving in the right direction.

However, I would like to resume the question raised by one of my colleagues: does it create two classes of party? What is the idea of multiple thresholds? From the little consultation I've done with members of our party over the Internet, we believe the multiple threshold is a positive measure, one which tends to echo the principle of human development from youth to adulthood. There is no single moment that one emerges from the chrysalis, as it were, into adulthood. There are many points in our development where we get additional privileges in exchange for additional responsibilities. We think that principle may want to be looked at again in the long run, in terms of legislation.

I would use as an example the matter of our difficulty, as a small party, in getting access to affairs on the Hill, partly represented by five minutes spent going through the machinery at the front door here. For instance, our leader had difficulty—in fact was refused entry into the lock-up—in gaining access to the budget that was last presented here on the Hill by the government, and therefore had to face the media without having had the chance to read it over that particular period of time. We feel we have an important role towards the Canadian people, as well as our members, and should have that kind of access.

There are other things. In other words, to increase our presence on the Hill I think would help us to be more effective when we eventually are elected, as we believe we will, to have members on the Hill.

I would raise one other matter before I conclude my remarks. I think access to the final voters list is perhaps another matter that justifies review of a threshold level other than the 12—or I believe the 50 threshold level is retained for that. Even though we admit that smaller parties have fewer resources by which to make full use of the list, we believe new technology reduces the cost, since the list has to be prepared and the bulk of the cost is involved in creating the list, and the actual production of copies for additional members is much lower now. That same technology gives us better ability to make use of the list to contact people in our various electorates.

Also, one of the points raised under the broadcast section by one of my colleagues was the concept that we look at the media in terms of the needs of the voters for information and at the media organizations' actual market and the activity of the party, the number of candidates, within that, rather than setting a national standard. I think that would be another positive move.

I hope to explore a number of these issues more when I speak at the IRPP event in May, and would invite members, because of its location here, to take part in that.

So I thank you for the time of the committee. I'm available for questions, and I shall do my best at responding to them. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you to all of our witnesses. The presentations were within the time available, and you've raised a number of issues.

In general, in relation to the Elections Act, I want to point out to colleagues that in the questioning, without being too strict, we want to focus on the legislation. Witnesses have raised issues not directly pertaining to the legislation, although these are important issues from a public interest perspective. We have 35 or 40 minutes available to us now. We don't have to be too strict, unless we start going off in all kinds of bizarre directions. Just please recall, colleagues, that we are dealing with Bill C-9, which is proposing certain changes to the Elections Act, and the questioning should be as close to that envelope as we can keep it.

• 1145

I'll start off then. We'll recognize Mr. Reid for the official opposition. Then Ms. Davies has indicated her desire, and other colleagues may wish to signal their interest as well.

Mr. Reid.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

Actually, Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion that Mr. Gray's submission be taken and translated, and then distributed for the use of committee members at our next meeting, so that they have it in both official languages? Would that be possible?

The Chair: I have no objection. Do colleagues have any objection to that suggestion, that Mr. Gray's written submission be translated and distributed to members?

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would simply suggest that if we're going to do that, we make the option open to the other guests as well, if they have something in writing that they want—

The Chair: Okay. Certainly. Then if any of the other witnesses have a written submission that was not offered or was not translated, feel free to provide it to the clerk, and we will translate and distribute it, as suggested. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Reid.

Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de- Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Excuse me, Mr. Reid.

Mr. Chairman, I would like you to add an item to a future agenda. Before hearing from the witnesses, I would like to speak about how the documents are distributed by the witnesses.

My mother always told me to be on my best behaviour when we had guests. Given that we have guests, I do not want to discuss this right now, but I do have some things to say on this issue because one must not do something behind another's back that they would not do in front of them. It totally circumvents the process. I will hold my comments and I'm sure that my colleagues here around the table understand. This is legitimate. I would like this to be added to the agenda for a future meeting.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Guimond. Your mother was correct, and we understand where you're coming from. We'll take it up at a future meeting.

On that same point, Ms. Parrish?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I'm also going to be polite, but I'm going to support Mr. Guimond. I hope this doesn't set a precedent. I have no objection to this document's being translated, but I have visions down the line of thousands of pages. Often when people want something translated, they should take the trouble to translate it themselves. Otherwise we're going to turn the translation department into a huge machine for everybody who comes to see us. In this case I agree, but I don't want to set a precedent—I agree with Mr. Guimond.

The Chair: Thank you.

On this same point of order, Mr. Figueroa. It will make you an ex-officio member.

Mr. Miguel Figueroa: We received the invitation to appear before this committee, as was already pointed out at the outset, very late in the going. So we apologize for not having the text fully translated. But our party is quite prepared to provide the committee with a full translation.

The Chair: Our witnesses should be aware that all of your verbal submissions—your presentations today—will be fully translated and in the box, as they say. So if there's something beyond what you presented to us today, our colleague Mr. Reid has suggested you may wish to have it put forward and translated. As a one-off accommodation, not to set a precedent, the chair's not unhappy with that suggestion.

Let us go on, then, to Mr. Reid.

Mr. Scott Reid: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One of the comments made by Mr. Gray in his commentary was that the parties in the House seem to be trying to pull up the drawbridge behind them. I want to offer all of our witnesses today the assurance that certainly the Canadian Alliance is not trying to do that, and I am not trying to do that—quite the opposite. I would like to see the drawbridge stay down and a fair field of electoral battle be available to all.

I can say that in my own riding in the last election, where there were eight candidates, including an independent, I found the presence of the small party candidates to be salutary. I thought they stimulated the debates at all-candidate debates greatly, where they were presented on an equal ground. I think that should be reflected in other aspects of our electoral process, the formal ones as well as the informal ones.

I want, if I can, to give one example. Seeing that Mr. Bradshaw raised the point of Joe Jordan's sponsoring of the legislation regarding alternative measures of well-being, I would point out that this legislation came about as the result of a debate between Mr. Jordan and the Green Party candidate in his own riding during, I believe, in the 1997 election. So that's an indication of how it's profitable to have small parties operating on an equal playing field, with equal access to the attention of the public.

• 1150

I would add as well that I seconded that bill when it was reintroduced in Parliament, so it has taken on a life of its own. It has gotten increasing support from all sides of the House, as a result of the fact that the Green Party was able to participate.

That being said, I'd like to pose a question to Mr. Figueroa, and then one to all of the candidates, if I could. I'll start with my question to Mr. Figueroa.

In looking at the legislative history since 1993, my impression has been that the government is giving as little as possible, as slowly and as grudgingly as possible, on the area of allowing for free and fair participation. For example, this bill was produced on the very last or second-last day of a six-month window of opportunity provided by the Ontario Court of Appeal on the question of party identifiers. As well, it addressed only one of the areas that had been dealt with by the court despite the fact that, clearly, there was the potential for a successful Supreme Court challenge on this issue.

It seems to me that incumbency protection is in fact the goal of this legislation, similar to the sort of thing we see in the United States, where a 98% election rate has been assured through all sorts of extraordinary measures that make it impossible for third-party candidates to contest on a level playing field. I wonder if that is your impression as well.

For all the candidates, turning to the question of the unaddressed fifty-candidate rule.... I say unaddressed because it was not dealt with in this bill at all; in fact, it was reinforced through some corrective measures to Bill C-2 that are put into this bill. Would you accept the twelve-candidate rule being used for such issues as the issuance of tax receipts, the remission of unspent funds to the parties, and access to the final voters lists; or indeed—let me go one step further—would you accept it as being reasonable that individual, independent candidates for Parliament, running in one riding alone, should at least have access to the final voters lists so as to be able to compete on a level playing field?

I'm thinking here of the way in which this legislation would have permitted John Nunziata, as an independent, to have access to the final voters list in the last election. Now that his seat is occupied by a Liberal, should he attempt to contest it again, he would find himself not being able to avail himself of that final voters list. I'm wondering if you would think there should be no party restriction whatsoever on access to that list.

A voice: Good questions.

The Chair: Is that to Mr. Figueroa?

Mr. Scott Reid: No, that second question was to everybody. The first question to Mr. Figueroa was on the general direction in which the government has gone.

Mr. Miguel Figueroa: As we indicated, both today and in our earlier submission to this committee, the reason we undertook our legal action to begin with stemmed from the fact that with the changes made to the act in 1993, the overall impact was to continue to narrow the political field and to put up such obstacles as to make it virtually impossible for newer parties, smaller parties, and especially those parties that don't have great resources and aren't corporate-funded and so on, to participate on a so-called level playing field.

I think everybody on this committee is fully aware of the fact that even the rather modest proposals that have been advanced by smaller parties would not really create a level playing field. The parliamentary parties, by dint of their very presence in Parliament and all of the free exposure, credibility, and legitimacy attached to that, have clearly a dominant position that makes it very difficult for other parties to break through.

Having said that, it would at least address and redress some of these obstacles. We raised these in 1993. In fact, our party and other parties have campaigned for many years on the question of proportional representation, the question of the right of recall, and the question of a whole number of what we consider to be other democratic reforms to the electoral process that should be considered.

• 1155

Certainly after 1993 we raised these questions, but no changes were made. We were quite disappointed, in fact, that the government of the day was dragging its heels with respect to bringing about even these modest changes and was to a great extent forced to do it on the basis of the rulings that were issued by the court.

Now, only one aspect of the Malloy decision was appealed. Having said that, even with respect to the seizure of assets, which, if you'll recall, was the big issue back in 1993.... The government was coming in and was seizing the assets of de-registered parties, basically putting them out of business. It wasn't officially banning parties, but for all intents and purposes, we had to sell our phones, our fax machines, our photocopiers. We had to liquidate all of our assets and start from ground zero. It was essentially, in real terms, banning political parties for no other reason than the fact that they failed to meet the fifty-candidate threshold. It was draconian, and it was widely recognized as being draconian, yet the government didn't move quickly to change it.

It was only after the Malloy decision that the government acted at all, and in Bill C-2, as we pointed out previously, it doesn't really change it that much. It provides for a stay of execution, so that a party that fails to run fifty candidates, such as the Christian Heritage Party in this last election, will now not, as a result of Bill C-2, have its assets seized, but will have them seized if they fail to run fifty candidates in the next election. So the question of seizure is still there, except you have a certain delay before you go to the gallows.

Certainly with respect to the question of the threshold, it is only under direction from the appeal court ruling that this legislation is being introduced at all and at the last minute. This is, of course, profoundly disappointing, and it points to what we consider less than good faith in terms of the ruling party, and Parliament as a whole, showing leadership to ensure a more inclusive and more democratic and participatory basis for the electoral process.

The Chair: Mr. Gray.

Mr. Ron Gray: To speak first to the issue of a threshold for granting tax receipts, as I've said, the threshold of twelve is acceptable to us, and I think it's defensible because it reflects the standard that is used in the House.

As to the question of the government's seizure of assets of a political party, I don't think it's defensible at any level, for any reason, at any time. Those are resources and moneys that were given by taxpayers to a group of people who represent a point of view they would like to see furthered. As long as the party remains a legal entity—that is, it has a board of directors and holds meetings to decide how to apply those resources—those resources ought to be applied for the purposes for which they were given. There's no reason for the government to seize them.

Similarly, there is no basis whatever for the government to restrict the access of candidates to voters lists.

Members have said it is an asset to the political process to have these other voices raising other questions. There is a distinct difference between our political system and that to the south of us. We are not a two-party system. We are a multi-party system that allows more voices to contend. Well, allowing them to contend means allowing them to have access to the information they need to get in touch with the voters.

So I would say yes to the twelve for tax credit purposes, but for the question of seizure and voters lists, there's no basis for a limitation there at all.

The Chair: Mr. Bradshaw.

Mr. Chris Bradshaw: I think I've already stated the position on the voters list. I think the suggestion by a member that it be no threshold at all, that even independents have it, strikes me personally—and I haven't consulted the party widely on this—to be a fairly reasonable thing. I think it fits in with the comments I made earlier in terms of the technology of access to these things.

I don't know that there's a privacy issue. I think it should be public information. When I received the initial list, I don't believe I was under any particular restriction as to the way it was in fact used. We had no intention of using it other than to reach people and to know where people lived.

• 1200

As for the matter of seizure of the assets of the party, it is true that much of the money raised is more than matched by the Canadian taxpayer. It is meant to be for electoral purposes. It seems to me to be sufficient that the act, in its other provisions, provides that it is in fact used in that particular way. There is not a need for an additional penalty.

There are ebbs and flows in political life, and I think we've seen them dramatically within the parties represented in this House actively. Although it did not drop them below the threshold we're talking about today, it is very meaningful for other parties that it is that way. I think the effect of this would be that parties would tend to spend their money very quickly and not have it around on an ongoing base. I think the act does allow for parties to set money aside for the future, and it seems to me that the effect of this act would be to deny the smaller parties that particular feature that is available otherwise.

So that would be my reaction to that. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reid.

Mr. Miguel Figueroa: Mr. Chair, I was answering the first part, but I just want to make a very brief point with respect to the second question dealing with the question of financial contributions and the issuing of tax receipts. Of course this is the big point. The other questions are important, too—for instance, the ability of individual candidates to transfer moneys to their parties and so on if they have a surplus after an election—but the main question here, and this was the argument even in the appeal court's ruling, is what a different threshold has to do with the question of issuing tax receipts.

I just want to share with the committee what Justice Malloy had to say about it. We think this is sound, and we think it will be upheld by the Supreme Court, by the way.

The Chair: May I just intervene?

Mr. Miguel Figueroa: Yes.

The Chair: Judge Malloy's decision is public record. If I'm not mistaken, that particular issue is still an issue under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. I know the issue has been broached here, but I don't see the need to read the decision of the court of initial instance. It has been appealed once, and it's being appealed on a second ruling.

Mr. Miguel Figueroa: Well, it was my way of responding to the question. We have already made the point that we think the threshold should also be lowered for that as well, and it should be on the basis of a lower threshold.

The whole concept of the tax receipt was a process that was introduced in 1973, I think, under the initial act. The basic argument here is that for Canadians, this was not done to have them directly assist political parties—although certainly that was an important aspect of it—but to encourage Canadians to become more involved in the political process as a whole. That was the basis upon which it was introduced. Yet we have a circumstance today in which many Canadians who want to support the political process and their chosen political party are penalized if that party doesn't meet the fifty-candidate threshold in a given election. They have to give twice as much in terms of real dollars to support that party as opposed to a registered political party. On that point, we think it's discriminatory, and that threshold should be lowered.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you.

First of all, I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming today, because I think it's really important that we hear the perspective of smaller parties.

Just to begin with the issue of the court challenge, Mr. Figueroa, you talked about seven years of court process to get to the point we're at today. I would certainly concur with your comments that the changes that were made in 1993 in a rush at the end of that Parliament were a huge mistake.

I guess what I'm now concerned about—and I think our party is too—is that even in the last election, you saw this growing trend by the major parties to dominate the debate in a way that is sending a message to Canadians that somehow there's just choice between A or B, Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and that's all there is. I think there's a huge amount of concern about whether or not we are moving to a political environment and culture similar to what they have in the United States, where people basically don't have choice. I think it goes back to that issue in 1993, and the changes that were made then.

• 1205

It's very interesting that even in our local campaign, the rules that get set by Parliament begin to play out at the community level. I know all kinds of community groups that had a terrible time deciding how to set up a meeting and whether or not smaller parties should be involved in the debate, whether it was the Green Party, or the Marijuana Party, or the Communist Party, whatever. They could make reference to Parliament and say, well, the government has decided it's the major parties that are the identifiers. So it all begins to play out in terms of the electoral process itself.

I think the issue you raise, Mr. Figueroa, is probably the most important question: who gets to set the rules? We have a situation where the government, I believe, has taken the least action it thinks it can get away with as a result of the court challenge. They basically picked up one change and left everything else. It becomes a matter of self-interest.

So from that point of view, in terms of living in a pluralistic society, offering democratic choice to people, what kind of response do you have? You've listed some other changes, but as to the basic question of who should set those rules, if it's not Parliament, is there some other body? You had to go to court to get this addressed. Is there some other body that should be addressing this, to ensure there is a level playing field and there is democracy alive and well in this country? Because it seems to me we don't have that right now.

Maybe the three of you would like to address that.

Mr Ron Gray: The Chief Electoral Officer has told those of us who sit on his advisory committee that he does not want to write legislation, and I have differed with him on that. What I've suggested is that as long as it's finally submitted to Parliament for the representatives of the people to vote upon, it's probably a good idea for the electoral legislation to be drafted outside the arena in which it is so perfectly natural for party interests to contend. It's a part of what simply goes on day by day in the House. It's almost impossible to avoid.

I think it's a good idea to have an independent body like Elections Canada submit suggestions for legislation, rather than having it come through the very people whose interests are being represented. I think it would be a good idea to turn it over to Elections Canada to draft it, but still always have it come back to the House for ratification.

I think what happens here, this focus on party interests, rather than the electors' interests, that I spoke of, is something that tends to overwhelm sitting members just by virtue of their daily work. It would be good to relieve them of that responsibility with regard to electoral legislation drafting.

Mr. Chris Bradshaw: Having just been a fairly active participant in the municipal amalgamation that occurred in this community, I think of the fact that there was no effort by any of the 12 municipalities to initiate a true citizen process. They had their own oxen they were trying to protect from being gored. Because the constitution places Parliament as supreme, master of the rules of the game, there isn't, as is the case in municipalities, a higher body that can simply step in, as the Province did—and it was better received, as you know, in Ottawa than it was in Toronto, with their measure to create a single municipality.

I would say all liberal democracies know there are certain rules that should not be set according to the simple majority. We protect the poor, we protect minorities, we protect the disabled through special rules. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was obviously very useful in this particular appeal, is very applicable to the matter, when the interests of those in power might cloud their ability to look at the broader political ecology of the country. There is a need for us as a nation to understand the value of new political ideas filtering in and up through the system, as witness our measure—one that is not all that common—to have members of the ruling party take it as a personal matter to act on a particular measure that was brought in.

• 1210

We have no problem, by the way, with having our ideas “stolen”. That is the ultimate compliment, to be copied.

But I think it's important, for the sake of the country, to make that distinction between what is in the interest of the country's political culture and what is in the interest of the people who have been elected to protect the interests of their particular parties.

So I would tend to agree, initially, with the idea that there needs to be some additional input at a forum representing broader interests, with perhaps former parliamentarians, some jurists, and ourselves, not as members, but as having the ability to participate, being part of the process to review this. I suggested in my first remarks that there are seeds of some additional reforms that are necessary in order to have the right balance, without necessarily opening the door to every person becoming their own party. I don't think we want that extreme either.

The Chair: I want to point out for reference—and I know colleagues are all aware of this, as are the witnesses—that much of what came forward as “reform” in the electoral system, change in it, came out of the royal commission on Canada's elections. And that type of process is certainly available in the future. Canada's chief electoral officer will be making another report later this spring on issues arising out of the Canada Elections Act. That report will be given to Parliament, and it will, I am assuming, be referred to this committee. So there are other processes feeding into Parliament's constitutional obligation to pass legislation, which is, of course, not what the courts do. Courts resolve conflicts and give advice.

We move to further questioning. Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I too want to thank the witnesses for being here.

I think part of the problem we face is that things are so interconnected. I am a strong supporter of proportional representation. I think if we could get some movement on that, some of these other problems would go away. And the types of decisions we might be making would need to be made in a proper context. So I guess it depends on what battle you're fighting at that particular point in time.

I do want to address the notion of existing parties raising the drawbridge. I think we need to keep a little bit of perspective, because we've got two parties, the Bloc and the Alliance, earlier Reform, that in 10 years became official opposition. So there is an opportunity for new parties to be successful under the existing rules. But I do think there are some changes that would benefit us all.

I want to talk specifically about access to the voter's list. Right now, all candidates get it post-writ. So what you're referring to is access to it through the year. I don't think C-9 provides us with any opportunity to change that, although I think it's a very important issue that we need to keep in mind for future phases, or whatever we call it, of reform.

I think it would be subject to the same privacy issues as, perhaps, the phone book. But if the voter's list were on the Internet, by riding, I think a lot of the problems we have with people finding out they're not on it two weeks into an election could be solved. It may be more of an ongoing evolution that we can keep the thing up to date. As you say, technology brings the cost down, and I don't see any obstruction other than cost to issuing this information through the year. I don't think that's something we can address in Bill C-9, but I think it's something we should keep in mind.

I guess that's more a comment than a question, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I'll recognize you in just a moment, Mr. Regan. Mr. Gray had a response to Mr. Jordan's.

Mr. Ron Gray: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Jordan has raised the question, for example, of proportional representation, and indeed what Bill C-9 might be able to address.

Mr. Chairman, you and the members of the committee will know better than I exactly how much latitude you have in this. But it seems to me that the House has referred this bill to you for your work in correcting its deficiencies. And if those deficiencies include its failure to address questions like access to voters lists, or indeed initiating something toward a review, an examination of the question of proportional representation, I think that's exactly what the committee is here to do.

The time is running by, and if something is not initiated in what you refer back to the chamber, I think we will lose a lot of valuable time in correcting a deficient trend. There is concern, real alarm, at the degree of voter apathy, and I think part of that arises from the fact that these questions, especially the question of proportional representation, are nowhere being addressed right now.

• 1215

The Chair: Okay. Very quickly, Mr. Bradshaw. I want to get to Mr. Regan.

Mr. Chris Bradshaw: On the example given by Mr. Jordan about the fact that two new parties have in fact emerged in Canada, I think it's fully recognized by us. Of course, just as there are different types of plants that have different roles in the succession in the natural environment, there are different types of parties. I think the two parties you've listed, and it may be inappropriate of me to totally characterize it this way, are more regional parties geographically. The present rules tend to favour that type of new party over a party that has a broad natural appeal and wants to perhaps start at the lower ranks in terms of reassessing the nature of a political party and its relationship to voters and so forth. I just wanted quickly to make that distinction.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to comment on the idea of the voters list being on the Internet and suggest to you that privacy is in fact an issue with regard to the voters list. There are certainly people, it seems to me, who might wish to have unlisted phone numbers and not appear in the phone book, and yet would prefer to have the right to vote. So I think we do have to be mindful that people are concerned about privacy and may not want their information shared, or may want it shared as narrowly as possible, while preserving the right to vote and the right to free and fair elections. We have to keep in mind that context in our discussions. That's what I would suggest.

The Chair: Thank you.

Any further discussion? Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: I'd like to come back to the question of where these decisions are made. I agree with Mr. Jordan that if we had some form of proportional representation, many of these issues would be dealt with in some way. It would be a system that reflected the way people are actually voting, rather than the first past the post. The awful contradiction is that in order to get that we have to come back to the place that began or created these changes in the first place, changes that really narrowed the definition and the choices of what people have.

In terms of those very specific questions that you raised, Mr. Figueroa—the party affiliation, the tax receipts, the transfer of unspent funds, receiving the voters list—I don't know whether they're things that can be directly taken up under this particular legislation, but it seems to me that the need to have some sort of independent body beyond the Chief Electoral Officer to address the issues of fundamental democracy is really important. Otherwise, we're just continuing in this cycle of basically the government being forced through court decisions to take some very limited measures. We're not even getting to the substantive issues that you're raising here today. We're dealing with one very narrow component of a whole menu of things that have to do with fundamental democracy.

I'm interested in your comments, Mr. Figueroa, on some other independent body that would be able to address this.

Mr. Miguel Figueroa: Well, that is in fact the conundrum. Obviously the courts have a role to play to uphold and interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to test the constitutionality of any legislation. That's one side of it.

Obviously Parliament, particularly the elected body of Parliament, has a responsibility to initiate and approve legislation, and also within the context of electoral legislation. But that is not enough. Nor is it enough simply to turn to anyone—even someone as capable or brilliant as the Chief Electoral Officer may or may not be at any given time—to grant that kind authority to any individual or independent body.

The most important independent body is the Canadian people as a whole. I think that even the Lortie commission, which was perhaps the most extensive attempt to go out to the Canadian people, to involve them in consultations and so on, was limited, in the first place, because of the composition of the commission, which was made up of the elected parties in Parliament at the time.

• 1220

And secondly, many of the recommendations of the Lortie commission were in fact incorporated in legislation in 1993, but in a very selective fashion. That was precisely the point. The outgoing government, the Mulroney government, picked and chose those aspects of the Lortie they agreed with, and then rejected the others.

So even royal commissions are limited. I think what is needed is a very broad democratic process on a regular basis, not every year or every five years, but perhaps every decade where the Canadian people, as a whole, are engaged in reviewing, in a very in-depth way, the whole electoral process and in expressing their concerns. That would create the moral and political pressure on whoever is in Parliament at any given time to respond.

If we went out to the Canadian people today, for instance, and had a really genuine, open discussion, examination, and debate around the question of proportional representation, I think this House and this Parliament would be under tremendous moral pressure and suasion to address it. Maybe that's the reason why there isn't such an open process. Again we get into the chicken and the egg situation.

The Chair: Ms. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'm very concerned about voter decline, which we've talked about, declining participation, so I agree with Mr. Regan. If the voters list was on the Internet.... A third of my riding has unlisted phone numbers. If you said to them, you're going to be on the Internet as a voter with your address, sex, age, the whole bit, I think you'd find a lot of people saying forget it, I don't want to vote. I don't really need a comment on that.

Under proportional representation, just for the record, I'd like to point out to everybody that in this last election the Liberals came in first or second in 277 out of 301 ridings. So let's not gnash our teeth and cling to our throats and say the Liberals stole the election. In fact, if everybody had a first and second choice across the country, we would have 277 seats in this House right now. I think we've pretty well represented the wishes of the people in this last election.

But I am very concerned, as is Mr. Regan, about privacy on the electoral list. I know that if Mr. Nunziata wants to run again, as soon as he files his papers as a candidate he will have access to the electoral list. I know when we have them updated once a year, we're under very strict regulations as to what we can do with them. They're for our own use only.

I don't even agree that we should have them, by the way. I really believe in privacy and that we have to encourage people to want to vote by not putting up any blocks in their way, like having them concerned about access to that list.

The Chair: Okay. I just want to point out that we're down to just two or three minutes, based on our need to give up the room here shortly.

Mr. Reid has indicated a desire to make a comment or ask a question. I'll let you do that, Mr. Reid, now, and then the witnesses may want to respond to you and Ms. Parrish.

Mr. Scott Reid: This will be a very brief question.

In his comments to us last week, the Chief Electoral Officer indicated that it is certainly feasible to register parties by means of a simple petition with no geographical restrictions, whereas in fact when you present 50 candidates, you are effectively getting a 5,000-vote petition in which 100 votes each have to come from 50 different ridings.

In Manitoba, 5,000 votes on a petition, regardless of geographic origin of those votes, gets you party status. In Ontario, 10,000 signatures on a petition gets you onto the registered party rolls. I wondered if you think that at the federal level this might be perhaps a valid alternative for party registration to the method we currently have.

The Chair: Any of the witnesses? Mr. Bradshaw.

Mr. Chris Bradshaw: I haven't been aware that there was this distinction between the rules at the federal level, which I'm here to speak to, where it's based solely on the criteria of the number of candidates, as opposed to what you have just mentioned at the provincial level. I think that would in fact.... Since I have spoken in favour of the smaller parties that have a more dissipated membership or appeal, my initial reaction would be that this might perhaps be an interesting alternative process to be considered at the federal level, yes.

The Chair: Mr. Gray.

• 1225

Mr. Ron Gray: I think that's possibly a valid approach, although I'm more inclined toward Mr. Figueroa's point of view that anyone who can put up a slate virtually becomes a party. That's actually the Malloy point of view. But to me a limitation of 12 ridings seems not unreasonable.

I think the privacy issue comes to bear on this. I would think that much more valid than a level of participation by ridings or by petition would be in fact if you're going to release the voters list to people, they should be required to make an undertaking to respect and guard the privacy of the people on that list. The failure to do that would be a much more valid reason for losing registration than any of the other standards that have been proposed. Simply say that if you're going to get the voters list you must deal with it in this way, and if you get caught dealing with it in any other way, then you lose your registration. That makes sense to me.

The Chair: Thank you. At this point we'll conclude on that issue. I thank the witnesses.

From an administrative perspective here, I would alert colleagues that we'll be back here on Thursday again on Bill C-9. I understand Mr. Boudria will appear again. If there are amendments to this bill, I suggest members address that now. We may be moving into clause-by-clause consideration on Thursday after Mr. Boudria's appearance.

Mr. Scott Reid: Do you mean address that right now?

The Chair: No. If members have any amendments, they should get them to the clerk, etc.

Mr. Scott Reid: Mr. Chairman, may I ask something else? When is the intention to have this go back to the House?

The Chair: As soon as we're finished.

Mr. Scott Reid: What does that mean—Thursday afternoon, Friday?

The Chair: Oh, no. If we did clause-by-clause consideration on Thursday, it would get back to the House on Friday or Monday and be taken up in the House, depending on how the government selects legislation. But I couldn't see this getting on the House agenda until Tuesday or Wednesday or even later. That's a government decision.

Mr. Scott Reid: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): With respect to this, Mr. Chairman, I have one question for you.

Based on our discussions of Tuesday of last week, I had understood that you hoped, maybe, as of last Thursday, after hearing from the minister and the Chief Electoral Officer, to begin the clause-by-clause study. This morning I had the pleasant surprise of noting that we had a few witnesses. I know that there has not been any meeting of the steering committee, in the meantime, on the committee's future business. So I only learned today that witnesses would be appearing this morning. Incidentally, I thank them for their presence and their testimony.

My question, to all intents and purposes, Mr. Chairman, is the following. Given that there has been no meeting of the steering committee, what is the chair's perspective, because it seems that be the chair's perspective alone matters, with respect to the future work of this committee?

Have there been other witnesses, other than the witnesses that we heard this morning, who were invited to appear before the committee by the chair? If so, who are they? Have there been any regrets sent by witnesses who were invited to testify? Can we expect the opportunity to invite other witnesses in the framework of our considerations of this bill?

The chair might have called on—because after all we are a part of this committee—members of the committee in order to obtain suggestions as to possible witnesses who could testify before the committee in order to clarify our thinking on this bill, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: You've asked a lot of questions, Mr. Bergeron. I think the best response is to say that we are perhaps a little overdue for a meeting of the steering committee.

• 1230

I had discussed this with at least one member just prior to the meeting, and there's a suggestion for next Monday in the same meeting slot that was used by the subcommittee on calendar. In any event, in the usual fashion we will look for a window for the steering committee, and in terms of the bill, as I indicated earlier, we're looking for Mr. Boudria and likely clause-by-clause on Thursday.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: However, if we have others—

[English]

The Chair: So we could continue this discussion after we adjourn.

All right. We'll adjourn to Thursday morning at eleven o'clock.