HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 27, 2003

Á

1110

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.))

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.)

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.)

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk)

Á

1125

The Chair

Ms. Susan Baldwin

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Á

1130

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Á

1140

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

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

Á

1145

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Á

1150

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Á

1155

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Â

1200

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Â

1205

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Â

1210

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Â

1215

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Â

1220

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Geoff Regan

Â

1230

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret (Senior Privy Council Officer/Counsel, Legislation and House Planning/Counsel, Privy Council Office)

Mr. Jacques Saada

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Â

1235

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 044

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 27, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): I think we'll begin.

    The order of the day is Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing), consideration clause by clause.

    Before we begin, John Bryden is here. This has to do with the clause-by-clause, even though it's not our first item of business. If very succinctly, John, you could say why you're here, I'd be grateful.

    Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I have one amendment I want to move, but there are a number of consequential amendments. I have two choices in the way I would like to proceed. There are two groups of amendments that I'd like to submit. So I would ask the committee if I could distribute a memo with the amendments so grouped.

    The Chair: This is material in both official languages?

    Mr. John Bryden: Yes, it is.

    The Chair: I'd be grateful if you would give that to the clerk, and we will circulate it. Thank you very much.

    Colleagues, as you know, there was a referral on the question of privilege from the House of Commons yesterday, concerning courts being able to call members of Parliament. It's a very serious matter. I received a letter very soon after the Speaker made his decision from Dale Johnston, who is here, suggesting essentially that we postpone this meeting and call a steering committee meeting to decide how we deal with this question of privilege as quickly as possible. It is a fact, as you all know, that questions of privilege like this take precedence over legislation. I sent a reply, which was copied to all the whips, in which I suggested that we have a steering committee, but do not postpone this meeting. I went on to suggest, although it doesn't matter if we call a steering committee, that one possible way to consider the question of privilege was through a subcommittee.

    Dale, as you're here now, I'd be grateful if you would speak to this matter.

    Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I don't like the idea of its being dealt with by a subcommittee. I do think privilege is something that is important enough that it should be dealt with by the committee in its entirety. I wouldn't have a problem with a steering committee later on today to determine the agenda. I've changed my position a little bit from yesterday, in that I don't think it's necessary to suspend the meeting now to deal with this. I do think we could set up, perhaps later on today, a steering committee meeting to deal with it. That would suit me fine.

    The Chair: The subcommittee was just a suggestion of mine, because a subcommittee does have to report to the full committee. I do recognize, though, that we have to deal with this somehow now. I am very comfortable with the idea that there be a steering committee meeting. I would like to suggest this afternoon at 4:30.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I know our whip, Rick Borotsik, will have a hard job at 4:30, because there's the electoral boundaries subcommittee.

    The Chair: It is a conflict for some others. One of the problems we have on this committee is, of course, that the whips are on it, and so are a number of other party officers, so it's not easy for us to do. It might well be a short meeting.

    Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Well, I don't know. Godin is in the same position as Borotsik. I won't be available.

    The Chair: The reason the Alliance contacted me is that a referral of privilege like this does take priority. What I'm trying to do is accommodate that, to try to deal with it as effectively as we can.

    What about 5:30 in this room? The notice will go out during this meeting. We'll have a steering committee at 5:30, if that's okay. That is an appropriate way to deal with it. I do understand this question of priority, but that's a reasonable way to do it.

    I would like to proceed now with the clause-by-clause.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: May I make one more comment?

    The Chair: By all means.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: There's some discussion about witnesses being called. If the steering committee is meeting, would they also be able to discuss witnesses? You have a priority, which is the question of privilege, but could there also be the matter of witnesses?

    The Chair: Yes, I see no objection to that.

    Joe Jordan, on this point.

    Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Well, I think it is.

    Mr. Chair, I'm just doing the math. It's no secret that this bill is under a certain amount of time pressure, and this question of privilege may affect that further. We've got six hours scheduled for clause-by-clause. This is a 100-page bill with 75 clauses, which is certainly doable, but I understand we've got around 180 amendments that have come in from various members and the government. I think the six hours isn't going to be enough, and we need to admit that right up front, rather than trying to go down this and have the time pressures increase. I absolutely support this legislation. My amendments show I think we should move it in a stronger direction. I think we also need to make sure we get it right, so we don't repeat the Americans' problem.

    As to additional witnesses, I know the Tories have been very vocal about their people appearing, and I must say, in a non-partisan way, their witnesses at the round table were probably the best in providing good information. I don't know whether we need to hear from Stephen LeDrew or not. I certainly would like to question him about why he thinks this is as dumb as a bag of hammers. I don't.

    The other thing that worries me is that when we did hear from the parties, there was this notion that they can talk in general terms, but they can't talk specifically, because they don't want to give out any financial information. If they don't want to give out any financial information, there's no point in having them here, because that's what we really need from them, specifics.

    Mr. Chair, I understand Elections Canada does have an algorithm to cost out these sorts of things. Maybe they could be helpful. I also understand, from talking to some of the media, there are some credible constitutional lawyers who are very concerned about potential barriers to entry into the electoral process of new parties based on what we're setting up here.

    Where I'm going with all this is that the timeline's off the rails anyway. I think Minister Boudria made an excellent suggestion when he was here before the committee, and it never occurred to me. What's driving this whole thing is the desire to get this in on January 1, 2004. So you have to go back six months from that, the way the bill's currently written. If he says we can change the six months, maybe we're looking at the opportunity to take some more time to work our way through this and get it right.

Á  (1115)  

    The Chair: The steering committee is going to consider this matter. Gerald, as you know, we've circulated the letter of request from your party, all members I believe received it last evening. We'll consider that at the steering committee, if that's okay.

    On the matter of the timing for this, we designed this thing before we knew how many amendments there were going to be. It was not my intention that we stick to the program we've got, which at the moment is three meetings this week. In fact, I was going to suggest, depending on how this thing goes this morning, that tomorrow's meeting start at 3:30 instead of 5:30 and we continue from there. So I hear what you're saying. Perhaps the steering committee should this evening consider what Joe has said. The question is, have we taken enough time to deal with this? I think the question of more witnesses speaks to that as well. And I heard the point about Elections Canada software.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: As my final point, maybe for people who are going to be at the steering committee meeting, when I look at what we're trying to do with this bill, I think the 180 amendments are a symptom of the fact that there's some concern about this. Whether that's caused by or related to the speed with which we're working on this I don't know, but I've been in office seven years, and I don't remember making any decision that was worth anyone bribing me over. There are a number of parties in the machinery of government that make decisions. If the lobbying effort that's out there and isn't going to go away shifts from elected officials to political staff, bureaucrats, or consultants, what safeguards have we put in place to handle that shift? I think we also need to look at somebody who'll talk to us about those sorts of things.

    The Chair: I do hear you. Colleagues, I hope you all do, and particularly members of the steering committee.

    Jacques Saada, to this point, but very briefly. The point at the moment has to do with how much time we spend on this and what the steering committee will be considering.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I would just like to say to the steering committee scheduled to meet this afternoon that the position outlined by Joe is not something carved in stone, but something that we are all contemplating. If it proved necessary to extend our sittings and to work longer hours to meet the deadline, that wouldn't be a problem for me.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Marlene Catterall.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I don't like dealing with legislation in little chunks, and I hope we can agree to set one longer meeting where we could really get into the flow and not have to restart the debate for a two-hour session. I was wondering, Mr. Chair, if we might, for instance, start at 3:30 tomorrow afternoon. I know the whip has a meeting scheduled, but that could be rearranged for Thursday. Or we could start Thursday at 9 and go through till question period, something like that. I find that's a much more productive way to deal with legislation.

Á  (1120)  

    The Chair: I already mentioned a longer meeting tomorrow. I'm aware that it's not easy for this committee to schedule extra hours, so I've been trying to be as reasonable as I can. I do agree that we may well need longer meetings for this.

    Colleagues, perhaps we can proceed then to the clause-by-clause we're here for. I should introduce the legislative clerk, Susan Baldwin.

    (On clause 1)

    The Chair: Dick Proctor, on NDP-1.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: The very first one is that we amend clause 1 by replacing lines four and five on page 1 dealing with contributions. We're recommending that any reference to contributions, monetary or non-monetary, be deleted when it involves corporations or trade unions. The argument is very straightforward. The position we've taken throughout is that we don't believe corporations and trade unions should be eligible to donate to the political process. This bill has largely done it, but has left some instances where you can donate to individuals, candidates for nomination and the like. We take the view that if you're not potentially eligible to vote, you shouldn't be in this bill in any way. That's the essence of the argument to delete the reference to corporations and trade unions donating.

    The Chair: Geoff Regan.

    Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    We've had a bit of discussion on the role of corporations. We've heard from people from the business sector who have argued that it would be an infringement on their association if they were unable to give any contributions and not be involved in the process whatsoever. I think Canadians generally may be concerned if corporations can play an undue role, but I don't think their feelings are that there ought to be no role at all for corporations or unions to play in the political process. I think people generally are anxious that there be reasonable limits on their involvement in the political process, but I think this amendment goes too far.

    The Chair: Ted White.

    Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I just needed clarification of where we are. The amendment says it's on page 1, lines four and five, and that doesn't correspond with my copy of the bill. So I'm wondering if I have the wrong information in front of me or what.

    The Chair: That's a good point.

    Geoff Regan.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Can I also point out that I'm advised by the officials from the Privy Council Office that the effect of this amendment would in fact be to make contributions from unions and corporations unlimited.

    The Chair: Okay, but let's clarify this point for Ted. I'm now looking at four and five, and they don't look like the right lines to me. Will someone explain it?

    Ms. Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk): What Mr. Proctor's amendment does is add the whole--

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: No, the question is, where is it?

    Ms. Susan Baldwin: It's on lines four and five, the first two lines immediately after “Canada Elections Act”. It looks as though it doesn't fit there because he's adding a subsection (1).

    The Chair: Is there further discussion?

    (Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: There's a possibility, unless you discuss it now, that we may not get a chance to discuss PC-1. Normally, I'm going to go through the book, but we're going to jump now to PC-1, if that's okay.

    Gerald Keddy.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The reason for this amendment is to deal again with the term “contribution”, as was the NDP's amendment. It says, “'contribution' means a monetary or a non-monetary contribution, but does not include the following: admission fees and expenses of political events of up to $200 per day; paid leave of absences for a person to run as a candidate; voluntary services of a person as an auditor, financial agent, official agent, etc.”--everyone here has run campaigns, so you're all familiar with them; “party membership fees of $50 or less per annum; radio or television air time...”.

    You replace lines four and five on page one with this definition of contribution and you list (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). Those items are ordinarily left out of the terms of the contribution now, and they should continue to be left out.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Geoff Regan.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: I'll raise one concern, Mr. Chairman. When we talk about paid weeks of leave of absence for a person who runs as a candidate, conceivably, a company could hire someone immediately before an election and pay them during the election as a way of getting around contribution limits. I had a discussion about this kind of idea previously, and someone suggested that you could conceive of a big national company actually hiring 301 people, all the candidates of a party. How do you avoid that abuse? What provisions would you need to avoid that kind of abuse?

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: You have to understand that Rick has been carrying the ball on this committee, but the point is that we have paid leaves of absence now. If you're working for a company or a government organization or a non-governmental organization, you can take a leave of absence and run as a political candidate. Unless we put that in the legislation, it becomes an election expense that you would have to claim. The argument here is that it shouldn't become an election expense. I take note of Geoff's point. I suppose there's a possibility of abuse in just about everything we do. I don't think it's a legitimate enough point, that you would actually have someone hired and receive that leave of absence. I don't know if we can dot every i and cross every t.

    Admission fees and expenses for political events and meetings, voluntary services of a person as an auditor, financial agent, official agent, all those items are there now. We just want to make sure they continue to be there. We're rewriting this act, as I understand it, we're ploughing new ground here, and we're going to end up with a piece of legislation that will affect every political campaign, for us and for the future. We have to get it right.

    The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you very much. I need to have something clarified. The English version reads as follows:

[English]

“paid leave of absences for a person to run as a candidate”.

[Translation]

    The French version, on the other hand, says: “les congés payés de toute personne qui se présente comme candidat”. There is a difference between vacation pay and paid leave. Is the reference in this case to vacation pay, leave with pay or both. It makes quite a difference.

[English]

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think it's any leave with pay. That would be my understanding.

    The Chair: Geoff Regan.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The other thing relates to the proposed paragraph 1(1)(e) relating to radio and television air time. There's a threshold here that suggests that only where the party received at least 5% of the vote in the last general election would the air time it got be exempt from being considered a contribution. The concern we have is that less popular parties that got fewer votes in an election wouldn't get the benefit of this. I'm not sure why you want to remove that from them, and it may raise constitutional issues if we do that. If it isn't a contribution for major political parties, why should it be a contribution for the less popular political parties?

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Again, it's Rick's amendment, but I would say it's an issue of legitimacy. There has to be a bar at some level. If the whole point is to rewrite the act here, let's decide who is a legitimate contributor, who's not a legitimate contributor, what is a contribution, what's going to be left out of contributions. To me, the 5% maybe could be 10%, maybe it could be 3%, I'm not certain, but I do think there has to be a level somewhere.

    The only other thing I would add, Mr. Chair, is that I did notice a grammatical error there, “does does”, and obviously that would be corrected.

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: We've got that. Thank you for that.

    Geoff Regan.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, we're not talking about public money, we're talking about contributions to political parties from corporations and unions. The bill proposes a limit of $1,000 on those contributions, but that limit applies to any political party. The political party doesn't have to reach a 5% threshold of votes in order to qualify and receive contributions up to that $1,000 level. It applies to all political parties, and I think that's the way it should be. I'm afraid that's a fundamental problem with this amendment.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Dick Proctor.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: On proposed paragraph (b) about paid leaves of absence, during the debate on this bill there was a recognition by all the parties that we need to find ways to have more affirmative action candidates, more women seeking public office. It would seem to me, on the face of it, more likely that a paid leave of absence would help white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males, give them a leg-up, so to speak. For that reason, I have difficulty with the amendment.

    The Chair: Gerald.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think it would be directly the opposite. You can take a paid leave of absence now and run for election, and it's not an election expense. So why should it become one? You guys had better ask yourselves that when you vote on this, because it's going to become one more than likely. That's the same for everyone. That's going to be whether you're male, female, whatever your religious background, your racial background. There are certainly a lot of professionals out there, and they're not all white Anglo-Saxon males. This allows you to take a paid leave of absence and run for a political party. The last point, Mr. Chair, is on the 5%. I'd make a friendly amendment that we simply say “all parties” and take out “represented in the House of Commons”, so you wouldn't have to be an official party with seats in the House of Commons.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Why leave 5% there at all?

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think you must have a bar somewhere. I'm not willing to change Rick's amendment.

    The Chair: I have at least one more speaker on this. We're dealing with PC-1, but with a change.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: We would stop at “where offered to all parties which received at least 5% of the votes in the last general election”.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, earlier my question was answered very quickly. I don't think it was given proper consideration.

    An employee is entitled to vacation pay for work already carried out. Remuneration of this nature cannot be regulated retroactively. Paid leave is one thing, while vacation pay is quite another. There is a marked difference between the two.

    It's all well and good to say that this includes both, but I have a problem with that because I don't see how we can regulate with a bill like this something to which the employee is entitled by virtue of the work performed.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay.

    (Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: We now return to page 2 and G-1. Geoff Regan.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Thank you.

    This is a housekeeping amendment and would provide that when reference to another provision of the act is followed by words in parentheses that aim at describing the subject matter of the other provision, the words between the parenthesis form no part of the provision in which they occur, but are inserted only for convenience of reference. The point is that when you're referring back to another provision of the bill and you're describing that provision, in case it's wrongly described in some way, it doesn't change the nature of the provision you're in at that moment, and that's important. This is in conformity with other bills in general, Mr. Chairman.

Á  (1140)  

    The Chair: I'm glad, Geoff, there's at least one lawyer in the room. I read this very carefully myself, and I'm sure it makes eminent sense.

    Ted White.

    Mr. Ted White: Perhaps we can make some sense of it, Mr. Chairman. Can Mr. Regan point to an example, so that we can find out whether this legalese actually does make sense?

    Mr. Geoff Regan: On page 83 of the bill there's a whole series of them.

    Are you satisfied? You're happy?

    The Chair: Is there discussion?

    (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]).

    The Chair: We now proceed to NDP-2. Dick Proctor.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: This provides that rather than dealing with reporting on an annual basis, we have a more timely quarterly reporting. It came up repeatedly during the hearings from witnesses that in this modern day of election campaigning more and more is being done by computer, so with the press of a button, the information can be made available. So we're just urging that instead of reporting once a year, the parties disclose what has been going on over the previous three months.

    The Chair: Ted White.

    Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    It seems to me that this amendment is in the wrong place. It refers to the filing of paperwork from nomination contests, and that's not done on a quarterly basis, it's done on the basis of when the nomination contest was held, so you wouldn't have quarterly filings to do with a nomination contest. I think maybe this has been misdrafted and should be related to parties, rather than to nominations.

    The Chair: Dick Proctor.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: I think that's a very valid comment, and let's just withdraw it. We do come back to a quarterly one where it does apply to the parties.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. It's withdrawn.

    Shall clause 1 carry as amended?

    (Clause 1 as amended agreed to)

    (On clause 2)

    The Chair: Michel, BQ-1.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I've had an opportunity to put many questions to various witnesses. In particular, I recall the testimony of Mr. Marcel Blanchet, Quebec's Chief Electoral Officer. Under Quebec legislation, returning officers are appointed further to an open, transparent and public competition during which the candidates' skills are evaluated. This is not the case with the partisan appointment process in place at the federal level for decades now. I'm not pointing any fingers at the current Liberal government, but I think we should take advantage of the opportunity afforded us by the review of the bill to amend the Canada Elections Act to rectify the situation. I disagree with Minister Boudria's claim that this amendment was not relevant. Since we are discussing amendments to the Canada Elections Act, this is indeed the appropriate time to discuss this matter.

    Moreover, during numerous appearances before this committee, Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley has indicated that he would welcome another process for appointing returning officers.

    In conclusion, I would just like to note that BQ-2 is consequential to BQ-1.

Á  (1145)  

[English]

    The Chair: Merci, Michel.

    Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, could you confirm something for me? Is this type of amendment in order?

[English]

    The Chair: It would help us if you could explain why you think it might not be.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: The primary focus of the bill is political financing and everything connected with that. This amendment makes no mention of financing, but rather of an electoral structure dependent upon the returning officer.

    I have no wish to call into question the merits of the amendment. I simply would like to know what the justification is for considering the amendment in conjunction with a bill on political financing.

[English]

    The Chair: The suggestion is that it is within the scope of the bill in the general sense. We can debate that now, but that is the professional advice I have received.

    Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I'm having a great deal of difficulty grasping the logic of having this amendment deemed admissible, irrespective of its merits. We're discussing political financing, and the proposed amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with financing and accountability. Instead, it pertains to the internal workings of Elections Canada.

    I have a number of reservations about the argument that is being advanced. I'm quite willing to concede that this kind of amendment would be in order if we were debating changes to the Elections Act, but in this instance, we're discussing political financing and I fail to see the connection. There is no connection.

[English]

    The Chair: Ted White.

    Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Speaker is constantly telling us in the House the committees are masters of themselves, so we could take this opportunity to make improvements to the Elections Act. Just because Don Boudria doesn't want it, it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. I would agree with this amendment very strongly. It's been expressed by many witnesses from Elections Canada in the past that it's very desirable, and it's in existence already in Quebec. This goes back, for me, all the way to 1988, when I had just joined the Reform Party, and that was Reform Party policy. We have pursued it all the way here to the House of Commons. I have introduced a private member's bill on this issue every Parliament, three times now. I have also run my private member's bill by the Chief Electoral Officer, who says it's just the sort of thing he'd like to see passed.

    I do have one question for Mr. Guimond about this particular amendment, because I haven't had the time to study it in detail. Did he or anyone in his party run it by the Chief Electoral Officer or someone in Elections Canada to be sure there wasn't some unanticipated problem in the amendment?

Á  (1150)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: The answer is no. As I mentioned to you earlier, this amendment ties in with the numerous appearances before the committee by Mr. Kingsley, particularly when he reported on the 1997 and 2000 general elections and called for this legislative change. I admit that we did not run this amendment by Mr. Kingsley or by anyone else in his office for that matter.

[English]

    Mr. Ted White: Thank you for that answer.

    My feeling is that I should support this amendment, even though I haven't had the chance to read it fully. I feel the die has already been cast, you can see it happening here already, it's going to fail, which is a shame, because it should be non-partisan, this particular approach. The Chief Electoral Officer, who is non-partisan, told us right in this committee that he at present has 11 returning officers he needs to get rid of and can't, because of the political ramifications. It's just not right, and we should be passing this amendment to make it right.

    The Chair: Geoff Regan.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, first of all, we're dealing with a bill that's entitled “An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing)”. This is political finance bill, the public have heard about it through the media, it isn't the change of the electoral administrative system or the Canada elections office system. I look at the section that was chosen to attach this amendment to, and it doesn't deal with appointment of returning officers, it deals with the fact that returning officers shall not make a contribution to a candidate. Proposed section two is about contributions, like the rest of the bill, not about the appointment of returning officers, so I think this is very clearly outside the scope of this act.

    Further, I find it interesting that my honourable colleague from the Alliance wants to have great confidence in Elections Canada. Based on my experience with the Alliance, they don't seem to have confidence in many of the departments and agencies of government, so it's interesting that they express confidence in their abilities in this regard.

    The Chair: Ted White.

    Mr. Ted White: As a short comment on what Mr. Regan just said, he quoted the title of the bill, and we just finished a government amendment where we were told not to worry about the things in parentheses, because they might not be accurate. Here we have the title of the bill, “An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act”, which is what Mr. Guimond's trying to do, along with the Income Tax Act, and then in parentheses you have “political financing”, which we were told not to worry about in the earlier government amendment. I would say Mr. Regan just defeated his own argument. This is an amendment to the Canada Elections Act, it's the right thing to do, and we should support it.

    The Chair: Michel.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: One need only consider...

[English]

    The Chair: I've ruled on this already, so you're quite welcome to discuss it, and I'm listening very carefully. I understand that it's marginal, but I've ruled that it's in, we're going to vote on it.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: With your customary wisdom, Mr. Chairman, you have made a very sound decision.

    In clause 2 of the bill, subsection 24(6) is replaced with the following:

(6) No returning officer shall, while in office, knowingly engage in political partisan conduct...

    The bill addresses issues other than political financing.

    Mr. Saada argued that the proposed amendment concerned the internal workings of Elections Canada. He is not very clear on where Mr. Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer, draws his authority. Our amendment has no bearing on the internal workings of Elections Canada. We're not saying that there should be three messengers instead of four. That's not the point here. Mr. Kingsley draws his powers from the Canada Elections Act. Therefore, the process whereby returning officers are appointed has nothing to do with Elections Canada's internal workings, despite what Mr. Saada claims. I'm sure he'd like to respond to my comment. I'll have something more to say later.

Á  (1155)  

[English]

    The Chair: Guy St-Julien.

[Translation]

    Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): I listened to what was said. Last week, I looked into Quebec's legislation respecting political financing and noted that it makes no mention whatsoever of returning officers. Quebec has a separate Elections Act. If you maintain that the legislation does contain a reference to returning officers, I would have to disagree with that statement. That shouldn't be the case with the federal legislation.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    (Amendment negatived)

    The Chair: Michel, you mentioned that these two are related, so from your point of view, does that deal with BQ-2?

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: In any event, according to my notes, this amendment is consequential to BQ-1. We have a legislative clerk who can assist us and I will defer to him on this matter.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    (Clause 2 agreed to on division)

    The Chair: I'm calling BQ-3, which is an amendment adding a new clause 2.1.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    For the sake of transparency, we're proposing to include a new clause 2.1 to ensure that that the Chief Electoral Officer publishes in the Canada Gazette in early January of every year the name, address and occupation of the returning officer in each electoral district in Canada.

[English]

    The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: I don't have a problem with publishing the name and occupation, but I do have a bit of a problem with publishing the address. Returning officers generally work from their own homes, unless it's during an election, when an office is provided. I don't know anybody else who occupies the position and must have their home address published. So I would suggest that we delete “address”.

    The Chair: So it would read “a list of the name and occupation of the returning officer”.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I support the sub-amendment moved by my colleague Marlene Catterall.

[English]

    The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment because otherwise, it would be more complicated to apply the proposed subsection 24(6). If returning officers are prohibited from making political contributions and no one knows who these returning officers are, then we have a problem. I think this proposal is totally logical and coherent. Therefore, I'm prepared to throw my support behind it.

[English]

    The Chair: Geoff.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: I'll start out by pointing out that the names of returning officers already come to this committee. Every appointment of a returning officer is referred to this committee. I don't know the details of the information that's received by the clerk of the committee, but my impression is that there'll probably be details of the sort they're looking for in that information provided here. It's public information already, so I'm not sure what this provision would add in that regard.

    The Chair: Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Regan, I agree that this information is available to the clerk, but we're asking that it be published in the Canada Gazette between the 1st and 20th day of January in each year.

[English]

    The Chair: Geoff Regan.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Section 25 of the Elections Act now says:

The name, address and occupation of each person appointed as a returning officer and the name of the electoral district for which he or she is appointed shall be communicated as soon as practicable to the Chief Electoral Officer. Between the 1st and 20th days of January in each year, the Chief Electoral Officer shall publish a list in the Canada Gazette of the name, address and occupation of the returning officer for each electoral district in Canada.

So we're not opposed to it, but we don't need it either. It's already in the Elections Act, so what's the point of making the change?

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Is this information published in the Canada Gazette?

[English]

    The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much. Amendment BQ-3 is withdrawn.

    (Clauses 3 to 12 inclusive agreed to)

    (On clause 13)

    The Chair: That brings us to CA-1 and NDP-3. It says here they are identical. You can both speak to it. This is on pages 11 and 12 in the book.

    Ted White.

    Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'm really surprised that the government didn't address this problem when it brought down the bill. In 1999 an Ontario court struck down the sections of the Elections Act that require a party to run 50 candidates in an election to remain on the register. At the time the judge actually said two people constitute a party. That case is going all the way to the Supreme Court. In fact, we could get a decision fairly soon on this. During the deliberations on Bill C-2 I spoke with all the small parties. We went to the minister, and there was agreement among all the small parties that 12 was a sensible number. It related to the number of 10 people to be recognized as a party in the House. I don't understand why the government didn't take the opportunity to change this now, so that we would get rid of this court problem and have something everybody agreed with. So I'm taking the opportunity to introduce it, and hopefully, the government will agree that this is the time to change it to 12. It's the right number to use, and it will diffuse the whole situation of these court challenges.

    The Chair: Dick.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

    I agree with the points the Canadian Alliance representative has made. It really is a protection for smaller parties, parties that are not represented in the House of Commons. Mr. White has consistently referred to the bill as an incumbents protection act, and I think reducing the number from 50 to 12 would put the lie to that argument. The Bloc Québécois runs candidates only in the province of Quebec, obviously, but if you had a regional party, like the Bloc, that started up in no province other than Ontario, would it be able to run, because it wouldn't have 50 ridings in which to run? Even, I suspect, if you took the whole Atlantic region and made it one, it would fall short of 50. I think 12, for the reasons Mr. White has articulated, is a logical and sound number.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: Geoff Regan.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that this would create a conflict with the main provision in the act providing for the number of candidates required for a party to become registered, section 370.

    The Chair: Ted White.

    Mr. Ted White: Of course, I have amendments to correct all those problems as well as we go through the act, so that everywhere it says 50, it will be 12.

    The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: On proposed subsection 385(2), “of its registered associations”, is that new?

    Mr. Geoff Regan: That is a case before the court, and we're waiting for the judgment of the court. We'd like to get guidance from the court proceedings with any other possible changes.

    The Chair: Okay, Marlene, your question again.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: On line 17, “its registered associations”, is that a new addition to the act? It's not underlined. I want to check that I'm not missing something here.

    The Chair: The line is down the side and indicates that it is new.

    Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, later on, we'll have the pleasure of turning our attention to matters relating to the territorial and provincial components or wings of parties. I'm curious as to whether the expression “registered associations” in English, or “associations enregistrées” in French includes, where necessary, territorial and provincial wings. If it does not, I would prefer we rule only after we have dealt with this question of provincial and territorial components or wings.

[English]

    The Chair: I understand what you're saying, but it's not relevant to this amendment we're discussing. If it is, tell me how.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: The ruling has not yet been handed down. We haven't yet addressed these questions, but we are likely to at some point. Certain federal political parties are comprised of provincial and territorial wings. As things now stand, there is no reference to these wings in the bill, however, we're considering allowing those who wish to register to do so. Currently, the reference is to two registrations. If this is restricted to parties, and not to the electoral districts, will the same provisions apply? Would it be preferable to wait for a decision on provincial and territorial wings before making a decision about this provision?

[English]

    The Chair: Marlene.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: We can still deal with the amendments and stand the clause if we want to wait till we come to that part. It's up to us whether we want to change “registered associations” and what that definition is at some point during the bill.

    The Chair: Jacques' point is that this change to 12 affects these--

  (1210)  

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: No, it's not. His point is on the clause, as opposed to the amendments.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: The provision in question refers to the deregistration of parties or associations. Currently, the legislation only defines political parties and electoral districts. If, as part of our work, we were also to come up with a definition of provincial and territorial wings, shouldn't we be starting with that, before going any further? Or, could this provision be amended to encompass provincial and territorial wings? That's the gist of my question. This has nothing to do with the number 12.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, I'm going to hold that.

    Geoff Regan, on these amendments.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: In clause 1 of the bill, registered association means “an electoral district association registered in the registry of electoral district associations referred to in section 403.08.” I don't know if that helps anyone, for better clarity.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand that, I appreciate it, but that's my whole point. We have defined riding associations, but if we do define something in-between, is it going to be a target of the same provisions? That's the reason I'm going to suggest, Mr. Chair, that we do stand this clause for later.

    The Chair: But are you suggesting in doing that we also leave this amendment until later?

    Mr. Jacques Saada: No, we can deal with the amendment.

    The Chair: That's what I thought.

    I'm going to call the amendments, and we are going to return to this matter of definition at some later date. What I was trying to get clear in my mind was not what was going on here, but whether we can do that, and I think we can.

    Mr. Ted White: Could I ask for a recorded vote on this please?

    The Chair: By all means. So we vote on CA-1 and NDP-3.

    (Amendments negatived: nays 9; yeas 5)

    Mr. Jacques Saada: May I ask another question?

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I want to ask specifically how we're going to deal with it if we want to stand it.

    The Chair: Okay. Would you care to move that clause 13 stand, for the reasons you describe?

  (1215)  

    Mr. Jacques Saada: So moved.

    The Chair: It's so moved.

    (Clause 13 allowed to stand)

    (On clause 14)

    The Chair: We have NDP-4, page 13 in the book.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: I'll make the argument I inadvertently made for the amendment that was withdrawn. This simply is for more timely disclosure. Currently, disclosure of party donations occurs annually, and that can mean up to 18 months after a donation is made, i.e., six months after the end of the previous year. Again, with modern technology, it's possible to have more timely disclosure, and we're arguing that it should be four times annually, as opposed to once.

    The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: I don't have a problem with this, except that we heard from a number of witnesses about problems it would create for volunteers. It is a significant responsibility and a legal responsibility. I'm open to discussion, but I'm wondering if it's fair to put on volunteers this extra work. Not everybody has a computer, frankly. A lot of riding memberships would be slow, doing it by hand.

    The Chair: Gerald Keddy.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: I recognize Ms. Catterall's statement, but there's something more problematic, the fact the Chief Electoral Officer may deregister a registered party. So there's a significant penalty here if you fail to submit quarterly statements. I would agree that most political parties and organizations are run by volunteers, the majority are not paid. If you have to submit quarterly statements, I think you're putting an onus upon the volunteers. Maybe it's better bookkeeping and maybe it could be done, but it would seem to me that with the threat of deregistration hanging over your head, you would want to get them in, and if they weren't in on time and you happened to have a cranky day for the Chief Electoral Officer, that might just be the end of your association. So I have some difficulty with it.

    The Chair: Carolyn Parrish.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I am going to support it. I think the people who run parties have an obligation, and if they can't put in a report quarterly, you fire them. I'll support it, not for constituent associations, but for the party.

    The Chair: Geoff Regan.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: The present proposed paragraph 386(h) says “a statement required by subsection 435.04(1)”. What does that refer to? It says:

If a registered party proposes to hold a leadership contest, the chief agent of the party shall file with the Chief Electoral Officer a statement setting out the dates on which the leadership contest is to begin and end.

Why should that be subject to a quarterly statement?

    The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, this particular provision refers to registered parties. However, further on, in clause 18, the proposed new section 389.2 mentions the automatic deregistration of all registered associations if a party is deregistered.

    If a technical glitch occurs at the party level, all of the electoral district associations will suffer the consequences. Therefore, you can't say that this provision doesn't concern them, because it does.

  (1220)  

[English]

    The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think there's a consensus around the table that registered parties, not the associations, for their normal yearly operations should file quarterly reports, not just annual reports. If we agree with that in principle, maybe our researcher could figure out where those amendments have to appear in the legislation. I don't see any major objection to that, frankly.

    The Chair: Dick, this is your amendment. We'll put this on hold. We would ask Jamie, the Department of Justice, or somebody to draft this little consensus we have here.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: I'm very happy with that. I appreciate the comments from both Ms. Parrish and Ms. Catterall. I'd be happy if we proceeded in that fashion.

    The Chair: Geoff Regan.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: The drafters will have to know whether these are intended to be audited reports or not, and if so, whether the audit is subsidized each time.

    The Chair: Of course, we would welcome input of all sorts in this drafting. We'll have to vote on it eventually anyway.

    (Clause 14 allowed to stand)

    (Clauses 15 to 17 inclusive agreed to)

    (On clause 18)

    The Chair: We have CA-2, page 14.

    Gerald.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: We have another amendment there.

    The Chair: It's PC-A, and it falls between page 13 and page 14 in the book. What I intend to do, Ted, if that's okay with you, is call the PC amendment first, and then I will call the Canadian Alliance amendment, because that's the order in which they appear.

    Gerald Keddy.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: For page 6, clause 18, line 25, the amendment deals with the issue of deregistration. The way the clause is written now, it says:

The notice under subsection (1) shall specify the effective date of the deregistration, which shall be at least 15 days after the date of the sending of the notice.

Rick's amendment would effectively extend that for 60 days. We've had the discussion here already about volunteers. They're still deregistered, they're not allowed to carry out a political function, but it gives them time to do up their books, to close down their association, to deal with moneys in their account. Fifteen days to deal with all that is, I think, pretty swift justice.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Geoff Regan.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: The only danger that it brings to my mind is if you have a situation where there is some concern that a party isn't active, but may be issuing receipts of some sort. I don't know if that's what the concern here is, and I'll ask the officials about that, but I can see circumstances in which you want something like this to happen quickly. You don't want them to be doubtful on whether an association's able to issue tax receipts.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: They wouldn't be allowed to issue a tax receipt after the date of deregistration. They'd only be allowed to issue them prior to that date. On the whole issue of tax receipts, you have to go over your accounts, your books. It takes you longer than 15 days to do the books for your business, it takes you longer than 15 days to do just about anything. Maybe it could be 30 days, but I think 15 is too little.

    The Chair: Geoff Regan.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: I take my colleague's point about 30 days or something, I can see that argument, but if you're saying it's going to take 60 days for Elections Canada to deregister an association, during that 60 days it can certainly issue tax receipts. The effect of the clause is that it isn't deregistered until 60 days after it sends all this out, according to what you want to do, so it can issue tax receipts until that period is over. The question is, should it be that long, is that too much time, if you're worried about what the association is doing, whether it's acting properly, and so forth?

    The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: It's only incidental to the amendment, but are there any provisions on appeal of that registration decision? There can be exceptional circumstances, some old income tax file, for instance, a SARS outbreak, an explosion, a fire in the headquarters of the party, or whatever. Is there any flexibility here in the act?

    The Chair: Gerald.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: We're still discussing the 60 days and whether it's too little or too late. I still believe, Mr. Chair, 60 days is not unreasonable. I do take the point that if the effective date of deregistration is 60 days, perhaps the way it should work is that the effective date of deregistration be 15 days after, with 60 days for the association to completely deregister, wrap up its books, etc. That looks after Mr. Regan's comment. I'm willing to amend it, but I think 15 days overall is just too short a time.

    The Chair: Ted White.

    Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    It's pretty scary, but I find myself agreeing with Mr. Regan on this one. Once you've determined that a party should be deregistered, you don't want it running around doing all the things a registered party is entitled to do, and that's actually the basis of my amendment, which is coming up next. As to whether it's fair or not to a party that's been deregistered, the point that Marlene raised, the proposed act actually still provides, on the next page, under section 392, that “The chief agent of a deregistered political party shall, within six months after the day of its deregistration,provide the Chief Electoral Officer with” all the documentation that's required. There is plenty of time for the party to wind up its affairs, six months. The key point about this clause is how much time you want to elapse between the decision to deregister and the actual deregistration. That has to be fairly swift, I agree with Mr. Regan on that, but then you allow six months for all the paperwork to be put together and brought forward.

    To address Marlene's concern, there's nothing to prevent a deregistered party providing all the necessary information to get registered again. That, in effect, is the appeal process. Make the documents correct, get the right number of candidates, whatever you have to do, and get re-registered.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I'm as astonished as Mr. White is, in that he's made my arguments.

  (1230)  

    The Chair: So we vote on amendment PC-A.

    (Amendment negatived)

    The Chair: We proceed to CA-2, page 14 in the binder. Ted White.

    Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    This relates to the issue we've just been discussing, and as I've already confirmed, Mr. Regan had the correct thinking. I hope he'll join me on this one. What I was concerned to do here was maintain the short deregistration time, but also make sure the party has an opportunity to be notified. The best way to do that is by some sort of courier that can be traced or by registered mail. That's the basis of my amendment. It just says that if the Chief Electoral Officer is going to deregister a party, he has to send it a notice in such a way that he can prove he did it and on what date he did it. That has to be registered mail or courier.

    The Chair: Geoff Regan.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: I agree.

    The Chair: So we vote on CA-2.

    (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    (Clause 18 as amended agreed to)

    (On clause 19)

    The Chair: We have G-2 on page 15 of the binder. Geoff Regan.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this is another housekeeping amendment. This is to amend the French version of proposed subsection 390(1) to include “sans délai” in accordance with the English version. This amendment corrects a technical error that comes the current act and was repeated in the bill. Subsection 390(1) deals with the publication of a notice of deregistration by the Chief Electoral Officer. This amendment will ensure that the French version accords with the English version, where publication is made is made “without delay”.

    The Chair: Is there any discussion?

    (Amendment agreed to)

    (Clause 19 as amended agreed to)

    (Clauses 20 to 22 inclusive agreed to)

    (On clause 23)

    The Chair: Now we have PC-2. Gerald Keddy.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

    The Chair: Yes Jacques.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: On clause 22, I just want to ask--

    The Chair: We're back at clause 22, colleagues. Go ahead.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I just wanted to ask a question.

[Translation]

    Is there some connection here between this clause and the transitional provision that would apply retroactively to the 2000 elections?

    Ms. Michèle René de Cotret (Senior Privy Council Officer/Counsel, Legislation and House Planning/Counsel, Privy Council Office): The aim of the proposed section 402(3) is to provide...

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Let me give you my interpretation of this provision and you can correct me if I'm wrong.

    Let's suppose two political parties decide to merge. A transition period is set to allow the two parties to merge their assets. Will the parties be able to merge their assets regardless or will the fact that certain transitional provisions apply retroactively to the 2000 elections in the case of statements made have an impact of some kind? Is there a connection?

    Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: I don't see one.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Fine. That's what I wanted to know.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much. I know I've done it before, but I'll call it again.

    (Clause 22 agreed to)

    (On clause 23)

    The Chair: I now return to PC-2 and Gerald Keddy.

    Joe Jordan.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Clause 23 has about 35 amendments. The steering committee is going to meet this afternoon, potentially to look at additional witnesses. These particular clauses, based on the number of amendments, I think are ones where legitimate discussion needs to take place. I'm not comfortable with the pace this is going here, and I don't say that for any other reason than that I want to see this be a good bill. Can we stand these clauses that have these amendments, to get our breath, and go into the clauses that have no amendments? If we hear witness testimony that says there's a real problem, we can't go back to that clause without the unanimous consent of this committee, and we open up a real can of worms. I think clauses that have attracted that much attention we might just want to stand and go on to the ones obviously nobody has any problem with.

  (1235)  

    The Chair: I'm in the committee's hands here. My intention was to go through to about 1 o'clock, but it was also my intention, as you heard earlier, to suggest that we start at 3:30 tomorrow, not at 5:30. I hear this argument here. Marlene Catterall made the point before. I think we are getting into the pace of it now, but we're going to finish. If we have a longer meeting tomorrow, we'll get back into the pace and move along more constructively, and perhaps we can deal with Joe's point, having held the steering committee today. The other way would be for me conclude this meeting. We would agree to meet at 3:30 tomorrow and either start the way Joe describes or begin this heavily amended section.

    Dick Proctor.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: That choice you just ended on would be determined by the steering committee later today?

    The Chair: There are two things, whether we call additional witnesses, and if we do, how it affects the clause-by-clause discussion.

    Lynn Myers.

    Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): What have you decided with respect to Thursday's meeting?

    The Chair: Thursday's meeting, at the moment, is at the regular time of 11 o'clock. We would go until 1 o'clock or later, depending on how far we get with this stuff. I think there's general agreement that we need to move it along.

    Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I don't know how this usually works, but perhaps you can enlighten me. Do we verify that all of the amendments tabled are in order, regardless of which party is moving them, or do we proceed one amendment at a time?

[English]

    The Chair: The answer is almost all, and it would be useful, for that reason alone, to end this meeting now, have the steering committee at 5:30, and start at 3:30 tomorrow.

    Joe Jordan.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Perhaps I could just make a suggestion to the steering committee. Whatever they decide, if we're looking at extending hours of sitting, which I absolutely support, could we get a new timetable? We have to plan. If we're going to go five days a week, try to put it down on paper for us, please.

    The Chair: We will try to do that.

    I'm going to conclude this meeting. The steering committee meets at 5:30 today in this room, the rest of us at 3:30 tomorrow in this room. The 3:30 meeting goes through this gourmet meal in the evening.

    The meeting is adjourned.