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, November 16, 1999

• 1034

[English]

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

Colleagues, we're continuing our study of Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act.

We have with us today two orders of witnesses. From Élections Québec we have Mr. Pierre-F. Côté, former Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec, and from Elections Ontario, Mr. Warren Bailie, Chief Election Officer of Ontario. He is joined by his adviser, Mr. Derm Whelan.

• 1035

Thank you, gentlemen, for attending today. We look forward to an exchange that will assist us in dealing with our bill.

Can I assume that each of you will be making a presentation?

Mr. Warren Bailie (Chief Election Officer of Ontario): I will be making a presentation and I will be assisted by my special assistant, Mr. Whelan, in handling questions, if there are any.

The Chair: All right.

I usually follow the agenda. Mr. Pierre-F. Côté appears first on this one.

Monsieur Côté, are you going to make a submission this morning?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre-F. Côté (Former Chief Electoral Officer for Quebec): Yes, I will be making a presentation, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Would you care to begin, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre-F. Côté: I understand. First of all, I'd like to thank committee members for inviting me to participate in this morning's proceedings. I would also like to extend to you my congratulations on your work on the Canada Elections Act. Anytime legislation respecting the elections process is passed, we view this as a small step for us, but equally, as a giant leap for democracy, to paraphrase the first person to walk on the moon. In my opinion, it's extremely important to establish clear standards and rules with respect to the electoral process.

Since my time is limited, I would simply like to draw your attention to several considerations, some of which I will focus on in greater detail.

First off, I want to say that Quebec is pleased... and continues to be pleased, I believe, although I've been out of office for two years... to cooperate on the federal register of electors. Quebec, as you know, is working on a permanent list of electors. To give you some idea of the tremendous amount of work being done in this field, I would point out that as recently as November 9 last, Quebec received the public service merit award for drawing up a permanent list of electors.

I'm rather proud of mentioning this achievement and emphasizing our cooperation with Elections Canada on the task of updating the register of electors, as you call it, or the permanent list of electors. Obviously, in this as in other endeavors, there is always room for improvement, but I think we can be rather proud of what has been accomplished in this field.

The second matter that I would like to discuss in relation to your bill is the appointment of the chief electoral officer and deputy returning officers. I'll start with the position of Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. Currently, this person is appointed on motion passed by the House of Commons, and, if I understand the proposed legislation correctly, now the... [Editor's note: technical problems]... until 65 years of age. Apparently, the Chief Electoral Officer can remain in office until 65 years of age. Therefore, if a person is appointed to this position at age 40, unless removed from office at some point, that person will remain in office for 25 or 30 years. The surprising think about this approach, in my view, is that unlike what we have in Quebec, we seem to have lost sight of a concept associated with British parliamentary law which dates back to the 16th or 17th century, namely the concept of persona designata.

In accordance with this concept of British parliamentary law, a house of commons, a national assembly or a legislative assembly designates someone to do something on their behalf. This is true of the chief electoral officer who oversees the election of members of the House of Commons. However, this British legal concept has interesting overtones, as I observed during my 19-year term as Chief Electoral Officer. The main advantage is that the Chief Electoral Officer is totally independent of the executive, of Treasury Board and of government, and, because of this total independence, can act in a neutral, impartial and objective manner for the duration of his mandate or while performing his duties.

• 1040

To appoint a chief electoral officer for Quebec, a two-thirds majority of votes is required in the national assembly. This body is currently having some problems agreeing on my successor, but the principle remains and in my view, it's rather important that it to be upheld.

Logically, I think we should adopt the same approach when it comes to appointing deputy returning officers for the 300 ridings in Canada. Based on my experience, and I've lived with both systems, I'm convinced that deputy returning officers should be appointed through an independent, impartial process. In Quebec, a public competition is held. Candidates take a written exam and make a presentation to a selection board. The successful candidate is then appointed to a ten-year term. Obviously, the incumbent may be removed for cause, but that would be rather difficult to do. The same procedure is used to fill the position of deputy returning officer in the various electoral ridings.

I'm surprised that this approach hasn't been adopted yet across Canada. The thinking appears to be that by proceeding by way of a cabinet decision... regardless of the government in office, this is a partisan way of doing things..., this may affect in some way the voting as such or the outcome of the elections. Admittedly, I don't see how that is possible. A deputy returning officer is someone who exercises administrative duties in an impartial manner. I don't see how that person could... maybe it was possible in the past, but not today... influence in any way the outcome of the voting. Therefore, we need to find a person who can perform these duties in a wholly independent manner. In law, there's a popular saying whereby not only must justice be served, it must appear that justice has been served. To paraphrase that saying, it's important that in a democratic system, not only must democracy be served, it must also appear that democracy has been served.

I would also like to focus for a moment on the involvement of third parties. I haven't compared the provisions of Bill C-2 with those of the provincial Elections Act. However, I can tell you that I was mandated by the Government of Quebec to conduct a study, which you're probably familiar with, on the Supreme Court ruling in Libman. I have here with me a summary of this fairly extensive study. At issue was the following fundamental question: should the notwithstanding clause have been invoked or should the Elections Act have been amended in order to take into account in a practical, concrete fashion the Supreme Court decision? Quebec opted for the second course of action. My overall proposal was adopted. However, as I indicated, I haven't officially compared the bill with the current draft legislation. You must understand that I don't have the same tools that were once available to me to undertake this kind of work or study. Nevertheless, I'm pleased to see that you have included in the proposed legislation provisions respecting the involvement of third parties.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to focus on one last, albeit extremely important point, namely the financing of political parties and election expenses reporting. I'm a little puzzled. Let me try and summarize this with one simple phrase. The basic question that begs asking is this: is one dollar equal to one vote or is one voter equal to one vote?

In a democratic system, it's obvious that one voter equals one vote, but if a practical way can be found to have one dollar equal one vote, then democracy suffers. Looking back in time, we note that from 1875 to 1926 or 1930, Quebec legislation included provisions respecting election expenses. However, from 1932 up until 1962, there were no such provisions in the provincial legislation respecting contributions and the financing of political parties. We all know what happened next. This void ushered in the Taschereau and Duplessis eras and led to ways of running elections which today, are hard to fathom.

• 1045

I don't have to remind you of the history of the building of our national railways and how certain political parties in office benefited. However, the absence of specific rules governing the conduct of elections, as we saw in Quebec, in fact adversely affects the public's opinion of male and female politicians. The fact that MPs have lost some credibility in the eyes of voters in certain parts of the country can be attributed in part to the fact that the public is calling into question—and without good reason, in my view—the honesty of our political representatives. I'm personally convinced that members of Parliament are extremely honest and dedicated individuals, but, getting back to what I was saying earlier, it is important for democracy to appear to be served.

In Quebec, efforts have been made to try and resolve the problem—and it won't be possible to resolve every single problem because there's never a perfect solution—by decreeing that henceforth, contributions must come from individuals, that they should not exceed a maximum amount, that any amounts contributed should be disclosed one a year and that it must be clearly stated that only non-corporate financing is acceptable.

Obviously, this poses a major dilemma for the various political parties which need more and more money. The dilemma is growing because national or general elections, to all intents and purposes, no longer involve much door-to-door campaigning. Television is the preferred medium for campaigning, one that it becoming increasingly expensive. Therefore, what is needed are funding sources that do not leave political parties beholding to anyone.

Elected officials mustn't owe their victory to wealthy individuals or companies. Sometimes, people are left with that impression. Non-corporate financing and equal access to the media are needed. If you're interest, I could distribute copies of this seven- or eight-page document. At this time, however, rather than read it to you since it quite long, I will highlight three major elements: government support, non-corporate financing and equitable access to the media, and public, audited election expenses reports. A neutral institution ensures that the entire process runs smoothly. As I said earlier on with respect to the Chief Electoral Officer, the incumbent of the position must be neutral, impartial and apolitical.

At issue at three broad principles: pluralism—for instance, the emergence of new political parties must be encouraged—transparency and fairness.

Summing up, Quebec has instituted rules governing the financing of political parties, the most important of which are as follows: all revenued earned by a party are the responsibility of an official representative; only non-corporate financing is allowed; membership and contributions, whether by voters or by the government, are limited; contributions of more than $200 must be made by cheque; a receipt must be issued for every contribution made; the names of electors having contributed over $200 must be disclosed when reports are produced; and every year, at a set point in time, political parties must prepare a financial report accompanied by an auditor's report.

The most fundamental of all rules are those pertaining to the disclosure and the availability of information regarding the funding sources of political parties. This has become somewhat symbolic of my position. I'm no longer Chief Electoral Officer but I hope that once I wrap up my presentation, I won't fall over. I apologize for this sidebar. I believe it's important for all stakeholders, whether political or other, to know where political parties get their funding. This gives all parties and the media as well some measure of control over the situation and over one another.

Despite the limitations inherent in every model, it is critical that the goal be the quest for greater equity in political financing, to ensure that voters participate to the greatest extent possible in the political process and ultimately, to maintain voters' confidence in their electoral system. One of the mechanism developed in Quebec, but not seen in your bill, to achieve this objective is the creation of an advisory committee.

• 1050

Briefly, I'd like to say a few words about this advisory committee, an unusual mechanism that has produced astonishing results. Pursuant to Quebec's Elections Act, there exists an advisory committee chaired by the Chief Electoral Officer and comprised of three representatives of each political party sitting in the Assembly. The committee meets to advise the Chief Electoral Officer.

Over time, the committee has proven to be quite an effective mechanism. Every proposed amendment to the Elections Act is first submitted to this advisory committee for its consideration. It's not a public committee, although its proceedings may be opened to the public. It provides political parties with a forum in which they can openly debate ideas and find ways for all members of the National Assembly to work together to improve or amend the Elections Act.

I'll give you one example of the committee's work. In 1989—and this happened more than once in the ensuing years—substantive amendments were made to the Elections Act. The different political parties had been so successful in negotiating these amendments within the forum of the advisory committee that once these amendments were brought before the House, there was virtually no debate, since any necessary discussion had already taken place. This is one mechanism that has proven to be very interesting and positive, at least as far as Quebec is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I believe my 15 minutes are up. Of course I'd be happy to answer any questions from committee members. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Between you and Mr. Bailie, we have many years of experience in election administration. We hate to cut you short on your time, and we just hope you'll jump in whenever the need arises.

We'll now move to Mr. Bailie and Mr. Whelan.

Mr. Warren Bailie: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I want to thank you for inviting me to appear before you and to make a brief presentation on Bill C-2.

As you can imagine, Mr. Kingsley's colleagues across the country have been watching with great anticipation, wondering what will in fact be in the final bill. We were certainly not unaware of these proceedings.

I have prepared some speaking notes and given a copy to the clerk. More are available if needed.

If there are points raised that I feel I need to reflect on to a greater extent, I hope you will understand that I'll probably ask you to allow me to look into it carefully and come back with a considered and carefully prepared answer.

I want to explain immediately that I won't be specifically talking about each and every clause in this bill. Many of the provisions are similar to the ones in Ontario at this time, so I will just highlight some of the ones that I feel I would like to have some input on now that I have this opportunity. I am going to limit my remarks to some of what I consider to be the key issues.

Transparency is one of the key issues in elections. In this bill—and I certainly want to compliment the minister—it seems quite clear that these sections are being given the importance they deserve. My particular focus is on what many refer to in the regulations as the “sunlight” provisions, or “sunshine”. The essence of these laws is public disclosure of the amounts and the sources of funding for campaigns and advocacy activities during elections by registered political parties, riding associations, candidates, and others, often referred to as “third parties”.

Let me begin with a comment on the third party regulations. I think third parties or private advocacy groups are always going to be with us and an element in politics, particularly during election campaigns. Realistically, it's not conceivable that they will not be involved in these contests in the future. Moreover, such groups and individuals have the right to be heard.

• 1055

It should be noted that limitations do not generally apply to the funding of such organizations or indeed individuals using freedom of expression or freedom of association rights for political purposes. The restriction of these rights in any of the electoral laws applies only during election campaigns. Otherwise and at all other times, third parties are free to express their opinions on issues in the political arena through the media without restrictions.

With this in mind, the definition contained in Bill C-2 is good. It's important that “third party” is clearly identified. It is “a person or a group, other than a candidate, registered party or electoral district association of a registered party”. It's important to have this type of definition stated to identify the groups and persons to be regulated by the proposed Canada Elections Act, and I certainly agree with this definition.

I note again that the regulation of third parties, as defined above, is concerned with advertising—that is to say, advertising that promotes the election of a particular party or candidate during an election campaign. Bill C-2 does not otherwise intrude into the activities of third parties.

If Parliament is going to legislate spending limits for these groups, the threshold for disclosure is most important. I note that Bill C-2 is considering a threshold of $500. If you've done any advertising or even prepared or planned an advertising piece, before you can even get it printed, if it's going to be effective at all, you're up to $500. I humbly suggest that the threshold limit should be $1,000.

Advertising is expensive. To have a significant voice in advertising in the print and/or the electronic media, third parties will incur substantial expenses. Thus it's better to be realistic with respect to the threshold so as to least interfere with the conduct of the activities of third parties concerned and to allow them an effective voice during elections.

The next element in the third party chain of logic contained in Bill C-2 is registration. Once the threshold is reached, perhaps it is necessary for third party groups to register with the Chief Electoral Officer and to follow in general the registration requirements imposed on political parties and candidates.

The limitation on expenditures by third parties is low. I have considered the data available on expenses for advertising by registered political parties in the last general election. I know you've had some debate on this subject, but permit me to say that so as to interfere in the least way possible with the activities of third parties, it's necessary to permit them to spend sufficient amounts to mount a significant and meaningful advertising campaign. The present limits prescribed by the bill are low given the cost of advertising, but I'll leave that to you to make the final decision, of course.

Disclosure is the important thing. In fact it's the key element in any plan to regulate spending by third parties. The act provides for third parties to file statements, as political parties and candidates do, of the amounts and the sources of funding for campaigns and advocacy. Candidates have to do this with respect to their income and expenditures. This is a positive step in the right direction, because it will inform the electorate. What we want is an informed electorate.

Canadians will want to understand which third party is supporting a particular candidate or point of view on any issue during a campaign. It's important for the Canadian electorate to understand and to have access to information about the funding of political advocacy during elections.

• 1100

Furthermore, access to the disclosed documentation is left to the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada to arrange. I support this method.

Finally, third parties should not benefit from tax credits, nor should there be any public funding to support them.

It is clear that Bill C-2 does not give third parties access to the list of electors. This protects the privacy of Canadians. The candidates and the parties use the list to campaign, and election officials use the list to administer elections. This assists election officers to make the list more accurate and current.

This ends my general comments on the third party regulations, but I invite your questions later, when I have concluded this short presentation. However, let me finish this part by saying it is important to minimally intrude on or interrupt the ordinary behaviour of organizations and individuals who wish to take part in the political process. At all costs, freedom of speech must be held in the highest regard and only limited to the extent necessary to accomplish the goals of the Canada Elections Act in the realm of income and expenditures for advertising during elections.

Let me turn to the other matters.

Do blackout provisions affect or significantly change the vote of any Canadian? Some think blackout provisions are offensive. Others opine that these provisions insult the intelligence of the electorate. There may be a small number of voters who are affected by the results of advertising or public opinion polls, but the number is not significant. Public opinion is generally formed long before the writ of election is issued, and goes on for review through the election period and after in the minds of the electorate. They measure the progress of the governance of Canada.

Secondly, enforcement of blackout provisions is virtually impossible. By that I mean truly effective administration of it, because there are so many breaches and misunderstandings, and these are subject to sanctions only after the election anyway, when the offending advertisement or opinion poll has been widely disseminated.

The matter is further complicated by the fact that the bill allows some advertising on the eve of polling day and on polling day. This advertising includes billboards, signs, publications in weekly newspapers, and information on the Internet that has not been altered. Nevertheless it's still available for the last 48 hours of the election campaign. I fail to see the equity in prohibiting daily newspapers, for example, from publishing advertisements in the final hours of an election campaign, while weekly newspapers or monthly magazines may contain such advertisements. The Ontario statute has exceptions that essentially make these laws inequitable.

Another school of thought advocates that electors require a period of quiet reflection before they vote; they ought not to be troubled by opinion polls and advertising. Many have argued that this point of view has little substance, and I would certainly agree.

For the regulation of advertising expenditures, it is not necessary to require advertising to cease for the last 48 hours of an election campaign. It might end when the campaign ends. Most certainly campaigning does not halt until the last vote is cast on polling day, as far as the parties and candidates are concerned.

I have concluded that the blackout has no truly useful purpose and therefore ought not to be imposed on the electorate or the electoral process. It's unnecessary, and it limits a constitutional right otherwise given to all Canadians. I suggest that Bill C-2 not impose blackouts at all.

• 1105

Election opinion surveys are in part 16 of Bill C-2. Part 16 is the “Communications” section. Clause 326 provides that:

326(1) The first person who transmits the results of an election survey—other than a survey that is described in section 37—to the public during an election period and any person who transmits them to the public within 24 hours after they are first transmitted to the public must provide the following together with the results:

And I'm sure we'll all agree it's important that we know the sponsor, the person or organization conducting the survey, the date or the period when the survey was conducted, the population providing the sample, the respondents, the number of people contacted, and the margin of error applicable.

I'd certainly endorse this provision because I believe it provides voters with information that permits them to make judgments about the validity of the survey and the poll information reported in the print or electronic media.

The changes made in Bill C-2 with respect to the powers of the commissioner are very positive, and I compliment the minister on strengthening this section.

My view has always been that the Canada Elections Act and the Election Finances Act in Ontario are civil statutes and not part of the Criminal Code of Canada.

In the history of the enforcement of election finance legislation in Ontario, efforts were always aimed at achieving compliance with the law through negotiations and agreements entered into with the offending persons or organizations. Giving the commissioner the power to initiate and conclude compliance agreements is a positive step that in a way decriminalizes the Canada Elections Act.

Occasionally during electoral timeframes it was necessary to preclude the continuance of a particular activity. Therefore, the commissioner was virtually unable to seek injunctions in court to stop activities that were contrary to the Canada Elections Act. While the commissioner might apply at common law for such an injunction, it was always a most difficult procedure.

Bill C-2 makes it possible for the commissioner to address emergency issues quickly during an election campaign. I view this as a progressive step in the practice of electoral law.

The finance regime for political parties, candidates, and riding or constituency associations is an important element of Bill C-2, but the bill could go further. It is my view that the constituency or riding associations ought to be regulated in a manner similar to the method used to regulate political parties and candidates generally during the elections.

Specifically, constituency or riding associations ought to be registered with the Chief Electoral Officer and appoint chief financial officers and auditors. I think it's necessary for these associations to keep detailed records, as I'm sure they do, of their income and expenditures in a non-election year as well as in an election year.

Moreover, these associations should file a detailed financial statement annually with respect to each particular general election or by-election.

The Ontario Election Finances Act provides for all of the measures described. In Ontario these statements include a record of the contributions and other income, as well as expenses in any given year and during an election.

Furthermore, the name and address of every person, corporation, or trade union contributing in excess of $100 to an association in Ontario must be disclosed. The $100 threshold was not altered in our recent amendments to the Ontario Election Finances Act. However, I certainly do not suggest the limit in this legislation of $200. The amount set out in Bill C-2 is appropriate for this time.

Simply put, I believe that riding associations are the backbone of the political party system at the grassroots level and they ought to be accountable to the Canadian electorate.

For this reason I am of the opinion that financial requirements of the bill ought to account for political activities and the funding of them at this level. I recommend that the committee consider regulating the financial affairs of the constituent associations in all federal ridings in Canada. I refer, of course, to the associations affiliated with the registered political parties contemplating reporting requirements for constituency associations similar to those for political parties and candidates.

• 1110

I wish to make some concluding comments. I think one in particular is the elimination of vouching in rural areas. I think it's a positive step. I wish the legislators had eliminated it in Ontario, as was suggested.

My concern is that if one segment of the population has a right that another group doesn't, such as urban-rural, there could be challenges at election time on constitutional grounds. I doubt that any judge would not find this contrary to the Constitution.

It applies in the same manner in both rural and urban areas. I think that's good. Furthermore, most voters have identification or are able to obtain identification as may be required.

In Ontario provincial elections there's the universal franchise. If you are a Canadian citizen, 18 years of age, and a resident of Ontario, you are eligible to vote. I'm pleased to see that the franchise for federal elections is being broadened to include returning officers.

Returning officers have had the right to vote in Ontario for over 15 years. Under our legislation, if there is a tie between the two top candidates in a district, the returning officer immediately applies for a judicial recount. If there is a tie at the end of the judicial recount, the judge is expected, according to my protocol with them, to call for a new vote in the district.

The legislation still allows the judge to call upon the RO to give a casting vote, but it's certainly not very practical. I don't think any candidate worth his salt is going to accept one individual appointed by the government to make a decision on who's going to be elected in that electoral district. He's obviously going to appeal it. So hopefully the accord we've developed for discussion with the judges would have the judge call for a new election.

I'm inclined to agree with the concept and the practice of permitting nomination papers to be filed electronically and also with the vetting of the nominators on those papers by returning officers to ensure nominators are eligible electors and entitled to nominate the candidates in question.

This concludes my formal presentation, Mr. Chairman. I'd be happy to answer questions from the committee, and I thank you for listening.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll go to questions now. We'll use five-minute rounds. As soon as we've hit the five minutes, the chair will be looking for a new round to start, if that's acceptable to colleagues.

If anyone has a cell phone, I'd like to ask them to use it outside. It's fairly distracting to the proceedings if a phone rings.

Let's begin with the official opposition, Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Côté, you mentioned the appointment of returning officers, and certainly Mr. Kingsley has also asked us for the ability to appoint returning officers based on merit. On the mechanism by which that should happen, would you suggest a gradual replacement through attrition as the present returning officers die, resign, or whatever? Should the Chief Electoral Officer be able appoint on merit or should it be a sudden change situation? Could you comment on that?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre-F. Côté: I don't think there should be any sudden or radical changes. Replacing all 330 of them would create many problems. The bill could stipulate that in future, deputy returning officers shall be appointed according to a procedure similar to the one in use in Quebec, that is: the position is advertised in the newspapers; candidates undergo an examination to test their knowledge of the legislation and ability to perform specific duties; and finally, the incumbent is chosen by a selection board.

• 1115

The unique thing about the procedure used in Quebec is that no political official is involved in the selection process. To my knowledge, that's never been the case. This method has been in use in the province for several years already and there has never been anything political about the appointment process. Even the Chief Electoral Officer isn't involved to any great extent because the position is staffed on the basis of merit, meaning that the skills and abilities of candidates are taken into account. It's a collaborative process, much like public service competitions. The most suitable person for the job is chosen and the outcome is positive.

The one thing that cannot be controlled or verified, and I know of no satisfactory way of doing this, is whether the person selected for the job, that is the top-ranking, most qualified candidate, possesses any judgement or political savvy. To me, judgement and political savvy are similar traits. Whether or not the incumbent possesses them becomes apparent only once he or she is on the job. Judgement is needed in order to carry out the duties related to this position.

[English]

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Bailie, I have two questions related to the Elections Act in Ontario. The first one has to do with the permanent voters list or the electronic voters list. We heard reports that it was a big mess during the last provincial election, so I'd like to have your comments with respect to the permanent voters list and how you feel about that.

The second question I have is with respect to a change that was made, in my understanding, to the Ontario act that allowed electronic voting. That has now permitted cottage country elections to be done by touchtone phone. As an example, there was the North York referendum by touchtone telephone. The Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, has asked us to allow him the ability to test and investigate that sort of technology at the federal level.

Perhaps you could give me your comment on those two areas, please.

Mr. Warren Bailie: Let me start with the second part of your question.

The new Election Act does allow the Chief Election Officer to test electronic voting and other new technologies at the time of a by-election rather than at an election. I think that's a good provision, because there are certainly new technologies that are available, and some of them sound like they might be more effective in the far north than our present system is. However, it is the authority to test, and I think it's a good provision. As a matter of fact, I recommended that it be included.

It's very similar to a provision in the Quebec Election Act. I had recommended to the minister that it be considered so that at the time of a by-election, when the full resources of our office could be centred on one of these tests, that would be the time to look into these new ideas and so forth. In terms of exactly how it might work, it's just a provision that gives us the authority, and I can assure you that it will be handled very carefully.

On the new PREO, as we call it, the provincial electoral list in Ontario, there was only provision for it to be started a little more than a year ago, when the bill received royal assent. The approach we used at that time was to make arrangements to get the federal list. Transferring a federal list that was made up two or three years into our system during a short, 28-day election period did certainly present some problems. But I want you to know there were seven million people in Ontario who did vote. The number of additions to the voters list was under 9% during the revision period. That is higher than we would normally have at that time. Considering the basis of the list had been made up two years before that, though, I don't think that's terribly unusual.

• 1120

Also, given the fact that we had an enhanced revision system, we had more than twice as many appointments of revision assistants prepared at that time. So with slightly less than 9% in additions, the fact is that the number of electors who eventually got on the list and did in fact vote was just about the number we expected. Of course, for anyone who doesn't work their way through the system and loses their vote, it wouldn't matter if there was even just one; we'd be concerned about it. Either you or members of the legislature in Ontario would no doubt hear about it.

I'm not making light of those problems we did experience or the fact that some people were not able to register a vote. The point is that the effect of it was still within the margins of good management.

Mr. Ted White: Can I just finish off with one?

The Chair: Following my exhortation to keep it at five minutes, if I'm not strict now I can't be later. I know you understand.

Mr. Ted White: I'll be watching.

The Chair: Madame Dalphond-Guiral, for five minutes.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I have a few questions for Mr. Côté as well as for Mr. Bailie.

Mr. Côté, at the beginning of your presentation, you said that Quebec was pleased to participate in the process of drawing up a permanent register of electors. I'm sure you realize that there are differences between Quebec's permanent list of electors and the federal register of electors, particularly in terms of information about the sex and age of voters.

One of the reasons given for not including this information in the federal register was, of course, concern for people's privacy. Is it your impression that the Quebec government respects people's privacy less than the federal government?

Mr. Pierre-F. Côté: I'd be surprised if that were the case. Unless I'm mistaken, information regarding a voter's sex and age is not made public. I believe it's imparted only to the interested parties. Moreover, no longer is a list containing all of this pertinent information published, as was done in the past. This practice could have been prejudicial to certain persons.

I'd be rather surprised if this approach violated individual rights and freedoms.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I have another question for you. One of the major differences between the two pieces of legislation is the provision respecting compensation of election staff on voting day. Of course, at the federal level, deputy returning officers and poll clerks are compensated, but candidate representatives are not. In Quebec, however, these representatives are paid an allowance.

Could you explain to us the advantages you see in awarding candidate representatives a symbolic amount of money for their efforts?

Mr. Pierre-F. Côté: Unless I'm mistaken, the decision to compensate these officials was called into question last year in Quebec. Originally, the reason for compensating candidate or political party representatives, who are volunteers, was to ensure that these individuals were competent and prepared to spend the entire day at the polling station. These persons receive a nominal sum of money, admittedly, but this allows them to spend their entire day at the polling station monitoring the situation as people exercise their democratic right to vote.

I have to wonder if we can go on relying on volunteers indefinitely. We already rely extensively on volunteers during election campaigns, but it's difficult to go on relying on them indefinitely, particularly when it comes to the administration of the Elections Act.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Bailie, in your presentation you referred to the threshold for disclosure, which in Ontario remains at $100, whereas in the proposed legislation, the threshold would be increased to $200. Do you think these thresholds should be the same, regardless of jurisdiction? I think this would be easier for voters. If you agree with me, can we expect to see a proposal to amend the threshold in the Ontario legislation?

• 1125

Secondly, and I really don't know the answer to this question, does the Ontario legislation also apply to municipalities? Do provincial requirements respecting election expenses also apply at the municipal level?

[English]

Mr. Warren Bailie: Well, number one, it would be helpful if the pieces of legislation were identical, of course, because you identify a fairly important area of administration where one remembers the $100 at one level. However, it would certainly be my desire and one of my recommendations that they be the same. As far as the threshold amount of $100 or $200 is concerned, though, I don't know whether that will be achieved or not. I certainly wouldn't disagree that it's a good idea.

As for the other point you raised earlier, gender is not included on our list of electors that goes to the poll. It is on our provincial register of electors, though, because we are cooperating with the federal office and are getting its lists. For any updates we make, based on our agreement, we have to make sure that we collect the information the federal office would want to effectively bring its list further up to date. So we do collect the information, but it just isn't on the list of voters that you see at the poll.

On your final question on the municipal elections, the only connection we have right now with the municipal elections—and this is what we aim for as being the perfection of our list or register of electors—is that each municipal clerk now is required to accept registrations for the Chief Election Officer. In other words, even as we speak, clerks in municipalities all over Ontario are in the position of accepting registrations to update the list. We don't have any authority—thankfully—over municipal elections other than the fact that the clerk in the municipality is now co-opted as a registrar under the Chief Election Officer.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Parrish, you have five minutes.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I'm going to have to go quickly, so maybe Mr. Whelan can just note my questions.

First of all, Mr. Bailie, I would like to compliment you on the financial people you have doing the returns for this last election. I was a little bit involved in it, and they are very accessible, they answer questions very clearly, and they are very nice people.

Besides the list being in a bit of disarray, one objection that I had to the last one was that if you voted in advance, the returning officer in our area made you stand there and read an oath and swear. It was very awkward for one or two people we took in because they had learning disabilities or language problems. Maybe you could clean that up next time so that they all understand that, because it's very hard on people with problems. I was able to read it, but barely, because I didn't have my glasses with me.

My question is on third party limits. You talk about the fact that you feel the third party limits are actually a bit low. One thing I would like you to consider is that when we're running a campaign, we have to include office expenses, we have to include food for canvassers, and we have to include phone lines. Third party people don't have to do any of this. They're just doing straight advertising. I would be concerned about your response to that, because we're regulated very closely, as you well know. For every phone line that comes into a campaign office, for every bit of food that's eaten, everything is kept very carefully, and these third parties don't have that obligation.

My second comment is on the blackout. You felt the blackout was probably a little bit too severe. I'm concerned about third party drops particularly, or even opposition party drops. There was one attempted on me in 1993. It was very spurious. It would have been dropped the night of the election. It was very personal, it was very nasty, and it was also very dishonest. The foolish thing the Tories did in that campaign was to gave it to a delivery firm that my campaign director worked for, so we knew where it was coming from. We called Dr. Horner and it was stopped.

If you take off that last blackout, I think you're subjecting most of us to something we have no time to respond to effectively, and it may be pretty nasty stuff. The limit stops that. In my case, we just had to threaten that they either had to put it into the Tory campaign expenses and go for it, or that they had to file as a third party or whatever would happen now.

• 1130

You talked about constituency associations keeping track of and filing expenses. I'm wondering if you are leaning toward nomination expenses being under your venue. One of the women's caucus groups from the Liberal Party talked about a 15% limit and proper receipts, proper returns, and the whole bit in order to try to control the nomination process. I'd be curious to know your response as to whether you felt capable of doing that in your organization.

The last issue has to do with the nomination, where you mentioned checking the nominators. I was in the delightful position in 1997 of having two illegal candidates running against me, one for the Reform and one for the Tories, because nobody had the authority to check their nomination papers to make sure the signatories all lived in the riding and were Canadian citizens. After I checked it, I thought, wouldn't I look like the big bad guy if I said neither of my candidates are legal?

I'd like you to go a bit farther and tell me what penalty you would impose, what sort of process you'd bring in. If the returning officer had to check it, would they have five days to get new nominators, and if they didn't, would they be disqualified?

Mr. Warren Bailie: I'd like to answer the first point last, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Actually, we don't have the authority in Ontario to check the names on the nomination list. What I was really saying here is that I'm pleased to see that the minister has included this. Our returning officers found it very frustrating that in law they're not allowed to check the names. So I was pleased to see it. I think we should be having the same thing, and rest assured, we'll recommend it.

With regard to exactly what the penalty should be, I haven't really put my mind to it. But it is a good question, and I'll respond later.

With regard to the other question on the expenses you have over and above those of a third party, I think that's a good point. That's why I didn't want to name an amount. I just felt it's important for freedom of expression and information.

The final concern you raised was about something unfair being printed on the last day or so and your ability to respond not being there because of time. Mr. Whalen, Mr. Côté, and I belong to an organization called the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws, and when we're talking to our U.S. colleagues, one of their main concerns is those ads that come out just one or two days before election day. I think before we say anything more about it, we'll have to revisit that subject. I'm certainly glad you reminded me.

While I'm here, our returning officers are working with my assistant on recommendations for a lot of the things on the list.

On the issue of third party advance voting, I have heard of these long oaths people are subjected to in the advance voting. We're certainly going to look carefully at that. At the same time we are going to do it with great care so that the security of the system is maintained.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: If I could just comment, we were on the voters list, the people who were being sworn in. So if you could just take care of that, I think it would be helpful.

The Chair: We're at five minutes. Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Harvey for a five-minute round.

Time flies when you're having fun.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): First of all, I'd like to thank our witnesses and especially Mr. Côté. Unfortunately, I've never had the opportunity to run successfully in a provincial election. I'm delighted to see you here.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): You had your chance, André.

Mr. André Harvey: Yes, but life is too short.

Mr. Côté, could you describe to us the provisions in Bill C-2 respecting the activities of third parties and compare them with the provisions in the Elections Act and Quebec's referendum legislation? Could you highlight the differences between these enactments in terms of restrictions or limitations?

Mr. Pierre-F. Côté: Earlier on, I said that I hadn't done a thorough comparison of the two acts. However, I could do that and report back to you, if you like, but on reading Bill C-2 initially... Canada's Chief Electoral Officer said something to me yesterday in private and I think I can share his thoughts with you. He told me that the drafters of Bill C-2 had tried to avoid too much procedural red tape. I didn't quite understand his meaning and it intrigues me. I'll have to look into it and do the comparison.

• 1135

This is no simple matter because fundamentally, the Supreme Court ruling says that we must respect people's freedom of opinion. However, in my view, the fundamental problem is this: what point is there in controlling and monitoring contributions and the expenses of political parties in minute detail when there is no effective, comprehensive control over third party activities? In my opinion, third party advertising expenses should be stringently controlled. In the Quebec legislation, which has been amended, fairly stringent controls were put in place. Perhaps I'm nitpicking, but I think the only solution is to stringently control all activities by third parties, particularly when it comes to advertising expenses.

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Côté, a number of small associations manage to get by on very tight budgets. Could legislative provisions calling for the hiring of officers and auditors, based on projected contributions levels or involvement, possibly threaten the very survival of certain small associations?

Mr. Pierre-F. Côté: I'd be surprised to see that happen. It's possible, because this type of legislation is very difficult to administer. It could lead to that, but I'd be surprised if it did. The restrictions on third parties that incur expenses are not substantial, and only time will tell, but I'd be surprised if the survival of small associations was threatened. If that were to happen, then freedom of expression and freedom of association would also be threatened. And we can't have that happening. I don't believe we have seen any evidence of this thus far. When the last elections were held in Quebec, these provisions were in place and no problems occurred.

Time will tell if these provisions are overly restrictive, but my feeling is that they are not.

Mr. André Harvey: There has to be a way to strike a balance at the provincial level.

Mr. Pierre-F. Côté: I agree that a balance is important and necessary. When the Supreme Court recognizes the fundamental right of association and the right to incur expenses during an election campaign, then freedom of expression becomes an issue. We must always strive to achieve this balance. It's not easy, but that's what Quebec's Elections Act is trying to do.

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Catterall for five minutes.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I just want to add to what Carolyn had to say to Mr. Bailie in terms of advertising. While the parties may be able to do mass media advertising, I don't think any of us in our own campaigns can afford daily television or radio spots. When we talk about advertising by third parties at the constituency level, I don't think the kind of benchmark you set in terms of dollars really is applicable to a constituency campaign.

The second thing is that I would not want my colleague to be confused. While it's not under your jurisdiction, there is in fact municipal election expenses legislation, and perhaps we might have that provided to her.

The third point I wanted to make is because of the gaps in the list of the actual voters, one of the concerns I've had from the beginning about the permanent voters list is the deterioration over time of who's on the list and whether a demographic bias might enter into the list. I've always been concerned particularly about tenants as opposed to homeowners; lower-income populations; minority populations in terms of language ethnicity; populations that are illiterate, for instance, or less well educated.

• 1140

I wonder if you have done any demographic analysis of those people who were not on the list to see whether that kind of demographic bias is creeping into the list as they age, so to speak.

Mr. Warren Bailie: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the member is right. These are concerns, and with the particular groups you're concerned about, we see there is a greater difficulty for them to get on the list and get registered. You're right.

However, if you examine enumeration carefully, we experience those same difficulties. When the enumerators go around to the doors, for example in Rosedale, if there's someone there, it might just be the maid, but the people get the information. But if they go around to the doors—enumerators, under the former system—and the people aren't there, they're at work, or they're not sure they want to give information to this person at the door, then I think the same groups are equally disadvantaged in enumeration.

I've had people call me up and say they wanted to get revised on the list and the returning officer wasn't very helpful. So I think, well, I better ask some questions. This couple go to work at 4 a.m. and they come home at 1 a.m., because they own a restaurant. I said that unfortunately our special enumerators don't cover those few hours that are in between there.

So it's always been a problem. I think both systems have to be fine-tuned so these people and the concerns of these groups you mentioned are considered. I think we just have to be more effective in whichever system we're using.

I want to tell you my experience is that enumeration is still the best way to make up a good list. However, enumeration has not worked well in recent years, because of high-security buildings, people being a little more cautious about opening doors, and so forth. The technology of enumeration was definitely the better system, but it started to fail to serve us well, especially in the inner cities and so forth. We're obviously going to have to have a hybrid of both in order to get the perfect list.

Thank you for reminding me about those disadvantaged groups. We haven't forgotten, and we've tried to identify ways—I've talked to a coalition of people in Kenora—that we can start earlier to get them to remind their people to make sure they speak up or make themselves available. We'll work on it.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Anders for five.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is addressed to Mr. Côté. One of the concerns you raised in your presentation was whether or not a dollar equals a vote. You asked, does one dollar equal one vote? My question to you is, based on your experience, do you think that money buys elections or that one dollar equals one vote?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre-F. Côté: To answer your question, I'm tempted to quote Bob Dole, a former U.S. presidential candidate. He ran for president several years ago and I think he later lived to regret it. In referring to political action committees, bodies that exist in the United States but not in Canada, he stated the following: “When political action committees make a campaign contribution, they expect something more than just good government in return.”

I don't think we should tempt candidates, and much less MPs, into accepting either some tangible form of appreciation or some help in getting elected. There's no way of knowing exactly everything that goes on, but human nature being what it is, there are persons who will use the situation to their advantage, whether before, during or after the fact.

• 1145

An MP's job is the most noblest profession in our society, the most difficult to exercise and the most demanding in terms of the sacrifices that must be made. It's somewhat normal that when a large corporation makes a hefty contribution to a political party, it expects something in return. That's what I mean when I say that in a democracy, we shouldn't be thinking in terms of one dollar equals one vote, but rather one voter equals one vote.

[English]

Mr. Rob Anders: I would like to ask you, Mr. Bailie, about something you mentioned in your presentation in regard to blackouts.

You said the enforcement of blackouts is nearly impossible. I raise this example not to be tongue-in-cheek, but to be very literal and serious about this. There have been in history some forms of government that have tried to make blackouts perfect—and I can think of Joseph Goebbels or Josef Stalin. I'm dead serious about that. My question to you is, if you were given a mandate, an order, a law, to make a blackout as nearly perfect as possible, what would you have to do? What types of mechanisms and controls would you need to have in place to make a perfectly effective blackout?

Mr. Warren Bailie: That's a very good question. Inasmuch as I'm in charge now, since the Ontario legislation has disbanded our commission.... I'm sure you're aware that we had a nine-member commission who dealt with these matters, and in their wisdom, the Ontario government decided that just the Chief Election Officer could handle it. One thing for sure is that we've had great difficulty with it. I say that because we can get a complaint from one candidate that such and such a candidate has an ad in the paper. Mr. Bailie, what are you going to do about it? It's in the blackout period. We look at it and we look at the date on the top of the newspaper. The law has been broken. So we send a letter to the newspaper and ask them what's going on, you were made aware, we circularized all the media, and so on. And they say, we've looked into this, and one of our juniors failed to take that ad out or put it in a day earlier. The candidate is not guilty. They gave us a very clear insertion order. It wasn't supposed to go in the paper until that day, or it was supposed to come out before that day. What do you want us to do, fire this junior person?

I find it a little frustrating. The explanations are so plausible and so close to what might be the truth. But the ad's still in there, and I don't know what to say to the candidate who has complained to me about why we aren't doing something about it. So it's been our experience.

I have another example, Mr. Chairman—I'll try to be quick. I mentioned that the daily newspapers are not allowed to advertise on those two days, the day before and so forth. But the local newspaper in my district, The Richmond Hill Liberal, publishes on a Thursday, and Thursday is election day in Ontario. So if it's a weekly newspaper, and that's the only day they publish, they're allowed to publish on election day, because otherwise the person wanting to put the ad in would be prohibited from inserting an ad for the whole week. Now, if it were a monthly publication and it only came out, say, on that Thursday, they'd be allowed to put it in. It does seem unfair to the other media that they can't publish at the same time.

So I don't want you to think we're not being vigilant about these things, but it's hard in the final analysis with these four or five exceptions that take place, and the fact that after the fact it's hard to do anything effective about it anyway.

• 1150

That would be a real task for somebody—wouldn't you agree, colleague—to come up with a truly effective law that would cover all the situations to make a blackout effective. Of course, the risk would be that we'd be interfering with freedom of speech.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailie.

Mr. Bergeron for five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, during the course of our proceedings, committee members have had an opportunity to ask questions about non-corporate financing. Quite often, those opposed to including in the federal legislation non-corporate financing provisions with a view to limiting allowable contributions or allowing only individual contributions, argue that in any case, these provisions can always be sidestepped. For example, a company wanting to make a contribution to a political party can always give the money to its employees who then can make individual contributions to that political party.

There are legitimate concerns about these loopholes or opportunities to skirt the legislation. I'd like Mr. Côté to comment on the objections raised by opponents of such legislative provisions.

I have a question for Mr. Bailie as well. Oddly, he said nothing in his presentation about the appointment of deputy returning officers. I'd like him to share with us his views on the subject.

Mr. Pierre-F. Côté: Your concern about the problems associated with the strict enforcement of the law is quite legitimate. However, it's relatively easy to say that the legislation can be circumvented and that there is therefore no point including restrictions like this. When I was in office, I always said very openly: Bring me some evidence and I will institute legal proceedings.

Obviously, I've done some research and investigated this matter to ascertain if in fact this is common practice. The example you gave is the one given most often: a board of directors tells its employees or other board members: “Give as much as you can and you will be reimbursed later.”

I think this does happen. We shouldn't be so naive to think that it doesn't. However, I do not think that it happens routinely. There is one other point that we should consider and that I mentioned earlier quickly, namely the steadily rising election campaign costs and the need for political parties to have adequate funding sources.

Perhaps we've reached a point where individual contributions are no longer sufficient. What other options are there? On the one hand, the state could provide financial assistance. The Quebec government contributes significantly, from a percentage standpoint, to political parties.

I'm wondering if the only solution left—it's just a question, one that I don't have an answer to—is to say: Well, in some cases, perhaps we could allow companies to make contributions to a political party, if it's so easy to get around the legislation, which I doubt, but at the same time, strict rules should be in place to limit contribution amounts, to make the whole contribution process public. Ultimately, prayers don't win elections, money does. These days, communicating is an expensive proposition.

Are there any solutions to this dilemma? I think we need to put on our thinking caps again, but not discard the fundamental principle that has been agreed upon, namely that money must come from individual contributors, first of all, and secondly, that contributions must come from a wide range of sources and must be used for a range of purposes. Everyone has a duty to be vigilant to ensure compliance with the terms of the legislation.

• 1155

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bailie.

Mr. Warren Bailie: We are consulting oracles here.

Those are a couple of difficult questions, Mr. Chairman, but I will endeavour to answer them.

One of the rules we have under the Ontario legislation is that you must not contribute money that is not your own. That's difficult to police, but we make it very clear in our act and in the guidelines that a person must not contribute money that's not their own. Even though corporations are allowed to make contributions in Ontario, it's still the law, very strictly enforced, that if you make a donation, it must be your own.

When one organization tried to do this, making contributions to a political party by giving people in the office large bonuses and saying please send this money to the party that's so good to us, the chairman of that particular charitable organization was put in jail.

So we do follow up on it closely. It's not very easy to catch these people, but we follow up on it closely.

That's my answer to that question.

With regard to the returning officer appointments, I have actually prevailed upon my colleague for several years, getting him to answer questions, because I thought I should be prepared in case the political will in Ontario would be such that the government would allow returning officers to be appointed on a strictly technical basis. There's never been any indication that they were going to make that move. I administer the Elections Act in Ontario and I give advice when the legislature asks it. I've been known to give some advice before they ask, but generally speaking, the subject has not really come up in Ontario.

I've watched very closely the procedure in Quebec, and I think it is good. The procedure is now somewhat the same in B.C. and in some of the other jurisdictions. In Newfoundland, for instance, to some degree the same system was being done without the change in legislation.

I myself have been a federal returning officer. I received an appointment under the present system. I was appointed as a provincial returning officer under this system. I think it works well. It's clear to me now that with technological advances and the complications of permanent lists, the time is coming when more thought must be given to the procedure that's in place in Quebec. It's still going to have to be a decision of the government.

One thing my predecessor said to me when I brought up this subject about 20 years ago in discussions with him was, listen, don't forget, if you are able to convince the government to give you the authority to appoint the returning officers, and if all of a sudden you have a vacancy in Kenora, how are you going to fill it? I told him surely I could just put an ad in the paper. He told me, well, just remember, it's a two-edged sword; right now you have this vast organization with a member or prospective member in each one of these areas who can advise on who a logical person would be in these far-flung areas.

So I was a little concerned about the mechanics of how I would handle it with the much smaller staffs. In Mr. Côté's office, he formerly had something like 19 people in the personnel department.

These tests, these ads that go in, and the letters that come in from prospective people—this is a fairly high-end administrative service, sorting these out. The test these people take is like a civil service exam.

I even asked my colleague on a visit there if I could look into it and have a copy of the test since it sounded so very interesting. He said oh, well, you know, we have to be so careful; if we let copies of the test out.... So the security is really very high.

• 1200

My staff at Elections Ontario now consists of 15 permanent people. I would have to more than double the staff in order to effectively countenance this idea.

But we're still thinking about it. That's all I can say right now.

The Chair: We're certainly out of time—

Mr. Warren Bailie: Sorry about that. It's my long-winded answers.

The Chair: No, we're out of time in the five-minute round. Good questions and good answers.

Mr. Harvey had a question, but the chair will first put his two short questions.

The current act attempts to protect the election advertising of candidates out in the field. There's a section that says no person shall remove or cover up the election advertising of a candidate.

Do either of you have any experience with that type of protective provision? I realize enforcement is always problematic, but have either of you worked with provisions in your own governing statutes that try to protect the integrity of the election advertising of the candidates? If so, what was your experience?

Mr. Warren Bailie: I can tell you, if you ever take a look at the Ontario Elections Act you'll see it's very thin compared with the federal legislation, because we're dealing with the whole country. I've tried over the years, when talking to committees, to say, you know, don't put something in the act that it is not possible to police. I would think that protecting the signs is one of them.

So we don't have a provision in the act. The only protection a candidate has in Ontario elections is that it's private property.

For instance, in Willowdale, just north of the city of Toronto, a candidate's son—and I can hardly believe this—went around collecting up the opponents' signs. A policeman came along and saw him putting them in the trunk, so there was this clear evidence. We certainly were pleased to see how well publicized the arrest was, although the actual conviction of this person took a little while.

So just under the general rules of private property, then, this person was stealing private property and was arrested and convicted. There's nothing in our act about it, sorry.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Côté.

Mr. Pierre-F. Côté: If I've understood you correctly, you asked me if advertising content is controlled.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I believe the question centered on whether any provisions were in place to protect election signs.

Mr. Pierre-F. Côté: I'm sorry. Quebec's legislation contains fairly specific provisions setting out the authorizations required, specifically from municipalities. Municipal regulations govern the placement and removal of campaign signs and billboards. As a result of recent changes, failure to comply with these regulations can result in fines. For example, the infamous billboards and signs that dot the landscape for far too long after the election must now be removed.

Since these regulations went into effect, no major problems have arisen as far as signage is concerned. For instance, agreements must be reached with Hydro-Quebec and the municipalities when signs or billboards are to be erected on their property.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The question had more to do with election signs that are vandalized.

Mr. Pierre-F. Côté: I seem to be having some trouble understanding the question. I apologize.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Harvey has a question.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I have a brief comment, Mr. Chairman.

Following up on a question put by my colleague Mr. Bergeron concerning non-corporate financing, Mr. Côté hinted at something interesting and I'd like to explore that possibility further. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood him to say that maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing if Canadians assumed more responsibility when it came to funding election campaigns if this resulted in a more transparent democratic system.

I'd like to ask Mr. Côté if personally he believes Canadians would be willing to get more involved in the financing of election campaigns to guard against the possible ulterior motives of those of partially fund federal election campaigns.

• 1205

Mr. Pierre-F. Côté: Off the top of my head, I would tend to say yes, they would. Voter confidence has much to do with appearances. When activities are kept hidden or shrouded in secrecy, the public is left with a bad impression.

The other benefit to getting the public more involved is that one they are more committed from a financial standpoint, they realize that elections are their business and their concern. Consequently, they become even more committed to the electoral process.

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. White.

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

Mr. Harvey, I was going to just continue with a little bit of the line I was following before, but I found it interesting that when you were asked a question about enumeration you mentioned that people aren't home and people are afraid to open their doors. I can't help making the political observation that maybe if the taxes were lower so one parent could stay at home and the justice system were tougher so people weren't afraid to open their doors, then enumeration would work again. Anyway, that wasn't really my question, but a great comment.

Yes, Mr. Harvey, last night we had the Canadian Labour Congress here and they indicated an objection to the electronic voters list, to the permanent list. One example that was used was where seven enumeration cards or voter cards arrived at this one address that was occupied by students and therefore it was wide open to abuse, that seven votes could have been cast by people who weren't actually there. So I'd like you to comment on that.

While you are commenting on that, could you comment on the fraud that's possible with regular enumeration as well. Compare the two, if you could, please.

Mr. Warren Bailie: Well, I think it would be most effective if I deal with the second question first again. Under enumeration the card would still come in the same way, in the same fashion, and with students, because they come and go, we could be faced with the same situation—seven cards arriving there, and people thinking this meant that votes could be illegally cast.

The point is that card is to tell people where the voting place is. I've always rather favoured the system they use in Quebec. If I understand it correctly, a card comes in the mail saying, if there are any voters in this building, this is where you vote, so with that card it would be nearly impossible to impersonate an elector because it's just like what I'd call a householder. I've seriously considered recommending this system in Ontario, but it hasn't happened yet.

There are several advantages to enumeration. One I used to always cite is that when the parties gave us a proper list of people, and this is where enumeration started to fail, when the parties stopped accepting carefully this responsibility of giving us the name of a person in each poll to help with this enumeration and they started sending people from the other end of town over to here and so forth.

Now, when they did that, it was very helpful because two people would go door to door heralding the coming of the election, which was a big advantage enumeration had over this permanent list. However, we've just found it didn't work well and there was an initiative by the government that they wanted to shorten the election period, and eight days were taken out of the election period so there wouldn't be time for enumeration to be done, corrected by revision and so forth, in time to distribute copies to the parties.

So enumeration is still a possibility in Ontario elections, but it will have to be done outside the election period.

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Bailie, with all due respect, you didn't get quite to the nub of what I was getting at. Perhaps I didn't explain well.

With enumeration it seems to me when a person is going door to door and says, are you a Canadian citizen and are you 18 and do you live here, there's no proof required, so that's surely wide open to fraud.

• 1210

In fact, this present act has a phrase in it that says it's an offence to register an animal or a thing, which indicates to me it is possible to register an animal or a thing.

Mr. Warren Bailie: Under enumeration was where we used to hear about these things. Out near where I live there's a couple and they have this little piece of property, about 19 acres, and on the mailbox it has their name, like “Ray and Sue”, and then a couple of other names. Now if the enumerators went there and there was no one there they would think it was quite clear who lives there. But the other names—one is the dog and one is the pony. That's how animals get on the voters lists.

In my building, which is an older building, there are a lot of retired people and a lot of widows, and a lot of the ladies, probably for several reasons, leave the entry on the register in the lobby as “Harold Brown”. So they put down Harold Brown and he passed away four years ago.

Mr. Ted White: Over time, though, would not the electronic list get more reliable because of the way people are being added? It's being done from drivers' licences, it's being done from new citizen registrations, it's being done from people coming at the right age. All those things now are coming through other databases. So it seems to me reasonable that over time that list will be much more accurate than anything we ever had.

Mr. Warren Bailie: You're right, for exactly the reasons you cite, over time, and time is in our favour, no doubt about it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'd like to focus a little more on the chair's question concerning election signs. Basically, we wanted to know if Quebec's legislation contained provisions to guard against acts of vandalism involving signs and billboards erected on people's property, on poles and so forth. Or is it simply a matter, as in the case of Ontario's provincial election legislation, of these signs being protected under private property rules? Are there specific protective provisions in Quebec's legislation that address this issue?

Here's the other question that I'd like to ask Mr. Côté. Did I understand him correctly to say earlier that under Quebec's election law, the Chief Electoral Officer could institute legal action if someone violated not only the letter, but also the spirit of the legislation? As I understood it, an employee who made a contribution to a political party and who subsequently was reimbursed the amount of that contribution by his company could eventually be brought up on charges under Quebec's election legislation.

Mr. Pierre-F. Côté: The answer to your second question is yes. Obviously, legal action could be taken against that individual and he could be ordered to pay a hefty fine. The problem, however, is coming up with the evidence to make the charge stick.

As for your first question concerning vandalism, I can't really give you a specific answer as to whether the legislation contains stringent protective provisions to deal with this problem. I apologize to the chair for not understanding his question earlier. I'd have to check the actual provisions in the act. Of course, this could be considered a case of public mischief or a violation of Criminal Code rules and regulations... Such acts of public mischief or vandalism involving another candidate's property are not very common, although incidents like this do occur. I think it comes down to a matter of educating the public.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say something further about the list of electors, following up on the exchanges on this question. I think Quebec's list of electors should also be used for federal elections. There shouldn't be a separate federal list used for federal elections held in Quebec because Quebec's list is one of the most comprehensive lists around, given the source from which the data is drawn, namely the Régie de l'assurance-maladie. People's names appear on the list because data is collated with information obtained from the Department of Citizenship, the Régie des rentes, driver's licence registration and the register of birth, deaths and marriages. The list contains the names of all people who satisfy the basic requirements, namely persons who are 18 years of age, Canadian citizens and so forth and entitled to vote. When a person doesn't want his name to appear on the list, he must specifically request that it not appear.

• 1215

The main problem with a permanent list of electors is updating that list by reviewing its contents. I don't think this problem can be rectified by conducting a new census. A door-to-door census is a thing of the past. The main problem arises when a person moves, either within or to a different riding.

The latest figures on revisions to Quebec's list of electors, which is used for provincial, municipal and school board elections, are rather astonishing. Fewer and fewer revisions and changes are being made since the list is so accurate.

I think Quebec can be cited as a model when it comes to having a state-of-the-art computerized system, one that provides a reliable source of information.

Of course, when you operate with a list, rather than conducting a door-to-door census, it's important to ensure that the list has been drawn up properly and—and this is a new feature of the Quebec legislation—that voters show proof of their identity. These provisions were in place for this fall's municipal elections. We did not issue cards to voters, but instead asked them to produce one piece of identification to show that their name in fact corresponded to the one appearing on the list of electors.

Voters could produce one of the following three pieces of identification: their health insurance card, their driver's licence or their certificate of citizenship. Why these three items? Because each bears a photograph of the person in question. We've almost reached the stage where the system in place allows people to exercise their right to vote without having to worry and with confidence that their name will appear on the list.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

I have one more question. I'm looking for your experience, if you have experience in this specific area. This bill tries very hard to enable citizens to vote, irrespective of where they may be and their personal circumstances. In the circumstance where we have a chronic care facility, a home for the aged who are disabled, this statute allows the DRO and the poll clerk to pick up the ballot box and go room to room, and it also allows the DRO to give the elector the assistance necessary to enable the elector to vote.

Now, two things are happening here and the question is this. Do you think this section is workable, given that the section does two things? It could take away the privacy of that voter in voting secretly, and secondly, the section, by its wording, may allow the DRO to actually mark the ballot of the disabled person. I'm wondering if either in Ontario or Quebec you have experience in this area of the DRO giving significant assistance to the disabled or incapacitated voter.

Either one can answer.

[Translation]

Mr. Côté.

Mr. Pierre-F. Côté: Yes, there is such a provision in the Quebec legislation. I believe the reference is to “votes itinérants”, that is to votes cast by persons not residing at the time at their principal residence, but rather in health care facilities recognized by the province. Thus far, we have been completely satisfied with the procedure employed. It allows persons who are unable to get around to obtain assistance and to exercise their right to vote. Rest assured that the method employed which enables a disabled person to exercise his right to vote is strictly controlled. For example, one person cannot help 20 different people to vote. Different people are called in to lend assistance. A series of measures have been included in the legislation to ensure secrecy. Moreover, so that it doesn't become public knowledge that the residents of a particular health care facility voted one way or another, their votes are tabulated along with the votes cast in other polling divisions.

• 1220

This way, the safety and secrecy of the voting process are maintained. Despite the extra work this entails, this method of voting is certainly a substantial improvement over past methods.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bailie.

Mr. Warren Bailie: Mr. Chairman, in Ontario we have provisions that are almost identical to what you describe. The deputy returning officer, at a poll described as being in a home where chronic care patients are involved, at a certain time, usually around 11 o'clock in the morning, puts up a sign at the table, and the poll, in the term we use in our act, “perambulates” around to the beds of patients who are unable to come down to the polling place.

It's true that this arrangement wouldn't give the patients the same privacy designed for the poll. However, the position we take is that the privacy provisions are provided in the polling place, where we have a separate voting compartment and so forth.

However, for a patient who cannot get to that location or that type of location, for whom extraordinary arrangements must be made, it's their decision, as it were, to vote this other way. We even go to the extent that if a handicapped person arrives at a poll and is unable to get into the building because it's not wheelchair accessible or there are stairs, the poll official can be asked to bring the ballot box down to the vehicle. The DRO asks the driver to step out and hands the ballot to that person. The car becomes the voting compartment.

They all just stand back while the person marks the ballot. Then they stick the ballot box in the window, put the ballot in, and go back to the poll. It doesn't happen very often, but we have that provision for the ballot box to be taken to the curb to assist handicapped voters.

The Chair: Is it acceptable, then, in your view, to allow the returning officer to actually mark the ballot in some difficult cases?

Mr. Warren Bailie: Yes. If a person requests that the deputy returning officer mark the ballot because they're unable to do it, they have then made this decision to waive their right to privacy because they have no other option. It's not the best system, but I think the deputy returning officers would handle it carefully. Under our act, if a deputy returning officer marks the ballot, he must mark it in the presence of the poll clerk so there is a witness.

The Chair: All right. Thank you.

Ms. Bakopanos has a question.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): I know we're running late, but I just want to ask one short question.

[Translation]

My question is for Mr. Côté and Mr. Bailie. You mentioned identification cards. Are you in favour of introducing a card that would allow us to identify electors. Other countries have adopted this approach. I'm talking about a permanent card that a citizen can use as proof of his or her identify when called upon to vote in provincial, municipal or school board elections, or the election of a hospital board of directors, as we had recently.

Mr. Pierre-F. Côté: Are you talking about a voter's card or about an I.D. card?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: They're one and the same thing.

Mr. Pierre-F. Côté: That's precisely the distinction I was looking to make in order to understand your question. In France and elsewhere in Europe, residents are issued a voter's card. Here, we have a voter's identification card, which is something altogether different. I've examined both systems and I have come to the conclusion that the voter card formula is not suited to our lifestyle. In France, the voter registers with the commune or municipality, a list of electors is drawn up and a voter's card is issued to him. Many problems arise when a person moves to a new location. Furthermore, a voter's card conveys the image of some form of police control.

The best system I have ever encountered and the most extraordinary one of all is found in Mexico. The country spent many millions of dollars issuing voter cards to residents. It completed the process just over a year ago. Moreover, it sought Canada's advice on this issue. The voter card has become a national identification card. It's impossible for someone to do business in Mexico or to do any banking transactions without this card. This highly sophisticated card cost a fortune to produce. It contains a person's fingerprint and photograph along with other information.

• 1225

I've come to the conclusion that provided we have a list of electors that is complete and updated on a regular basis, then there is no need for this form of police control. When a person shows up at the polling station, the important thing is to be able to match the elector's name, surname and address with the information appearing on the list of electors. The best way to do that is by checking the voter's identification.

Quebec has long been opposed to an official voter's card. You may recall that in old French movies, officials often said: “Your papers, please”. We haven't yet come to that in Canada and in North America and issuing voter's cards would not convey the right impression. Moreover, from an efficiency standpoint, I don't think voter cards are necessary.

[English]

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Bailie.

Mr. Warren Bailie: I've had the good fortune, through the federal electoral office, to be able to help monitor and supervise elections in over 20 countries around the world. For the most part, these cards are required and so forth.

It does make it difficult for some people to vote. I remember when I was in El Salvador in a little village. This couple came to me in tears. They saw my international identification. This man had bought two bus tickets to go into the administrative centre to vote on that Sunday and had spent a whole week's pay and so forth. By the time he got in there, he had his identity card and his name was on the voters' list. But the night before, his wife had decided to take his shirt and wash it after he went to sleep, and his voter card ended up as a little piece of white mush. He wasn't allowed to vote. His name was on the list and he had his ID card, the national identification card...and this idea that all these identifiers...it seems a shame.

I also helped supervise an election in Zimbabwe. It was interesting. It was one of the first international elections that we supervised. They didn't have a voters' list, as the black people had never had a census before. After all, everybody could come out to vote, and as long as they looked to be nearly 18, they went through and voted. You had to dip your fingers in a dye so you couldn't come around and vote a second time. Let's face it, there were some people who were probably 17, and maybe a few 16-year-olds voted, but they're citizens too.

If anybody is that interested in voting, is it so terrible? Here in Ontario we have people who are 40 and don't realize they have a responsibility to help with governing the country by voting.

On the one hand, it would make our job more simple because everything would be more precise, but on the other hand, I think, somebody is going to lose this card and feel they're not allowed to go to the polls and vote. That would be unfortunate. So I don't know....

In Ontario we have a large group of people who have a very strong religious belief that the day on which everyone is assigned a number will be the last day. They would give up their right to vote rather than be required to carry an identifying card; it would ultimately have a number on it. So they would just end up not being able to vote.

Where it would assist in some ways, it would deter in other ways. I don't know...thank goodness, I'm going to retire this year, so I won't have to worry about it.

The Chair: On behalf of my colleagues, I want to thank you very much for coming here today. Together you have a wealth of experience, and we very much appreciate your contribution to our analysis of this bill.

We stand adjourned.