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 30, 1999

• 1028

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. I see a quorum. We're continuing our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act.

When we left off last night, we had completed up to part 10; we had finished clause 167. We are now recommencing at clause 168. Oh, wait. We have adopted clauses 168 through 194.

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: So we should turn to clause 195 of the bill and prepare to go to work.

(On clause 195—Completion by reserve member not on active service)

The Chair: There is an amendment proposed by the government, G-8. You will find G-8 in the big brick at page 81 in English, and the

[Translation]

the French version on the following page.

[English]

Mr. Knutson, would you introduce amendment G-8?

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): This is a housekeeping amendment, and I would ask Mr. Peirce to explain it.

• 1030

Mr. Michael Peirce (Director, Legal Operations, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office): Inadvertently, when the drafting was done for this amendment, the reference to “reserve force” was left out of subclause 195(3). So it's simply an amendment to add that back in to clarify, to keep the act the way it was previously.

The Chair: Are we satisfied with that?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): I have a question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have a problem with part of the amendment. On page 84, in the French version of the amendment, it says:

(6) An amendment to a statement of ordinary residence takes effect:

a) if it is made during an election period, 14 days after polling day; and

Fourteen days after polling day. Am I missing something?

Mr. Michael Peirce: Where is that?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On page 84, paragraph (a).

Mr. Michael Peirce: I'm sorry.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It says:

(6) An amendment to a statement of ordinary residence takes effect:

a) if it is made during an election period,

and then follows something I don't quite understand:

14 days after polling day;

I don't know if there's something I'm missing, but how can you authorize an amendment to a statement of ordinary residence 14 days after polling day?

The Chair: Mrs. Bruyère.

Ms. Diane Bruyère (Assistant Director, Elections Coordination, Elections Canada): The registry of Canadian Forces members is updated on a continual basis. So there are constant amendments to statements of ordinary residence. They are presented to the base commander, who sends them to headquarters, who send them to Elections Canada for certification. All this takes time.

Under the current Act, if a statement of ordinary residence is made during an election, it does not take effect until after polling day. Therefore, voters' files are still updated after the elections. But this would not prevent someone from voting.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Under the old address or the new one?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: The old address.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Fine. So it simply means that the new address does not count on election day.

Ms. Diane Bruyère: That's right.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If the person wants the new address to count, he will have to make a statement of amendment before the writs are issued.

Ms. Diane Bruyère: That's correct.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 195 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 222—Register of electors)

The Chair: We now move to clause 222. We have two amendments for that clause, standing in the name of Monsieur Bergeron. They are BQ-48 and BQ-49. You will find them in the brick at page 85.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, we would like to withdraw amendment BQ-48 regarding section 222.

[English]

The Chair: Amendment BQ-48 is withdrawn at the request of Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We would also like to withdraw amendment BQ-49.

[English]

(Clause 222 agreed to)

(On clause 226—Deletion of names from register)

The Chair: We go to clause 226. There is an amendment in the name of Monsieur Bergeron that is located in the brick at page 87, amendment BQ-50.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We would also like to withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

(Clause 226 agreed to)

(On clause 227—Sending of special ballot and envelopes)

The Chair: We go to clause 227, where there's an amendment under the name of Mr. Bergeron, BQ-51, on the next page in the brick, page 88.

Monsieur Bergeron.

• 1035

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, the objective of this amendment is to allow a voter who is abroad to cast his ballot even if he does not know the name of the candidate of the political party for which he wants to vote.

It's clear that voters who are abroad do not necessarily know the names of the candidates who are running, but they still may want to vote for a particular political party, irrespective of the candidate.

The objective of the amendment is to let a voter who is abroad indicate his intention of voting for a political party and to make such a vote count.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The concern of the government is that it's unfair to independents. Not everyone is affiliated with a party.

The Chair: Mr. White and then Mr. Anders.

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

I'd like to ask Elections Canada how often the candidate's political affiliation is not available on this type of ballot and whether or not Elections Canada sees a problem with this amendment. It would seem to me it's a reasonable amendment that would help people to understand their voting position. Can Elections Canada identify any problems with this amendment?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: From a purely operational perspective, should an elector be entitled to vote for a party as opposed to a candidate, it would give international electors specifically a little bit more time to return their ballots. But that's strictly operational. It's a policy decision.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): I'd just like to say that I think for pretty much everybody sitting around this table, people vote primarily based on party, some people vote based on party leader, and last and least they vote based on their local candidate. A lot of people in this room, including Miss Parrish, got swept in on the Prime Minister's coattails, not their own. I recognize that's the case for most members in this place.

I'm thinking back to democracy in Canada as it stood in 1867, when people could vote even if they weren't able to read or write, but could simply mark an X for their form of a signature. People used to vote based on symbols. For example, in the United States they still carry forward with donkeys for the Democrats and elephants for the Republicans as symbols that people actually attributed to the political parties.

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to be able to express their wish to vote for a given party. We all know that when people vote, that is a major criterion, and that a lot of people, when they vote, don't even know who the individual candidates are. I think it's only fair that we be able to reflect that in the electoral process, and that people who are casting special ballots be able to do that without having any “silly buggers” placed on them in terms of how they cast their ballots.

The Chair: Monsieur Bergeron, followed by Ms. Parrish.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I must say that what Mr. Knutson said greatly surprised me. Does the government really intend to vote against this amendment for such a flimsy reason, one which I find completely inappropriate in the present situation?

Mr. Knutson said that the aim is to protect the right of independent candidates. This amendment completely recognises the right of a voter who is abroad to cast his ballot for a specific candidate. So he could also vote for an independent candidate. This is not a problem for independent candidates.

It simply regards candidates who run for a specific political party, so that an elector abroad... If, however, the voter who is aborad does not know the name of the independent candidate, he will not be able to vote for him. But if the person who is abroad intends to vote for the Liberal Party of Canada or for the New Democratic Party of Canada and if he does not know the name of the candidate who will run for the party, he must still have the right to make his choice and the vote should count.

As Elections Canada said, that way, the voter who is abroad will be sure that the vote will arrive in time to be counted.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Peirce.

• 1040

Mr. Michael Peirce: I think there are a few concerns with this amendment. One is the unfairness to independents because of the fact that if you didn't know an independent's name, you wouldn't be able to identify them simply as the independent and vote for them, whereas if you didn't know the name of a candidate who was nominated by a registered party, you would be able to vote for them, nevertheless. So this would give an unfair advantage to candidates representing registered parties.

The second thing is that it is contrary to the principle of the act—which runs throughout the act—that people in federal elections in Canada vote for candidates. Officially, they may have other information that informs their vote, but it is candidates that they vote for and only candidates.

The third thing is there is a concern about the concept of political affiliation, which is not clearly defined.

The Chair: Okay. I'll go to Ms. Parrish, then Mr. Pickard, and Mr. Anders.

Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I just want to thank Mr. Anders for the explanation of Election 101. That indicates that Mr. Chrétien got 65% of the vote in my riding, and Mr. Manning didn't get his deposit back.

Despite his comments, it's well known the candidate does get 5% of the vote, plus or minus, and in a close race this could disadvantage a candidate. So I don't think voting just for a party would be suitable. I think the candidate's name needs to be on there.

They put party names on federal ballots only within the last two or three elections, if I'm correct.

Mr. Michael Peirce: In 1970.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: The years fly when you're having a good time.

I think there's very good reason to leave the candidate's name on. I think in most situations, if it's a military base or whatever, the name and the party will be clearly evident to the voters, so I think the way it is is the way it should be.

The Chair: Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I think both the name and the party have good reason to be there for clarification. The only reason I suggest that is it's not unfairness, but I do think that unfairness could happen the other way too. If you have two people with the last name Turner, people may not recognize them as separate political affiliations. There then becomes a problem in communication. If that be the case, I think this is an extra aid to help them.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Anders, then Mr. Bergeron, and then Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Rob Anders: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have to admit I have some trouble with the logical inconsistency that I sense we're getting here from counsel and from Elections Canada on this.

How is it that it's okay to take away the party registration from the Communist Party, Marxist-Leninist Party, or some other small parties because they fail to run 50 candidates, and therefore deprive the small parties of the ability to put their party affiliation next to the name of their candidates? That is somehow all good and just, but on the flip side, you're going to argue that it's unfair for independents to not be able to.... I'm sorry, I think there's a logical breakdown between the two of those.

The Chair: That's rhetorical. That's fine.

I'll go to Mr. Bergeron, and then Mr. Bonin.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to clarify a misperception which Mr. Pickard and Ms. Parrish seem to have.

The question is not whether we should have the name of the candidate or the name of the political party. That information does not appear on the ballot; the voter must write the name of the candidate, since the list of the candidates cannot be forwarded to him on time. Given the delays involved, voters abroad may have to send their ballots before the candidates have even been chosen.

At that point, the ballots have not even been printed and the list of candidates may still be incomplete. We simply want to ensure that Canadians who are abroad have enough time to send in their ballots. To make this possible, there is a blank ballot on which they can write the name of a candidate, when they know it.

• 1045

The idea is not to have ballots with only the name of candidates or only the name of political parties. That's not at all what we're talking about. The point is to allow a voter to write "Liberal Party of Canada" on a blank ballot, to fold it, to send it and to have it counted.

I'm not saying that we should remove the names of candidates or political parties from the ballots. On polling day, it's normal that both names appear on the ballot when, of course, the candidates are members of a political party. However, the ballots provided abroad are blank and you have to fill them out yourself. But often Canadians abroad do not know the names of their candidates. We just want to make life easier for them.

Do we want these people to vote or not? The aim is just to help Canadians abroad vote.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Bonin, and then Ms. Parrish.

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we do want Canadians to vote. However, from my point of view, we want them to vote for an individual. In 1993, there were no independent members in the House of Commons. Today, there are three or four, and...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: There was one in 1993, and it was Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Exactly, there was one. But someone may inadvertently vote for a new independent candidate by associating him with an established party, believing that he is still a member of that party. Take the case of Mr. Lefebvre. A Canadian travelling abroad may remember Mr. Lefebvre's face, may know who he is and believe he is still a member of the Bloc Québécois. The same applies for Mr. Nunziata.

That way, we would not penalize an independent candidate.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'm concerned about two points. One is to ask Elections Canada if there would be any chance that you'd have difficulty assigning such a ballot to a riding when you're counting them.

Second, I still think a well-informed elector would like to know who the candidate is, because the candidate could be nominated after the vote is cast. It could be somebody who'd cheated their father in business, and the voter wouldn't be able to withdraw their ballot. So I think they need to be well informed, they need to have the same information that a regular voter has. If they already have the privilege of voting without being here and voting before the rest of us, I think they should have exactly the same information. I'd like my question answered.

Ms. Diane Bruyère: From the point of view of assigning the ballot it's not an issue, because the elector is registered and the riding is already predetermined before they get their ballot. So if the legislation provided that they could vote for either the candidate or the party, it would be counted as such within that given riding.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Then I stick to my second objection, which is that you may end up getting a candidate selected for the party of your choice who you don't like for some reason. I think your vote should be well informed.

The Chair: Okay. That appears to exhaust the discussion, so I will put the amendment.

Mr. Rob Anders: I call for a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 227 agreed to on division)

(On clause 233-Information required for application)

The Chair: We now move to clause 233. There's an amendment in the name of the government. Mr. Knutson, please.

• 1050

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We talked briefly about this amendment yesterday. This is the amendment that deals with an elector who is under reasonable apprehension of bodily harm. You don't have to indicate their address. As I indicated yesterday, it's designed to protect, for example, women in battered women's shelters.

The minister talked about this as well when he appeared before the committee.

The Chair: I think we all understand. It's to provide an exemption for persons at some physical risk.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I have dealt with, as probably a number of us have, cases of people fearing for their lives or their safety for one reason or other, and trying to relocate and establish a new identity. Getting a SIN number is one of the hardest things to do.

Are we confident that this is tight enough? I know the purpose of it, but is it tight enough to ensure that it applies as we think it's intended to apply? Can anybody come forward and say they'd rather not be listed at their current address, and here's why? What's the onus here on the person wanting special treatment?

The Chair: Mr. Peirce.

Mr. Michael Peirce: There has to be a demonstration of a reasonable apprehension of bodily harm. That's number one. Two, the request to have the address kept confidential can be refused if it would not be in the public interest to do so.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: What's the burden of proof here? That's not what you called this, but it was something similar. How does one have to demonstrate reasonable apprehension of bodily harm?

Mr. Michael Peirce: It's just in the view of the returning officer. There is no specific standard set out.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Is that good enough?

Mr. Michael Peirce: We're confident it is.

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: I was just going to follow up on what Ms. Catterall was asking. That was exactly the nature of my question, whether there is nothing we ask...and you said, no, there's nothing we ask for. Is there something we could potentially ask for beyond just the determination of the returning officer?

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Well, you could ask for “balance of probabilities”, as we heard yesterday.

Mr. Ted White: I was just going to suggest the same thing.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What should I call it? The balance of probabilities?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: What I think would happen, Mr. Chair, is that the person would just go in and tell their story. You want a low threshold. You don't want a high test for a person who doesn't want to indicate their address. In my community it might be a psychiatric outpatient, but I don't think I want the returning officer spending a lot of time trying to sort it out. If the person wants to use a different address, this gives the discretion to the returning officer to allow them to use an address that's different from the one they live at.

The obvious cases would be where somebody is living at a women's shelter. That's fairly easy. I don't think we want a really strong test as to when a person is allowed to use a different address.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron and then Ms. Catterall.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would probably have been in favour of that amendment, given its underlying premise, in particular to protect women living in shelters because they are trying to flee their ex-spouse. However, if I understand correctly, basically anybody could put down a new address by simply saying that they have a reasonable fear of bodily harm if their postal address or normal place of residence are revealed.

I feel that this goes against the spirit of the Elections Act, which calls for giving one's place of residence. It opens the door to possible abuse, if I'm not mistaken. It wouldn't be long before members of the Hell's Angels or the Rock Machine would give new addresses under the pretext that they would suffer bodily harm if their real address were revealed.

• 1055

No, I really don't feel like getting into that. The amendment is too fussy and too vague to warrant my support.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson, then Ms. Catterall.

Mr. Gar Knutson: What you're saying, then, is that you want the returning officer to do some kind of in-depth examination of the facts surrounding why the person feels they're under reasonable apprehension of bodily harm and to make some determination, based on some criteria.

In the interest of public safety, I think you want it left vague and you want the discretion fairly wide. I don't see a whole lot of room for abuse. A person is still only going to be able to vote once.

I think we should support the amendment.

The Chair: I'm going to recognize Ms. Catterall, then Ms. Parrish, and others.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I certainly think we should support the amendment just on the basis of providing a level of safety for a very small number of people who will need it. I guess what I would be concerned about is that sufficient guidelines are provided to returning officers so that it is applied consistently across the country.

Discretion is great, but it can lead to one returning officer grilling an applicant and prying into their personal life to a great extent, and somebody else perhaps just saying yes to anybody who asks. Those two extremes are a little bit too wide, for me.

The Chair: Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Just to reiterate what Mr. Knutson just said, the last line says:

For greater certainty, the granting of the application does not change the elector's place of ordinary residence for the purposes of this Act.

So if you are an abused wife and you've moved into a shelter, you're still going to vote in the poll in the area you lived in when you were enumerated. You can't shift people to shift a vote, or to give more strength to a particular party in an area. This person is going to be allowed to cast a ballot, but only in the poll that was their last place of residence.

I think living in a shelter automatically means you don't get questioned. I mean, if you say you're in a shelter, there's no need to question you any further.

I think that addresses your concern. People aren't going to be shifted around.

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: I'd just like to ask Elections Canada if, in studying this amendment, any problems been have identified or difficulties with it anticipated.

The Chair: Diane Bruyère.

Ms. Diane Bruyère: No. Actually, this amendment will clarify a problem we have had in the past with, for example, shelters for abused women, where they don't want to disclose their current address.

What we're telling them to do is vote by special ballot so they don't have to go in person to the polling station and risk running into their ex-spouse. They can use their regular home address as their address for voting purpose, but we won't divulge their mailing address, which is where they're living now. So this will fix that problem.

The Chair: But remember, colleagues, this is a person who really wants to vote here. The person is actually on a one-off, going into the returning office to arrange for a vote when they have an address disclosure problem. So it probably wouldn't happen that often, but as Ms. Bruyère says, it has come up and has posed some difficulty.

Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: This is just a potentiality. I don't know that this will happen, but one wonders. Mr. Bergeron brought up the subject of what if Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine used this in some capacity. You know, people from various gangs or something like that would argue that they have an apprehension of bodily harm.

I would just hate to have a returning officer in a position whereby some biker was making an application to them and telling them a story. If I was a returning officer and I had a biker or a member of a gang telling me a story, I know I would have a certain compelling reason to want to agree with them in terms of their apprehension of bodily harm, and I'm not sure if we want to put returning officers in that position.

The Chair: Mr. Peirce, did you have a comment?

Mr. Michael Peirce: Yes. Although this doesn't entirely answer the point both Mr. Anders and Mr. Bergeron have made, that it's open to abuse by someone from perhaps a criminal organization, that's specifically why we added the language “unless he or she”—that is, the returning officer—“considers that it would not be in the public interest”. Protecting the identity of the head of a criminal organization, for instance, would not normally be in the public interest.

• 1100

But that doesn't entirely answer the point of the question.

The Chair: Ms. Bruyère, would the proposed arrangements in this amendment generally under the act allow for the Chief Electoral Officer to issue guidelines in relation to how that section operated?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: Absolutely. As with anything else in the act, the Chief Electoral Officer is required to interpret for returning officers and issue the directives as to how they implement this particular section. So we would do that.

The Chair: We're anticipating some type of page in the manual, then.

Ms. Diane Bruyère: Yes.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 233 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 243—Assistance)

The Chair: There is an amendment in the name of the government, G-10, on page 91 of the brick.

Mr. Knutson will introduce the amendment.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm advised by officials that we would like to withdraw the amendment in anticipation of bringing another one with better language. So I would ask that the clause be stood down until later today. I'll have it for you by 7 p.m.

(Clause 243 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 253 to 260 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 273 agreed to)

(On clause 277—Setting aside of outer envelope)

The Chair: There is an amendment in the name of the government, G-11. You will find G-11 in the brick at page 93.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: This is a consequential amendment to the one we just stood down. Consequently, I would like this clause to be stood as well, until this evening.

(Clause 277 allowed to stand)

(On clause 283—Counting the votes)

The Chair: There is an amendment in the name of Mr. Bergeron, BQ-52. You will find it in the brick, page 95.

Monsieur Bergeron.

Mr. Gar Knutson: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we're prepared to support this with one minor change.

The Chair: Let us for the record first have a concise description of the amendment and then we'll fix it, or modify it.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, very simply, the objective of the amendment is to democratize the vote count by letting anyone who wants to participate.

I am quite curious to know in what way the government wishes to change this draft amendment.

[English]

The Chair: I'd like the record to show specifically what the amendment is for rather than just “enhancing democracy”. What will the amendment do?

Mr. Gar Knutson: It will give people tally sheets. It will give the scrutineers tally sheets as they count the vote.

The Chair: Oh, okay. Good.

Now, Mr. Bergeron, there's a suggestion for modification.

Mr. Knutson, would you describe the modification?

Mr. Gar Knutson: In the English part, we would like to add the word “persons” so that it now will say “supply the poll clerk and all the persons referred to in subsection (1)”.

• 1105

The Chair: Is that the only modification?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes.

The Chair: All right. I'll recognize Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): I have a question for Elections Canada or the government. Is it safe to assume that the persons will receive a pad of tally sheets, or is it one tally sheet?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: You only need one because the one tally sheet will now accommodate all of the candidates. We have, I believe, up to 14 candidates on a tally sheet. When you're sitting at a polling station, you'll need one tally sheet to mark the ballots off for each of the votes cast.

Mr. John Solomon: The reason I asked that is because in our organization we have pads of tally sheets, and we have outside scrutineers come in on a regular basis. I suppose they'll continue to do that.

Mr. Gar Knutson: This is for counting the votes.

Mr. John Solomon: Okay. That's cool. Great.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The answer is yes.

[English]

The Chair: —do you accept the modification to your amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: We're all clear as to what that modification is.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 283 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 318—Equality of votes)

The Chair: There is an amendment in the name of Mr. Solomon. It is NDP-16, which is located in group B. It's not in the brick. It is in group B at page 18.

Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: This was subsequent to a previous amendment we put forward to provide for the returning officer to cast the deciding ballot in the event of a tie. As committee members are reminded, the committee in its wisdom—or lack thereof, depending on where you stand on the issue—decided not to allow the returning officers to withhold their vote until such time as a tie is counted. Therefore, we would withdraw this, because it's not relevant at this point.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Solomon. NDP-16 is withdrawn.

(Clause 318 agreed to on division)

(On clause 319—Definitions)

The Chair: There are two amendments proposed. One is BQ-53, which is located in the brick at page 96, and there's G-12 right after it in the same brick. Unless there is another view, I would ask Mr. Bergeron to introduce BQ-53.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I was just speaking with one of my assistants to find out what happened to the amendment NDP-16. It was withdrawn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment BQ-53 to clause 319 seeks to withdraw from the definition the words “employees”. When an employer, who is in a position of authority, sends his employees electoral material, it may be perceived as an act of undue influence. That's why we would like to drop the word "employees".

[English]

The Chair: Does that complete your explanation? Is there a reason we might want the word “employees” removed?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But I've just explained that, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

• 1110

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Given that there is a hierarchical relationship, a relationship of authority between the employer and his employees, if the employer sends an employee a pamphlet extolling the achievements of a certain candidate or decrying the failures of someone else, that may be seen as putting undue pressure on the employee, since it implicitly indicates whom to vote for. I don't think that's appropriate in a democratic system.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Thank you for that.

Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Bergeron, I agree with your rationale. What this is saying in the definitions clause is that has to be classified as advertising.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No, it does not include....

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Sorry. Then I don't understand that whole clause.

The Chair: We'll go to Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: I'll come back, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'll admit, Mr. Chairman, that I'm a little torn about it, because on the one hand I take this amendment to mean that employers will not be able to distribute any materials to their employees, and I see that as a restriction on the freedom of speech. On the other hand, I recognize that we probably should have fewer people involved in trying to.... No, I think I have to side with the freedom of speech on this one, Mr. Chairman, because what I sense is happening here is that employers are being restricted in their ability to communicate their intentions.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): They're applying duress, for God's sake. That's what it is. It's pure duress.

The Chair: I wouldn't mind hearing the rationale for the clause as it is without amendment, just as a context for Mr. Bergeron's amendment.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: What paragraphs 319(a), (b), (c), and (d) do is narrow the definition of “election advertising” by telling you what it isn't. Election advertising isn't an editorial in a newspaper, which is in paragraph (a); it isn't the distribution of a book, which is in paragraph (b); and it isn't internal communications within a company, whether to employees or shareholders, which is in paragraph (c). We have controls over election advertising. We count how much election advertising costs in order to control spending limits. This just narrows the definition of what election advertising is and says these things aren't included. That's the general context.

The Chair: So the intent was to leave unencumbered normal types of communications between groups in society. A routine communication from an employer to an employee needn't concern itself with election advertising restrictions under the act. But what about a communication from an employer to its employees that was specifically intended to be election and politically oriented?

Mr. Gar Knutson: It would be excluded.

The Chair: Under this it would be excluded.

Mr. Peirce, do you have a comment on that?

Mr. Michael Peirce: No. Mr. Knutson has explained it.

The Chair: Okay. That's great.

Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: The basis of my intervention is that this is a definitions area, so it's not really establishing any process. It's just saying these are the definitions of certain things, and it's when we get to further clauses that we'll find out the impact of this. I would maintain, though, that even if an election advertisement was distributed to employees, no one can claim duress because once the employee is in the polling booth, no one knows how they voted. So it's a moot point. Anyway, it's only a definition, so there's no problem.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

I'm sorry. Please forgive me. I did have Mr. Harvey on my list.

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): That's okay.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron first.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, let's be clear. It's one thing for an employer to reluctantly allow a candidate to meet with employees in the workplace and to let the candidate hand out papers himself. But I think it may be better for the employer to let all candidates meet with the employees.

• 1115

Take the 1988 election which was fought on free trade. If an employer had told his employees that their business basically depended on exports and if they voted for the Liberal Party of Canada, the company would have to close, and so on and so forth, that would have been an act of undue influence.

Of course, the employer need never find out how the employees voted in the privacy of the polling booth. However, the employees may have gotten the impression, based on what their boss said, that they had to vote a certain way, otherwise the company could close down and the employees lose their jobs. That can actually happen. We therefore have to make sure that employees are not submitted to that kind of pressure from their employer.

So it's not just about transmitting information on an objective and equitable basis. What we want to prevent is the sending of information that specifically invites employees to vote or not vote in a certain way.

[English]

The Chair: I'll go to Mr. Harvey, then Mr. Solomon, then Mr. Pickard.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Chairman, I think it's absolutely impossible to manage the relations between employer and employees or a union and the employees it represents. Mr. Bergeron's example on the free trade matter is a good example.

I think we should simply trust the employees as we should. Employees aren't stupid. If their union engages in untoward publicity or if their employer engages in untoward publicity... There is something we should never forget with our little reform. It's that reality always catches up with us. Reality is something that an employee as well as the shareholder of a multinational corporation is capable of understanding.

In my opinion, it's impossible to manage an amendment like this one. That's my perception. I think it won't be manageable. It's an attempt at trying to arbitrate the whole relational dimension between the union and its members, between a corporation and its employees. That's absolutely out of Elections Canada's grasp. That's my view. However, I respect my colleague Bergeron's proposal.

[English]

The Chair: Before going to Mr. Solomon, I'm just going to mention a hypothetical situation. If we were to adopt this amendment and delete “employees”, could we not have a situation where an employer might be at risk of becoming a third-party spender in an election because something in whatever they've sent to their employees contains a political position in relation to the election either on a issue or a candidacy?

I'll just leave that question and go to Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: I think the intent is a very good one. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate clause.

The example I'll use is an employer I've dealt with over the years who actually instructs his employees on how to vote. He takes them and their families out to lunch or supper and says “Here's who you're going to vote for. Otherwise, we're out of business.” I'm not sure where that fits in. Maybe Elections Canada can comment on this.

This is not communicating by a pamphlet. It's saying “I'm taking you out for supper, and we're going to talk about who you're going to vote for. I'm telling you who you're going to vote for. Otherwise, you're out of a job.” I'm not sure whether that should come under influence. Maybe I could get some advice on that.

This clause deals with advertising. I would be more concerned about the dinners and the instructions by the employer that cost him or her money.

The Chair: Let's stick to advertising for now.

Mr. John Solomon: I'd like clarification on that.

The Chair: Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Chairman, this is a rhetorical question, but it is pertinent to this. There's no way to enforce what the employer says to the employee, nor do we want to do that. I think the fact is those kinds of discussions go on in corporate circles, in union circles, in every circle. How in God's name can we look at this and say there's any means to enforce it? It's not an advertising item. It's a point of view. I as a Canadian, any employer as a Canadian, and any employee as a Canadian have a point of view. Why would we try to restrict it in any way or look at it as an advertising expense? That's really what this is to write off.

I think the argument is a waste of time.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

• 1120

Mr. Gar Knutson: Perhaps to make Mr. Solomon feel a little more comfortable, I would point out clause 482. The law says:

482. Every person is guilty of an offence who

(a) by intimidation or duress, compels a person to vote or refrain from voting or to vote or to refrain from voting for a particular candidate at an election;

For an employer to say to an employee, “You have to vote this way or you're going to lose your job”, that's illegal under clause 482.

The Chair: Even if it's right after desert.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We'll go to amendment G-12, to be moved by Mr. Knutson. Amendment G-12 is in the brick, on page 97.

Mr. Gar Knutson: If you look at clause 319, it gives the definition of “election survey”. This amendment would include exit polls as part of the definition of election surveys. Therefore the section that later regulates election surveys will have impact on exit polls.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We will now vote on clause 319, as amended by amendment G-12.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: On a point of order, we have another amendment in a smaller package.

The Chair: Sorry, we still have another amendment on clause 319. We don't have a code name for this amendment, but it is on pages 4 and 5 of package C.

Mr. Knutson, can you introduce this amendment?

Mr. Gar Knutson: If you look at the definition of “election advertising”, which is at the beginning of clause 319, this amendment clarifies the word “message”.

It's okay to tell someone that voting day is on such and such a date. That doesn't count as election advertising with this clarification in the amendment.

Sorry, the officials have asked to help me out.

The Chair: I'm going to break here, because Mr. Bergeron has raised a point of order. I didn't want to interrupt Mr. Knutson.

Sorry, Mr. Bergeron, on your point of order....

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: We can move on then.

Mr. Peirce.

Mr. Michael Peirce: This is a clarification to fix a problem that arose when we adjusted the wording from Bill C-83 to Bill C-2. It was brought to our attention by Elections Canada that some of the references, particularly in paragraph 319(a), could inadvertently be caught. We want to clarify, then, the distinction between the exceptions in paragraphs 319(a), 319(b), 319(c) and 319(d) and the definition part in the chapeau, by adding the word “advertising”, to be clear that we're not just capturing any kind of communication. This is specifically advertising.

I can give you an example that may help to clarify. If you had a letter, for example, written to a newspaper, the publication of that letter in the newspaper is not by itself intended to be election advertising. The way the definition is right now, without the word “advertising” in there, it might seem to be. So we've added the word “advertising ” to clarify that. To be clear, though, in a situation where a letter were blown up to be a full-page thing and were done as an ad, in fact that would be caught. So it's to clarify the distinction between those two kinds of uses of letters.

• 1125

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 319 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 321—Government means of transmission)

The Chair: There's an amendment in the name of Mr. Bergeron, amendment BQ-54, on page 99 in the brick.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

(Clause 321 agreed to)

(On clause 323—Blackout period)

The Chair: There is an amendment to clause 323, in group C, on pages 6 and 7. It is a government amendment.

Would you introduce that, Mr. Knutson?

Mr. Gar Knutson: It's part of the blackout restriction. It replaces the word “conduct” with the word “transmit”. Why we felt a need to do that, I don't know, but perhaps Mr. Peirce can tell us.

It also adds the words “to the public in an electoral district”, and the words “before the close of all of the polling stations in the electoral district”. It looks like we're just cleaning up the section, making the language more precise.

The Chair: Let's get the rationale here. Mr. Peirce.

Mr. Michael Peirce: We're doing two things. The word “transmit” is used throughout the act, and “conduct” was inadvertently put there. So it's simply to clean that up. That's the “transmit” part.

The second part is connected to the blackout. It's to reduce it so that the blackout only applies, essentially, district by district, as opposed to waiting until all polls are closed.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. White is first, and then Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Ted White: It seems to me there's another major change here in this clause. The original clause indicates:

323. (1) No person shall knowingly conduct election advertising on the day before polling day or on polling day until the close of all polling stations.

The amendment makes no reference to the day before polling day, so I gather that has been taken right out.

Mr. Michael Peirce: This is to reduce it, yes, exactly.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

The Chair: So this is more than just a technical change, cleaning up the wording. Actually, let the records show that the amendment will shrink the blackout period for election advertising to the day of polling, as well as provide for consistency in wording.

Mr. Bergeron.

• 1130

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

First, I'd say that I've had the opportunity to point out to the Minister that as he had not discussed this question with us whereas he had with several other political parties, we still have reservations as to going from 48 to 24 hours.

Also, the proposed amendment specifies that you can't engage in publicity in a riding on the day of the vote before the polling station is closed. Why go through the trouble of specifying "in a riding"? Is it because national advertising would then be allowed? Is it only the advertising in the riding that won't be allowed?

I think this addition could give rise to fuzzy interpretations. The previous version was far clearer without this addition. That might mean that advertising at the riding level is prohibited while advertising at the national level could be allowed. Don't you consider that this is opening the door to a broader interpretation than the one you want?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou (Advisor, Parliamentary Legislation and Planning, Privy Council Office): The reason for the change is that we wanted to set as few limits as possible on freedom of expression. It's so that the prohibition period doesn't end after all polling stations are closed but as they close one by one. That will also apply to national advertising. That will avoid penalizing Newfoundland, for example, where the prohibition would apply up to four hours after the polling stations have actually closed.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Well, Mr. Chairman, I sense here the government has somewhat tucked its tail between its legs, and rather than trying to impose a 48-hour blackout seems to be mollified with a 24-hour blackout. But I still cannot actually support this amendment, because it still implicitly supports the concept of a blackout. For that reason, I think it still has detrimental aspects to it.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 323 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 324—Exceptions)

The Chair: On clause 324 there is a government amendment, G-13, in the brick, page 100.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: This can be withdrawn.

The Chair: Amendment G-13 is withdrawn by Mr. Knutson.

On a point of order, yes, Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chair, I'd be interested to know why that was withdrawn, because I'm interested to know whether a billboard is a sign, or a sign is a billboard, and why it is that the government has changed its mind about this amendment.

The Chair: That's not a point of order, but what the heck.

Ms. Mondou can answer that.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: It's withdrawn, but it's now in the new package called “C” at pages 8 and 9. It's only because now it's not only the French that is modified, but also the English, to add signs, following a comment made by Mr. Shepherd before this committee.

Mr. Ted White: So we are discussing it.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: How... [Editor's note: Inaudible]... Ms. Mondou.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: This amendment is actually withdrawn because there's an amendment that is identical on pages 8 and 9 of the C package and the French and English are amended now rather than only the French as was the case for amendment G-13. You will find G-13 on page 9.

[English]

The Chair: This amendment is being displaced by a subsequent amendment, which we'll get to momentarily.

So G-13 having been withdrawn, shall clause 324 carry?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, because the amendment is wrong.

• 1135

The Chair: We're back to group C, pages 8 and 9. So would you please describe that, Mr. Knutson, if we haven't already done so.

Mr. Gar Knutson: With pleasure.

The government amendment on page 8 of package C adds the word “signs” to be included with posters and banners. What this does is it explicitly states that your lawn signs aren't part of the blackout. So you don't have to take them down. And what's more, if you want to do a sign blitz the night before voting day, you're allowed to do that.

The Chair: Discussion? Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Yes. I'll revert to my original question, which still applies. It's not an addition of the word “signs”; it's a replacement of the word “billboards” with the word “signs”. So I'd like to ask, is a billboard a sign and is a sign a billboard? Because you could have a billboard with a sign on it.

Mr. Gar Knutson: A billboard is a sign. I would say all billboards are signs, but not all signs are billboards. The bottom line is if you have a billboard up, you've paid for it, whatever, you don't have to take it down the day before voting day.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

Mr. Gar Knutson: A billboard is a very large sign.

The Chair: Good question and good answer. Are we okay en français? We're okay en français.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 324 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 325—Prohibition—prevention or impairment of transmission)

The Chair: On clause 325 there is an amendment, G-14.

Mr. Knutson, please.

Mr. Gar Knutson: This makes it clear that a municipal official can ask you to take your sign down if it's required in the interest of public safety. That's what paragraph (b) does. It applies to unlawful transmissions. Some examples might be violation of the blackout.

So you start with the general principle that says candidates are allowed to get their message out, and then we have two examples of restrictions. There are other restrictions, but these are two examples. One, you can't get your message out if that means putting a sign up that's going to create a traffic accident, or you can't get your message out if it's unlawful to do that. The blackout would be an example of an unlawful transmission.

The Chair: Good amendments.

First Ms. Parrish and then Mr. Pickard.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I just want to know how this all fits in with the Peterborough decision. I understand in my riding, for example, you can't put signs up in site triangles, on corners, for obvious reasons, or in front of hedges when it's going to obstruct someone from turning a corner.

We have several members who are currently still embroiled in court cases after the 1997 election for putting signs on public property, and the bylaws change from riding to riding. How does this—because I see the safety one, and it makes perfect sense to me—mesh with the Peterborough decision, which is you can put signs on public property as long as they're not impeding traffic or causing accidents?

Mr. Michael Peirce: The Peterborough decision is essentially an independent issue from this. We haven't directly regulated municipal restrictions, so we haven't overridden municipal restrictions. There would be some difficulty in doing so.

• 1140

Municipal restrictions, though, where they are not justifiable, can be challenged pursuant to the Peterborough decision. As I say, if they are not justifiable, if the limitations in the municipal restrictions are too great—if they extend beyond public safety issues, for example—there would be a legitimate challenge, but it would be done on a case-by-case basis, municipality by municipality.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: So, Mr. Chairman, what we've avoided is actually making a firm stand on this. Are we dancing around the edges?

Mr. Michael Peirce: There are constitutional problems, we believe, in regulating, in overriding, all the municipal bylaws, because some have very legitimate concerns attached to them, so as a result—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: If I may, Mr. Chairman...?

What you've done, then, is you've left it very grey. It's going to be up to each individual candidate to go to court again and again.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: I think the government has gone as far as it thought it could on this kind of issue. When you look at the Quebec act, for example, you see that it's very different. It's much more comprehensive and all of that, but obviously that's a question of jurisdiction. In Quebec they can do that. They have a wonderful act that establishes all situations. It's a federal jurisdiction here, so we had to be a little more careful.

Mr. Michael Peirce: The regulation of municipal bylaws is a provincial jurisdiction, so for us to address them federally is problematic.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: What happened in Mississauga—and I think you've covered it here—was that they went around removing signs and then issued us not a fine, because they were respecting the Peterborough case, but they said it was a fee of $50 for removing the sign. They said if we wanted to get our sign back, we could pay $50. They wouldn't give me the location so I wouldn't pay them, and they nailed my credit rating. Then I nailed them right back. I won that one, but this doesn't help us. I'm disappointed.

The Chair: Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to focus on the same issue.

All municipalities set bylaws that control signs. There's no question about that. Municipalities in various jurisdictions might say no election sign on any public property. That's pretty all-inclusive, and there's no question about what that means. A candidate who feels that infringes upon their right and their opportunity to get the message out is in fact placed in the position of challenging the municipality. Quite frankly, the wrong thing to do in election time is to challenge your municipality or to take any such action. Therefore, what you've done is state that even though it is a federal jurisdiction, the candidate has no opportunity and shall have no opportunity to deal with those types of issues.

Whether I agree with it or not isn't in question here. I do believe what you've done here infringes upon my rights as a candidate in the next election. I obviously don't wish to go to the municipalities I have and challenge them in court.

I had trucks go down the street and take my signs down because they were within the road allowance. A road allowance, in most municipalities, may be 66 feet—33 feet on each side of the road. I had permission from all of the people in the houses on the street, yet somebody who was of a different political persuasion convinced the board of works chairperson to direct a truck down the street to take my signs down. My signs were destroyed; it cost me a lot of money. Those are things I have to report in the election campaign. But because I was within 33 feet.... And mind you, that's a hell of a long way back from the road.

Municipal bylaws aren't necessarily correct. I'm not going to challenge them, but what I'm saying to you is that you should at least give us consideration for fairness in those kinds of situations. I would hope you would look again at that issue from the perspective of candidates.

• 1145

I hear what you're saying: we don't want to go any further because of a provincial issue. It may be more than one province. I think it's unfair to mention just one province, but the reality.... Although we did mention Quebec, I believe. That's what I heard.

Mr. Michael Peirce: As a good example.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: As a good example.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Yes. I would suggest that all municipal bylaws, as you said earlier, are in the realm of the municipal-provincial sphere. It does put people in very difficult circumstances. In one municipality, one person can do this. In the same province in another municipality, somebody has different latitudes. It is difficult.

I would hope that some reconsideration of that issue will be taken into account by Elections Canada and by the bureaucracy. If you can't come to any further conclusion or you choose not to.... And I think it's not “come to it”; I think it's that you choose not to. Then I guess we have to live with what's there.

The Chair: I'm going to recognize Mr. White and Mr. Bergeron, but before I do I'll again just leave a question out there without the answer forthcoming. It may come up a little later.

I'm still a little unclear about the clash or conflict between a municipal bylaw that would prohibit a sign on a public or private property in the vicinity of a roadway and this particular provision, which prohibits, effectively, the removal of a sign anywhere except for the exceptions now being provided for. In my view of the law, I had thought that the issue of federal paramountcy would have come up: that if there is a clash between the provisions of a federal statute and the provisions of a statute of another level of government, the federal statute would have paramountcy and the provisions of the other statute would fall.

I'm confused as to why this federal statutory prohibition wouldn't pre-empt bylaws and statutes of other levels of government.

I'll leave that question out there and I will go to Mr. White and Mr. Bergeron. Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

I suspect it's an area of jurisdiction, which is what I'm going to pursue right now, and that is the comment from you, Mr. Peirce, that municipalities fall under provincial jurisdiction. Could a provincial government pass legislation regarding federal election signs with respect to municipal bylaws? Are we caught between a rock and a hard place here, where nobody is able to instruct a municipality regarding federal election signs because it's a mix-up of all sorts of different jurisdictions?

Secondly, I'd like to know if your earlier comments regarding applicability also apply to places where the Trans-Canada Highway runs through a riding. For example, if we put signs well away from the freeway but still on the land that's part of the freeway system, we get those signs removed. How does this impact upon that?

Mr. Michael Peirce: In regard to the issue of provincial jurisdiction that regulates municipalities and the abilities of municipalities to set particular bylaws, they can do so. Obviously the province can regulate municipal bylaws. The bylaws are drafted generally rather than specifically—as in targeting federal elections—and as long as they do that, it's fine.

A bylaw that was specifically drafted or a law set by the province specifically directing a municipality in regard to a federal election issue, would, I think, come into question. I'd rather not state a final opinion off the top here, but I think that would be a questionable issue. As long as it's done generally, which is how bylaws on signage are generally done, there would be no problem.

Mr. Ted White: For clarity, then, if we could convince our provincial leaders to pass a general law regarding election signage, it would be just as applicable to our federal signs as to something the municipality or the province did.

Mr. Michael Peirce: Yes, they could do that.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

With respect to the signs on what might be called federal government property, where a freeway goes through or where the Trans-Canada runs through a riding, how does this impact on the removal of signs from that area? There seemed to just be a blanket case in my riding in the last election. They didn't want any sign of any type anywhere on that property, and they just took them all off. We didn't have any trouble with our municipalities. We just went and talked to them and reached agreements about where the signs could be and where they couldn't. It was a different relationship altogether.

• 1150

Mr. Michael Peirce: I have no knowledge of any federal law that would prohibit the signs in regard to federal land, so they may not have had a lawful right to do that. That doesn't mean it doesn't—

Mr. Ted White: Yes. That's the problem. As Mr. Pickard said, you don't really want to get into arguments with these people during election campaigns, but if there is a clear understanding before it starts it sure helps everybody.

Mr. Michael Peirce: But certainly clause 325 of the act would prohibit that removal.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Anders, and Ms. Parrish.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, beyond the arguments or reservations already raised by my colleagues, I have a question for the government representatives.

What concerns me, besides the concerns already expressed, is the fact that a municipal authority might, as the case may be, take down advertising boards or posters without necessarily advizing the candidate and his organization.

So we actually might not be aware that we've contravened a municipal directive and then run the risk of, for example, calling on the police and telling them you were victims of vandalism because such a poster at such an intersection was removed. We'd undertake a long and exacting process before finally finding out that the municipality removed the posters for this or that quite legitimate reason.

There should be a provision obliging the municipality to give reasonable notice, say 24 hours, to the candidate and his organization that something is about to be done to his material. As this material is private property, the least the municipality can do is advise the owner, the candidate or his organization in this case, about what's about to be done for disposing of his material.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The officials have indicated a willingness to look into this proposal of having the municipalities be required to give notice as they take a sign down. So we would commit to getting back to you by seven o'clock this evening.

The Chair: Now I'm really puzzled, because if we can give them notice and make them comply with the notice requirements, why can't we make them comply with the prohibition?

Could you address that, Mr. Peirce?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Mr. Chair, we'll consult with the justice department and get back to you tonight.

The Chair: Okay, tonight.

Mr. Gar Knutson: When we're going to finish, because we're halfway through; we're at 101 and going downhill now.

The Chair: There seems to be a disposition then to stand down this particular clause pending further consideration and possible amendments. Is that the will of the committee?

It may be that one or more members may wish to make 15-second bullets in relation to the subject. I'll let that happen. I think the order was Mr. Bergeron.... Mr. Anders, did you ask me?

Mr. Rob Anders: Yes, it was a brief comment in response to yours with regard to jurisdiction. I wanted to say that this would be the problem in terms of the amendment; it is reiterating something that's already been discussed. So if we're standing it down, I'm happy.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Parrish then Mr. Solomon.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: While we're standing it down, I want to remind the drafters that you've already overridden condominium laws and municipal laws by saying we can display signs in apartment buildings now. When we do stand this down and come back, I think what you need to remember is what the chair said to you. This is a very essential issue to democracy. You cannot have 65 different bylaws governing candidates across the country. There should be some consistency. I think the federal government should show some leadership here and say this is the way it's going to be, guys, and then let them take us to court, rather than the other way around.

The Chair: I'll go to Mr. Solomon for a quick intervention to pick up an issue and then Mr. Bergeron to wrap up.

Mr. John Solomon: My suggestion or question would be if there is a violation by a party or a candidate, is it possible to have the municipality request the party to take down the sign, as opposed to them ripping it down and then telling them afterwards? That makes more sense. If we're in violation, we're told in advance, “Take your own sign down. You have 24 hours.”

• 1155

The Chair: I'll take your suggestion.

Mr. Bergeron, could you make your suggestion or comment as quickly as you can.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I'm a bit concerned about the turn of events and Ms. Parrish's intervention. In this country which is supposedly a federation, there are different orders of government and the balance can be maintained as long as there's a minimum of respect between the different orders of government.

I was pleasantly surprised to see that the government was showing up with an amendment that would be respectful of municipal jurisdictions. What's bred in the bone will come out in the flesh. The Liberals tend to be interventionist and they say, "If they're not happy, they can sue us in court." I find that's totally inappropriate, Mr. Chairman.

Let's show respect for the jurisdictions as they are established under the Canadian Constitution.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson and then Mr. Harvey.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I didn't want to get into a constitutional discussion. I just point out that the federal government can regulate municipalities on things like municipalities can't dump poison into the lakes and kill all the fish. That's in contravention of the Fisheries Act. It's federal jurisdiction. So it's not as if we can't regulate municipalities. But I will let the officials sort that out and come back to us with a proposal.

On the issue of giving notice, Mr. Solomon's point, if there's an interest of public safety then you would want the sign taken down right away.

Mr. John Solomon: Within 24 hours.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Then if you get a car crash because you waited 24 hours, so....

The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Just a few simple little words, Mr. Chairman.

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that all town planning—in Quebec anyway and I think this goes for the rest of Canada also—is based on the municipal regulations and provides for specific spots for election advertising. Rules have already been established to this effect. You have so many hours after the election campaign to get rid of all those posters in our neighbourhoods and so on. Let's not engage in undue bolshevism here. All we can hope for is that each municipality's town planning is rational.

I'm quite ready to discuss all the problems on the face of this earth, but we do have to start with an analysis of the needs. In my opinion, the municipalities are already managing this matter quite well. I'm ready to wait until the end of this discussion, but I don't think these are huge stakes.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Mondou.

[Translation]

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: You're right, Mr. Harvey. In their town planning, some municipalities do use their powers to regulate nuisances and have regulations prohibiting posters being put up in certain spots.

Mr. André Harvey: They've already decided it was prohibited in some spots.

[English]

The Chair: This is going to be stood down. While there's ample sensitivity to municipal jurisdictions, there is some sense that we may not want to have municipalities regulating federal election signage and procedures. So this issue will be looked at. It will come back to us.

(Clause 325 allowed to stand)

(On clause 326—Transmission of election survey results)

The Chair: Now we'll go the next clause, which is 326. There are four amendments proposed. The first two are Bloc amendments, BQ-55 and BQ-56, and then there are two NDP amendments. They are located in the brick at page 103 and following.

The NDP amendments, NDP-17 and NDP-18, are in group B.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, was that stood down?

The Chair: Yes, we stood down clause 325. Now we're on 326, dealing with four separate amendments.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, amendment BQ-55 is about election polls.

326(2) reads:

(2) In addition to the information referred to in subsection (1), the following must be provided in the case of a transmission to the public by means other than broadcasting;

(a) the wording of the questions in respect of which data is obtained;

(b) the means by which a report referred to in subsection (3) may be obtained.

We suggest these two elements be added to 326(1) as it would be just as important to know, no matter how the survey is transmitted, what fundamental information is contained in this survey which was used as a basis for the report.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

• 1200

Is there comment or discussion on that amendment?

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very good amendment. It clarifies disclosure provisions. The way they're written at the moment, it doesn't require the actual wording of the survey question to be published under 326(1), only in 326(2) if the survey comes over by means other than broadcasting. So I think it's a good amendment. We, as the official opposition, don't have any problem with polls and surveys being printed at any time. We're very interested in disclosure.

When the broadcasting and newspaper people were here as witnesses, a discussion went on with them and they agreed that they had no problem with full disclosure. So I think this is a good amendment and it removes some confusion that was there in the existing wording.

The Chair: Mr. Peirce will comment.

Mr. Michael Peirce: If I can explain, this was prepared this way in consultation with the broadcast arbitrator, who had consultations of his own. The conclusion was that for radio stations, for example, who do a three-minute update at the top of the hour of the news and they may want to refer to a poll, it would be too onerous on them to require full disclosure of all of that information within that three-minute blitz period. It would basically wipe out the rest of the news they want to tell.

So we crafted a distinction between, as you can see, publications on one hand and broadcasters on the other. That information is still fully available, because on request the full methodology has to be made available and can be secured for that reason. So it's just a distinction that recognizes the different situations between publishers publishing a magazine or newspaper and broadcasters giving on the radio for example a three-minute news blitz and they just can't get all of the information in there because it would be too onerous.

Mr. Ted White: In practical terms, though, it seems to me it still would be a fairly hefty requirement, because the broadcaster has to provide the information where the full report can be obtained, and that would require presumably a telephone number and maybe even an address. So I think if we're looking for full disclosure, which is what we should be doing, then it's too bad that it might take an extra ten seconds.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion on this amendment, BQ-55?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: A brief word, Mr. Chairman. In 326(1), it says:

... 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:

When we say that those persons are transmitting the results during the 24-hour period, we're not necessarily saying that they're doing this within the context of a three-minute newscast. I think that when the broadcasters transmit a survey, they must have the responsibility—with everything that involves as consequences—of finding a time slot somewhere to provide information about the methodology used for doing the survey.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: To emphasize what Mr. Peirce said, I'd point out that there are usually a number of questions in a survey that are part of the methodology of making sure your results are accurate. You may want to disguise your question well down the list, so you may have a survey of 10 to 15 questions. I know when I get polled it's usually a 20-minute exercise, and to say to Peter Mansbridge on the CBC or CTV that you're going to have to take five minutes to explain how CBC or CTV worded their questions to me seems onerous.

I think the provision that you can get a copy of the survey questions by asking for it is a good balance of the need of the broadcasters to make interesting broadcasts and still provide the transparency to avoid anything untoward from happening. So I would encourage people to vote against the amendment.

Mr. Ted White: I have a comment.

The Chair: Mr. White, do you have something you'd like to add?

Mr. Ted White: Yes, I have one final comment. It seems amazing to me, Mr. Chairman, that we're going to ask the broadcasters and newspaper people to print all these other things, (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f), yet they don't have to say what question they asked. It seems ludicrous.

• 1205

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We move now to amendment BQ-56, Mr. Bergeron.

On a point of order, Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I notice that lunch is here.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chair: Is the lunch ready?

The Clerk of the Committee: We're ready to roll.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson has recognized that lunch is here.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, I missed the motion for that.

The Chair: We now stop in the middle of our consideration of clause 326.

Mr. Rob Anders: I make a motion we take a recess, a biological break, as it has been worded previously.

The Chair: All right. There seems to be a consensus then to suspend for approximately 10 to 15 minutes. The chair will gavel when we're ready to go again.

Thank you.

• 1207

• 1234

The Chair: We're back in session. We're continuing our review of clause 326, with several amendments. We have completed dealing with amendment BQ-55 and we're now going to move to BQ-56.

I have an intervention coming from Monsieur Bonin.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Mr. Chair, if you may allow some housekeeping, a few of us are looking at our schedules and are not finding time to have dinner. I would like to move that we order pizzas before the meeting this evening.

The Chair: Okay. The first thing I'm going to do is go off the record.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

• 1236

[Public proceedings resume]

The Chair: Now we'll go back on the record. We're continuing with clause 326. We are going to take up amendment BQ-56, located at page 104 of the brick.

Mr. Bergeron's amendment here would delete the words “if applicable”. The words “if applicable” clearly provide some logic, flexibility, and rationality. Mr. Bergeron would like those removed, presumably to provide more definiteness, more definition, more strictness to the clause.

Mr. Bergeron, would you care to elaborate on your amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for flying to my rescue. You have my eternal gratitude.

That said, it's hard to imagine that a survey could be published without its margin of error just as it is difficult to imagine that a survey could be produced and executed without there being a determination of a margin of error. Thus, Mr. Chairman, as this margin of error does exist, it must inevitably and necessarily be published and known so that everyone may judge its validity.

We would like to delete the expression "as the case may be" to make it an obligation. We would thus have a clear indication for polling firms. If the surveys are fakes, they won't be able to be published in any case because they'll invariably have to be accompanied by the margin of error.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. I'm just going to ask officials or counsel, is there any instance where, in an election survey as defined by this legislation, we would not have available a margin of error? If there is, could you describe that to us?

[Translation]

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: I'll try to explain this as best as possible, but the adjudicator would be in far better position than I. There are some polls where there is no margin of error. For example, you can be given a 100 percent grill and asked to divide your time based on the TV broadcasts you watch during the evening. You could indicate that you watch the news during the first hour, that you watch some other program during the second hour and so on. This kind of survey has no margin of error. This is a 100 percent pie that is being divided up and it's not based on a margin of error. That's why it was specified "as the case may be, the margin of error applicable to the data".

Of course, any time a margin of error might apply, those people would have to provide it. But there are some circumstances where the survey cannot, because of the nature of the beast itself, have any margin of error. In this respect, we consulted the broadcasting arbitrator.

• 1240

[English]

The Chair: All right.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Can I have a second question?

[English]

The Chair: Since it's in sequence, you can.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Based on the Commissioner's knowledge and experience, I wonder if that's the kind of surveys that can be held during an election campaign. If so, shouldn't we provide that, in cases where there's no margin of error, we must explain the nature of the survey and the reason for which there is no margin of error? The present wording gives anyone who wants to do a survey that normally has a margin of error the freedom not to divulge this margin of error.

I think I've put a darned good question.

[English]

Voices: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I could have a bite to eat while waiting for the answer.

[English]

The Chair: While we're waiting for an answer, we'll go to Mr. White, who wanted to make an intervention.

Please make your intervention now, Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: In my opinion, this is not a practical amendment, because there are differences between scientific polls and casual surveys. I can give three examples.

Every election in Vancouver, at a small hamburger bar in New Westminster, they have what's called a hamburger poll. People come in and order a Reform burger or a Liberal burger or whatever, and these results are published. All the news media love it; they have it on every day. There's no margin of error. You can't really treat that as a scientific poll.

BCTV also has surveys where you call a 1-800 number and you touch 1 or 2 to vote yes or no to things. Those aren't scientific either.

And radio talk shows often have these surveys where they ask people to call in and say how they would vote if the election were held today. What if that were done the day before the election? It's not a scientific poll; you can't give margins of error.

So this amendment is not practical.

The Chair: Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, it's all a matter of terminology. To my mind, what Mr. White just explained is not a poll as we understand in the context of an election campaign. It seems to me to be more of a vox populi where there is actually no margin of error. But it is understood that in a vox populi, there is no margin of error possible as the answers are taken holus bolus and that's the end of it. There is no sampling or scientific basis for processing the data.

In this case, we have a survey according to the proper definition of the term within the context of an election. It seems to me that this kind of thing, the hamburger poll in Mr. White's riding, couldn't be considered a survey according to the proper definition of the term. But, as the case may be, even were we to consider this kind of thing as being a survey in the strict sense of the word, in those cases shouldn't we simply indicate that this is effectively a vox populi where there's no margin of error? Shouldn't we put in a mandatory provision for those whose surveys have no margin of error and require they explain why there is no margin of error?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: We've already provided for such a provision.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Well, a hamburger poll is addressed in another clause, but I'd just like to say I don't think the words “if applicable” do any harm. By and large, the overwhelming majority of election surveys or polls will have a margin of error, and you'll have to publish it. But there may be the odd case.... For example, say a survey company goes in and surveys every single person in a seniors' complex and they get 100% results. Then there would be no margin of error, because their sample size is 100%. If they say that of the 100 residents in this seniors' complex, we surveyed all 100 of them, and they told us that 52% were going to vote whatever, there would be no margin of error, as defined as part of a scientific sampling.

• 1245

Therefore, I think the words “if applicable” are rarely going to come into play, but there might be the odd case where they're needed, and that's why I think we should support the legislation as written.

The Chair: Thank you.

Just keep in mind, colleagues, that we've amended the definition to include exit polls. If somebody takes an exit poll, there is really no margin of error. The poll is going to say we took an exit poll here for an hour this afternoon, and out of the 100 people who went in there, 96 voted Liberal, one voted Bloc, one voted Reform, one voted NDP, and one voted Progressive Conservative. That's 100. There's no margin of error.

Mr. Rob Anders: Those numbers aren't consistent, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: You may disagree with me on the results, but there's no margin of error. Therefore, if we require a margin of error to be printed, they would have to say the margin is zero. The margin of error would be zero in that case. I think that's the reason the words “if applicable” are there.

I think we've had a good discussion. If you have a brief last word, Mr. Bergeron, it's your amendment, go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, especially since you flew to my rescue before, I must point out that, to my mind, what you're referring to is not a survey according to the strict meaning of the term; maybe it's an investigation, at most, but not a survey with everything involved in the term “survey” in terms of methodology.

The problem possibly stems from the fact that I don't have a master's in law, as Mr. Boudria was saying yesterday, but a master's degree in political science. My interpretation of the present wording of the clause leads me to believe that “as the case may be” can be left to the discretion of the pollster or the publisher.

If the margin of error is too wide, it could be embarrassing for the publisher or the newspaper to publish it. If you have a margin of error of five, for example, which is most unusual in this kind of poll, or even six, it could be embarrassing to publish the margin of error.

So rather than submit to this obligation of publishing, you could say that there's no margin of error. You just don't talk about it. Not only do you not talk about it, but you don't even mention the fact that you're not publishing it.

The fact that there is nothing in this paragraph obliging people to explain why they're not publishing the margin of error could lead to abuse.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. White had asked to make another intervention, and Mr. Knutson also.

Mr. Ted White: I just wanted to get a clarification of this term “survey”, because there seems to be a lot of confusion here. I'm under the impression that a survey is not necessarily a scientific poll. Mr. Bergeron keeps using the terminology “poll”, which means something completely different to me. A poll generally implies a scientifically conducted exercise by a polling company, whereas a survey to me could be conducted by all sorts of organizations, not necessarily professional polling companies. So could counsel please define what's meant by “survey” in this part of the act?

Mr. Michael Peirce: “Election survey” is defined in clause 319 of the act. The term “survey”, though, was used in place of “poll” to avoid confusion with an actual poll—where we vote.

Mr. Ted White: Oh. And where is the definition, please?

Mr. Michael Peirce: In clause 319 of the act—“election survey”.

The Chair: I am at page 124.

Mr. Ted White: I see. Thank you.

The Chair: And keep in mind we have amended that to include exit polling—how voters have voted—as well as how they will vote.

Mr. Ted White: Except I'm still not clear that says that it's definitely a scientific poll.

Mr. Michael Peirce: If I can just complete, the provision of clause 327 of the act, which requires an indication when a survey is done that isn't scientifically based, covers the whole picture, then.

Mr. Ted White: So by implication, now, this is a scientific poll we're talking about?

Mr. Michael Peirce: Yes.

Mr. Ted White: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson will wrap up.

• 1250

Mr. Gar Knutson: The only thing I was going to point out is that the language “if applicable” does not mean that it's optional. If it's a scientific poll with less than 100% sampling, my understanding of statistics—and I'm not an expert—is that there is a margin of error. If you have 100% sampling, then there is no margin of error. So the only polls that would be exempt are those that have a sample size of 100%.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: As I was saying before, Mr. Chairman, this margin of error could be very high with the result that the newspaper could decide not to publish it because it would be embarrassing to publish such a broad margin of error. Of course there will be one.

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: They don't have the option of opting out. The law requires them to publish the margin of error—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If applicable?

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: —if they're going to publish their poll.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But who decides whether it's applicable? The broadcaster or the returning officer?

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: If it's a scientific.... Unless it's a hamburger poll, and it's covered under clause 327, then they'd have to indicate that it's not a scientific poll. It's not based on generally accepted standards of statistical analysis. They'd have to indicate that. This isn't a scientific poll—how many people ate hamburgers at Joe's hamburger shop in favour of such and such a party—but if they're publishing it and they're trying to give it an appearance of legitimacy, then they have to indicate that it was scientific, that it was done through scientific sampling, and they have to give the margin of error. They can't decide to opt out because the results of the margin of error are embarrassing.

The Chair: Okay, that is the position of the government on this. Now, let's see what members—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm not clear what the position of the government really is.

The Chair: I think the position articulated by Mr. Knutson was that the section as written now is fully effective to require publication of margin of error if there is one. The only question here is whether members agree with that. So I'm now going to put the amendment that would delete the words. We've had a good discussion.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: The next two amendments are moved by Mr. Solomon, who is temporarily not here with us, regrettably.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I have a point of order.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I understand that yesterday we had an informal agreement not to do amendments if you weren't in the room. I don't know whether that carries on. We're now in the second half, so to speak, and I don't think people being away should delay us from dealing with their amendments.

Mr. Ted White: That's completely unreasonable.

The Chair: All right. I think we may have overstated our commitments earlier. We certainly made that commitment for Mr. White on one day and then extended it to Mr. Solomon on an additional day.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Well, can we agree that after seven o'clock this evening then—at least from my point of view—being out of the room doesn't delay?

The Chair: No, I think we'll just leave it to members to advise the chair what they want to do in the future. At this point, I feel as though we should stand this down for twenty minutes to a half hour. We can come back to it. If it is not...we will dispose of this clause.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Well, let's put it off until tonight.

The Chair: No, it would be the view of the chair that we will dispose of this clause before 1:30 this afternoon. That gives Mr. Solomon 35 minutes to move his amendment. I will come back to it. Right now I'll stand it down, unless there is a disposition to do otherwise.

Mr. White, do you have a point of order?

Mr. Ted White: I do, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Ted White: It seems reasonable to me that if we had no other work to do, we should say it's too bad if somebody's not here. But as long as we have plenty of other work to do, I think it's a reasonable courtesy to put it off until Mr. Solomon is back here.

Mr. Rob Anders: Will Mr. Solomon be notified?

The Chair: I've given Mr. Solomon 35 minutes. The chair will make up his mind when we get close to the end of 35 minutes. I realize you're attempting to extend courtesy to a colleague who is temporarily absent from the committee process here. There's a lot of sensitivity to that. We'll take a look at this again in about half an hour.

• 1255

We will therefore stand down clause 326 and move to clause 327.

(Clause 326 allowed to stand)

(Clause 327 agreed to on division)

(On clause 328—Prohibition—transmission of election survey results during blackout period)

The Chair: We move to clause 328. There are three amendments proposed, one from the government, one from the BQ, and another from the government that is known as C-10. In each case, the version française follows by one page.

Can we deal with the two government amendments together, Mr. Knutson? That would mean G-15 and C-10.

The Clerk (Mr. Bernard Fournier): I think one replaces the other, if one can say that. They deal with the same thing.

The Chair: Just to point it out, Mr. Knutson, we have two government amendments that may cover the same territory.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We withdraw G-15.

The Chair: Thank you. Let's continue with C-10, then. Mr. Knutson, would you introduce that amendment?

Mr. Gar Knutson: What C-10 does is prohibit transmission of the results by electoral district.

The Chair: It appears to have two concepts.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It reduces the 48 hours to 24 hours by making reference to polling day.

The Chair: Okay, that's fine, that's what it does.

Perhaps Mr. Peirce could place this in context. There seem to be two separate things being dealt with in the amendment, and maybe even three.

Mr. Michael Peirce: There are two things dealt with. This is very much like the amendment that dealt with the blackout on election advertising previously. This one is in regard to election survey results. The objective of the motion is to reduce the blackout period from polling day and the day before polling day, so that it's now only applicable on polling day. That's number one.

Secondly, it changes the blackout so that it now applies by electoral district, rather than waiting until all of the polls have closed across the country before the blackout is lifted.

The Chair: It would also deal with the problem of by-elections as well, wouldn't it?

Mr. Michael Peirce: It does apply to by-elections as well.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: There is also amendment BQ-57. Colleagues, we have had Monsieur Bergeron introducing these things in the past. We could have his colleague do it, or we could revert to the NDP amendments proposed by Mr. Solomon on clause 326. Would that be acceptable?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Clause 328 allowed to stand)

(On clause 326—Transmission of election survey results)

The Chair: Mr. Solomon, are you prepared to introduce your amendment to clause 326?

Mr. John Solomon: No, I'll withdraw them.

The Chair: Oh, okay. That's even better. Thank you, Mr. Solomon. That allows me to put clause 326, which has not been amended.

• 1300

(Clause 326 agreed to)

(On clause 328—Prohibition—transmission of election survey results during blackout period

The Chair: We will come back to clause 328. Monsieur Bergeron has an amendment to clause 328, and it is BQ-57.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is to delete the term “knowingly”. The word “knowingly” can lead to interpretation by the authorities and, in fact, is not very well defined. So we should stick to facts and not to the intent, manifest or not, of the people who would be making the poll results public. As no one is supposed to be ignorant of the law, the objective is to delete the term "knowingly".

[English]

The Chair: This is a fairly common legal issue, as I understand it. Perhaps we could have Mr. Peirce or Ms. Mondou describe the purpose of including the word “knowingly” in the prohibition.

Mr. Michael Peirce: The general prohibition obviously is to prevent interference by foreigners. As I understand the motion, it would add a reference....

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: When there is a breach of the act and there is a penalty attributed, it's the government's position that if you break the act deliberately or knowingly, that's a serious offence. If you breach the act by accident, that's a well-established principle, in criminal law anyway. There are certain offences that require what's called mens rea, or a particular mind. You have to knowingly know you're in contravention of the law.

It's conceivable that somebody could give election results by accident. They might leave an envelope with the results somewhere, and somebody else might pick the envelope up. It wasn't done deliberately, so that's why we think the word “knowingly” is important. We would therefore encourage people to vote against the Bloc amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Peirce.

Mr. Michael Peirce: I would just add that it is grouped in with a group of offences that have the most serious penalty associated with them under the act. All of those would have “knowingly” as the requirement, for the reason Mr. Knutson stated.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I simply have a question for the government officials. How could it be possible for someone to accidentally transmit a survey?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: That would be during the prohibition period. Of course, generally, you won't transmit it without knowing it. Let's say that, because of a mistake, a newspaper were to publish something the day after it was supposed to be published or that it publishes, on a Monday, something that should have been published on the Friday.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: They decide to include it by mistake?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Sorry? It's well worded.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, but what I mean, is that...

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Actually, it could be published by mistake on a day during the prohibition period whereas it should have appeared...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Don't you think that if we keep the word “knowingly”, there might be a certain number of newspapers who decide to publish surveys by mistake on polling day?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: How could it be shown that was the case?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: They'd publish and then say: “Sorry, we missed that one”.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: The Chief Electoral Officer, in his testimony, has already given examples of some cases. I may be wrong, but I think the Canadian Newspaper Association reported that that had already had happened by mistake a few times.

• 1305

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Are we including provisions in the act that would allow things that have happened in the past to reoccur?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: No, but to err is human.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Yes, of course.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Peirce.

Mr. Michael Peirce: We should clarify the distinction between two provisions here. Subclause 328(1) applies to causing the poll to be transmitted, whereas subclause 328(2) applies to actually transmitting it. The “knowingly” that is removed by this amendment is in the causing of the poll to be transmitted, and that could be done incidentally. For example, in striking up a contract, you put the wrong date in the contract, and as a result you have the poll published on polling day, when you only intended for it to be published before polling day. It would be inadvertent, and that should not subject you to a possible penalty of up to five years in jail and/or a $5,000 fine.

The Chair: Okay. What's been pointed out is that subclause 328(2) absolutely prohibits the transmission of the survey result, and subclause 328(1) deals with the causing of the transmission.

Have we had enough discussion?

Mr. Gar Knutson: We have.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 328 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 329—Prohibition—premature transmission of results)

The Chair: We now move to clause 329, where there is an amendment from the government on page 12 of package C.

Mr. Knutson, can you introduce this amendment?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Clause 329 regards premature transmission. It says:

No person shall transmit, to the public in an electoral district in which polls remain open, the result or purported result of the vote in another electoral district.

So this prevents giving the results from Quebec and Ontario out west while the polls are still open.

There's no substantive change in the amendment. All we're doing is using similar language to what we've used in the past two amendments, for consistency's sake.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'll recognize Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

I have a question for legal counsel about the use of the word “transmit”. If a person in North Vancouver, say, were to connect to an Internet site based in Nova Scotia and see some results and extract a copy of those results, would the person who owned the Internet site be transmitting those results?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: What did you say this person does with these results?

Mr. Ted White: Let's say a person in Nova Scotia somewhere has an Internet site and has posted results of a vote count from closed polls in Nova Scotia. Say I'm in North Vancouver. I realize the polls close roughly at the same times, but say I dial into this Internet site and start to get some information from those polls. Is the person who owns the Internet site transmitting that information to me and therefore committing an offence under this clause?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: The answer is yes.

Mr. Ted White: Okay, thank you.

• 1310

The Chair: Mr. Anders has a question.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'm going to pose another question, and I'm going to link two things here, if you don't mind. Clause 329 talks about the transmission of the results. Clause 331 refers to people who do not reside in Canada. I'm going to pose, for example, a situation where a website in the United States, just across the border, posts the election results of returns in, let's say, eastern Canada, somewhere in the Atlantic. Would that Internet site be in violation of clause 329? If so, would the government, through clause 331, be trying to exercise domain over an American Internet site?

The Chair: There are two concepts here. One of them involves application of prohibitions to the Internet and the people who operate it, and the second involves the extraterritorial application of Canadian law.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We don't know.

Mr. Ted White: That's yet to be tested? Well, well.

The Chair: The intent is that it would apply to anyone outside Canada who's not a Canadian citizen or, the other exception, a permanent resident of Canada. That is the intent. He, she, or it would take their chances in relation to the clause.

Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: I remember well during the 1993 election I happened to have been working in the Reform national headquarters in Calgary at the time, and while the general electorate in the city of Calgary did not know what had happened to the Progressive Conservative Party in the rest of the country, I did. The reason I did was that reporters were sharing the information via telephones and whatever mechanisms they had, and they knew what was going on. They were actually in some way implying it in their editorial comments with regard to what was happening and the reporting that was going on in Calgary of the returns of the results.

Would I be correct in understanding, based on clause 329, that those reporters who understood what the results were in the rest of the country previous to everybody else in Calgary or Alberta or the west knowing the results were therefore in violation of a a clause like 329?

My understanding is they were not using Internet at the time. This was 1993. They were just using phone lines to communicate that back and forth, and video feeds, I believe. Would they be in violation of clause 329?

Mr. Michael Peirce: No. They were simply communicating it back and forth in a private conversation as it were.

Mr. Rob Anders: Well, it wasn't—

Mr. Michael Peirce: I'm just not sure of the exact facts, so let me draw the distinction that clause 329 applies to the transmission to the public.

Mr. Rob Anders: Okay, well I guess I'm going to ask you who would be the public then, because I was not a member of the media team, but I and others in the room were aware of what was going on, because of their transmission within the room.

Mr. Michael Peirce: It would be a case-by-case situation. I can't answer the specific facts there. I can tell you that if I call my mom in B.C. and tell her the results of what's happened in my riding in Ontario, that's not caught by this.

Mr. Rob Anders: But what if you call your mother and she's on a speaker phone and she happens to be in a campaign office?

Mr. Michael Peirce: It doesn't strike me that's the kind of situation that would be caught either. I don't think that's really a transmission to the public.

Mr. Rob Anders: Would the broadcasters who were implying the results of the vote in the east be in violation of clause 329?

Mr. Michael Peirce: I'd have to look at the particular facts.

• 1315

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 329 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 331—Prohibition—inducements by non-residents)

The Chair: On clause 331 there is an amendment proposed by the BQ, BQ-58, which is shown on page 109 of the brick.

Mr. Bergeron, would you introduce BQ-58?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to broaden the prohibitions that prevents interference by foreigners encouraging people to vote for political parties or opinions, always with a view to respecting the electors' choice, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to take this opportunity to say that I much appreciated the discussion that went on before. The Elections Act provides that voting more than once is prohibited. I imagine that someone pleading that they voted twice by mistake could be exonerated.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's it. You're allowed to be absent-minded.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Did he decide to vote by mistake?

[English]

The Chair: I hope that was a rhetorical question.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I appreciate Mr. Bergeron's attempt, but the officials advise me there are a number of other sections in the act that use the language in the act as written. I don't think it makes any difference whether we adopt the amendment or not.

If we were to adopt it and we want to make the act consistent we would have to go through a number of other sections to make it consistent. Given that I don't think Mr. Bergeron's amendment adds anything in particular—I think we're on a very fine point here, which doesn't change the substance of the legislation—I'm asking members to vote against it.

The Chair: Okay. As far as things have evolved, we can't vote for a party. Sorry. Electors are not capable of voting for a party on the ballot. They vote for individuals who may or may not have party affiliations appended to their name on the ballot.

Dealing with the term “option”, would this section ever be called upon to apply to voting for an option in an election?

Ms. Mondou.

Mr. Michael Peirce: We're trying to determine in what way this applies to a referendum.

The Chair: This part or section does not apply to referenda. So the only thing an elector would ever vote for under this section of the act would be a candidate. Is that correct?

Mr. Michael Peirce: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. We understand Mr. Bergeron's intent here.

Now, do you have something to add, Mr. Bergeron?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Of course, Mr. Chairman. I always appreciate such positive and objective comments coming from you.

That said, I think we're putting our heads in the sand. When Mr. Knutson repeats that he doesn't really see what this amendment adds to the legislation which, if one is to believe him, is just about perfect, I'm not surprised because there's nothing in our proposals that seems to add anything good, specific, new or very positive.

That said, I would simply like to emphasize that if I understand Mr. Knutson's very restrictive, very narrow-minded, interpretation, that means that a foreigner could come onto Canadian territory and tell someone not to vote, for example, for Mr. Knutson. That, you don't have the right to do. On the other hand, you can tell someone not to vote for the Liberal Party. That is not prohibited under the law as theoretically one does not vote for a political party. So you can allow someone to campaign and say you shouldn't vote for the Liberal Party or for the Conservative Party or again that you should vote for the Conservative Party, preferably, or for any other party, goodness knows which one.

• 1320

Mr. Chairman, we know full well what happened many times in Canadian and Quebec history when elections were held mainly on a specific question. The 1988 Free Trade Agreement was mentioned before. What did voting in favour of free trade mean at the time? It meant you voted Conservative. At the time, if you wanted to vote against free trade, you had to vote for the Liberal Party of Canada, which has changed a lot since then, or for the New Democratic Party.

That's what I mean when I talk about options. There have been election campaigns in Canada's history where one voted for or against conscription, for or against free trade and so on. In the past, in the days of Wilfrid Laurier, people voted on French schools in the West. That's what I mean.

If we want to hide our heads in the sand and say that, in theory, this legislation only applies to a vote concerning the candidates, let's go ahead. But what it might mean is that we might possibly accept, under the auspices of this beautiful Act, that someone go around campaigning and saying to vote or not vote for the Liberal Party. That would pose absolutely no problem because, in theory, you only vote for candidates in this country.

[English]

The Chair: Your chair would like to bootleg a question to Mr. Bergeron's submission here.

My understanding would be that this section would also make it impossible for a foreigner, either inside Canada or outside Canada, to be a third-party advertiser. Is that correct?

A person not residing in Canada, being in Canada during the election, who spends a half million dollars in election advertising would be incapable of spending that money. He would be prohibited from spending it under this section. Is that correct?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: There is another section, which says a foreigner should not campaign in Canada. I can find that section for you. It is even more specific than that.

The Chair: But this section has that same effect, because it prohibits a person who is a foreigner from inducing an elector to vote for or against—

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: For a candidate or against a candidate.

Mr. Michael Peirce: Yes, it would have that effect.

The Chair: Okay. There's one religious faith out there right now that calls upon its members not to participate in voting. Would this particular section cause that religious faith residing outside Canada to commit an offence if they continued to induce their faithful not to vote, to refrain from voting, as this section provides, or would they have the benefit of a constitutional religious exemption?

I won't mention the faith, but I know there is one, and I've met adherents of that faith.

Mr. Gar Knutson: There's more than one. Baha'is don't vote. Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote. Lots of people in my riding don't vote.

The Chair: If they're not based in Canada—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Maybe they vote in your riding.

The Chair: I asked the question; I bootlegged it on Mr. Bergeron's intervention. Maybe we've made it too complicated.

So quite possibly is the answer.

Mr. Michael Peirce: Yes, possibly.

The Chair: Okay, that's fine.

[Translation]

The Chair:

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, in light of your interventions which are always, of course, most relevant, I must say that here, in clause 331, we're not talking about foreigners who would set themselves up as third parties engaging in publicity. Nor are we talking here about foreigners campaigning in favour of or against a candidate. We're talking here about one or several foreigners who might induce Canadian citizens to vote in such or such a way in favour of or against a candidate.

• 1325

For example, let's say that I'm working in a small business belonging to a Dutchman. This Dutchman tells me that, if he were in my shoes, he wouldn't vote for such or such a party. If I understand this correctly, that would be allowed. It's allowed right now. From what I'm reading here, if I were told not to vote for the Liberal Party, in which case I'd answer that I quite agree, then this would be allowed under this clause. My boss, the Dutchman, would have the right to tell me not to vote for the Liberal Party of Canada. What would not be allowed, would be to tell me not to vote for Gar Knutson. That would not be allowed under this clause. But if my boss, the Dutchman, told me not to vote for the Liberal Party of Canada, that would be acceptable. There would be no problem. Is that the case?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It's the word “induce” in clause 331. If a foreigner in my riding says “Gar Knutson is a crook, don't vote for him”, that's not an inducement; it's just a statement. But if the foreigner comes in, say, a Ford Motor Company, which would be a person who tries to induce its employees not to vote for me.... It's probably a bad example, but it's the word “inducement”. If they're just making a statement, then that's not necessarily an inducement.

I'll just make a general point. We seem to be getting bogged down in some very obscure hypotheticals. I don't mean this as disrespect to Mr. Bergeron, because they're coming from a number of members of the committee, but we can go through every conceivable hypothetical for every different section and be here for a very long time.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman...

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: I still have the floor.

We can ask officials about whether foreign laws apply and whether the Constitution overrides, whether the freedom of religion overrides, and I am fearful that we're going to be here for a long time.

To go back to my main point here, it depends how you look at the word “inducement”. I think “inducement” is fairly clear. Others may disagree. It's not defined in the act, so we'll just have to use a dictionary definition of what the word “inducement” means.

The Chair: Okay, we've had a good discussion of this. We've had full discussion.

Mr. Rob Anders: No, there's an aspect I'd like to touch on here that hasn't been touched.

The Chair: All right, if it's relevant, I'm happy to hear short interventions. We're going to get to a vote on this.

Mr. Rob Anders: I understand.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder about something you raised earlier on another amendment. That was the whole idea of the extraterritorial application of Canadian law.

If an American wishes to go ahead and take a position on the election—and to be respectful to Mr. Bergeron, whether they take the position on a candidate, a political party, or an option, either refraining or in favour of—first, how would clause 331 apply? And secondly, how could the government possibly try to enforce this in any reasonable way upon an American citizen who chose to set up a website or even advertise such that it spilled into the Canadian market?

The Chair: Thank you. We'll note the question. We'll get to it in a minute.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, first I'll answer Mr. Knutson, which will lead me into what I have to say on the clause.

Mr. Knutson seems to worry about the fact that our work seems to be slowing down. I would have serious questions if I were him. Maybe he's getting nervous because he's accountable for the speed with which we get through this bill. Or, if there's a slowdown, maybe there are reasons that he'll have to explain to someone somewhere. I think that he'll certainly be accountable in that respect.

When he says “in any way induce”, I understand the term “induce” full well, Mr. Chairman. I'm not talking about making a broad statement saying that you shouldn't vote for Gar Knutson because he's a crook. That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about here is inducing someone not to vote or vote for Gar Knutson. Presently, that is prohibited by law. But if I induce someone to vote or not vote for the Liberal Party of Canada or for another option, that is not provided for in the Act. That is not a hypothetical case.

• 1330

I think it's very mean and scornful of Mr. Knutson to presume that we shouldn't raise some hypothetical cases. It seems to me that it's the lawmakers' work to provide for any and all contingencies to avoid the ones that the committee might not have thought of happening during an election period, and having no provision to deal with it.

We have to avoid leaving cracks in the legislation. From what I can see, and you haven't been able to show me wrong, there is a crack in the legislation. Even if you find that what I'm saying is totally useless, we could find ourselves, perhaps, in a situation where a foreigner may have attempted to induce someone to vote in favour of a party or against a party and then you'll say that question wasn't raised.

The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to give an opportunity to the parliamentary secretary to consult the Minister because my colleague's recommendation is not commonplace. This recommendation will oblige us to take on the whole leadership in the campaigns or in any of the causes we'll have to defend here, in the country.

With this in mind, I would suggest that we reserve this matter and defer the vote to allow the parliamentary secretary to check whether the adding of these two conditions might not allow us to accept them, maybe even unanimously, Mr. Chairman. It is a way of showing more responsibility and consolidating the idea that an election campaign is to be done here in Canada and there will be no...

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues should keep in mind that there is another clause that regulates third parties and third-party election advertising.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm not talking about that, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I realize that, Mr. Bergeron.

So we've had—

Mr. Rob Anders: Is my question going to be...?

The Chair: Oh, yes.

Mr. Anders left you a question about extraterritorial application and how one would enforce this extraterritorially.

Mr. Michael Peirce: I don't know the answer to that question.

The Chair: Okay. Clearly it has extraterritorial application. How it would be enforced remains to be seen.

Mr. Michael Peirce: I don't know the enforcement mechanism.

The Chair: Okay. There's always a problem with extraterritorial application.

Now I'm going to put the question. We've had good discussion of the issues.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: The amendment is negatived. I will therefore put the clause.

Mr. Rob Anders: I would like a recorded vote—

The Chair: I'm sorry, a recorded vote on the amendment...?

Mr. Rob Anders: On the clause.

(Clause 331 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 6)

(Clauses 332 to 337 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 338—Factors in allocation)

The Chair: Now we are at clause 338, where there are three amendments proposed by the Bloc, followed by a number of clauses without amendment.

I will ask Mr. Bergeron to explain the amendments in BQ-59.

We took a slightly longer break than we should have, so the chair has added on the minutes lost by procedural and biological delays.

• 1335

We'll take clause 338, then go to the other—

Mr. Gar Knutson: Mr. Chair...?

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: You don't have to go to tactics?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Rob Anders: That smirk would indicate to me that you do have to do that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: This smile indicates contentment with putting these amendments.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I have three amendments and it is already 1:35 p.m.. We must prepare for Question Period. Could we adjourn and come back tonight at 7:00 p.m.?

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Your chair is a real hard worker, as are all the committee members, but we have to get ready for question period.

That being the case, and there being no objection, I can adjourn until 7 p.m. minus 10 minutes. We are now adjourned.