HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 5, 2002

Á

1105

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

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

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Reid

The Chair

Mr. Reid

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Reid

The Chair

Á

1110

Mr. Reid

The Chair

Mr. Reid

The Chair

Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer)

The Chair

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

Á

1115

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Reid

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Á

1120

Á

1125

Á

1130

Á

1135

The Chair

M. Reid

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Á

1140

M. Reid

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Reid

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Á

1145

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mrs. Parrish

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Á

1150

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

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

Á

1155

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Ms. Janice Vézina (Director, Election Financing, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer)

The Chair

Ms. Janice Vézina

The Chair

Ms. Janice Vézina

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Ms. Janice Vézina

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Â

1200

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chairman

M. Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chairman

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Ms. Janice Vézina

Mr. Godin

Ms. Janice Vézina

Â

1205

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

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

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Â

1210

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Reid

Ms. Janice Vézina

Mr. Reid

Â

1215

Ms. Janice Vézina

Mr. Reid

Ms. Janice Vézina

The Chair

Ms. Janice Vézina

The Chair

Ms. Janice Vézina

The Chair

Ms. Janice Vézina

Mr. Reid

Â

1220

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.)

Ms. Janice Vézina

Mr. Geoff Regan

Â

1225

The Chair

Ms. Janice Vézina

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Â

1230

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Paul Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Macklin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Â

1235

Mr. Paul Macklin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Macklin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Â

1240

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Â

1245

Mr. Regan

The Chair

Mr. Rennie Molnar (Director, Register and Geography, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer)

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George--Peace River, PC/DR)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Ms. Diane Davidson (Chief Legal Counsel, Office of the the Chief Electoral Officer)

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Â

1250

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Jacques Saada

Â

1255

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

M. Reid

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Luc Dumont (Director, Operations, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer)

Mr. Reid

The Chair

·

1300

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Luc Dumont

Mr. Rennie Molnar

·

1305

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 042

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 5, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Colleagues, I think we are going to begin. I would ask the camera to leave. The other media can stay here.

    Colleagues, if you could look at the agenda before I introduce our witnesses, you'll see there are some elections we have to take care of, and I'm going to go through A, B, C,and D before we get to E.

    If you turn over, you will observe that F is the report on future business, which is my brief report on the meeting of our steering committee last week. I'm going to do that last, simply so we can get to our guests and continue with the business at hand.

    First, I'd ask that someone move a new chair for the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business.

    Marlene Catterall.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West--Nepean, Lib.): Believe it or not, Mr. Chair, I never was a boy scout, but I am prepared, and I would like to move that Marcel Proulx, who's currently a member of the subcommittee, be named chair of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business.

    The Chair: I'm listening to the advice I receive here, and I hear that motion. There is the consequence that we will need a new government member for the subcommittee, and I assume we'll do that after this.

    Are there any other nominations?

    The motion precisely is as follows, because of Marcel's status, that Marcel Proulx replace Carolyn Parrish on the list of members of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: I need a motion for a replacement government member on that subcommittee.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: I move that Tony Tirabassi be named as a member of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business.

    The Chair: You heard that. Tony Tirabassi, who is a member of this committee, is proposed as the government replacement.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Tony Tirabassi is the new government member on the subcommittee.

    If we could proceed....

    Scott Reid.

    Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark--Carleton, Canadian Alliance): If I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to put forward a motion that Gerry Ritz replace Garry Breitkreuz as the CA member on the subcommittee.

    The Chair: Okay. By the way, all of this, colleagues, is important because the subcommittee needs to meet tomorrow.

    Scott, would you repeat that carefully again please?

    Mr. Scott Reid: Sure. I put forward a motion that Gerry Ritz replace Garry Breitkreuz as the official opposition member on the subcommittee.

    The Chair: Okay, colleagues, you heard the motion.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: That's important for tomorrow's meeting.

    I move to item B, which is, pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), election of the opposition vice-chair.

    Scott Reid.

    Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to move that Garry Breitkreuz be nominated for this position.

    The Chair: You've heard the nomination. There are no other nominations.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Garry Breitkreuz becomes the opposition vice-chair of this committee.

    Now, because of other changes to do with the Alliance--and Scott, I assume you're ready for this--there's a change in membership on the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, which is, as you know, our steering committee. This is to replace John Reynolds, I understand.

Á  (1110)  

    Mr. Scott Reid: That's right. I'd like to nominate Garry Breitkreuz for that position.

    The Chair: You heard that nomination.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair:So Garry Breitkreuz replaces John Reynolds on the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Thank you.

    I'll proceed then to D, which is change in the membership of the Subcommittee on the Parliamentary Calendar. In this case it's a replacement for Dick Harris.

    Mr. Scott Reid: That's right. I'd like to nominate Garry Breitkreuz to replace Dick Harris on that committee.

    The Chair: Okay. You heard the motion.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: So that change takes place. I appreciate that. Colleagues, that is important routine business.

    There are two other items I'd like to deal with. Mr. Kingsley, could you, extremely briefly, outline to the committee the sorts of things you would like the committee or representatives of the committee to do at your conference?

    Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): Mr. Chairman, we're talking about Thursday, March 14, from 1:30 to 4:30. This is a conference of all the members of the commissions dealing with redistribution. I've put on the agenda the concept of community of interest for discussion. This is why I extended an invitation to the committee to decide how it wanted to participate in that. We can have a panel of experts making presentations, and the members of Parliament in attendance could take advantage of that, ask questions, like other participants. If some of them wish to have the opportunity to speak as part of the panel or separately from the panel, I will accommodate this committee any way it wishes during those three hours. I only need to know how people wish to communicate with this body at this conference.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Colleagues, I raise that because it came up at the steering committee. We weren't sure, but before Christmas the committee indicated that it was interested in being involved in some way in this conference, because of our involvement and our interest in riding redistribution.

    Mr. Kingsley, I thank you for that, and we will follow up on it.

    The last thing in routine business I'd like to mention, at risk of its becoming a bit of a discussion, is that the House of Commons, as you know, is seized of the referral on the matter of a question of privilege, and it looks now as though it won't be referred to us earlier than tomorrow; it might be, but it doesn't look as though it's going to be. It is my intention--and I assume this is what the committee wants--that when that referral is formally made to this committee, I will call a meeting at the earliest opportunity. I put it to you that way because there are some time constraints, with the break next week, but I mean it might be in the evening, it might be at some other time that is not our normal meeting time, including Friday and, conceivably, next week. I want to look around. Is this the intent of the committee, that I simply move as quickly as I can to have the first meeting on that matter?

    Michel.

[Translation]

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

    I think that having the committee meet as soon as possible, this week, is a good idea. However, I don't think that calling a meeting when the House breaks for the week, the week that the media sometimes calls “our week off”, is as good. I am quite sure that if we compared my schedule next week with my colleagues' schedules, we would see that their week, like mine, is quite full. I do not agree with you. I think Thursday evening or Friday perhaps would work, but I do not think that meeting during the break is a good idea.

    Let us not forget that we are talking about events that occured between the 21st and the 28th of January. We do not have a time machine and I don't think that even a week has passed since then, therefore I feel that the 18th of February would be just as appropriate to make this issue a priority as next week would be. Therefore I do not agree on sitting next week.

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    The Chair: Okay. I raised it to get some sense of where the committee sits on these matters.

    Carolyn Parrish.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Actually, I have doctors, dentists, and constituents booked in next week, not necessarily all painful events. We don't have a lot of time in the ridings, and I have appointments I've put off for a long time. I won't be able to come up next week.

    The Chair: I hear comments about the break, I don't hear comments about this week, in the fullest interpretation of “this week”.

    Scott Reid.

    Mr. Scott Reid: I would be inclined to deal with this kind of business as quickly as possible; I don't think there's value in delay. I realize we all have constituency business that is important, but I do think the business of the House should be our first priority, that is, our job as members of Parliament.

    The Chair: Thank you, that's sufficient guidance for me.

    Yvon Godin.

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP): We know it's a very important issue. We brought it to the House, and we are the ones who asked that it be brought here. It's just that we need to have a clear agenda, because we have other responsibilities in our ridings. For example, we're back here for another three weeks after that, then one week off, and then we're here for five weeks. The people of our ridings are screaming to meet with us. I don't think the rest of you want to hear me screaming about the way the government is running the country.

    The Chair: I needed some direction. I've been sitting there and it's my call. Thank you very much.

    Let us proceed, then, to agenda item E, which is, pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada following the 37th General Election entitled Modernizing the Electoral Process (Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, s. 536).

    I want to welcome Mr. Kingsley again, Diane Davidson, Janice Vézina, Rennie Molnar, and Luc Dumont. These are all people who have appeared before our committee before. Colleagues, this is following up the previous presentations by Mr. Kingsley. I think we all have copies of the report and Mr. Kingsley's presentation for today.

    Mr. Kingsley, we are in your hands.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the committee members as well.

    You wished me to cover the totality of my report, not read the report, so this will take me some 20 minutes. The first part of my presentation will be in French, and then, at an appropriate break, it will go into English.

[Translation]

    Thank you for inviting me here today to present the recommendations report following the 37th general election, modernizing the electoral process, which was tabled by the Speaker on November 27th, 2001, that is, one year to the day after the general election, which is why you are here now.

    I am accompanied today by the people you already introduced and therefore I will not repeat their names at this time.

    Modernizing the electoral process is part of an ongoing effort to reform the Canada Elections Act so that it reflects the needs of an increasingly mobile, informed and diverse population and stays abreast of the new and changing reality of Canadian society.

    These recommendations are based on the deliberations and research that took place as part of the work of the Royal Commission on electoral reform and party financing, that reported in March or February 1992, ten years ago. They also flow from previous thoughts formulated after the 35th and 36th general elections.

    An extensive evaluation of the 2000 general election was also conducted. For instance, Elections Canada undertook a broad-ranging consultation of electors, candidates, political parties, returning officers and the academic community. I also consulted and listened closely to the advisory committee of political parties.

    Above all, however, this report reflects the 11 years I have spent at the helm of Elections Canada, and is marked by considered reflections on the measures that are necessary to reflect the spirit of equality on which the Canada Elections Act is based: one person, one vote. This report reflects the best for and on behalf of the Canadian people.

    There has been much discussion in the media of the recommendations pertaining to election financing, however other aspects should not be overlooked. For my conception of the modern electoral process is holistic, in that it cannot be strictly limited to financial concerns. It must also embrace more philosophical and fundamental considerations, such as the accessibility to the electoral process, equality of the competing players, promotion of freedom of expression and association, and effectiveness of electoral administration.

    Modern citizenship implies certain rights and obligations. In Canada, political citizenship is strongly inspired by concern for electoral equality. Although much has already been done, the electoral process is not yet fully accessible to the electorate, candidates and political parties. Modernizing the Electoral Process makes recommendations designed to remove certain barriers, and to contribute to making the electoral administration more effective.

    To be efficient, the national register of electors and the lists that flow from it must be sensitive to the mobility of the population in time and space.

    To encourage the necessary flexibility of the register and respond to the electorate's right to vote and the political parties' right to receive lists that are up-to-date, I am recommending that it no longer be necessary for electors to submit signed certification of eligibility for registration on the national register, and that they be allowed recourse to a variety of methods to demonstrate their eligibility for registration.

    Therefore, to maintain the reliability of the register and the effectiveness of the electoral process, it is important that the Chief Electoral Officer be authorized to undertake initiatives to verify, correct and update the register and to authorize returning officers, and others, to conduct such initiatives outside electoral events, when requested by the Chief Electoral Officer.

    To ensure fair competition in the electoral process, I further recommend that eligible parties be given the same rights as registered parties respecting access to annual and final lists of electors.

    The information from the national register of electors is used to create preliminary lists of electors for the use of returning officers in each electoral district during an election. Notwithstanding the ongoing collection of information in the register that takes place between elections, there are likely instances where an eligible elector may not appear on the relevant lists. In this context, the revision period plays an important role.

Á  (1120)  

    To further improve this process, the report addresses several issues. For instance, I recommend that the current legislative scheme for notices of confirmation of registration be reviewed to include more flexibility regarding how electors are informed about registration and voting.

    I also recommend that the act expressly provide that returning officers update lists of electors by adding or deleting electors on the basis of information provided by the Chief Electoral Officer.

    In addition, I recommend to extend the ability of returning officers to accept changes over the phone from electors who have moved from a different electoral district.

    Apart from the proposed legislative changes aimed at improving voter registration, my office undertook a series of administrative initiatives with the objective of solving several issues that were encountered during the 2000 general election. I would be pleased to further discuss some of these initiatives after my presentation, if you wish.

    For all sorts of reasons, there are citizens today who are refusing to exercise their right to vote. These refusals have meaning and cannot be ignored. I am therefore recommending that electors be recognized as having the capacity to decline their ballot, and that such refusal be recorded and reported as such in the official results.

    The other face of Canadian citizenship is the right to stand for office. No citizen should encounter any obstacle to the exercise of this constitutional right. However, certain provisions of the Canada Elections Act concerning nomination are unwieldy and obsolete. Various recommendations are intended to facilitate access to nomination and to streamline the administration of the electoral process. For example, I recommend that all Canadian employees have the right to leave without pay in order to stand as a candidate in a federal election or to serve as a deputy returning officer or poll clerk.

    To simplify electoral management, I recommend that the obligation upon prospective candidates to collect the signatures of 100 or 50 eligible electors in support of their nomination be abolished, that they be able to file their nomination papers themselves, and that they no longer be required to swear an oath to the effect that they consent to their own nomination.

    On the other hand, a political party should be authorized to confirm to me in writing the full names and addresses and the number of candidates it is endorsing, and to remit their nomination deposit. In order to adoid unfortunate situations where the right to stand as a candidate in a federal election is infringed, the act should oblige all returning officers to consult the Chief Electoral Officer before refusing a candidacy.

    The political parties are the front-line facilitators of Canada's electoral democracy. They contribute, among other things, to political pluralism. However, that pluralism is genuine only if the parties have a genuine capacity for expression and action, and if the tendency is for them to move toward a level playing field. In this perspective, I recommend that the Canada Elections Act be revised and simplified.

    The act recognizes several types of parties—eligible parties, registered parties, suspended parties, parties with the right to have their name on the ballot. This party system establishes useless distinctions and is unduly complex.

    I am therefore recommending that two types of political parties be recognized, namely eligible parties and registered parties. Both should enjoy the same rights (notably as regards access to lists of electors) and be similarly accountable (notably as regards reporting).

Á  (1125)  

[English]

    In a representative democracy it is important that people be informed about the ideas motivating the parties: who is proposing what? Canadians today draw their electoral information primarily from television, and then from newspapers and radio, and recently from the Internet. The Canada Elections Act must be as equality-based, efficient, and cutting-edge as the mass media during an election campaign. A scheme should be designed to affect a greater number of parties, encourage a level playing field among them, and consolidate and stimulate their capacity to play their roles more fully. At the moment the rules governing the regimes for free and paid broadcasting time make the two interdependent. Paid time determines free time. In practice, this method is to the disadvantage of small and new parties, because they do not have the resources of the well-established parties to pay for air time, with the result that they are given less free time as well.

    I recommend that the two systems be severed. The act should provide that free broadcasting time be divided equally among all registered parties that request it. This will afford parties not represented in the House a better opportunity to express their ideas. That, by the way, is one hour of free time per station in total. As for paid time, the act should allow each registered party to buy up to 100 minutes of time at the lowest unit rate, subject to its election expense limits. Every station should make available to all registered parties a maximum of 300 minutes of paid time. The parties should, however, notify the stations of their scheduling intentions within 10 days of the issue of the writs, and the Broadcasting Arbitrator would be responsible for resolving disputes, which is what he does now.

    The Canada Elections Act has various provisions relating to the practice of polling. There are still improvements that need to be made, chiefly because of the variety of media that can now be used to disseminate the results of pre-election surveys. I am therefore recommending that subsection 326(2) of the Canada Elections Act subject the electronic media governed by the Canada Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, known as CRTC, to the same requirements as other media with respect to disclosure of the wording of questions used in political opinion surveys and the means by which further details about such surveys may be obtained.

    In the interest of the performance and transparency of electoral democracy, the merit principle must guide the selection of persons participating in management of the electoral process in Canada. I therefore repeat the recommendation that returning officers be selected and appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer, based on their merit, for a renewable 10-year term. The returning officers thus designated should be capable of identifying for themselves persons who are competent to support them in their duties, which includes deputy returning officers and clerks.

    I would now like to turn to the recommendations of a financial nature. The principle of the equality of citizens constitutes the foundation of liberal democracies. In practice, however, equality is affected by other forces that set the tone for the electoral process. One of those forces is money. It is, of course, true that over the years some major advances have been made in limiting the influence money has on federal elections and ensuring that the greatest number of citizens are able to stand for office. It is in this spirit of accessibility that Parliament has opted for the partial public funding of election campaigns in Canada.

    With this perspective, I recommend that the qualification threshold for a candidate's reimbursement be reduced from 15% to 5% of the valid votes cast in his or her electoral district. This would match the 5% whereby parties get reimbursed as well. In the same spirit, I recommend that surplus funds transferred to the Receiver General by independent candidates at the end of their election campaign be returnable if they stand as independent candidates in the next general election or a by-election.

Á  (1130)  

    The fact that Canada has a system for the public funding of election campaigns should not have a limiting effect on contributions from other sources. Therefore, I recommend raising the threshold for disclosure of the names and addresses of donors to $1,075, instead of $200, and having that information published. Parties would still have to keep tabs on who gave more than $200, but that would not be publicly divulged automatically.

    In addition to accessibility, another pillar of representative democracy is transparency. It guarantees the bond of confidence between the people and its representatives. This confidence will be the more solidly established if the public's right to know about electoral financing is served and respected. The people have the right to know who is influencing or attempting to influence the electoral process and how. The Canada Elections Act already contains a number of provisions to this end.

    In a spirit of continuity, I recommend that the act prohibit any form of contribution made so as to conceal the donor's identity. Subject to exceptions, no donation made to a candidate's campaign should be allowed later than four months after election day, and all contributions received after that day should be disclosed in the candidate's return. When candidates receive indirect contributions, for example, from a local riding association, their returns should indicate the names and addresses of all donors who made contributions over the reporting threshold to the trust or association since the last election. This obligation should also apply to political parties. Furthermore, the act should require a candidate's return to reveal all the conditions of any loan, including its term and interest rate.

    In order to help put the parties in electoral competition on a level playing field, to promote transparency, and to satisfy the public's right to know about election financing, I recommend that all transfers of funds from a provincial political entity to a registered or eligible federal party, to a local association of a registered or eligible party, or to a candidate be fully reported to the Chief Electoral Officer. In the case of contributions to registered or eligible political parties, electoral district associations of registered or eligible parties, or candidates, I recommend that they be capped. The amounts that appear in the report are maximums that seem to me reasonable, in that they are apt to foster competitiveness in the electoral process and still meet the requirement for money by parties and candidates.

    The party electoral district associations occupy centre stage in the Canadian partisan theatre. Although they manage the money that fuels the electoral process, their financial operations are not subject to public scrutiny. In the name of electoral transparency and the public's right to know, I recommend that any local association of a party under a reporting requirement that engages in financial transactions be subject to reporting obligations.

    Prospective candidates can receive as many contributions as they want to finance their nomination campaigns. This sort of situation is not appropriate in a modern democracy that encourages equality among contestants, accessibility of election functions, and transparency in election financing. I therefore recommend limiting the total contributions that all prospective candidates of any one party can receive in the course of a nomination campaign to $7,500.

    Party leadership races are high points in Canada's democracy. They occasion major financial transactions, transactions that, however, are shielded from public scrutiny. Yet the population has the right to know how the persons who aspire to the pinnacle of a national political party are financing their leadership campaign. I therefore recommend that contributions received and expenses incurred by a candidate seeking his or her party's leadership be reported and published in the same way as the contributions and expenses of an electoral candidate.

    That, in brief, is the content of the report following upon the election of November 27, 2000, Modernizing the Electoral Process. My role as Chief Electoral Officer is to keep a watchful eye on the quality of Canada's electoral democracy. For me, a modern democracy strikes a reasonable balance between the equality and the liberty of citizens, candidates, and political parties. That balance is not easy to achieve, but it offers a challenge that is worth the effort required. As Ronald Dworkin suggests in Sovereign Virtue, it is important to meet this challenge to the benefit of equality: “Any genuine contest between liberty and equality is a contest liberty must lose.”

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much indeed, we appreciate that. There is a great deal of material in what you said. It's a very interesting condensation of the report.

    Colleagues, we'll proceed in the usual way. If I could remind the witnesses as well, we keep roughly to five minutes for an exchange, and the member loses time if the answer is very long, if you see what I mean--by the way, the witness loses time if the question is very long.

    I'll divide it between the sides, and once we've been through, we'll come back around again. We're going to begin with Scott Reid, then Carolyn Parrish, Michel Guimond, Joe Jordan, and Jay Hill.

    Mr. Scott Reid: Mr. Kingsley, thank you for your presentation; it was informative as always. I'm glad we've got two go-arounds here, because I've got too many questions to deal with in five minutes.

    I start with the area you dealt with last, the funding of nomination and leadership races. I can see what your rational is for trying to limit the amount of dollars spent, but I would be inclined to think the best way of ensuring that good candidates are chosen and that good candidates are elected is not through more extensive regulation of financing within the party apparatus itself, but rather through reducing the barriers to the entry of new parties into the political scene, greater competition between parties, something legislation has tended to move us away from over the past few years.

    The concern I have here is that if we get into regulating the internal dynamics of party nomination races, leadership elections, and so on, we risk the possibility of effectively institutionalizing as semi-governmental entities the parties themselves, as opposed to leaving them as free associations. I think this is a danger we can see in action in the United States, where the Democratic and Republican Parties have effectively become semi-governmental institutions. So I wonder if you would care to comment on that?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The issue is related to the public's right to know about financing, and this is what the report attempts to get to. In effect, when the legislation was passed in the 1970s to deal with financing under the Canada Elections Act, the legislators at the time thought they were covering the whole field. In fact, it has not covered the whole field. This is natural. Over a period of time people find out that some aspects were not covered, and some people attempt to discover ways that were not covered.

    With leadership races, there is no attempt to put a ceiling on them at this time, at least in the recommendations, or to have you consider that at this time. It varies so much from party to party that it's difficult to know what would be a reasonable limit. What would be a reasonable limit in one party would be absolutely incredible for another party. There is no attempt there, but at least who is contributing to the candidates offering their leadership skills to a party is of some import to Canadians. I think it's relatively easy to achieve reporting on that. It's not increasing any burden on parties. There already is somebody who is receiving monies for those candidates whenever there's a race going on.

    I can appreciate that at the local riding level it might seem to be imposing a larger burden, but that would not be on the local riding, it would be on the candidates. If they're standing for office and they're receiving monies, and if there are no limits on what they can spend.... In some ridings someone can come along with $200,000, when the contest itself is $60,000 or $65,000. There's a disproportion here that is hard to reconcile.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Scott Reid: I guess the point I'm getting at here is, if someone comes along and attempts to buy a nomination, effectively, through the spending of unlimited funds, I'm inclined to think the fact that the process of democracy has largely been subverted at that level within that party will tend to make the candidates of the competing parties, relatively speaking, more attractive to the voters of that district, and through the voting mechanism itself of our local elections, there is effectively some level of self-policing that eliminates much of the problem you're identifying.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It may, but my judgment was, and still is, that it is better for the public to know and it is better to impose a ceiling. In achieving that, I don't think one is imposing an unfair burden on those people. But this is a matter of reconciliation of views on the democracy process.

    Mr. Scott Reid: Do I have time for another question?

    The Chair: That would be all, you wouldn't get a reply. We will get back to you.

    Carolyn Parrish, and then Michel Guimond.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I want to make all my points quickly.

    On page 9 you mention the right to leave without pay. When I first read that, I thought to myself, that's not fair, they should have a right to leave with pay. Then I thought you'd get undue pressure from employers to stop people from running, so I support that. I think it's a good idea.

    On page 11 you talk about names being on the ballot. I have a question that you can answer at the end. If you have an independent Liberal running and they're not necessarily a registered party, can they have independent Liberal put on the ballot, or independent Canadian Alliance or independent Tory? I think that question's come up before.

    With page 15, I'm a little concerned, because I believe this happens now. You say the Chief Electoral Officer will be selecting the returning officers based on their merit. Just the fact the expression's in there kind of worries me. It implies that we've got a whole bunch of boobies running around doing this now. I'd just like to know, if you do have one that's not performing well, whether you have the ability to dismiss that one. I need some reassurance.

    I'm concerned with page 20. I first of all applauded it wholeheartedly. There's been controversy in the paper with the two Carolyns lately about not enough women running. Putting a limit on the ability to spend in a nomination campaign is long overdue--I don't know how much cooperation you're going to get from the parties. The limit of $7,500 is totally unrealistic. I was in a nomination with 15,500 Liberals, and to send one mailing out at a dollar each, for envelopes, stamps, etc., was double that limit already. So I don't know whether that's a ball park figure or you're going to do it based on the number of actual people signed up for that nomination.

    I think also--

    The Chair: Could you mention the chair from time to time?

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Oh, sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm not so used to it--it's like talking to a friend.

    I also wonder, Mr. Chair, how this amount is going to be filed and scrutinized? I think it involves the Chief Electoral Officer in a system more like the one they have in the States, where nominations are more carefully regulated. By the way, I applaud that.

    I'm finished, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Kingsley.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With respect to your favourable comments, I won't comment any further, and will answer the questions.

    One cannot be an independent Liberal or an independent Alliance or an independent Bloc Québécois; one is Liberal or one is not, one is Alliance or one is not. You have to have your candidacy supported by the leader of the party, and then the name of that party, the short form, appears on the ballot. Otherwise, it doesn't get on. It's independent or it's nothing, and you have a choice, if you're an independent candidate, to have independent or nothing under your name.

    The ability to dismiss returning officers is not mine. I can only recommend dismissal, and there have been recommendations made and not accepted. Therefore, I am very reluctant to make more recommendations, because I haven't got time to waste.

    The limit that is recommended for candidacies is not $7,500, it's $60,000. In other words, it's not $60,000, it's whatever applies at the riding. It's a very high limit, it's more than the royal commission recommends, but it's the same as if it were the election in that riding. So it's not $7,500, $7,500 is the most a person can contribute. That's a very different matter.

Á  (1145)  

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: That's very high, too high.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The $60,000? Well, this is why I propose it here--

    The Chair: The $7,500 is too high.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: The $7,500 is too high for one person. That's ridiculous.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I've said those are the maximums that are considered reasonable. Of course, if Parliament decides to lower those amounts where I've made recommendations, that is certainly something for discussion.

    The Chair: Michel Guimond, then Joe Jordan, and then Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will start with a comment from Mr. Kingsley and then ask three questions in a row. You can then answer my questions within the time allotted to us by our chairman.

    First of all, here is my comment. I congratulate you once again on your recommendation that returning officers be selected and appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer based on merit and not on their adherence to a political party. I would hope that the government will be open-minded enough to amend the act as you are recommending, unless it intends to remain in power until the end of time, or unless it thinks that it will. That is my comment. I hope that the end of time is a long way off if they do not want to be served the same thing by another party that takes power.

    Here are my three quick questions. The first deals with the register. On page 6, you say that you want to authorize returning officers, among other people, to undertake initiatives regarding registration outside electoral events. But between elections, do returning officers at the local level remain in their positions? I meet my returning officer at social activities because he lives in the same municipality as I do. He seems to be saying that he doesn't have an office. He makes calls from his home. What are they paid between the elections? Is it possible for him to amend the register between elections?

    I will remind you what you denounce in a report after the election: three days before the election, there were 6,000 new registrations. Everything had been organized to deal with 72,000 voters, but three days before the election, we had to deal with roughly 78,000. It will be necessary to think about this and to look at the situation in greater detail and very seriously.

    Here's the second point. On page 10, you say:

On the other hand, a political party should be authorized to confirm to me in writing the full names and addresses and the number of candidates it is endorsing, and to remit their nomination deposit.

    So what you are proposing would mean that the $1,000 nomination deposit would be paid by the party instead of being a personal cheque issued by the candidate. Is there a change with respect to what has been in place since the last election as regards paying the nomination deposit?

    I will conclude, Mr. Chairman, with a question on page 16 of the presentation.

I recommend raising the threshold for disclosure of the name and address of donors to $1,075.

    First of all, I would like to know where the figure $1,075 came from. Is it an act of God? Why isn't it $1,076.85? This recommendation is somewhat contradictory.

    On the one hand, you want to maintain privacy, but on the other, this measure can encourage contributions of less than $1,075 that may be questionable. On one hand, it is important to respect the right to privacy--

Á  (1150)  

    The Chair: Michel, you've got to go a bit faster, please.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: ... respecting the privacy of donors, but also respecting the public's right to know what the $200 is intended for. I would like to know what you think about that.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the role of the returning officer or returning officers between the elections, I mentioned the other day that we have given them computers to take home so that we can be in contact with them by e-mail and otherwise, and also to enable us, when testing, to use the 301 offices as such. These offices are really in their homes, they are home offices.

    Moreover, we are starting an exercise whereby we are asking returning officers to review a number of things from home, including maps, and lists. For that, we are paying them the rate approved by the Governor in Council in accordance with what I recommended. So it is an hourly rate or a daily rate depending on the time devoted to the work.

    Can the returning officer make amendments between elections? No. That is the reason for the recommendation. Between elections, the Chief Electoral Officer is the one who makes amendments. During the election, it is the returning officer. I am asking to change those two things to make it possible for both to make changes at any time. That will almost completely resolve the problem that you mentioned—we are currently doing something about it—for the 6,000 changes that you or your returning officer received three days after the election was called. He received them from my office, because we received the information from the Chief Electoral Officer in Quebec the day the election was called or just prior to that.

    We are going to ensure that that information is sent to returning officers electronically. That will avoid major difficulties, and the list will be updated much more quickly. It will take an hour or two instead of three, four or five days, which will enable us to have all of the amendments in your initial list, if there are any last minute changes.

    As for the $1,000 donation, all that proposal does is introduce additional flexibility. There are political parties or advisory committees of political parties that have told us they would like to contribute $1,000 to candidates, and that they would like us to provide them with the names of candidates centrally, to avoid any mistakes or last minute problems, etc. So the proposal is designed to add flexibility to the system. It will not prevent an individual candidate from running, submitting his candidacy and paying his deposit. At that time, all opportunities for the candidate to have it done centrally will evaporate since he will already have done it. But he will still need a letter of sponsorship from the party leader. It is simply a measure to facilitate life for political parties where potential candidates agree with the measure.

    Now, the $1,075 amount is not an act of God, but it may be divine inspiration. It is the maximum amount after which the tax credit disappears. A parallel was drawn with the amount that warrants government participation, based on the government assessment, and the amount beyond which there is no longer a tax credit contribution. It is that maximum amount. That is the only reasoning that is required to better guarantee privacy. Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Jean-Pierre.

    It's Joe Jordan, Yvon Godin, Jacques Saada, Scott Reid, and Geoff Regan.

    Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds--Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Kingsley, I just want to say that I support your efforts to separate the economics from the politics and bring transparency to that. As an aside, I'm a border MP, and I deal quite closely with my American counterpart. I'm continually amazed at the resources he dedicates to raising money on an ongoing basis. He's a very honourable person, but I can't believe that it doesn't affect and permeate just about everything he does as a politician. So I think that is an important issue for us, and I wanted to start with that.

    I thought I had this straight, and then your explanation confused me even more. On page 20, on the nominations, I'm just going to read the paragraph.

I therefore recommend limiting the total contributions that all perspective candidates of any one party can receive in the course of a nomination campaign.

    I have a number of questions about that. First, are you saying that each potential candidate for the nomination can only receive $7,500, or can receipt for $7,500, or can spend $7,500, all of the above or none of the above?

    The other point I'd like to make is that I think you probably need to look at the nomination processes for various parties, because they're not uniform, and there may be some parties that through the process require travel throughout the constituency for town halls and that sort of thing, which may affect potential fixed costs, as I would call them, based on the bylaws of that party, as opposed to those of other parties. I don't know how practical it is, unless I'm interpreting it wrong, to just slap it down.

    My final point is that there are probably riding associations in most of the parties in some areas of the country that have already established trust funds, that already have enough money in those trust funds that they never have to raise another cent. They can just draw on the interest of those. I'm wondering, are those just grandfathered, or is there going to be some attempt to bring some transparency to that, or do we just start from this day forward and accept the fact that this situation already exists?

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman--

    Mr. Joe Jordan: I should add that Leeds--Grenville is not one of those.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I will ask Janice Vézina, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, to reply, but I just wanted to make one comment.

    Your American colleague spends one-third of his time picking up money. That's for the Congress of the United States. One-third of their time, all year round, is picking up money. The Mayor of New York spent $73 million U.S. to be elected. A senator of New York spent $20 million U.S. to be elected. Think of where the money has to come from.

    Janice, please.

    Ms. Janice Vézina (Director, Election Financing, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): To clarify this $7,500, that is the limit that can be contributed to all candidates of the same party running for nomination, so it's an aggregate contribution amount.

    As for the spending limit for nomination meetings, it's proposed--

    The Chair: That means that if there were three candidates, they would get $2,500 each.

    Ms. Janice Vézina: Or one could get--

    The Chair: Or one candidate could get $7,500.

    Ms. Janice Vézina: From the same donor, yes.

    The Chair: Is that okay, Joe? Can Joe rephrase it, Janice?

    Mr. Joe Jordan: The aggregate, then, is from one donor. So if I want to donate to someone's campaign in a nomination, $7,500 is the limit, and I can either give it to one or spread it among them all. Okay. You don't even have to deal with that any more on my account. I understand.

    The Chair: Please proceed.

    Ms. Janice Vézina: Okay. I would like to refer you to pages 92 and 93 of the report. It's quite detailed in the information there.

    You talked about the spending limit. The spending limit that's recommended for nomination meetings is the same calculation used at the election.

    As for trust funds, the report recommends that the definition of trust funds be broadened from what it is currently in the act.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Yvon Godin, then Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: In the middle paragraph on page 9, you make the following comment regarding candidates:

Various recommendations are intended to facilitate access to nomination and to streamline the administration of the electoral process. for example, I recommend that all Canadian employees have the right to leave without pay in order to stand as a candidate in a federal election...

    I do not think that makes it easier to run as a candidate. I think it will have the opposite effect, simply because it could be leave without pay or leave with pay. In effect, with all due respect, if the person who decides to run works in a law firm, leave without pay will not be much of a problem; his invoices will continue to come in and he will receive money, but what about Joe Blow who wants to run and who ends up without income for 35 days? His employer was prepared to allow him to participate in the country's democracy, but without pay. I think that is going to throw a monkey wrench into things for some people.

    I am dead-set against that proposal. I could see it with pay and without pay. Allow someone who says they are prepared to run without pay to do so. The argument that was used is that employers may not want to authorize leave because the leave will have to be with pay. I think both options should be there.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this measure was to enable a person to run without losing his position. That is what happened to one of your colleagues. He had to resign his position and the case is now before the courts. That is what I was trying to remedy in this recommendation.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Okay, but at the same time--

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: To force the employer to grant leave so that the employee can come back if he does not win the election.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Okay, but the way it is written, if it is without pay the employer cannot grant leave with pay.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, he could. This measure is not restrictive; it is permissive.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Okay, but I think it should be clarified.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We can clarify that. I would like it to be clear that that is not the intent.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Hello, Mr. Chairman. Are you all right?

    The Chairman: Just fine!

    Mr. Yvon Godin: The chairman seems bored this morning. We like you a lot, Mr. Chairman. As it stands, we have a lot of questions. Normally, it is not the chairman who answers, but I respect him.

    On page 15, you recommend that “returning officers be selected and appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer”. How are returning officers selected? With all due respect, it always seems like they are members of a party that has been in power for a long time.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It has been that way since Confederation with the various parties that have been in power, Mr. Godin.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: But who appoints them?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The Governor in Council. I do not know the process by heart, but I imagine that it goes through the Prime Minister's office.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: That is appalling. We will bring them before the committee.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It is important for the committee to understand that the Chief Electoral Officer is not involved in the process in any way. Not at all. I do not review the candidates and I have nothing to do with the process.

    The Chairman: : Yvon, you have one minute left.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: This is my last question for the moment, Mr. Chairman.

    We are talking about a limit of $7,500 per group. How can Election Canada and those in charge control things if a candidate has friends that want to go around in buses, and who pay for memberships and bring all those people to the convention? There is no control over that. Those are donations, but there are all sorts of things that happen on the side, as we know. How are you going to have any control over that?

    I do not know whether my question is clear, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: Janice Vézina.

    Ms. Janice Vézina: The recommendation proposes that the responsibility is on the donor not to exceed the limits, not on the person accepting the donation.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: But how can you control that? That's my question. How can you control that? I am the donor and you're the person that's going to run, I give you $7,500, and in the meantime I hire a couple of buses to take people to my election as a candidate, and on the side, I have people going around paying membership to bring members to vote for me, but you don't know that. What process do you have? Or do you just need a complaint, then an investigation to catch the guy?

    Ms. Janice Vézina: That's it. There wouldn't be an offence for the person who exceeded the limit. And if the candidate did not disclose the contributions, including the contributions in kind, in the return, that could result in an offence. So it would have to be somebody, your opponent, looking at your campaign and seeing there are things not reported in your return.

  (1205)  

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Then if you knew automatically that $7,500 was given to a candidate running against me, and I could allege that he was paying somebody on the side in kind or whatever, you could start an investigation. Is this the responsibility of Elections Canada?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It would be the Canada Elections Commissioner, who is the same person who investigates whenever there are allegations about expenditures not being reported by the candidates. You check one another out, and you do a very good job of it.

    The Chair: It's Jacques Saada, Scott Reid, Geoff Regan, and Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am going to concentrate on one question. There are a lot of others that I would like to ask, but I will focus on one in particular. I think that the best thing about your document is that it forces us to think about these things. That is the first thing.

    So I will not go into details as to whether the $75,000 ceiling applies to an individual or collectively to a group. That is not what I am having difficulty with, actually.

    My problem is as follows. You take action to somehow limit the help or support that an individual or a group can provide to a politician. In an election campaign, the rules of the game are very clear. But an election is not an end in itself, if we think about the principle involved. An election is a tool for getting policies implemented. Between elections, there is very intense political activity that takes the form, for example, of conventions in the various political parties, and so on.

    You are somehow limiting access to resources, not necessarily of members of Parliament—in this case, we are talking about a riding president—but you are not doing the same with respect to lobby groups, which may be working against the MP. In other words, in the lead-up to a convention, for example, I work with my riding association as an MP to advance certain files or causes, and I am accountable to you and to the Canadian public for these financial resources, whereas lobby groups working against me are not subject to any rule. Do you not believe that this not only distorts democracy, but also puts more limits on me, the elected member, than on someone who is not elected? In other words, this runs counter to our democratic principles.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, there is no recommendation for a ceiling that would apply to candidates, local associations or political parties in their activities between elections.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I am sorry. Perhaps I misunderstood. I was referring to page 155 of your report. If I have misunderstood, I will be glad to accept your explanation.

    You talk about contributions to registered and eligible parties, riding associations and candidates. The first paragraph gives figures for annual contributions. So I understand that these are annual contributions, in particular to riding associations or candidates. You are setting a limit of $7,500 in total, for everything. As I have said, I am not interested in the figure, but rather the principle.

    In other words, you are imposing a ceiling or conditions that limit resources available to ridings, members of Parliament or local associations, but these provisions do not apply to pressure groups that may be trying, like us but with very different aims, to influence the events at a political party's internal convention.

    The question that I was asking is simple. Are you not—with all due respect for initiative—trying to create greater transparency in the political process at the expense of those who are openly and publicly involved in politics, rather than those that might form lobby groups to work against them?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It is important to realize that there is no perfect relationship between lobby groups and political parties or local associations. If there were, expense ceilings during election campaigns would be much higher for those groups than they are right now. The act imposes an expense limit on third parties of $150,000 during an election campaign. For political parties, the ceiling is $12,500,000. So there is a huge imbalance right there. Lobby groups and political parties cannot be considered to be on the same footing.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Jacques Saada: They can be if we are not talking about elections. They can be if we are talking about the period between elections where political considerations are debated that do not necessarily focus on an election.

    I will take a very simple example, without going into details, of course. Suppose we decide to have a meeting to prepare for the party convention. I am not talking about an election. Suppose that there is an initiative dealing with the decriminalization of marijuana. You are limiting access to the resources available to promote that issue, or at least to do the research needed to be able to present an official position in the form of a resolution to the party convention.

    A private group, however—and I am still not talking about an election—could very well spend an unlimited amount to thwart this initiative. I am concerned that by addressing what happens in an election campaign you are not addressing what happens outside that. That is my concern.

[English]

    The Chair: Perhaps you can be fairly brief. I'd be quite glad to put you back on the list for later on so that you can come back to it.

    Go ahead.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I forgot during those remarks what I was going to say, Mr. Chairman. I will come back to it because it is too important.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    It's Scott Reid, Geoff Regan, and Michel Guimond.

    Mr. Scott Reid: I wonder if I can turn to a point that's on page 18 of the English version of your presentation and on page 80 of the full report, English version. This regards the question of more accurate reporting of sources of indirect contributions through local electoral associations. The first question is this. Aren't these kinds of contributions already reported to the Chief Electoral Officer, in that when a person makes a contribution between elections to a local association and gets a tax receipt for that contribution, some form of notation is made?

    Second, I'm just wondering whether it's true that there can be severe problems if there's been a transfer of responsibility from an association that may have had inaccurate bookkeeping to the candidate and the candidate's campaign. They have to report back on prior donations that were made to the association under the new rules you're proposing.

    Ms. Janice Vézina: The intent of this recommendation is to eliminate some of the confusion we had with candidates at the last election. The act currently allows you to report either the names of and amounts from specific donors who made up the amount transferred to you during the campaign or, if the specific names are not known or the specific donors can't be pinpointed, to report all donors to the local association since the last election. We would get calls from official agents saying, which donors do I pick, as I received $10,000 from my local association and I don't know who to name? So this is where there became some confusion.

    I think it would also further the transparency to see the names of all donors since the last election, rather than picking Joe Smith and Sam Green, but not--

    Mr. Scott Reid: So you're arguing in favour of greater thoroughness in reporting. My question is this. First, I'm not sure who is responsible here for providing that written... The official agent is now legally on the hook if he or she is unable to... Okay, I see you nodding, so the answer is yes.

    Perhaps I might set out my own situation. I was nominated after the writ period began, so the contributions that were given to our association in the period between the 1997 and the 2000 elections were carried out at a time when I was not a candidate, when my official agent was in no way connected with the association. If there was any faulty or sloppy bookkeeping during that period, he could wind up being on the hook for problems he had no responsibility for and might not have been aware of until after he'd signed on as the official agent. I think that's a very unfair transfer of legal responsibility.

  (1215)  

    Ms. Janice Vézina: For the 2000 general election, as a result of the new act's coming into force, any donations made prior to September 1 were not reportable. There were transitional provisions, so as to give time to official agents, to parties, and to local associations to get their books and records in shape, so that people could comply with the new requirements.

    Mr. Scott Reid: I realize that's true for the prior election, but let us imagine there's another election in 2004. Let us imagine that some candidate in some riding is nominated and chooses an official agent in the writ period, and let us further imagine that there has been some error in bookkeeping, inaccurate reporting, during the period between the 2000 election and the 2004 election. We could find, if I'm not mistaken, that official agent being on the hook for errors that are not of his or her own making. Am I wrong in that assumption?

    Ms. Janice Vézina: I don't think you're wrong, but it would be an issue for the commissioner to look at as to the extent of the official agent's responsibility in that case.

    The Chair: If I may intevene, under this suggestion, say someone was nominated two weeks before the election, they would be obviously in a rush, they'd want to campaign as well as they could, and the association would endorse them, which is what's happened, as Scott said. But let us say there had already been mistakes. I understand the answer, that the commissioner is going to decide, but it seems to me this must be not unusual with small parties. It is quite a serious thing if that candidate all of a sudden finds himself, after the election, faced with these problems that have nothing to do with him at all. There are serious problems between riding associations and candidates who finally have chosen to run.

    Could you comment?

    Ms. Janice Vézina: Yes. We'd have to take a look at that situation, but I think part of the issue is that if the official agent is accepting money, there has to be some assurance that the records are kept in proper form and that the reporting obligations can be complied with. It would be the same with foreign donations. The official agent has to assure themselves that the records are adequately kept.

    The Chair: With due respect, Janice, I think it's different from the foreign donations, because such a candidate in such a situation, first of all, might be quite ignorant of what we're discussing. We're talking about complex stuff that you understand and we're trying to understand.

    Second, it's the sort of source of funds they would trust, because it is the association. They haven't had much to do with the association, they suddenly become the new candidate for this association. Let's say, for the sake of argument, they've just moved to the riding or they've arrived in the riding from somewhere else. It's the sort of money they would trust, whereas with a foreign donation, if it were me, I would say, my goodness, where did this foreign money come from? So I think the difficulty is that the candidates and his or her agent are very likely to say, yes, good, the association has given us $10,000, and then they're on the hook, as Scott has been trying to say.

    Do you want to comment on that?

    Ms. Janice Vézina: I guess the reference to the foreign donation meant a foreign donation coming through the local association. In any event--

    The Chair: I understand the point. My other point, though, is that this is money the candidate is likely to trust.

    Ms. Janice Vézina: But I think it argues all the more for some reporting by local associations, getting the books and records in order, so that these can be relied on by the official agent.

    Mr. Scott Reid: I can see the point you're driving at. I do think, though, that if this is what you're after, it would be better to place some sort of obligation on the association as a corporate entity, rather than transferring it to the official agent and placing on them a responsibility for some prior action. And if I might add, this is of particular importance where you get situations--which, make no mistake, happen quite frequently--where the incumbent organization in the riding or the incumbent riding association has been engaged in a sort of gatekeeping exercise to keep out some new challenger who may have considerable popular support, but does not control the apparatus. Funds are in some cases hidden, put in bank accounts. The paperwork may be relatively hard to get hold of, and you could have a situation in which some third party entering into it, a person of goodwill who is serving as the official agent--it's the official agent and not the candidate who's on the hook for all this stuff--winds up getting caught up in political shenanigans that had nothing to do with that individual.

    We already have a problem where it's a very intimidating task to be called an official agent. The rules are complex and getting more so, and we lose good people to take on this absolutely unrewarded role if we place, essentially, this huge new potential liability upon them.

  (1220)  

    The Chair: Geoff Regan, Michel Guimond, Paul Macklin.

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

    Through you to Mr. Kingsley, I'm pleased and interested that Mr. Reid has raised this question of official agent, because this, I must tell you, is one of my major concerns, the burden that is now placed on the official agent and the number of times he has to fill out documentation, the duplication of documentation. My official agent in the last election was experiencing his first time in that role. This is an experienced accountant who is reputable and distinguished in the community. I can tell you, once he finished... Let me see, has he finished yet? I think he has. The point I'm making, though, is that it never seems to end. Had he had any idea how much was going to be involved when he started this volunteer role, he's told me, he wouldn't have agreed to it. When he's spending hour after hour filling out these forms, he can't spend hour after hour serving the clients who pay him, so he can feed his family. And that's a priority for him, as for the rest of us. So I'm concerned about the burden that's being placed on official agents and what can be done to reduce that burden.

    Mr. Reid has pointed out a way in which we might be adding an additional burden. I've asked my agent to give me a report when he has time. It's hard to ask him to do anything, because he's done so much already for me. But I've asked him for a more detailed listing of the kinds of things he feels are unnecessary. He felt there was a lot he had to report and had to do as an official agent that was repetitive or unnecessary. I'd like Mr. Kingsley's comments on that.

    Ms. Janice Vézina: We do recognize that there is an incredible amount of work involved for the official agents, as well as the auditors. In this report we've made some recommendations to streamline, primarily, the completion of the return and the filing process. We had some issues at the last election with what were considered “late filings”. Those were returns that were missing vouchers or missing a piece here and there, but the return itself was basically complete. We're making recommendations to lighten up on some of the requirements for the associated documentation, as long as the core pieces are there, the return and the auditor's report, because that's the foundation.

    In addition, for extension of filing deadlines, we're looking at moving it to two months as the deadline for when you can make an application to a judge, rather than two weeks after the filing deadline. We had a lot of difficulty working with candidates who had not applied in advance to the Chief Electoral Officer for an extension, and then were caught with only two weeks to make an application to a judge to get an extension of the filing deadline.

    These are some of the biggest issues and problems we ran into at the last election, and we've made some recommendations to try to ease that pressure, particularly with the filing on time issue, because there are serious consequences to that.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: I hope, Mr. Chairman, we can discuss this again, because I'm anxious to discuss further with this gentleman, the fellow who was my official agent, who, in fact, did finish the job on time--and that's been confirmed by Elections Canada, I'm pleased to say--some of these details. I am very concerned about our ability to have people do these jobs in the future and whether they're going to agree to do this. How do you have a campaign if you can't get an official agent, if no one will do it? Because it requires, really, a professional to do this. Usually, it's either, in most cases, an accountant or a lawyer. It's detailed work, it's complex, and I think you need someone who has that kind of professionalism to do the job. It's a big sacrifice for that person. While making sure what is required is done, we should place as small a burden on the person as possible.

    Am I out of time yet, because I have a lot more questions?

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Janice wants to reply to what you just said.

    Ms. Janice Vézina: Other than legislative changes that we're proposing, we're also discussing with the political party advisory committee different avenues to introduce training for campaign managers and treasurers, official agents, between events, perhaps having something in conjunction with national conventions, so that we can reach more people within the parties who will eventually get involved in campaigns.

    We're also looking at improving the software we gave to official agents to complete the return. This will make it much easier to have it complete and accurate on a timely basis.

    In addition, we have a 1-800 phone line where we answer calls from official agents before, during, and certainly after the election. So we're looking for any improvement we can make, and any suggestion you can make to us we're more than happy to take into account.

    The Chair: Geoff, I'm sorry, that is your time.

    I would like to say, colleagues, that I myself, as an MP, have referred material to the Chief Electoral Officer, and I think all MPs do that. We should also bear in mind that it is this committee that has the watching brief on these matters, and if ever we have individual concerns or our colleagues approach us in and around the House of Commons, I think it's particularly important that we who have some sense of what we're discussing here convey that information to Mr. Kingsley.

    By the way, if it becomes a very serious matter, we will pick it up again at the committee level.

    We'll go to Michel Guimond, Paul Macklin, and then Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

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

    Mr. Kingsley, you will find that I am consistent and that I have a good memory, but like Schubert, who gave us the Unfinished Symphony, you gave me an unfinished answer to my question about the $1,075. If you check the transcript you will see that there was a second part to my question. I asked whether the Holy Spirit was involved, but my question had a second part. How can you reconcile these two rights: on the one hand, the right to privacy and, on the other, the public's right to know who makes contributions of between $200 and $1,075, $200 being the current situation? So I am eager to hear your answer on that.

    I have a second question. Part 8 of your report, entitled “Extending the Application of the Canada Elections Act”, is absolutely... If I may say so, I find it hard to see why the act should be extended to apply to candidate nomination meetings, when there are no public funds involved. Look at your recommendation on page 130 of the report: “Contributions made to and expenses incurred by a contestant for party endorsement should be reported and published in the same manner...”.

    First of all, in our party, we came up with a rule to avoid anyone “buying” a nomination. A nomination candidate—this is in our party's constitution—is allowed to spend $1, I believe, for every registered member in the association. So if there are 1,500 members, a candidate for nomination can spend $1,500, and he has to submit a report to the party explaining how that money was spent. So we are well below the levels that you want to put in place by extending the act.

    I remember my own nomination process in 1993. My father gave me $100, my mother gave me $100, my brother gave me $50 and I put in a little of my own money, but I still feel that a candidate for nomination... I did not give tax receipts for that. I was an individual candidate. The contributions were not made in the name of the party. I recognize that you have a role to play as a watchdog for democracy, but when public funds are involved through tax returns, I find it hard to understand the rationale for contributions made to nomination candidates when there are no tax receipts given for them.

  (1230)  

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There is no direct connection between public funding and the public's right to know how the electoral process is financed. In other words, if the government decided to no longer subsidize anything, the public would still have the right to know who is financing the process. In thinking about this, we first have to separate these two aspects.

    Even in a mixed system like ours, public funds cannot be taken into account when we make rules for public reporting: who is spending how much money? Who is giving how much money? To my mind, we clearly must make the distinction. We could have a system where not a penny of public money went into the process, but we would still need to have all the financial details.

    How do I reconcile that with what you said earlier about my lack of response to the second subquestion? Finally, we are making a value judgment if we say that contributions of between $200 and $1,075 would be considered not to have a major impact and that it would not automatically be in the public interest to know about those amounts, but that it would be in the public interest to know about amounts exceeding $1,075, which is the amount set by the State for purposes of the tax credit. So we would be saying that the public has the right to know about contributions over $1,075 but not those below that amount.

    Right now, the level is $200. Before the last election, it was $100. The Royal Commission recommended that the figure be set at $250, but there was no explanation given. What I have tried to do is to reconcile these various issues and at the same time see whether there would be more public participation in financing. In other words, I have tried to see whether people would be encouraged to contribute more than $200 if they knew that their name would not be revealed publicly for a contribution of, say, $1,000.

    That sort of summarizes my argument. We do not have to agree, obviously. Right now we are discussing these things. I made a connection between these two values. That is all.

    The Chair: I will now give the floor to Paul Macklin, followed by Yvon Godin, Geoff Regan, Jay Hill and Jacques Saada.

[English]

    Colleagues, Jay is a little exceptional, but for the others I'm going to keep it moving, because we're getting close to the end of the time.

    Paul.

    Mr. Paul Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Jay is exceptional.

    The Chair: He is exceptional, there's no doubt about that.

    Mr. Paul Macklin: Very good. I'm glad we have that clarified over here.

    Mr. Kingsley--through you, Mr. Chair--the concern I have relates to the problem of unregulated contributions and the fact that you're suggesting, for example, that in a nomination contest $7,500 would be the aggregate for an individual to contribute. Isn't this less than genuine in respect of our ability to enforce, because, in fact, that person could be contributing to a number of mixed funds that would constitute other entities, and they would be contributing? There really isn't an effective way to trace this back, is there?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We live in a society now where it's not possible to move money without leaving traces. Even cash is becoming hard to hide. If there are complaints regarding contributions, they will be investigated.

    The Chair: I have difficulty tracing my own money.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: I'd be glad to hear how this is being done.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I will resist the temptation of saying I'm here to help you do that.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There's also another recommendation in the report that one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly, that is to say, one cannot hide a contribution from other sources. This was emphasized in my introductory remarks as well.

    In effect, the recommendations attempt to come to grips with the fact that if there's going to be a limit, one can enforce it. I cannot state to you that it would work in 100% of the cases. I submit to you that the whole of the scheme right now works because of the systems that were set up under the law to allow investigations to take place, to allow verification to take place, to allow certification on amounts that have been spent. I think, with a good public education campaign, people could not say they were unaware. So they would have to do something wilfully to break the law, to exceed any limit that would be imposed.

    Other jurisdictions have done it. It's the law in Quebec. It's the law in Manitoba. I can't remember the other provinces, but there are others, I know, where limits have been imposed on contributions that can be made for electoral purposes.

  (1235)  

    Mr. Paul Macklin: My concern, too, is where someone contributes to other groups that have an interest in a particular candidate and that person may be contributing on a continuing basis to those groups. The reality is this. Other than the fact that we might be able to time the last donation, it's really difficult to infer that this person has given more than $7,500, if you include those other contributions that may have previously been made to the other group that may be supporting that candidate.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If you're talking about third parties, you're joining Mr. Saada in the comments he made. I've had a chance to think about that. I hadn't thought about it before, but it is a problem. One would have to see how one could work that out.

    I think it's very important for the committee to remember that third parties do not exist between elections. Third parties only exist at election time under the statute. There is no attempt in the recommendations to include third parties between elections, and this may be a problem on which the committee could work with us. That would be the conundrum that would be insoluble in my estimation.

    Mr. Paul Macklin: Then I do think we have a problem there that we'll have to address.

    The Chair: Thank you, Paul.

    Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to have a small clarification. On page 9 of your presentation, you state:

To simplify electoral management, I recommend that the obligation upon prospective candidates to collect the signature of 100 (or 50) eligible electors in support of their nomination be abolished.

    Was the required number 50 in some parts of the country and 100 in others?

    Secondly, if I understand correctly, you are recommending that that be completely abolished. For example, let us say that I am with the NDP and I am accepted as one of their candidates. It is confirmed and I do not need to get 100 signatures.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, there are regions where only 50 signatures are required. Those are outlying areas. I believe it's called schedule 3 of the Canada Elections Act. There are about 20 ridings, I believe.

    The answer to the second part of your question is yes. What I am recommending, in fact, is that the only requirement for your candidacy should be the consent of your party's leader as well as your filling out the form, and that you accept the conditions, of course.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: But in the case of an independent candidate, it is just his.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: ... and that you deposit the $1,000, or that the party deposits the $1,000 on your behalf. The $1,000 guarantee would remain.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: And the 100 signatures.

[English]

    The Chair: We'll have Geoff Regan, Jay Hill, Jacques Saada, and then the chair.

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

    Mr. Kingsley, one of issues we discussed previously, of course, is the quality of the electors list, and I'm pleased to see you have some suggestions in that regard. I might have liked to see an acknowledgement or acceptance of responsibility for some of the problems, if you felt that Elections Canada might have had some responsibility for the fact that we did not really have, in my view, a good electors list at the last election. It was not what we expected. I see people nodding around the room. There was a very strong feeling among MPs, and among candidates generally, that the list was deficient, that it was not what we expected. I know we've heard from you previously about the problem with Revenue Canada at the time, now CCRA--and none of us knew in advance that there was a problem--that apparently, the information from people who had checked off on their tax form that they were agreeable to having their names added to the list couldn't be used, because they didn't also say, I'm a Canadian citizen.

    First, I want to know if that has been corrected. I'm sure we'll all see our tax return forms fairly soon and we can have a look at that ourselves, but I'm not sure this has been corrected, nor do I see an acknowledgement, other than that, of the fact that it was a huge problem and that there were a great many people left off. Whole streets that had been there, in my riding's case, for five years were not on the list and not on the map.That's the first thing.

    I'd better get to the second one now, because I'll be out of time if I don't. The idea of Internet data-based voter registration has been raised, and it's of some concern to me. I have some unease with it, because someone could be in Kuala Lumpur registering and they may not be a Canadian citizen. I'm uneasy about it, although I do see that you are looking at using it only where there are other kinds of verification available, and that gives me some comfort. But what concerns me more is that there's even a consideration. You're following what's happening in relation to Internet voting, and to even consider that disturbs me. The reason is, we have in Canada, in provincial and federal elections, a law that says you cannot show your ballot to anyone else, and you can't even say in the polling stations who you voted for. This is so that no one can force you, so that no one can intimidate you and say, listen, you show me your vote and show me you voted for my candidate or we're going to beat you up, or we aren't going to give you the bottle of rum, or whatever it is with which they're intimidating some one or making promises. So I'm concerned that in the case of someone voting over the Internet, we don't know who's looking over their shoulder. You cannot have the protection I just referred to, the protection of saying that you're not allowed to show anyone else your vote. You can't have that protection if someone is voting over the Internet. So I'm alarmed to see that Elections Canada is even considering that notion.

  (1240)  

    The Chair: Jean-Pierre.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, quite rapidly, with respect to Internet voting--I'll start with the last--there's nothing I can do here without this committee approving it. That's what the statute says. It is my job to keep up to date with what's happening, but I'm not in a position here to tell you that I'm even ready to come to you with anything. So I want members to relax. Nothing can happen on Internet voting unless you say so, this committee. That's what the law says. But I do keep abreast of what's happening around the world. That's my job.

    With respect to Internet registration, there is no move afoot here to do that, because a change in statute would be required. We can consider it if some members feel it is something worthwhile. So this would be a matter for debate, for discussion here, and then of changing the statute.

    With respect to the last election, I did admit that there were problems with the list. This was the the first time a list was used that had been brought up at the last election, except from 1992-1993, but that was something else. It was a good experience, but it wasn't really use of a list that was, in effect, three-and-a-half years old and had been brought up with other segments.

    What I did attempt to do, by meeting with the caucuses, is explain to members--and we attempted to do this through returning officers with all candidates--that the number of revisions is five times as large as it was before. And you have to gear up for that. I may be able to reduce it to four times, I may be able to reduce it to three and a half times, but unless and until we get to instantaneous changes whenever people move, there's going to be a lag factor that will be accentuated more than if we do door-to-door canvassing. There's a whole slew of problems with door-to-door, and I don't intend to go through that. There are a lot of advantages to a permanent list.

    Mr. Chairman, Rennie Molnar is ready to talk about a whole slew of measures that we're willing to consider with you, or with the subcommittee, or however you want to do it, measures that would possibly involve you or measures you should know about. I don't know when you would want to broach that subject.

    The Chair: This is with respect to the electoral list.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: This is with respect to the registry.

    The Chair: We don't have time now, in fairness, but I was going to ask a question myself, believe it or not, about the same topic.

  (1245)  

    Mr. Geoff Regan: I haven't had an answer to the question of the tax forms.

    The Chair: We haven't finished yet, okay. I'd be glad to address that question, and we would have five minutes, Rennie, if that's all right with you.

    Mr. Rennie Molnar (Director, Register and Geography, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): Okay.

    The Chair: We have the question about the tax form and Canadian citizenship.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The deal is signed with the CCRA. Your tax forms will have the new wording this year. The data are going to come in the summer of this year, based on the April 30 returns of Canadians. So we should have the same 85% take-up rate or better, and we should be able to add the 275,000 Canadians who were not added in the past. And we will do that every year--that's signed, sealed, and delivered.

    The Chair: We'll have Jay Hill, Jacques Saada, and then the chair.

    Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George--Peace River, PC/DR): Mr. Chairman, first, I apologize for being called to the House to speak. Perhaps some of my questions have already been answered, so just say they have and I'll get the information from some of my colleagues on the committee.

    The first one has to do with page 6, where you're recommending it no longer be necessary for electors to submit a signed certification of eligibility. Because all these are just recommendations from yourself, did you consider at all a recommendation of allowing landed immigrants the vote?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No, I did not, sir.

    Mr. Jay Hill: I hear from landed immigrants on a regular basis that they're taxed, they're treated in every way as citizens, and yet they can't vote. Have you, as Chief Electoral Officer, ever had any sort of representation from people on that basis?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Other than the motion you introduced, I don't think any other person has introduced that in the House. I know that in international forums there is discussion about this, because some populations are feeling left out. It's not a matter I've considered in depth, sir, and I would be willing to do that if you wanted me to.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Okay, thank you.

    On page 8, in the English version, you're recommending that electors be recognized as having the capacity to decline their ballot. Would that be on another line, “None of the Above”, and kept track of separately from spoiled ballots?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The method would be similar to what exists in Manitoba right now. A person declines a ballot, and that is registered as being a declined ballot, but they are not handed a ballot. There's nothing on the ballot itself that requires something to occur.

    Mr. Jay Hill: In the interest of expediency, all these questions are through you, Mr. Chairman.

    You'd have two categories of spoiled ballots, where they actually received a ballot and somehow ruined it and where they declined ballots, is that correct?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I'd like to ask Diane Davidson to answer your question.

    Ms. Diane Davidson (Chief Legal Counsel, Office of the the Chief Electoral Officer): I'd like to clarify that the Manitoba legislation does provide that when the elector is given a ballot, on it he can tick off the box marked “Declined”, and the ballot will be counted in the official count.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you. I apologize for that, sir.

    On page 13 your recommendation is that free broadcasting time be divided equally among all registered parties that request it. I'm just wondering if you've done the research. Obviously, you know how many registered parties there are, but compared to now, how much of an increase would that result in with regard to free broadcast time across the country? I'm thinking about the potential cost to small radio and television stations if there's a dramatic increase in the amount of air time they have to give as free broadcast time. Obviously, that's going to cut back on the time they would have available to sell as advertising time.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There is no impact on the amount they can sell for advertising time. The CRTC rules allow that political broadcasts are not counted against the limits on paid advertising time.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Under this proposed recommendation, would there be quite an increase in the amount of time radio and television stations are required to give to registered parties?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It's difficult to tell if it would be a significant increase, but I think there would generally be an increase, because the recommendation would apply to stations, as opposed to networks. Right now there are some that don't have to carry any time at all, so obviously, for them it would be an increase in the amount of time that is made available. It would change for some. For some of the large ones it would be a decrease in the amount of time that is made available.

  (1250)  

    Mr. Jay Hill: Finally, speaking through you, Mr. Chairman, on page 16 of the English version--and this may have been touched on in my absence--you recommend raising the threshold for disclosure of the names and addresses of donors to $1,075, instead of the present $200. Wouldn't that, in many cases, mean none of the names would be made public? I would think in the ridings, at the local level, the candidates don't often get donations above $1,000. In any event, people could split it between themselves and their wives, as they do now, and get under the $1,000 threshold. If they wanted to give $2,000, they'd just split it, and that would actually result in no names being made public.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It could have the effect that if there were no contributions above $1,000, there would be a nil report. There would still be a requirement for the candidate to keep the names of those who contributed between $200 and $1,000, in order to allow investigations to take place. And of course, there could be verification spot audits of those things, but they would not be made public.

    The issue being joined here is tying the $1,075 to the maximum at which a tax credit comes into play, as opposed to the right of the public to know who it is. It's a different limit from that $200 limit, obviously, and it would have an impact. It would remove a lot of names, and people might feel more comfortable about contributing if they knew their names were not there, and if the amounts were significantly low enough that it doesn't matter, really. That is the judgment being made in the recommendation.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Well, I'm going to ponder that last response, but thank you for the answers.

    The Chair: Jacques Saada, then Scott Reid, and then the chair. After my question I intend, colleagues, to wind it up, if that's okay.

    Jacques.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have another question of principle.

    There is talk of getting involved in riding funding. I presume it is the same for other political parties. For example, where I come from, there are different agreements between the party at the national level and the party in each of the provinces, as well as agreements between the provinces, the provincial wings and the ridings. Those agreements are made between the players, are ratified by the executives who are elected by members of the party, and the mere fact of being a member of a party gives those people the right to express their views on party bylaws at conventions. If you change the rules of the game, aren't you taking away members' privileges to the benefit of the public at large, who does not get involved in the party's internal activities?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I would have to look at that question more closely, Mr. Chairman, because it is very detailed. I did not see how the recommendations put forward had an impact on all that.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I will tell you exactly how that is possible. I always refer back to the same example because it is easy to understand and it refers to periods outside of elections anyway. As for the elections, I think everyone more or less agrees on the basics. There is no problem with that.

    On page 155 of your document, you say that the annual contribution is $50,000 for each registered/eligible party and $7,500 total for all local riding associations for each party.

    If there are revenue sharing formula... Let me give you an example. It is a fictitious one; I am just using it as an example. Let's say I get $100 and that the agreements between the provincial wings, the ridings and the national wing provided a breakdown of 30 or 33% each. You have just changed the deal because you have just said that the ceilings that apply to one group will automatically affect the contribution margin of the other.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I am suggesting, I am not changing. Mr. Chairman, I suggest changing the arrangement in the same way the provinces have, in imposing contribution limits. It's more or less the same thing. Some provinces already have a ceiling on contributions, and political parties seem to have survived very well.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I am not seeking to voice my agreement or disagreement on this matter. I only want to find out whether you think I am right in saying that with the proposition currently on the table, all this might only end up reducing the financial freedom of choice of party members.

  (1255)  

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Obviously, even by introducing the notion of public disclosure, conditions have been changed. Any change with regard to money changes the conditions and requires a different way of making decisions. I entirely agree with you on that point. You are quite right, and my report aims at changing conditions so that the public may be informed about what is going on.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I must think this over because I am not quite sure I agree.

    I am very concerned about this because I understand what you are trying to do. Not only do I understand this, but, honestly, I basically agree with what you are driving at, namely, more transparency. In fact, the credibility of our democracy is based on transparency. I understand all that very well. However, I am not sure if the means you propose to arrive at this are entirely satisfactory. I have some reservations on this point. I am not questioning the substance of what you want to do, but rather the means you propose to use.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay.

    Scott Reid, fairly quickly, then the chair--and I'll wind up.

    Mr. Scott Reid: I have one comment, and then a question.

    The comment relates to my colleague, Jay Hill, and his observations about landed immigrants voting. As someone who was himself a landed immigrant in another country, Australia, for a couple of years, it seems to me that one goes to a country with the knowledge and understanding that while one expects the full protection of the laws of that country, the act of becoming a citizen is a separate step one takes that entails the privileges of participating in the state. I would suggest that the idea of allowing landed immigrants to vote is probably unwise and very much against the long-established precedent in this country and others.

    I wanted to ask you, though, about something completely unrelated to that, the reduction in the percentage of votes required to get reimbursement from the government. I note that on page 135 of the English version of your full report you list the results that would have occurred in the last election. I must say, I'm quite startled to see that of the $1.84 million in additional funds that would be given back only a tiny percentage appears here to go to independent candidates, which is not what I would have anticipated. Most of the money, in fact, goes to parties. I was wondering whether you have any projections ahead, whether you thought this would change in the future. Given a lower threshold, what sort of anticipated results would you see? Would you see in the future more independent candidates coming forward because of this reduction? Had you given any thought to this at all?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Obviously, these numbers are a projection of the past, but they're not a projection into the future. The change could well result in more independent candidacies. If they felt they could achieve 5% and would get a 50% reimbursement, that might well be a form of inducement. The number of independent candidates may go up, but it may not go up by a lot. Even if it were to double, it would still be insignificant in proportionate terms. So I don't think that is where there would be a massive change.

    Mr. Scott Reid: I'm actually not so much concerned from the point of view of the costs. I'm thinking of it more as a positive inducement. I think an increase in independent candidates is a positive thing.

    May I just ask one technical question? You list “independent candidates” here, and then “no affiliation”. What is the distinction?

    Mr. Luc Dumont (Director, Operations, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): When you present your candidacy, you can choose whether you want to see “independent” or “no affiliation” on the ballot. That's a choice permitted under the law right now. That's why it's reported differently, though it means the same thing.

    Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thanks, Scott.

    Rennie, this may give you a chance to come back. The most common questions I get about this process have to do with the electoral list, when a member is concerned about it because of some problem experienced in the riding, and so on. One concern that's been expressed to me--and Rennie, I ask you this simply so you can perhaps summarize some of the points Jean-Pierre referred to before--is about whether enough care is being taken to identify new voters. By this they particularly mean young voters who have achieved voting age, but are not necessarily thinking about it, even if they should.

    Second, at that age quite often they go away from home to college or for some other reason. One or two of my colleagues have told to me that even though they do generally, in principle, support the electronic voters registry, they are very concerned that first-time voters are perhaps being missed by it.

    Rennie or Jean-Pierre, do you want to comment on that and on any other aspect of the voters list you'd care to mention for a couple of minutes?

·  (1300)  

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: First, Mr. Chairman, we did try to identify them through the process of CCRA . Some 225,000 youth, new electors, will be identified each year, out of approximately 360,000 new 18-year-olds every year. That still leaves 125,000 to 140,000 missing. We're going to have to try to find ways with you to reach those people, because it's not easy, through newspapers and so on. What we found is that even when we write a letter directly to them by name, they don't respond. Our response rate was lower than 25% when we wrote to new Canadians. Hundreds of thousands of letters went out asking them, do you want to be on the register? We only got a 25% rate back. This was not addressed to the occupant, but had the name of the person. They just chucked the letter. So it's very hard to get them to respond.

    The Chair: New Canadians are another area. I was referring to old Canadians who are in fact young. As for the new Canadians, we'd be glad to help you with that, but I would have thought there are means you could use electronically to trace new Canadians. For these others, what about targeted enumerations? We'd deliberately go to cégeps, colleges, and universities and make a point of having a day or something like that?

    Luc.

    Mr. Luc Dumont: During elections we definitely do targeted revision on campuses, schools, colleges, for anyone in the population above voting age. We definitely ask returning officers, first, to identify the colleges, the campuses, even the neighbourhoods surrounding those areas, because sometimes they are student ghettos and so on, and send revising agents. The timing of the election is sometimes an issue, in the sense that if you have it early on in September, when people just come in, it may be hard to reach a number of them. But we definitely set up tables at campuses.

    This being said, we do recognize that there is probably more that can be done. We'll try to find, as you're suggesting, by gathering from our returning officers and different stakeholders, how we could increase that during the election period. Outside the election period, I think Rennie would be better placed to talk about this. I think the challenge is to track the new voting-age students, because, basically, they're hard to track.

    Rennie, do you want to add to this?

    Mr. Rennie Molnar: First, the challenge with adding people to the register is with the youth, it is not with new Canadians, immigrants. We have an arrangement with Citizenship and Immigration Canada where those new Canadians who consent to have their information transferred are automatically added to the register. Our consent rate runs consistently over 80% there. As Mr. Kingsley indicated, the revised agreement we have with Canada Customs and Revenue will cover a large portion of the youth. It will take us up to, we think, about 75% of them, which is as good as we ever did with the previous registration methods, but we still need to do more in our communication programs, better targeted revision, and so forth.

    To deal with some of the other concerns that have been raised, we have a number of initiatives under way. One we have starting very soon is a list review by our local returning officers. They will be conducting an exercise, starting in March, where they will look especially at the addresses and geography on the list of electors and ensure that street names are spelled correctly, that place names are spelled correctly, that there are not missing streets, for example, on the list, that the lists and the maps jive completely. We will be asking them to look at the maps as well and identify new subdivisions we may have missed that we can capture. This exercise will happen this spring. We will get all that feedback over the summer, update the register, update our geography, and then provide it back to returning officers next fall to verify that we've done all the things they have suggested we do. We mentioned that they have computers in their offices and in their homes now. We are providing them with software tools to track this stuff, so that when they do send us the changes, we can make them very quickly.

    As part of that exercise as well, they will revise their polling division boundaries and look at polling sites. In fact, political parties have been invited to participate in that process at the local level to assist returning officers. Also, some of the provincial electoral agencies have expressed an interest in participating in that.

    As for other things we are doing, we are looking at new data sources. Canada Post national change of address is one source we are now tapping into to improve our ability to track people who move. That source should come on late this spring or early this summer.

    We are looking at what we learned out of the election in regard to revisions. We are looking again at how we do some of our data matching to make sure we are doing it correctly. We have error rates of, we think, between 0.4% and 0.5%, and we are verifying those based on the revisions that were made during the election.

    We mentioned earlier on-line registration, not necessarily on-line voting. We are studying the feasibility of that, looking at it from an operational perspective, a technical perspective, and a legal perspective. There are security issues that need to be addressed as well. We plan to do a feasibility study. We are studying that now, and we will have it completed later this summer.

    We are also taking a comprehensive look at various problems reported to us through the election list and exploring other areas there.

    Finally, we're making changes to the revision process, to make it easier for changes to be made during the election.

·  (1305)  

    The Chair: Rennie, listen, that's very good, but I apologize, we're towards the end of the hearing.

    If I could repeat on behalf of my colleagues, any gap in the electoral list is of concern to us, but the absence of first-time voters, be they immigrants or students, is disproportionately important, if you see what I mean. I think there's a symbolism about catching them then that will help you in future years, because once they're participating, they're participating, and there's a certain excitement to that first occasion. So anything you can do with respect to first-time voters, we'd appreciate it.

    Colleagues, I have the last agenda item to deal with, once I've thanked our witnesses today, but I do want to say--and I think, Jean-Pierre, you'll be interested in this--Democracy Watch's Aaron Freeman has asked to participate in anything this committee does with respect to the Chief Electoral Officer. And so has Anna DiCarlo, who's the secretary of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada. The committee does not yet know how it's going to be following up on this, but I thought I should mention for the record that we've had those contacts.

    I want to thank our witnesses, all four of you. We've appreciated it. We'll be in touch with you again. We will follow up more or less immediately on the matter of the conference and the session on the 14th. We want to thank you very much.

    Colleagues, the last item on our agenda is my summary report on the steering committee meeting the other day. At the steering committee meeting, for the record, we agreed that we would do the elections, which we conducted at the beginning of this meeting. We agreed that we would meet immediately with the Chief Electoral Officer; we have just done that.

    We agreed that we would follow up, as had been suggested before Christmas, on the experiment with respect to the televising of all committees, and we are at the point of sending a letter to all committee chairs and all MPs about the new rules we have established, and also a press release will be going out shortly reminding committees and the media that meetings like this can be televised, with due notice.

    It was also agreed that we would study security on the Hill, the changes that have occurred since September 11, and that the study would likely include a field trip to the Bank Street entrance to look at the particular security arrangements being made there--this committee normally does not travel.

    It was also agreed--and this is for the record--that the chair would arrange some sort of meeting between representatives of the Senate and ourselves with respect to bills originating in the Senate.

    It was also agreed that we would explore new ways to address the issue of votable items, and also that we would follow up on the conference I just discussed with Mr. Kingsley.

    Colleagues, that's the summary report of the steering committee. The meeting is adjourned to the call of the Chair.