HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 25, 1999

• 1022

[English]

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

We are continuing with our study of Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act. Today we will go into clause-by-clause procedures.

The only item I'm asked to advise members is there's a fairly meaty agenda in front of you. This agenda should be retained for this afternoon's meeting as well. There won't be sufficient time to reproduce one for the continuing consideration this afternoon. In addition, you will have a binder to assist. Of course, that won't be reproduced; it should constitute your bible for the proceedings.

With that, we are prepared to commence. I see Mr. White has a question on a point of order.

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a point of order, just a couple of small items.

First of all, we spent quite a lot of time listening to witnesses and there was a lot of extensive testimony. I wonder if we will be getting a summary from the researcher at some point.

The Chair: Let's check with our researcher. Mr. Library of Parliament, do we have anything that would reflect the sequence and substance of our witnesses' submissions over the last couple of weeks?

Mr. Jamie Robertson (Committee Researcher): There was no request for a summary of evidence, and given the timeframe of the committee study, none was prepared. If you want, we can try to get one, but I have no idea whether it will be available in both languages or at the report stage of the bill.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Ted White: I have one other small item, if I might impose on the generosity of members.

As you know, I'm from the west. I am going back tomorrow morning for some functions in my riding. I have a function on Sunday afternoon in my riding. I know we're supposed to reconvene here on Monday at 3:30, but the earliest flight I can catch on Monday morning doesn't get me here until five o'clock. So I'm just wondering if there's a small possibility we can scrub Monday and just restart on Tuesday.

The Chair: Good idea.

Mr. Ted White: We have only a couple of hours, I think, on Monday. It wouldn't make a big difference to the whole thing.

A voice: Monday evening?

Mr. Ted White: I don't have a problem with Monday evening, except I would have to fly all through the day and miss a whole day of work. I had planned to take the late afternoon flight that would get me in at midnight.

• 1025

The Chair: Your request, in the way it's been described, doesn't sound unreasonable, but it does have the effect of wiping out one complete parliamentary business day, which is usually an issue of no small consequence.

Mr. White has made a request that we walk away from Monday as a day when we could accomplish business. If this is what the committee wants to discuss, we'll discuss it now.

Ms. Bakopanos and then Mr. Knutson.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): I'm sympathetic to Mr. White, but I'd like us to reserve a decision until we see how far we get this afternoon, in terms of the amendment. Then we can come back to that decision.

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

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): I'm inclined to support Mr. White's request, but I agree with Ms. Bakopanos. I assume we're going to work cooperatively and make decent progress today. If at some point we start to get bogged down with the bill, I think we should start booking meetings, with no predetermined end, toward the middle of next week.

The Chair: Mr. Pickard and then Mr. Ménard's colleague, Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): I share your concern, Mr. Chairman, that we don't lose time. Certainly it may be important to look at the process today, but in order to facilitate other committee members, particularly Mr. White, who has been the leader of the Reform Party, looking at Monday evening is certainly another issue that may not be out of the question. In order to cooperate, that should be kept in the backs of our minds as well.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): This concerns a question raised by Mr. White. He is requesting documents from the research branch. To me, that request should have been put in much earlier. All of us, including Mr. White, attended the meetings of the committee and heard what was said. We all took notes and we can always refer to the record of the committee's proceedings.

Although I find his request perfectly legitimate, I would simply like to say that our timetable was set by agreement several days ago. Mr. White was present when this was agreed to. I would not want his concerns, legitimate as they are, to result, as the Chairman indicated, in the loss of a full day's work.

Given these circumstances, we might wish to begin in the evening and not just do away with the Monday meetings entirely.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): I would like to just remind members that the New Democratic Party caucus Christmas party is on Wednesday evening. The whips and the House leaders agreed that on Christmas party evenings there would be no sittings of the House, votes, or committee meetings. I just want to remind the chair of that.

You're welcome to join us, for $35 a ticket. I actually have some on me if you'd like to buy them.

With respect to Mr. White's request, I'm quite flexible, if we can accommodate members who have prior commitments in their ridings. I'm prepared to sit Monday night. I love sitting 24 hours a day. Anything to advance the agenda of the people of this country is important to us.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. John Solomon: You owe me a big one, Ted.

The Chair: I would ordinarily let Mr. White have the final word, but I will suggest that if there aren't any more Christmas party commercials, we can stand this matter down until this afternoon. We'll see what kind of progress we make. There seems to be some flexibility indicated around the table. I'll raise this matter at some point in this afternoon's meeting. Is that okay? Okay, let's go to work.

• 1030

The first item—we're going to have to break the ice somewhere—is clause 2. Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: This is the first opportunity I've had to review clause 2, and I'm just wondering if we could stand it down. My preference would be to deal with the clauses that have no amendments put forward.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Agreed.

The Chair: We just want to do the easy stuff today. Is that what I hear?

Mr. Gar Knutson: This morning.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: That's what we agreed on.

The Chair: All right. We may be able to get through this like greased lightning this morning, if that is the consensus. I will have to address each clause, but if there is any meaningful support for standing down other clauses for which amendments have been proposed, we can do that.

(Clause 2 allowed to stand)

The Chair: We will go to clause 3. Mr. Solomon, do you want to ask a question?

Mr. John Solomon: I would move, Mr. Chair, that clause 3 be amended. The copies are just being handed out now by the clerk.

The Clerk of the Committee: We don't have the copies yet, Mr. Solomon.

The Chair: All right. There's an amendment on clause 3, and our agreement was that if there were items for which there were amendments where we were not fully prepared, we would stand down.

(Clause 3 allowed to stand)

The Chair: We will move to clause 4.

Mr. John Solomon: We have an amendment on clause 4.

(Clause 4 allowed to stand)

The Chair: You're not trying to derail us here, are you, Mr. Solomon?

Mr. John Solomon: No. We have the amendments.

The Chair: Are they sincere amendments calculated to improve the bill, or are they trying to derail us?

Mr. John Solomon: I only introduce amendments that would make this bill the best bill in the world and which all members would be proud to support.

The Chair: Mr. Solomon, were your amendments delivered by the consensually arrived at deadline, a couple of days ago?

Mr. John Solomon: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Monsieur Bergeron, on a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, had we not, in a spirit of cooperation, agreed to table amendments ahead of time?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, we had a consensual deadline for the tabling of amendments. We were not anticipating very much in the way of last-minute amendments.

Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: First of all, I'm not sure where the consensual term comes from, but when I left the meeting on Thursday last, I was told Wednesday night. However, I was told they had to be in by Tuesday night, which was when we got them in.

The Chair: That's fine.

Mr. John Solomon: I don't know why the copies aren't here. I have a copy of them in English and French. Was the NDP caucus supposed to get copies to all members, or was the clerk and the clerk's staff supposed to do that?

The Chair: Any excuse will do at this point in time. If there's a reasonable amendment proposed, we'll stand it down. Is that okay?

Mr. John Solomon: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Clauses 5 to 10 inclusive agreed to)

Mr. Gar Knutson: There's a Bloc amendment listed on your agenda for clause 11.

(Clauses 11 and 12 allowed to stand)

• 1035

(On clause 13—Appointment of Chief Electoral Officer)

The Chair: Is there an amendment to clause 13? Seeing no amendment, could we have an articulation of the position of the Bloc? We're dealing with clause 13.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether you want to put that clause to a vote right away, but I wish to indicate that we are opposed to clause 13 in its present state.

[English]

The Chair: Well, that's quite appropriate and democratic.

Any other discussion on clause 13? Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Can I have an opinion—and maybe we should stand it for this purpose—on whether subclause 13(2) is in fact legitimate—a retirement age based on age?

The Chair: All right, on clause 13, we'll go to our officials. Have you heard the question of Ms. Catterall?

A voice: No.

The Chair: Ms. Catterall, would you repeat your question on subclause 13(2)?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Is it legitimate in legislation to prescribe retirement at a certain age?

Mr. Michael Peirce (Director of Legal Operations, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office): In normal circumstances there would be a concern about having a specific retirement age. In this circumstance we need to establish essentially a limited term for a CEO. We've had consultations with Elections Canada about this, with the Chief Electoral Officer, in fact. This scheme essentially creates a period so that you know you have a fixed office. It will cover a certain period of time, and that's been the objective of the position. So we think it would be justifiable under the charter.

One can never be sure before the courts.

The Chair: Not these days.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion on clause 13?

Mr. Ted White: Yes.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: I'd like to ask our experts at the end of the table there about the resolution by the House of Commons. It doesn't specify that it has to be 75% or 60% approval, so I assume that just means a simple majority in the House of Commons.

Mr. Michael Peirce: Simple majorities are in style.

Mr. Ted White: We had been preparing an amendment to this. I'd like to ask for that clause to be stood down.

The Chair: All right. Mr. White indicates that he is, as a result of the discussion, going to prepare an amendment, so he's asking that it be stood down.

Mr. Ted White: Deferred.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Clause 13?

[English]

The Chair: The one you're not supporting.

(Clause 13 allowed to stand)

The Chair: Now, just before I go to the next clause, I may have been remiss in not introducing the officials who will be assisting in our clause-by-clause consideration: Mr. Michael Peirce and Ms. Isabelle Mondou. They're very familiar with this legislation, as I understand it. And articulating the policy positions on this bill is our colleague, Mr. Gar Knutson, the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. That is the team the committee will deal with. I'm sorry I didn't do that earlier.

(Clause 14 agreed to on division)

(Clause 15 agreed to)

(Clauses 16 to 19 inclusive allowed to stand)

• 1040

(Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to)

(Clauses 22 to 26 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clause 27 agreed to)

(Clause 28 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to on division)

(Clause 31 agreed to)

(Clause 32 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 33 to 37 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clause 38 agreed to)

(Clause 39 allowed to stand)

Mr. Ted White: I'm sorry, I'm just referring to paperwork to find out why I had circled this. Clause 40 is affected by another amendment later on that I put on, so I would ask that it be deferred, as it's connected to another amendment.

The Chair: That's not unreasonable.

(Clause 40 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 41 to 43 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 44 to 49 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clauses 50 and 51 agreed to)

(Clause 52 allowed to stand)

• 1045

The Chair: Does clause 53 carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back to clause 53. Would it be possible to stand that clause down? We would like to put forward an amendment. Concerning clause 53, we tabled an amendment a few minutes ago, at the beginning of the meeting.

[English]

The Chair: Since we have already adopted clause 53, it's only possible to stand it down if we agree here to stand it down. Shall we stand down clause 53?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Clause 53 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 54 and 55 agreed to)

(Clauses 56 and 57 allowed to stand)

(Clause 58 agreed to)

(On clause 59—Withdrawal of writ)

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to stand that clause down?

[English]

The Chair: Not just for the heck of it.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I beg your pardon?

[English]

The Chair: Not just for the heck of it. There has to be a reason to stand it down.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We would like that clause to be allowed to stand because it relates to another clause for which we wish to put forward an amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Clause 59 is related to another clause for which there's an amendment proposed. Shall I stand it down?

(Clause 59 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 60 to 65 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 66 and 67 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 68 to 81 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 82 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 83 and 84 agreed to)

(Clause 85 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 86 to 90 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 91 and 92 agreed to)

• 1050

(Clause 93 allowed to stand)

(On clause 94—Distribution of lists)

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

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The government, based on yesterday's testimony and discussion with the minister, will be bringing forward an amendment to clause 94 as well.

If you like, I could read the clauses the government is planning amendments to, but they are still being drafted. I could read those into the record now or—

The Chair: Just indicate when it comes up. If any one of us is signalling an amendment, we'll stand the matter down unless there's a sense there's some obstructionism going on. But I don't detect that at all at this point in time.

(Clause 94 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 95 to 100 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 101 to 105 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clause 106 agreed to)

(Clause 107 allowed to stand)

(Clause 108 agreed to)

(Clauses 109 to 112 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clauses 113 to 117 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 118 agreed to on division)

(Clause 119 agreed to)

(Clause 120 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 121 to 127 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 128 to 130 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clause 131 agreed to)

• 1055

(Clauses 132 and 133 allowed to stand)

(On clause 134—Prohibition)

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, are you dealing with clause 134?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Concerning clause 134, we tabled an amendment, but I don't see it here.

[English]

The Chair: Well, it is indeed regrettable that you have an amendment that's not here, but if there is one coming, we'll stand it down, along with clause 135, which also has an amendment.

(Clauses 134 and 135 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 136 and 137 agreed to)

(Clause 138 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 139 to 142 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 143—Elector to declare name, etc.)

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: I have an amendment coming, based on stuff that was happening here yesterday. It affects, however, clauses 143, 144, 145, 148 and 149. It has to do with identification.

The Chair: We'll deal with the clauses in order.

(Clauses 143 to 145 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clauses 146 and 147 agreed to)

(Clauses 148 and 149 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 150 to 154 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 155 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 156 to 160 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 161 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 162 to 165 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 166 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 167 to 194 inclusive agreed to)

• 1100

(Clause 195 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 196 to 221 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 222 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 223 to 225 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 226 and 227 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 228 to 232 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 233 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 234 to 242 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 243 allowed to stand)

• 1105

(Clauses 244 to 252 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 253—Appointment of deputy returning officers and poll clerks)

The Chair: Mr. White, would you care to speak to that?

Mr. Ted White: Yes, I'd like to speak to it, please.

Clauses 253 through to 260 relate to the polling in prisons. We had a discussion here at committee last night, and the minister was going to investigate with the Chief Electoral Officer on this particular subject.

So there may be an amendment. I'd ask that they be stood aside until we find out what's happening on that. Clauses 253 through to 260 are affected by that.

(Clauses 253 to 260 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clauses 261 to 272 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 273—Appointment of deputy returning officer and poll clerk)

The Chair: Would you care to speak to clause 273?

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Bergeron might have something to say as well, but my comment is that clause 273 relates to the other group we just talked about with regard to polling in prisons. I request that this clause be stood down accordingly.

(Clause 273 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 274 to 276 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 277 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 278 to 282 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 283 allowed to stand)

• 1110

(Clauses 284 to 317 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 318 and 319 allowed to stand)

(Clause 320 agreed to)

(Clause 321 allowed to stand)

(Clause 322 agreed to)

(Clause 323 to 326 inclusive allowed to stand)

(On clause 327—Broadcast of surveys not based on statistical methods)

The Chair: Any discussion or debate on clause 327? Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, as a result of discussions with the minister last night about the publishing of poll results, I have an amendment coming through to clause 327.

(Clause 327 allowed to stand)

(Clause 328 allowed to stand)

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

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The government is planning amendments to clause 329.

(Clause 329 allowed to stand)

(Clause 330 agreed to)

(Clause 331 allowed to stand)

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: There is a section of clauses here that have to do with the broadcasting arbitrator. We have an amendment coming through that will affect clauses 332 through to 351.

The Chair: That's a big piece of real estate, Mr. White.

Mr. White has indicated that his party has amendments to clauses 332 through to 351.

Mr. Ted White: When we come to the discussion, it will be dealt with as a block, so it's not a big issue, even though it involves a lot of clauses.

• 1115

(Clauses 332 to 353 inclusive allowed to stand)

(On clause 354—Appointment of financial agent)

The Chair: Shall clause 354 carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I ask that clause 354 be allowed to stand because it is linked to an amendment we have brought forward for clause 353.

[English]

The Chair: All right, in view of the fact that there is an alleged link between clauses 354 and 353, we will stand down clause 354.

(Clause 354 allowed to stand)

(Clause 355 agreed to)

(On clause 356—Registry of third parties)

The Chair: Shall clause 356 carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, Mr. Chairman. Clause 356 is also related to clause 353 for which we are putting forward an amendment.

[English]

The Chair: All right, also seeing amendment to clause 357, I will therefore stand down clauses 356 and 357.

(Clauses 356 and 357 allowed to stand)

(Clause 358 agreed to)

(Clause 359 allowed to stand)

(Clause 360 agreed to)

(On clause 361—Corrections to election expenses report)

The Chair: Shall clause 361 carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, Mr. Chairman. There is a link between clause 361 and the amendment we have for clause 359.

[English]

(Clause 361 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 362 to 369 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 370—Registration)

The Chair: Shall clauses 370 carry?

Mr. Ted White: No. That clause deals with the number of candidates required to become an eligible party. I wanted to wait until I questioned the minister last night, which I did. I have his answers, and now I have an amendment to that clause, so I'd ask for it to be stood down.

(Clause 370 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 371 to 374 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 375 and 376 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 377 to 381 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 382 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 383 and 384 agreed to)

(Clause 385 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 386 to 388 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 389 allowed to stand)

• 1120

(Clauses 390 to 393 inclusive agreed to)

Mr. Ted White: Clauses 394, 395, 396, and 398 are related to the 50-candidate rule and my earlier-mentioned amendment, so I'd like clauses 394, 395, 396, and 398 stood down.

(Clauses 394 to 396 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clause 397 agreed to)

(Clauses 398 and 399 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 400 to 403 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 404 and 405 allowed to stand)

(Clause 406 agreed to)

(Clauses 407 to 410 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clauses 411 to 413 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 414 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 415 to 418 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 419 to 422 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clause 423 agreed to)

(Clauses 424 to 426 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clause 427 agreed to)

(Clause 428 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 429 to 433 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 434 and 435 allowed to stand)

(Clause 436 agreed to)

(Clauses 437 to 439 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clause 440 agreed to)

(Clause 441 allowed to stand)

(On clause 442—Estimated expenses)

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Again, on one of the questions I asked the minister last night, I had to wait for his final answer at the end of the process, and I have an amendment to that clause.

The Chair: You mean the answer wasn't good enough?

Mr. Ted White: No, I'm afraid it wasn't good enough. So I have to put an amendment forward, and I would ask that this be stood down.

• 1125

(Clause 442 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 443 to 447 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 448 to 452 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clauses 453 to 477 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 478 and 479 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 480 to 495 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 496—Strict liability offences—summary conviction)

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chair, I feel very embarrassed about this, but we've gone so quickly through this that I haven't been able to keep up my thoughts with this. I have it marked as one that I need to have stood down. I ask the indulgence of the committee to do so.

The Chair: Mr. White, you have a lot of support for that.

(Clauses 496 and 497 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 498 and 499 agreed to)

(Clause 500 allowed to stand)

(Clause 501 agreed to)

(Clause 502 allowed to stand)

• 1130

(Clauses 503 to 520 inclusive agreed to)

The Chair: Is this the boring part of the bill?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: This is definitely the easier part.

The Chair: The reason I have to make the interjections is so that I can stay awake and alert. If anyone else wants to inject a morning smile, feel free to do it. We just need a short break, that's all.

All right, carrying on...no pun intended.

(Clauses 521 to 536 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 537 to 539 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clauses 540 to 552 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 553 allowed to stand)

(Clause 554 agreed to)

(Clause 555 to 557 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clauses 558 and 559 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 560 allowed to stand)

• 1135

The Chair: Shall clauses 561 and 562 carry?

Mr. Ted White: No.

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Clauses 561 and 562 relate to vacancies in the House of Commons. I have amendments coming on those clauses.

(Clauses 561 and 562 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 563 to 575 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 576 allowed to stand)

(Clause 577 agreed to)

The Chair: I just want to check with the clerk about the propriety of carrying the schedules to the bill right now.

A voice: We should stop here. The schedules are dealt with after the clauses.

The Chair: Colleagues, for all practical purposes, we have completed those clauses of the bill that are all agreed to be passed, and for which there are no amendments.

We have interventions from Ms. Catterall and then Mr. Knutson.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, I may wish to ask the committee to come back to clause 81. It was skipped over rather quickly, but it has to do with multiple residences. In light of some of the issues that were raised with us about shelters, we may in fact want to modify that.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Clause 81?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes, it has to do with allowing canvassers, by obligation, into apartment buildings or other multiple residences, and the issue that was raised with us about shelters and so on. I would like to simply consult with the officials and see if there is some reason to modify that slightly.

The Chair: All right, so you are essentially asking the committee to agree now to reconsider clause number 81?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: You can leave it carried if you wish. I'm just serving notice that I may wish to come back to it and ask the committee to open it up again.

The Chair: Your chair is not comfortable talking about the possibility of unadopting something that we've adopted. This would be the time to walk backwards, rather than later in the process.

May we agree, then, to not adopt and not carry clause 81, but stand it down for consideration later?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Clause 81 allowed to stand)

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We'll start debating the bill in earnest this afternoon. The government will be prepared.

The Chair: All right, we've made so much progress that we now must agree to do some heavy-duty business on amendments this afternoon. It's not like we have to go through them all sequentially. We may be—

An hon. member: Do you want to do it now?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Why don't we start now? We're scheduled until 1:30 today. We can just take a break for five minutes, maybe.

• 1140

The Chair: Colleagues, you will recall that we had set aside a substantial amount of time to get into the bill, and we had made arrangements to work through lunch. I'm fairly confident we can make some good progress on some of the matters we stood down. If we're ready to proceed on those, we certainly have a ton of documentation we can start to deal with.

Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: I don't have any particular problem with proceeding. We have one of our clauses, clause 18, for which we need to get one of our other members back. I assume he's ready to go, but we'll have to make that inquiry.

The other matter was that because we are well advanced, I'd like to ask you if you would revisit my earlier request about the possibility of putting off Monday so that I can do my Sunday duties in my riding and fly back on Monday night. We are going to be well advanced, way beyond what we—

The Chair: Let's take your request as a representation, and we'll take it up this afternoon. You're quite right, we have made substantial progress. Maybe we'll have made more progress this afternoon that would cast your request perhaps in an even more favourable light than it might receive now if we were to put it forward. We'll put it this afternoon.

I think we're now ready to proceed. We may need to—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, could we not have a biological break beforehand?

[English]

The Chair: All right, that's a very good suggestion, Mr. Bergeron. I just want to hear from Mr. Knutson first.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'd like to suggest that we discuss next week's schedule now, and see how long that takes. What are we going to know this afternoon that we don't know now? This afternoon will be slow. We've made good progress so far, but now the slow stuff starts.

The Chair: Mr. White has asked a question. If any member has a representation on that issue, or an item to put to colleagues as to procedure, the floor is open for that. As chair, I'm not too sure what you're asking me to do. If someone would put something crisp to the chair, I would respond, or colleagues can respond.

Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Chair, we've already decided on the timeline, and we've already said we would deal with it this afternoon. We can debate this at every half-hour juncture or we can carry on. Why don't we just get into it and see how far we can get along?

The Chair: I thought Mr. White's intervention was a good commercial.

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any problem at all with revisiting this, but people keep saying to see how far we get along. I think it's only fair to me that somebody says how far along. Actually, my riding office unfortunately didn't notify me until a couple of days ago that I have this function on Sunday afternoon. I wasn't aware of it when we drew the thing up before.

We've been pretty crisp on this thing so far, so if we can set a parameter.... Where do we have to be in order for everyone to agree that maybe we can put Monday off? I can fly back Monday night so that I don't lose a whole day sitting on the plane coming back from Vancouver, and then we can start again on Tuesday. We'll be working this afternoon on the meat of the bill.

The Chair: You're in the hands of a majority of the committee, Mr. White.

Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Chairman, it is not easy to accommodate everyone. We, too, live in remote areas. Today, I have to leave at 3:30 and I'm available from Monday morning to Thursday, at question period. I understand Mr. White's request, but we all have very important constraints. If I leave tomorrow morning, I lose a whole day's work in my riding. As you very well know, we have to do some work in our ridings if we want to be reelected. It certainly does not do any harm.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Even under the new Act.

Mr. André Harvey: Yes, even under the new Act. We could get elected even without the Act, Mr. Chairman, and you know it. That is not the issue. We nevertheless all have inescapable personal commitments.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Harvey is the disciplinarian among us.

Are there any other comments on this? Does someone want to put something procedurally, or do you want your chair to walk in and nail it down?

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, for a number of us who are House officers of the various parties, I think I would want to caution about Tuesday afternoons.

The Chair: We're not sitting Tuesday afternoon, for that reason.

Mr. Bob Kilger: All right, that's fine.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

• 1145

Mr. Gar Knutson: The NDP whip has also advised us that Wednesday night is out because of our Christmas party.

Mr. John Solomon: The House leaders had agreed to that too.

The Chair: I'm asking colleagues to please put out something crisp, so we can deal with it.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, I would be happy to make a motion.

The Chair: I know you're all happy to make motions, but would someone please make one? I'll recognize any motion that comes forward now.

Ms. Catterall has a motion.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I move that we proceed to meet as planned, including Monday evening. At any other time, somebody may bring forward another motion—later today if they wish—but that's my motion for now.

The Chair: All right. Ms. Catterall has put this procedural suggestion. Do we have consensus to proceed on that basis?

Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: If it's just a matter of changing the timing to Monday evening, it's better for me to ignore the event in my riding and come back Sunday night; otherwise I'll be on the plane the whole day from Vancouver. I will miss a whole day where I can't work because the plane leaves at 9 a.m. and I won't get here until 5 p.m. So thank you very much. I appreciate the thought behind the motion, but it would be better to leave it. We'll discuss it again later.

The Chair: There's no need to take this up on the record. There's nothing preventing two or three of you from dealing with this at the biological break Mr. Bergeron has suggested.

We will have a five-minute break and suspend. Then Mr. White can deal Ms. Catterall, Mr. Knutson, and Mr. Harvey and settle what we're going to do on Monday. Is that agreed?

We're now suspended for five minutes. Thank you.

• 1147

• 1202

The Chair: Colleagues, we will resume our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-2. We have approximately an hour and a half to make some progress on clauses that involve amendments.

I would also indicate that we intend to work through lunch, and there will be some refreshments brought in for that purpose at about 12:30. We may take a short break at that point, to allow officials who are at the table to also have something to eat through the lunch period.

The process we will use is the one usually used by committees in going through clause-by-clause. You have two groupings of amendments before you. They are marked appropriately, based on the party that presented them. There are a large number of amendments and there may be the odd miscue. I ask for your indulgence in advance, if there are any miscues. There's nothing we can't fix if we make a mistake. I don't anticipate we'll have too many difficulties. We'll begin now and simply start at the front of the bill and work our way back through it, taking amendments as they roll out.

I will be relying on my clerk to move through the amendments we have. We have stood down other clauses for which there will be amendments and we don't have amendments in front of us. So we will be leapfrogging over clauses, just because we don't have a full set of amendments on paper in front of us.

We will simply go through the amendment listings as they have been given to the clerk, and as the clerk has been able to construct them.

• 1205

The first item is amendment PC-1. It is part of the definition of commercial value.

On a point of order, Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, will you be going through the list that is on the agenda or will we deal with the amendments according to the order in which they are put forward here?

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The list is not the same.

[English]

The Chair: That's correct. At this point it's my view that we should follow the amendment package, and not the meeting agenda.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Is it more logical that way?

A voice: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: All right, then.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Bakopanos.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Are we not going clause by clause?

The Chair: We're doing clause-by-clause, but we will take in sequence those clauses for which there are recorded amendments and that have been stood down. We will not get to those clauses that have been stood down, without formal amendment documentation in front of us, until later.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you.

(On clause 2—Definitions)

The Chair: Okay. So the first item is PC-1. I will ask the mover, Mr. Harvey, to speak to that.

Mr. André Harvey: It's a good beginning, to begin with a PC amendment.

The Chair: A great start.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You're the icebreaker, André.

Mr. André Harvey: That's right.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Break the ice, but give us a break.

Mr. André Harvey: I'll try, Mr. Bergeron.

I suggest that Bill C-2 be amended by substituting for the present text, at line 43, page 6, the following:

The commercial value of property or a service is deemed, however, to be nil if it is provided by a person who is not in the business of providing that property or those services and the amount charged for it is $200 or less.

It is important to specify that, since the provision would otherwise be almost unenforceable. If a person does not operate a business directly related to the contribution, there is less of an interest for them than there would be for an individual who does provide these things. Mr. Chairman, that is all I wanted to say.

[English]

The Chair: Are there additional comments on the amendment of Mr. Harvey from Mr. Knutson or the officials?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I take it then.... Excuse me, I have French going in my ear.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's not bad.

Mr. Gar Knutson: No, it's just confusing.

I take it the intent of this is that $200 or less is not worth counting. While that may seem reasonable, my own view is that many $200 are worth counting, so the government would be opposed to this.

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): I'm trying to get a sense from Mr. Harvey whether it is his intent that things under $200 are not of value and not worth reporting. I'll have comments on that, but is that the intent of this?

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Yes, sir. I believe Ms. Mondou has something to say concerning the amendment.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou (Officer of the Privy Council Office, Legislation and House Planning): I simply wanted to mention that the rule you wish to add is already part of paragraph (2).

Mr. André Harvey: Page 7?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Page 7.

Mr. André Harvey: It was already stipulated in the bill?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Exactly.

Mr. André Harvey:

(2) For the purposes of this Act, the commercial value of property or a service is deemed to be nil—

Mr. Chairman, that is a worthwhile comment.

[English]

The Chair: There was some sense that the amendment could be redundant to the provision already contained in subclause 2(2). It's well-intentioned but arguably redundant.

Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: I just wonder if that doesn't raise questions. Mr. Knutson, you said the government disagreed with this. Do you want to take this out now?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I also said an hour ago that I wanted to look at this after lunch and sort of get my head around each and every one. So you may find that the officials take a different position from me, for the course of our clause-by-clause. I can handle it if you folks can.

The Chair: Those in favour of the amendment.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Which one?

The Chair: PC-1.

• 1210

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If I've understood correctly, Mr. Chairman, the amendment put forward by the Conservative Party is already in the act?

Mr. André Harvey: Pending a thorough check, I may maintain the amendment, though I do find a strange resemblance between the wording of the bill and the amendment we are putting forward. I maintain the amendment but we will of course look into it.

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: It's identical; it's already in there. It's identical, isn't it?

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: May I ask that the amendment be allowed to stand, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Stand down the amendment?

Mr. André Harvey: It's difficult. We have to decide. I believe I will go along with my colleagues on this point because the various parts, whether it be the amount charged or the definition of what is meant by not being in the business are identical. I therefore withdraw my amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Harvey will withdraw the amendment PC-1. Thank you.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I understand.

The Chair: Thank you. He has received appropriate assurances.

Now we'll go to the next amendment, which is marked BQ-1.

As that is moved by Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Bergeron, would you care to introduce that amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson, on a point of order.

Mr. Gar Knutson: There's line 17, which is the NDP amendment in the smaller package. I think it would make sense to do line 17 ahead of line 44. I'm sorry, I take it back. I apologize.

The Chair: No apology necessary. We are now dealing with the amendment BQ-1.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, this amendment's only intent's the insertion, on the list of electors, of non-confidential telephone numbers.

I know that the chief electoral officer had asked the privacy commissioner for an opinion on this very point. We have been careful to specify non-confidential telephone numbers because these numbers are already in the telephone book anyway. Considering that these numbers are already public knowledge and non-confidential, we would like to see them added to the list of electors since this additional information could be useful to candidates running in an election.

[English]

The Chair: The amendment also includes sex and date of birth.

Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, I'm a big fan of the privacy of individuals. However, I will say that during many nominations—and I've seen this both in the Progressive Conservative Party provincially in Alberta, in Reform nominations, and other parties, because I've attended other parties' nominations, including NDP, Liberal, etc.—one of the problems is the busing in of people sometimes and as well the making up, if you will, of addresses for the purpose of voting. It happens in inter-party affairs and it happens in general elections.

Anything we can do to stem those types of corrupting activities within politics, whether it be at the inter-party level or at the national election level, I think is well worth pursuing. So Mr. Bergeron's amendment, which includes telephone numbers, and I believe it also includes sex and date of birth, Mr. Chairman, I think is a good thing.

I'd like to add in for the record...and it probably won't be considered as a friendly amendment; it's just something I offer as a kind of pro bono to the committee, if you will, Mr. Chairman. I think one of the best things to limit that type of fraud for inter-party activities, and which therefore might be considered for the national elections, is that of utility bills, to have proof of utilities, because I find it's tough to be fraudulent about this. It's usually a couple of hundred dollars deposit. Almost everybody has a utility bill, or many can ascertain it if they have a landlord. It's a good way of eliminating that type of corruption and fraud in fictitiously creating names and addresses for purposes of voting.

I support the amendment. I add that as an extra cautionary note.

The Chair: Ms. Parrish.

• 1215

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I don't support the amendment. I don't think an election list is there particularly for electioneering. I think the election list is for the use of Elections Canada.

In terms of the telephone numbers, to have an unlisted number costs you money. So you're disadvantaging people who really don't want their phone numbers published but can't afford to pay the difference to keep it out of the phone book. I don't think it's fair to publish telephone numbers. It's lazy for candidates not to have to go and have people look them up for them. We're not here to help them do that.

As far as sex and date of birth are concerned, I think it's expensive. I don't think it's necessary, and if Elections Canada doesn't think it's necessary it isn't. What Mr. Anders is addressing himself to is presenting proof of who you are when you go to vote. I'll have no problem with this when we get to that part of the bill, but I think to have a published list once a year.... First of all, you can't update phone numbers all the time; it's very expensive to do. Secondly, as I said, people who don't want their phone number listed but can't afford to pay for an unlisted number are disadvantaged. And I think the sex and date of birth are none of anybody's business on a voters list. They're not. I don't want my birthday on a voters list.

The Chair: The chair would note that some of these items raised by Mr. Bergeron may be characterized as personal information. The general rule of thumb is that we wouldn't make personal information available out of government unless there were a compelling reason and it was necessary for the process.

So whether the date of birth and these things, the gender of the person, were necessary for the electoral process.... Mr. Anders has made an argument that they may be. That's another issue.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The government agrees with Mrs. Parrish. We don't think date of birth is appropriate, as well. So we would plan on voting against this.

The Chair: Does anyone else want to speak to this? Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: First of all, the Elections Act says the voters lists are to be used by members of Parliament for communications purposes and for Elections Canada to use during the course of elections.

I think it's extremely important to have not just information regarding whether the person you're communicating with is male or female, but also to have perhaps information like a phone number and occupation, which gives members of Parliament an opportunity to communicate in a more personal manner with their constituents.

In the act it says these lists are for the uses of a member of Parliament, and that kind of information is extremely important.

We have amendments later with respect to occupations being included on the voters list. In Saskatchewan the voters lists have occupations; it's not a big deal. It's really important, though, because they get that information on a regular basis and you know what sort of people you're communicating with. I think it's very important, so I'd support that.

The Chair: Ms. Guay, did you have a comment?

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): No.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I might have a comment on that, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, I'm sure you indicated to me that Madame Guay did have a comment.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to comment on something said by Ms. Parrish. I am in full agreement with her when she says that people with lesser incomes are not in a position to request an unlisted phone number, but, Ms. Parrish, that also holds true for the telephone directory. In any case, the telephone number is not confidential. If, out of sheer puritanism, we were to state that we do not want telephone numbers to appear on the list of electors because the information is confidential, it would simply not be true: that information is in no way confidential. Each year, it is distributed to every household through the telephone directory. If a given person cannot afford to have an unlisted telephone number, it is obvious that he or she will not be able to afford to have that phone number not appear on the list of electors, but that does not mean that it is confidential information.

If we could agree to include the telephone number, I might just possibly agree to withdraw some of the things that may appear somewhat more problematic to members of the committee. I would, however, like us to agree on adding a certain number of things to the list of electors, including telephone numbers.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. White.

• 1220

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

I agree that the telephone number would be very handy. And let's face it, we all have programs now to merge the telephone number lists that are available on CD onto the voters list. It's silly to not put it there and save that trouble.

However, the difficulty I do have is with the sex and date of birth that's in there. The reason it's not printed there now is so that, for example, single women are not identified on the voters list. Decisions have already been made in this place before that we don't want to identify those sorts of situations, so I have a bit of difficulty with the sex and date of birth being in there. I'd like to propose a subamendment that would take out those two words and leave the rest of it as proposed by Mr. Bergeron. So I would have a subamendment that would take out sex and date of birth.

The Chair: All right. If there's no further discussion....

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: For the benefit of the members of this committee, if we could perhaps arrive at a consensus, I would agree to drop information concerning sex and date of birth, but we could perhaps agree to include the telephone number.

[English]

An hon. member: Is occupation—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, that is not in the amendment.

[English]

The Chair: I'll hear from Mr. Anders while officials are conferring.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, I also sit on the citizenship and immigration committee, and one of the issues we recently dealt with when visiting the Immigration and Refugee Board is that there are situations where any time people—and these are people who have made it to Canadian shores—could fudge ages, dye their hair for photographs, or do whatever they could do, the less information officials had to be able to determine whether or not that person who was before them was actually the said person on their list. There was an ability to fudge the list and to be able to gain entry. I know this goes on for the purposes of elections. I've seen it with my own eyes.

I have all the respect in the world for individual privacy, but I also recognize what fruit that will bear. You have to balance that off with the question of whether that's going to allow, by being ultimately protective of individual privacy, people to vote who should not be voting. So I support Mr. Bergeron's motion, including sex and date of birth. Even though some may not like the fact that others will know their age—despite the fact that they may have aged very well—it assists people who are at those voting booths to be able to determine whether or not the person before them is who they say they are. So I think that for the sake of democracy and ensuring that people who are voting are who they say they are or representing themselves to be....

Just to touch on Mr. Solomon's point—whether he likes it or not—I was in Saskatchewan for the recent provincial election there, and I was very impressed by the fact that they had occupation on the voters list in Saskatchewan.

So I would support Mr. Bergeron's motion for having both sex and date of birth, and I suggest that occupation and utility bill information is not out of the pale, as well.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The concern from this end of the table is that if you're asking people their age, it may annoy them enough that they'll prefer not to register at all. And I don't think age is necessary to having an accurate list.

On the issue of how we feel about telephone numbers, the officials have indicated a desire to check with the Privacy Commissioner. So I would suggest that we defeat this particular amendment—not the whole definition section—and agree to allow Mr. Bergeron or anyone else to bring forward an amendment regarding just the telephone number. By Monday we would have a more definite answer in terms of our position.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'll put the question, and our disposition of this will be without prejudice to Mr. Bergeron or anyone else to introduce an amendment later on dealing with the same section and having taken into consideration any information that may come from the Privacy Commissioner or anyone else. Is that fair?

Mr. Ted White: I'm a little confused.

The Chair: I'm dealing with the main motion. Do I have a subamendment in front of me? We operate in writing here. I do not have any amendment in front of me, and not seeing any, I'm going to put the question.

You will realize, Mr. White, we're dealing with this on a without-prejudice basis. If there is to be an amendment, I would want it in front of me in writing. If members take a different view, I'll change my view. But right now I'd like amendments to be put in writing. So we're dealing with the amendment moved by Monsieur Bergeron.

• 1225

Do you have a point of order?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, point of order.

I drew your attention and that of the members of the committee to the fact that I was quite ready to remove from my amendment any mention of “sex” or “date of birth”, retaining only the “telephone number”.

[English]

The Chair: No. We can't get into a barter situation here. But you will realize that you are without prejudice. We're dealing with this on a without-prejudice basis. You can come back with this later. But in the future.... It's very difficult for the chair to deal with bartering on clauses, but if we can reduce something to writing, then committee members would be able to deal with it. I'm going to put the question on the basis I've just described.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We'll now go to the next amendment.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But we'll have the opportunity to come back?

The Chair: Yes.

The next amendment is shown as BQ-2. It is in the definition section—definition of volunteer labour. Monsieur Bergeron, you're moving this.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, this amendment's sole intent is to modify the definition of volunteer work so that self-employed people may volunteer. We are talking here of usual working hours. That may be pertinent for people who are employees, but, for self-employed people, the usual working hours might very well be different. We therefore have to specify, in this provision, that we are talking about the usual working hours of self-employed people.

[English]

The Chair: Is there further discussion? Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: I think this is a very sensible amendment. When you think about the volunteers you have in your office, many of them bring skills there as volunteers that are part of their normal daily work. It seems discriminatory to me that we would allow somebody who worked for another person during the day on telecommunications to come in and help as a volunteer in the evening, but a person who works from home in their own business in telecommunications and comes in the evening suddenly has to account for their services as if it were a chargeable item. So I think Mr. Bergeron's amendment is a very sensible one and I certainly support it.

The Chair: Okay. Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: May I have an explanation of this clause as it stands unamended? Does this mean somebody who works on contract...? Let me wait until the officials are free.

Does the clause, if unamended, mean that somebody who works on contract, as more and more people are doing, is not able to volunteer services in an area where they have some expertise? They're not allowed to volunteer at all in their area of expertise.

Mr. Michael Peirce: They could volunteer, but it would be taken into account as an expense.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: As an expense.

Mr. Michael Peirce: It's not volunteer labour then, if they're providing a service.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No, but if they've worked for 12 hours that day at their profession, and then want to volunteer two hours, you're telling me they can't?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: It counts as an expense.

The Chair: Yes. As soon as Mr. Peirce is finished he can finish his answer.

Mr. Michael Peirce: This is in existence in the current act and was recommended by the Lortie commission. It's to avoid the situation where essentially what you have is instead of people donating their time, they'll donate their specialized service. That would then not be causing an expense. So it's specifically to catch that kind of situation.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Just to Ms. Catterall's question, the issue isn't so much whether they're on contract or not. The issue is what their normal job is. So if you have say a carpenter, then that's his or her normal job. If he or she comes and works the phone bank, then that's not an expense. But if he or she comes and provides carpentry service, then that's something you might have paid for, and that would be treated as an expense.

• 1230

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Thanks.

I do see the issue of discrimination between those who do a regular nine-to-five paid job versus those who are contract labour. According to the way this law is structured—and I'm putting this as a question to Mr. Peirce—if, for example, a carpenter—

A voice: Yes, that's a good example.

Mr. Rob Anders: If a carpenter were hired by a construction company for his skills, if in his free time after 5 p.m.—say he had regular nine-to-five hours—he came to help construct signs in an election campaign, if he made signs in my garage, he would be okay to do that. But if he owned his own company and hired out his own services as a carpenter and came to volunteer his time in my garage to help construct signs, you're telling me I'd have to declare his labour. Is that right?

Mr. Michael Peirce: Bingo! That's the discrimination.

Mr. Rob Anders: That's discrimination, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: The chair just wants the member to focus. The focus is not on the skill a person has, but on the service the person provides. The carpenter does many things. If the carpenter were a sign builder as a service provider, then you're making a point, but a carpenter per se wouldn't necessarily provide the service of a sign builder. The focus is on the service the self-employed party provides.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, what's the difference between a sign builder—

The Chair: You can't ask me a question. The question goes to Mr. Peirce.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Peirce—I know, this is ludicrous—what's the difference between somebody who's a sign builder and somebody who helps construct signs in my garage?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Can I intervene? I know it's directed to Mr. Peirce, but what Lortie was really concerned about here was creating a big loophole, because if you don't make this distinction....

You have to appoint an auditor, for example. If somebody came and volunteered for you and made your audited report, you wouldn't have to report that as an expense. So at the end of the day, any service these people provide to you will not be reported as an expense. It's a big way to circumvent the expense, because in fact all these services you need for your campaign you could have for free. That was considered by Lortie as very dangerous and possibly being a big loophole to circumvent the limits.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, if the concern is with regard to auditing and financial services and bookkeeping for the purposes of the campaigns, then let's restrict it to that. I don't know why you would restrict a carpenter. I did have carpenters who volunteered their time in helping construct my lawn signs, and I would hate to think good Mr. Nielsen, who helped construct my signs during the campaign, would not be able to do so, or we'd have to declare his labour as an expense for the purposes of the campaign, just because Mr. Lortie had concerns about accountants working on campaigns.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: I'm sorry. I just used that as an example. In fact somebody who has a lot of friends with these kinds of capabilities can basically have no expenses at all in his campaign for all of these services, because he has a lot friends who have this expertise, compared to somebody who doesn't have these kinds of friends.

Mr. Michael Peirce: Can I follow up finally? I think your concern was the difference between self-employed people and employees. It's not a concern with the fact that this kind of labour that's provided would be considered an expense. So it's not a concern with having exceptions; it's a concern with the arbitrary nature, in your view, of the exceptions. Is that correct?

Mr. Rob Anders: Well, yes. I'm just going to give an example, because he's a guy who worked on my campaign, Mr. Nielsen. If Mr. Nielsen were employed by a construction company for a period of time, he could come and donate his time in my campaign and help construct signs as a sign builder, or whatever term the chairman wants to use, and that would be perfectly acceptable. But if he were contracting his services out independently as a contractor, as opposed to working under somebody else's name as a corporation, all of a sudden my campaign would have to declare Mr. Nielsen's time as an expense to the campaign for helping to build some signs. That's discrimination against whether or not he wants to have his own business, and it's crazy for the campaign to have to make allowances for those types of things.

• 1235

Mr. Michael Peirce: My understanding is that the distinction is only there because we can track with self-employed people when they're volunteering their time that would otherwise normally be charged for, because they have a one-to-one relationship with you. So I know that if Mr. Nielsen, for example, did this activity and he's a self-employed person, you've entered into a relationship where he's said “I will not charge you for this.” Whereas with someone who is employed, it's not their liberty to make the decision to charge you or not charge you for this, because they're part of an institution that makes that decision. It's independent of them. So it would be difficult to track them.

Mr. Rob Anders: I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it justifies it, all the same.

Mr. Michael Peirce: We would certainly be willing to have a look at it and see if we can work out wording that would still capture the situation as it is.

Mr. Rob Anders: Whether Mr. Nielsen has his own company or works for somebody else, it's still his decision whether or not he wishes to volunteer time helping to construct signs on the campaign. It's his time, and he can choose to do with his time as he chooses. But to discriminate against Mr. Nielsen or my campaign based on whether he works for Lafarge or has his own company is improper.

A voice: It's outrageous.

The Chair: Thank you. You've made your point.

Monsieur Bergeron, on the same issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The more I listen to you, the more the situation appears confused in my mind. I've even begun to wonder whether the problem does not lie more with the profession than with the official working hours in that profession. If, for example, someone usually works in computers, does that mean that this person would not be able, outside of working hours, to volunteer his or her time as a computer operator? If that is so, there is a problem. The definition is much too broad since if that were the case, we would not be able to use the services of volunteers who are secretaries, computer specialists, carpenters, electricians, maintenance workers and so forth. If that were so, how could anyone volunteer?

I come back to the basic problem. If the problem lies not in the profession itself, but rather in the definition of self-employment or of work paid by someone else, I come back to precisely the same position as that of Mr. Anders. This Mr. Nielsen that he mentioned may be self-employed, and may receive clients at home between 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. If he goes to work for Mr. Anders at 6:00 p.m., what he does must be deemed volunteer work. As it now stands, this bill would not permit Mr. Nielsen, whether it be at 8:00 p.m., 10:00 p.m. or 5:00 a.m., to go work for Mr. Anders and that, to me, seems to discriminate against self-employed people.

Income tax and unemployment insurance legislation already contain enough provisions regarding self-employed people. Let us not, for heaven's sake, stop them from volunteering during election campaigns.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, I think that has described it.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Given that Mr. Peirce has offered to consult with Elections Canada, the government would be prepared to agree to stand this down and try to find something more satisfactory. I just want to say on the record, though, that we are concerned about an independent contractor who's a drywaller, who comes in after work and renovates your office and puts up drywall, which is an expense you would normally pay for. But having said that, if the committee agrees, I would ask that we stand this down.

The Chair: Okay. In the hope that we may find a wording solution that would accommodate some of the concerns, we can stand it down, if we're agreed.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The amendment is stood down.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. On a personal note, I find it difficult to eat and debate at the same time, so I'm just wondering, for those of us who haven't started, if we could take a ten-minute break so that the officials could get something to eat and I could get something to eat and George could get something to eat.

• 1240

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): No, I don't eat.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Oh, you don't eat. Well, the clerk could get something to eat and the chair could get something to eat.

The Chair: Certainly we're going to go off the record. I'm going to suspend for ten minutes, but it will be a strict ten minutes. We're suspended.

• 1241

• 1257

The Chair: Okay, colleagues, we'll resume where we left off. We were just about to consider amendment BQ-3, also in that definition section, subclause 2(3). The amendment is moved by Mr. Bergeron.

Could you describe the amendment, Mr. Bergeron?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, you have the amendment before you.

I suggest that bill C-2, clause 2, be modified by replacing what presently appears at lines 9 to 13 on page 7 by the following:

(3) For the purposes of this Act, the terms “satisfactory proof of... identity” and “satisfactory proof of residence” have the same meaning as in the Regulations.

Since this proof of identity is not defined in the Act, we would like to see regulations made that would define the terms “satisfactory proof of identity” and “satisfactory proof of residence”, the regulations then being submitted for consideration by the committee.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

• 1300

Mr. Gar Knutson: As I understand this, the effect of this amendment would be to shift the power away from the Chief Electoral Officer over the issue of what documentary proof of residence is. The government is confident that the Chief Electoral Officer can prescribe what reasonable proof of the elector's identity and residence is. We therefore don't see the need for the amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Peirce, could you please explain to members the difference between a prescribing exercise by the Chief Elections Officer and regulations issued under the act?

[Translation]

Mr. Michael Peirce: Yes, except for the tariff, there are no Regulations under the Elections Act. There is no authority to make regulations. That is why we have put—

[English]

the prescription of the Chief Electoral Officer. It's the Chief Electoral Officer in all of these circumstances, rather than regulations.

The Chair: That raises a problem, Monsieur Bergeron, since the government does not make regulations about the Canada Elections Act. In this statute, all such guidance and further definition would come from the Chief Elections Officer by way of a direction or other document provided under the act, not by a Governor in Council regulation.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, we would like those regulations to be submitted to the committee in order to ensure the necessary independence. In general, we defer to the wisdom, competence and experience of the chief electoral officer. That being said, however, the rules are presently so fuzzy that to determine a person's identity, photocopies are accepted as proof of residence or of identity. To avoid abuse or any untoward interpretation that might be made, in the various ridings, of the chief electoral officer's directives in that regard, we would like to see standards clearly defined in regulations that would be submitted to the committee for approval in order to preclude any vagueness or uncertainty in their interpretation.

[English]

The Chair: Just to clarify, you have suggested that the Governor in Council should do it by way of regulation. The statute suggests that the Chief Electoral Officer clarify, and that is essentially the difference.

Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'd just like to say that if we leave it to the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Chair, we have a situation similar to the one we have today. That is the status quo. Right now, we've had an expansion of the franchise to the extent that if somebody goes to a polling station and swears that they live in a given place—you know, it just so happens that they missed enumeration and all the rest of these things—that person can vote.

I think what Mr. Bergeron is going after here is that right now, as is stipulated in the status quo, you can get away with a lot more than what you should. If we leave that to the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer as it stands right now, there are things that are going on, or there is the potential for things to be going on, that shouldn't happen.

I think it behoves us to go ahead and try to provide some sort of regulation to those activities, because otherwise you'll have people who go up to polling stations—it happens, and we know it happens—and declare themselves eligible to vote with little or no proof. As it stands right now, I'm sorry, but if it's left to the Chief Electoral Officer, you're going to have violations and problems.

I think Mr. Bergeron is trying to close some loopholes here, and he should be commended for trying.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Well, contrary to Mr. Anders' opinion, we're not aware of any fraud that's going on, and consequently we don't see a need. We think the Chief Electoral Officer is the appropriate person to bring in a process to fix it if there is fraud going on.

• 1305

We don't think the fairly narrow issue of what is proper proof is something that should go through cabinet. That's the process regulations go through: they go through cabinet committee and are eventually approved by cabinet. I'm not sure what the reference is to in terms of coming in front of this committee. Committees don't promulgate regulations. If we'd like to call in the Chief Electoral Officer at some point to give him our advice as to what the prescribed form should be, we can do that. But as I said before, the government will be voting against the amendment.

The Chair: Okay, I'll give the last word to the mover.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would simply like to say, for everyone's benefit and more particularly for that of Mr. Knutson, who does not seem to have fully understood what I was saying earlier on, that this is not in any way to imply that there has been election fraud. The point is that the present definition is so broad and so imprecise that the potential is there. The point is not to correct a situation where there are clear cases of fraud, but to tighten up the rules and give a clear definition of what is meant by a satisfactory proof of identity or a satisfactory proof of residence.

Mr. Knutson said a little earlier on that the committee has no regulatory power. Of course, it has no regulatory power as long as the government refuses to grant it such a power. The government could draw up, in cooperation with the chief electoral officer, regulations that would be submitted to the committee for consideration and would come into effect after obtaining the committee's approval. This would ensure that all the political parties were represented and that the regulations therefore had the requisite legitimacy.

Mr. Chairman, we must understand that the idea of identifying the elector has come up simply because it is at the very core of our election process—

[English]

The Chair: Hold on.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Can we call the question, Mr. Chair?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The very basis of our election process in Canada is the fact that there are electors who have a right to cast their vote. Let us admit that these electors may have to produce satisfactory proof of identity in order to prove that they, indeed, have the right to vote.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

I gave the last word to Mr. Bergeron, and now I'm going to put the question.

Mr. Rob Anders: If I can't speak, it's going to be on recorded division.

The Chair: Does the committee want to submit to the greenmail of Mr. Anders here?

Mr. Rob Anders: Well, Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: I will hear you very briefly, Mr. Anders, in the hope that we can avoid too many recorded divisions. Carry on.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to go so far as to say that Mr. Bergeron has said we're here to prevent fraud. I know that during the last election and in previous elections there was fraud that did go on with regard to these activities at polling booths, Mr. Chairman.

I could talk about what happened in Calgary Centre, with the busing of people to polls when they didn't know how to read any of the ballots, and all the rest of these things that went on. I saw this stuff. In Calgary Northeast we had 12,000 people signed up as Liberal Party members in that riding when probably not that many voted for the candidate. There are irregularities that go on with regard to residencies. If we don't try to correct it, then we leave it to the status quo as it is and to the abuse that is going on right now.

The Chair: We have heard you. It's clear that the Chief Electoral Officer has ample authority to make rules under this provision. Mr. Bergeron's amendment was to ask us to require the Governor in Council to make regulations to address those irregularities. The question for members is whether or not we believe the Chief Electoral Officer has ample authority to do it here in this current section, or whether we need to bump the process into the cabinet to make the rules.

(Amendment negatived)

• 1310

The Chair: With regard to the next amendment, it is amendment BQ-4, moved by Mr. Bergeron. We move to clause 11.

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

The Chair: Colleagues, there are some NDP amendments that have found their way into the process this morning, so the next amendment is not BQ-4, it is in the NDP packet, on page 1.

Mr. Solomon, would you speak about the amendment?

(On clause 3—Persons qualified as electors)

Mr. John Solomon: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is an amendment to change the age of majority, to change the voting age from 18 years to 16 years of age.

Some of you may have heard Nelson Riis' comments in the House of Commons on this particular matter when Bill C-2 was in second reading. Just to summarize it and to emphasize how important this is, first of all, as a 16-year-old you're entitled to get a driver's licence and drive a car. You're entitled to get married at age 16. It's interesting that you should be able to be married at 16, but can't vote. You also have the right to move out of your parents' home, you have the right to leave school if you so desire, and you have the right to join the military. And you have a right—hopefully this is not shoved on all 16-year-olds—that if you commit a crime you're automatically or could be automatically elevated to adult court and can receive the penalties an adult would receive for committing that particular crime if proven guilty.

All of those reasons are statistical and factual. But as we all know around this table, what is even more important is that we're having a bit of concern about the reduction in involvement in the electoral process. People are getting tuned out very early. It's my sense that if you start gearing the young people up to vote at age 16, they will take a much more important and broader interest in our country. In my view, they will exercise their franchise. I believe the 16-year-olds I've met are as capable and as informed in terms of voting as many adults are. Many adults have either dropped out of the system or even vote without the knowledge that some of these 16-year-olds have.

That is the background for introducing the amendment to the bill, and I would ask all members to consider that on this particular issue. We've been alienating people for far too long, and I think it's time to educate them as young as possible about the responsibilities they have of citizenship.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The government is not supporting this amendment. Lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 would be a major policy shift. I think the key issue is whether voting is primarily an adult activity. The question is, when does somebody become an adult? There are lots of 16-year-olds who are very mature, some more mature than some adults. I grant the opposition member that. But it's the government's position that 16 is too young.

In regard to some of the other activities that 16-year-olds can do, you can leave home at 13 or 14 in Ontario. If you're not in any danger, no one will come pick you up and take you home. Does that mean that 13- or 14-year-olds, if they've moved out of the house and are on their own, should be voting?

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: My views are the same, Mr. Chairman. I think I probably would have cast a ballot responsibly at the age of 16, but on the flip side of this—just to be fair—we do have people who go into ballot booths in this country and don't know who they're going to vote for beforehand. They just vote A, B, C, or D, or eenie-meenie-miney-moe.

• 1315

If we were to consider—and I'm just saying this for Mr. Solomon's benefit—lowering the age of voting down to 16, and in tandem with that there were to be some sort of test that people were able to understand the ballot or able to demonstrate some sort of understanding or knowledge of the ballot and the process, I think that would weed out this idea of irresponsibility versus young people who have a greater sense of responsibility and could cast a ballot well and with knowledge.

The Chair: I'll go to the other side. Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: As a former high school teacher, I agree with most members who have spoken: there are a lot of very responsible young people. But also as a former teacher, I realize that in many provinces—including my own, which I am deeply saddened by—history is no longer a compulsory subject; civics is no longer a compulsory subject. People get through high school without knowing anything about our local government and our federal government. I find it appalling, but I think as you live life a bit longer, you tend to absorb issues. You have responsibilities, you pay taxes, and you learn about how the government works just by functioning. Taking these young people, who I think are now neglected as far as being well educated in how to cast a ballot and what the government does, would be a serious mistake and I would not support that.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, the point of view I am about to express is a personal one. Upon reaching the age of 16, young people have the right to drive a car and the right to work. When they are 16, we recognize their right to work and that means that when they reach that age they can theoretically be compelled to pay taxes. Since they might be paying taxes, do you not think that they should have the right to decide which government will be spending their tax money? In keeping with the principle proclaimed by our neighbours to the south, no taxation without representation, I am in favour of lowering the voting age to 16.

[English]

The Chair: That was a good discussion. Seeing no further interventions, I'll put the question.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 3 agreed to on division)

(On clause 4—Disentitlement from voting)

The Chair: We now go to the next amendment, which is from the NDP.

Mr. John Solomon: I asked for advice on this because the intent of this amendment was supposed to be to include a paragraph 4(d) on returning officers. It's not in the amendment, so I need some advice and direction as to whether I write this out, or.... But there should have been two amendments, subject to section 318, and there should have been an inclusion. After paragraph 4(c) should have been:

4(d) returning officers.

The Chair: Do colleagues accept that Mr. Solomon's amendment will read as he has described, to include a paragraph 4(d), “returning officers”? May we amend Mr. Solomon's current amendment by adding that?

That is your amendment, Mr. Solomon. You can speak to it.

Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you very much for that.

This raises the point of a tie in the case of an election. Returning officers have traditionally not been allowed to vote unless there was a tie. That's what section 318 refers to. And I believe it's important to keep the returning officer neutral until such time as a tie is found to be the case, in which case the returning officer would do what they normally do; that is, cast their ballot, normally in favour of whomever they like, but tradition has shown that if the incumbent is tied with a newcomer, in most cases the incumbent gets that vote.

I think it's important, because it has happened—rarely, I know. If the returning officer, one per constituency, is voting, it doesn't matter if that person is voting or not, unless there is a tie. It also reinforces their neutrality. Even though they're appointed by the party in power, they exercise neutrality.

• 1320

I'll give you an example from the Saskatchewan election this past fall. There was a tie, and although the incumbent was a Liberal, the returning officer was appointed by the NDP government. The returning officer cast the ballot in favour of the incumbent, which I thought was an appropriate thing to do. That's the tradition in Saskatchewan for ties. It's very rarely exercised, but it provides the taxpayers a significant saving because no by-election is called.

If a controvert is launched, that's a different issue, but at least there is a clear winner after a tie has been declared and the returning officer votes.

This was in the act before the change, so I'm asking members to support this and keep it in the act, as it was before.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The government's position, as stated by the minister, is that denying the returning officer the right to vote is a violation of the charter. It's not something we have discretion over. If the Minister of Justice has advised the House leader this is a charter issue, we would stand by that advice. This is not debate over administration or the voting age; this is something on which we have no flexibility.

Mr. John Solomon: What about the provincial law, if there have been no charter challenges to that?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I understand the point that no one has ever challenged this, but to go back to first principles, the government can't put forward a law unless it believes, out of the gate, the law is constitutional and consistent with the charter.

This may seem like a minor point, in terms of returning officers voting, but the government can't put forward this law unless it believes every single paragraph is in compliance with the charter. Therefore, the government can't support Mr. Solomon's amendment unless you can convince us it's consistent with the charter. That debate really has to be made to the Minister of Justice, who signs off on the bill.

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: I have some difficulty with the idea that we would be disenfranchising somebody who would have a very well-informed vote, such as a returning officer, when there would be an examination for allowing 16-year-olds to vote.

It is a good thing any time we can expand the franchise to those who are well-informed, and I include 16-year-olds in that as well, because it ties in with the earlier debate. But to disenfranchise somebody who is a well-informed voter would be a mistake. We're opposed to the motion.

The Chair: Mr. Solomon's amendment seems to be searching for anything that would break the agony of a tie, and that's what his amendment is.

In any event, members have deliberated on this and I see no further interventions.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 4 agreed to on division)

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, point of order.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Bergeron, point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Perhaps I was not paying attention at the time, but clause 2 has yet to be adopted, is that not so?

[English]

The Chair: We have stood clause 2; we're not finished with it.

We will move to clause 11 of the bill, amendment BQ-4. Monsieur Bergeron.

• 1325

[Translation]

(Clause 11—Part II)

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. According to paragraph 11(d):

(d) a person who has been absent from Canada for less than five consecutive years and who intends to return to Canada as a resident;

We wish to replace “for less than five consecutive years” with “for less than three consecutive years”. The reason for this is simple. Under special election rules, people who are absent from Canada must be gone for less than three years. The first reason is, then, to ensure consistency in the Elections Act. We would, furthermore, like to remove the words “who intends to return to Canada as a resident” because such an intention, Mr. Chairman, is not ascertainable in law. You cannot substantiate an intention. You can verify a fact or an act, but not an intention.

[English]

The Chair: Is there any other discussion? Mr. Anders, you're up.

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

I initially thought I would be in favour of this, but this would make Canadian citizenship or residency less onerous. Is that correct? Instead of having to be in Canada five years, people could be in Canada only.... Sorry, how does this work now? Absent from Canada for less than five consecutive years...Canada for less than three consecutive years....

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Not in Canada, but outside of Canada.

Mr. Rob Anders: Right. I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Does that mean you could spend less time in Canada and vote?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No.

The Chair: Mr. Peirce, could you guide us through the intent of the section—five years as opposed to three years? What would the practical impact be?

Mr. Michael Peirce: The point of this is that where people are abroad for a period of time—university students, for example, who may be in four-year programs, which is the normal length for university, or people who are away for their jobs—even though they are outside of the country for a certain period of time, where it's less than five years, they would still be able to vote.

The amendment would do two things. It would reduce it to three years. The difficulty with that is so many appointments are for periods longer than three years. During his speaking tour across the country, the minister heard that five years was the preferred period.

It would also address the issue of intent by removing the last part, “and who intends to return to Canada as a resident”. While intention is not always easily provable, there are indicia you can do to prove intent. It is also an added criterion that is at least helpful and counts in favour of your position, if I can put it that way, if you want people to be out of the country for a shorter period and come back.

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: How does this affect military personnel who are posted overseas? Does this impact them at all? Is this independent of that? Is it more likely to affect people in diplomatic missions and that type of thing?

Mr. Michael Peirce: That's covered in paragraph 11(a), a Canadian Forces elector. They're subject to the special voting rules, so they're in a different category.

Mr. Rob Anders: In that case, I have some clarification. I would be in favour of the Bloc amendment.

The Chair: That's good to know.

Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I have a brief question, Mr. Bergeron. Would going from five years to three years not be too limiting for people posted in embassies, in our armed forces abroad or with the United Nations? That sort of posting can be for up to five years.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes and no. A posting is not necessarily for five years. It can be shorter or longer than that. The five-year rule is, then, already, perhaps, overly restrictive. A person who spends seven years outside the country while intending to come back here is excluded under the present provision.

• 1330

The fact of further providing that such a person must intend to return as a resident in Canada adds absolutely nothing. I could claim that my intention is to return to Canada but that could be totally false. What does it add? You say that this provision would not work against you, while it might very well work in your favour. Anybody can say that they have the intention of returning to Canada. Adding “who intends to return to Canada as a resident” adds absolutely nothing.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Mr. Peirce was saying that, in certain cases, there are indications. For example, if I register for a four-year program, and leave all my belongings in Canada, these facts indicate my intention of returning. For example, a person who obviously had no ties with Canada and accepted a 20 year contract abroad, would no longer be eligible to vote under these criteria even if he or she was away less than five years. That is what he meant by saying it might work in your favour.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. We've had good discussion on that issue.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 11 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Colleagues, it's now just after 1:30. There's other business going on in the House, and a number of us have matters we have to attend to. Thank you for your cooperation in working together today. We've done a good job.

We will stand adjourned until 3:30.