PRHA 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]

Wednesday, March 11, 1998

• 1913

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), we're resuming consideration of the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the thirty-sixth general election, pursuant to the Canada Elections Act, subsection 195(1), and in accordance with the committee's mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi), examination of the Canadian electoral system.

For the benefit of my colleagues I will begin with a roll call of our witnesses. I just want to be sure all the parties are represented and they're represented by the people we expect.

For the Liberal Party we have Terrence Mercer and Jack Siegel. For the Reform Party we have Deborah Grey and Troy Tait.

[Translation]

For the Bloc Québécois, we have Paul Crête and Luc Morin. Is that correct?

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: For the New Democratic Party we have Peter Julian. For the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada we have Ross Reid and Paul Lepsoe.

Is that correct? Do we have any other witnesses? Do all members of the committee have copies of the briefs we've received?

For the witnesses, there are copies of all the briefs we'll be hearing today.

The suggestion has been that there be five- or eight-minute presentations by each party and then we will proceed to question and answer. Unless there is any objection, that's the way I intend to proceed.

• 1915

For our witnesses, I'd like to say we are most grateful to you for the written presentations and the time you've taken with them. We are equally grateful you've consented to be here this evening.

We think this review is very important and we think it's important for such a review to be undertaken in a timely fashion following an election. That is what we are trying to do.

I understand Ross Reid has some time limitations, so I will start with him.

Mr. Ross Reid (National Director, Progressive Conservative Party of Canada): Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the members of the committee for your consideration. I would also like to thank the committee for inviting us to participate in this potentially very complex review of the Canada Elections Act.

We have recognized in our proposal there are essentially two directions I suspect you want to pursue, and we would like to be as supportive as possible of both. One is the question of the administration of the act itself from which issues are raised after every election and about which issues are raised between elections.

In terms of the administration, we suggest one of the most effective ways to deal with the ongoing administration of the act is to re-establish an ongoing and continuing dialogue between the parties with the Chief Electoral Officer and his or her staff. We think it is practical to be able to deal with issues in a real way as opposed to—not be to pejorative—an academic way, particularly by practitioners and those who administer the act.

We will be delighted to participate with our colleagues and the other parties in this ongoing discussion, to allow us to hopefully reach consensus on how to deal with things that come, without forcing us into amendments or complicated regulations, and be able to ensure the act is fair and practical for all involved.

In terms of amendments, there are clearly a number of sources of recommendations in this area. The Lortie commission is one of the many recommendations that remains unaddressed. In our presentation we have generally raised an example under each. Under the Lortie commission, one that I think is worthy of discussion is the question of the Canada Elections Commission.

There are many Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations, and many have been acted upon by Parliament and through administrative agreements, but there continue to be many that should be addressed and dealt with. One we recognize is the question of the blackout provisions for advertising, recognizing it is a very complicated area, is never as simple as it looks, and technology moves along and makes the elections act sometimes difficult to administer.

Certainly there are provisions that have been struck down by the courts for which there have not been responses. One small example we have raised here is the question of voting by criminals in penitentiaries.

If we may be so bold, we would recommend the committee or its staff be encouraged to collect a list of items that remain unaddressed, not only from these three sources but from others—for instance, what I think has generally been called the Hawkes committee. There are recommendations from all parties that have been made in the past. If the committee is prepared to sit down and list those and perhaps give some priorities, we would be delighted to participate in that process again.

I think the members of the committee recognize better than we that to go into a broad review of the elections act perhaps opens up some very large cans of worms. Some of the reviews would be very complex and some of them fairly simple. We have hesitated from specifically going into this list, in recognition of their number and their complexity, but I would say to you, sir, that we would encourage you to undertake this process.

• 1920

We would be delighted to be able to participate with you and to bring the experience of our party and of those who have not only been involved in elections but who also have contributed in a number of ways to these studies and recommendations to be able to address a number of them, hopefully, with the consensus of other parties and also people in the public who have an interest in these areas. We would like to be able to proceed with that.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Since that was less than five minutes, Paul, do you have anything to add at this point?

Mr. Paul Lepsoe (Legal Counsel, Progressive Conservative Party of Canada): No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

To comment on that, we've already prepared the summary of the items left over from the Lortie commission. We don't have it available to circulate at the moment, but just so members of the committee know it is in hand.

I'll move, then, to the NDP and Peter Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian (Assistant Federal Secretary, New Democratic Party of Canada): I'd like to thank the chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to discuss some aspects of the Canada Elections Act and election procedures this evening.

Five minutes is not a long time to talk about the Canada Elections Act or to talk about election procedures, so for this initial presentation I'll restrict my comments to the eight observations our federal secretary, Jill Marzetti, our director of organization, Nanci Morrison, and I submitted to the committee.

At least two of those observations touch upon recommendations that were made by the Chief Electoral Officer in his report on the thirty-sixth general election.

The first observation is that prior to the thirty-sixth general election materials were often not available by deadlines set by Elections Canada. I'm specifically referring to poll-by-poll maps, street indexes, materials of that sort. It was available a number of months after the initial date it was supposed to be printed. This is something that necessarily must be tightened up for subsequent elections.

Secondly, there's the misunderstanding of central time, particularly insofar as it relates to Saskatchewan. The recommendation by the Chief Electoral Officer was to deal with this issue and we would strongly recommend to the committee to do so. This is a misunderstanding. It's hard to understand how it happened but it is something that should be corrected in advance of the next election.

Thirdly, one difficulty that arose during the election campaign was the existing legal framework that does not allow Elections Canada to remove clearly incompetent returning officers. The act should be amended to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to replace returning officers who are not adequately fulfilling their mandate. This is something that was also touched upon within the framework of the appointment of returning officers in the report of the Chief Electoral Officer and we support the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer in this regard.

Fourthly, there is the issue of administrative regulations and the requirement for proof of address that currently exists under those regulations.

We believe measures should be taken to ensure that in areas requiring additional identification or proof of address that would disenfranchise qualified voters, alternative identification be allowed. I am particularly speaking of four areas in Canada where rooming houses and types of accommodation of that nature exist for many citizens. Given the administration of regulations that is required presently, we believe some citizens are disenfranchised by those regulations. This is something that should be dealt with prior to the next election.

There is also the issue of how the revised voters' list is formatted in comparison with the way the initial voters' list was structured. There were some concerns during the election campaign. In many areas of the country it appears that the actual formatting of the revised voters' list was different from the way the initial voters' list had been formatted. It's very difficult to transfer information from one voters' list to another and if the list is unusable it obviously makes it more difficult for electors to get the kind of information on candidates and on parties that is required for them to make an informed decision.

• 1925

There's also the issue of the updating of the electoral list on a more permanent basis. Now that we have the permanent elections list, we raise the concern that the whole question of accuracy is something that should be looked at very closely to ensure that in the next election campaign the voters' list is as accurate as possible. As a result, voters, candidates and parties would be dealing with lists that are usable.

[Translation]

Finally, the last three points we make in our submission concern the Pool Book, which we think should be brought back for the next federal election, and two financial matters. One of the financial issues is the matter of rebates for campaigns, which were changed after the election period, in September 1997. This happened after the campaign and the official agents had to adjust their figures initially submitted to Elections Canada and those subsequently submitted.

The calculations were not available for official agents, and we think it is extremely important that they be made available to them before the report is presented.

Finally, and this concerns more and more parties, we take rebates that are assigned to financial institutions as conditions of campaign loans. At the moment, there is no normal, regular process of informing parties about the rebates assigned to financial institutions and cheques that are sent to financial institutions. It is therefore important that the necessary follow up should begin with the parties in the case of assigned rebates.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the Elections Canada staff are hard-working and very competent. If there were certain difficulties with the 36th General Election, I would like to emphasize that the fault does not lie with the staff. Indeed, it is remarkable, given the circumstances of the election, that the electoral organization should have worked as well as it did. There are improvements that can be made, however, particularly to certain aspects of the Canada Elections Act. The purpose of our comments is to further discussion on how to improve the electoral process and electoral organization.

I would be pleased to answer any questions later on. Thank you for your attention.

The Chairman: Thank you, Peter. I would like to inform all our witnesses that we have with us an observer from Elections Canada.

The spokesperson from the Bloc Québécois is Paul Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you. I have seen the recommendations made by the other parties, and I think they make some interesting points. However, the Bloc Québécois has decided to focus on the recommendations regarding the financing of political parties.

In order to give you a better idea, I will tell you a little story. At our last meeting, the Bloc Québécois put forward a motion on public financing. There was a debate and afterwards, at the end of the evening, a member of another party said that the model we put forward was all very nice and idealistic, but that it would never work in reality.

I think this is an important story, because the model we suggested has been in place in Quebec for about 20 years now. So there is a lack of understanding of public financing. I think it is good that we have an opportunity to make that point here, and I would like to talk about it briefly.

We must remember that before the 1960s, there were major corruption problems in Quebec. These stemmed from the fact that there were no rules about the financing of political parties. The rules that we follow today are one of the main legacies of René Lévesque. After the 1976 election, he passed a bill that allowed public financing. The main principle is that only natural persons may contribute to a political party. No money may come from a company, union or any type of association. It must be individuals who contribute to the financing of political parties.

• 1930

This situation completely changes the quality of democratic life. It is the main point on which the committee should be focusing, in order to understand its benefits.

One of the things learned from our experience in Quebec is that there was an impact on the democratic life of political parties, the selection of candidates, legislation and the influence of lobby groups. I will try to describe all these aspects for you.

Once you make a rule stating that only individuals can contribute to a political party, you immediately greatly reduce any possible lobbying by any corporate entity—a union, a company or a social group—that might make representations to the elected members of a party. A rule of this type therefore changes the relationship between elected members and those who provide their funding, because the only people to whom the elected members are accountable are natural persons. Consequently, the latter enjoy a much more equal relative weight than in the current situation involving the financing of federal political parties. In that case, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 per cent of the financing comes from companies or unions. This obviously changes the rules of democracy.

It also has an impact on the democratic life of parties because a member of a political party becomes much more important if he is the person who finances the party. Clearly, the party organization and the candidates themselves are responsible for ensuring that the party member is satisfied with the services offered by the party. Another result has to do with candidate selection. The rules adopted by each party are much more restrictive, even regarding candidate selection within the same political party.

I therefore think consideration should be given to amending the act as to allow for public financing. This would be an important contribution to the quality of democratic life in Canada. Naturally, a transition period would be required, and an adaptation period as well, if possible. We went through this process in Quebec, and we know that it is difficult to adjust when you are moving from a system in which financing came from companies and unions, to one in which 100 per cent of the financing came from individuals. A system of this type requires that political parties adopt a much more methodical approach from their members and from citizens generally. Each annual fund raising drive becomes a challenge, because democratic life as a whole is based on the contribution of members, of natural persons, and this has a significant impact on democracy.

Let me give you an example. Since the time this legislation was passed and the present, there has been a radical transformation of electoral practices in Quebec. There has been a radical transformation in relationships between citizens and the State and between companies and the State. For example, companies have a great deal of influence in the way in which contracts are awarded. The system becomes much more democratic. The choices are based more on the quality of the proposals. There is much less undue influence, of the type that is found in systems without this type of control. It is always easier to talk about what your neighbour is doing, and I am sure there are a number of countries in the world where corruption is rampant. However, as far as the financing of political parties goes, I think the model developed in Quebec could apply to Canada and would bring about radical changes.

• 1935

That is the Bloc Québécois' contribution to this debate. To come back to the story I told you at the beginning, I think the Quebec model is one that is realistic, that works, and that contributes to the quality of democratic life. Proof that it works can be found in a 1995 referendum, in which 93 to 94 per cent of Quebeckers voted.

I would invite the representatives of the other parties, the members of Parliament who are here, to check whether this model works well. I think it could make an interesting contribution to democratic life in Canada.

The Chairman: Thank you, Paul.

[English]

And now from the Liberal Party of Canada we have Terry Mercer.

Mr. Terrence Mercer (National Director, Liberal Party of Canada): Thank you, Mr. President.

I'd like to thank the chair and the committee for the opportunity for us to be with you this evening. It probably would have been nice to have had this meeting six months prior to the last campaign, but it's important for us to look at what happened during the campaign as we prepare for the next one in 2001 or whenever.

In my presentation in writing that I sent to the chair, you'll notice we did respond to what we saw as eight recommendations by the Chief Electoral Officer in his report on the election. I won't bore you by reading it to you, but on the first issue of the appointment of the returning officers, we disagree with the Chief Electoral Officer. We think the process should be maintained as is. With respect to the voting by returning officers, we think we should also keep that system as is.

But with respect to the nomination of candidates, his comments are more administrative than legislative, and he needs to tighten up that process. We, as political parties, need to educate our people better, and that will allow us all to move through the process much more quickly and efficiently.

With respect to the boundary revisions, we're not quite in agreement with him, and it's complicated by our opposition to his first recommendation on returning officers, because we think that if he really wanted that and if we had an appointment of returning officers more frequently, it would compound his problem. Really one of the problems is that the returning officers are not as well trained as they should be. I understand that in the last campaign many of them were appointed just prior to the campaign, but we have lots of time between now and 2001.

With respect to third-party intervention, we are opposed to any third-party intervention. We need to tighten the rules. Third-party intervention is not healthy for the political system. If you have something to say, put your name on the ballot, as all of you have, and I respect every one of you for that. Even if I don't support your political beliefs, I support you for having the gumption to put your name on the ballot. Third-party intervention is not good for the process.

As for blackout provisions, it's all or none. It's too confusing. We should have straight, clear blackout provisions. There needs to be a recognition that we shortened the election campaign substantially by two weeks, and that means we all have less time to get our messages out to the public, and we need to take care of that quickly.

On access to buildings, this is one we could spend the evening talking about, particularly those of us who've campaigned in urban Canada. This is one that needs to be strengthened. We need to clarify what access to buildings means and it needs to be conveyed in a little clearer way to building owners.

The difficulty is that under the present act, if someone denies us access to a building, our only recourse is to sue them. I don't know about the members of the other parties, but I don't think I really want to be in an election campaign where one of the things I'm doing is suing the owner of one of the major buildings in my constituency in the middle of a campaign. It doesn't make much sense to me. We need to clarify that.

We also need to clarify how that affects people who live in condominiums and university residences. People in condominiums, because of the rules of the condominium corporation, may be restricted in displaying their political desires by posting signs on their balconies or in their windows because of the regulations. We think that should be opened up and people should be given an opportunity to express the same opinions as those people who live in apartments or in single-family dwellings.

• 1940

There are some other issues we'd like to comment on this evening. We would really like to agree with the first speaker, Ross Reid, from the Conservative Party, that there is a need to establish, and establish quickly, an ad hoc committee of all parliamentary parties, the five parties represented here this evening, to monitor and make recommendations, on an ongoing basis, on the Canada Elections Act.

An ad hoc committee was in place for some time and has been abandoned in recent years. We think if we would have had that committee in place on a ongoing basis, and it had met regularly, we probably would have avoided some problems throughout the campaign, and we would have had a smoother-running campaign.

We think the sanctity of the voters' list needs to be protected. We now have a disc floating around with the voters' list on it for all of the 301 ridings across the country.

We also think we need to tighten up or clarify the rules on how you prove residency requirements. It's interesting that we ask people to prove residency when we don't ask them to prove citizenship. Just because the person lives there it doesn't mean they still have the right to vote and can be added to the voters' list.

We need to stop changing the way the lists will appear on election day. If you recall, particularly in some parts of the country—in Quebec it was a particular problem for us—a couple of days before the campaign we were suddenly told the lists would appear in alpha format as opposed to a street format, which we were used to working with. That meant we had to retrain and retool our entire operation.

Our volunteers are very precious to us, but we can wear out our welcome pretty fast if we try to change the way they're used to doing things a couple of days before the campaign. If the Chief Electoral Officer is going to change it, it should be changed early enough for us all to be able to adjust.

One point I would like to recommend passionately concerns the way in which the rules in this past election treated our native voters. I was quite embarrassed to be a Canadian when I saw what happened on certain reserves across this country.

I'll give you two stories from the same province, Saskatchewan, where polling stations were scheduled to be on reserves. For reasons I can't understand, except that it's part of the culture, the polling stations are not allowed to be on reserves. We had asked that perhaps mobile polling stations be provided at the entrance to the reserve so that the people on the reserve could have easy access to voting. We were denied that by the Chief Electoral Officer. They moved the polling station 15 miles down the road to a basically all-white community. It was not a very friendly atmosphere.

That was a problem for all the political parties involved, because none of us had prepared for that. He'd made the decision, or it was made known to us, at least, on the Saturday before polling day.

The last couple of things I want to mention are some silly things that keep getting thrown out by regulation. The fact that I've shown up tonight with a green folder is significant; on election day, if my colleagues in the Reform Party showed up with that at the polling station, it would be thrown out because it was identifiable. It's only identifiable to those of us who are practitioners. The general public, I'm sure, doesn't recognize that. It makes life a little easier, and we don't disrupt the operation of the polling station, if I can go over and talk to the person with the red file folder, and Ms. Grey can go over and talk to the person with the green file folder, instead of us looking around...and they do put our names on our table.

Finally, Mr. Chair, we think the Chief Electoral Officer's office has become more bureaucratic than political. We think they need to recruit more political people from all of our parties.

A comment was made by Peter from the New Democrats about materials not being available on time. As I'm sure you're all aware, there's a by-election happening in Port Moody—Coquitlam at the present time. The day the writ was issued we requested maps from the Chief Electoral Officer and we were told they were in print.

• 1945

Well, excuse me. The seat has been vacant for some time. We knew there was going to be a by-election. There were not going to be boundary changes. Why weren't the maps ready? Why wasn't everything ready for that election?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a lot more to say, but I'll wait.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

The Reform Party of Canada; Miss Deborah Grey.

Miss Deborah Grey, MP (Deputy Parliamentary Leader and Caucus Chairman, Reform Party of Canada): Thank you, Peter. I want to let you know we will be splitting our time. Most everyone has been really good about keeping to the time limit, so we're going to try to do exactly the same.

I'm going to talk briefly about the need for basic systemic political changes. Then Troy Tait, from our national office, is going to take a few minutes to talk about some of the very specific administrative changes.

First of all, there are some major systemic changes, and I think the Elections Canada act certainly could change and reflect that. We think fixed election dates are something that is going to be absolutely essential as we enter the next century. That will eliminate guesswork. It will be fair and square for every political party.

I don't think this is anything strange or new or wild. It's just an excellent idea. It puts everyone on an equal footing when we get ready for elections.

It would make it much easier for election planning. If the Chief Electoral Officer knew an election would be held on a specific date, training, etc., would be much, much better done, far more effectively done. The by-election right now is probably a case in point. They would be ready to go because they would know it was happening.

We think senators must be elected. Of course this is something we've been talking about a lot across the country. The Alberta Senatorial Selection Act, which has been in place for several years now...if we start moving in that direction, the Canada Elections Act could certainly reflect that, and that would just move into the regular political and election process as well. It's something that is far overdue.

Thirdly, about giving people a voice, I think that, after all, is what regular Canadians want. They want to know they have a voice in Parliament and whoever they elect as their MP is going to stand up and defend them and voice their views in Parliament.

About such things as referendums, of course we saw that with the Charlottetown accord in 1992. We got the Referendum Act here in Canada. That was a very exciting thing. You don't want to have a referendum every second Tuesday, by any stretch, but to know that is in place and it can be used across the country is something that's essential. People know there is something they can learn about, study about, and prepare for in terms of their making actual decisions as well.

Citizens' initiatives: we think again this is important. If 3% of the electorate were able to decide something was important enough, they could petition the Chief Electoral Officer. If it were duly recognized and authorized and went through all the proper channels, then they would be able to put that on a ballot. Again, I think that puts power into the hands of the people.

About recall, we think that's important too. It's time the Canada Elections Act provided for recall in unusual circumstances, such as clear misconduct or breach of responsibility. That is something that could be done under the Canada Elections Act. It would make a lot of Canadians just a whole lot better, knowing they had more control and the power is more in their hands than in the hands of an elite few.

Now I'll turn my time over to Troy Tait, from our national office.

Mr. Troy Tait (National Policy and Public Information Manager, Reform Party of Canada): Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I'm the national policy and public information manager of the Reform Party.

During the 1997 election I responded to many questions and concerns by both the national campaign and the constituency campaigns across the country. Consequently I had a lot of communication with Elections Canada staff, especially the legal services department and the finance department. I found it very beneficial, very helpful. Given the timeframes they had to make some of the changes, I thought it was well done. However, numerous things can be changed and improved with the assistance of the Government of Canada. Since I don't have that much time, I'll highlight just a few major points.

The first and perhaps most important point I would like to make, although contrary to my friends with the Liberals, is that we do believe we should depoliticize the Canada elections staff. They should be hired on merit and regardless of the political stripe they may have.

The administration of elections should be as non-partisan as possible to ensure that public confidence in our system of government is maintained. We believe the replacement of the Chief Electoral Officer could be nominated by an all-party committee of equal representation, and with final approval by the House of Commons.

• 1950

We also believe the importance of working on an election for Elections Canada cannot be overstated. To reinforce the seriousness of the duty and to ensure the impartiality of those working on federal elections, we do recommend that legal penalties for returning officers, deputy returning officers and poll clerks, should they be found creating a serious election violation, be reviewed to ensure they are a sufficient deterrent.

The second point I'd like to make is that the training of the temporary Elections Canada staff, which also includes the staff receiving the 1-800 calls, definitely needs to be improved. The easiest way to handle this situation, in my belief, is to allow for fixed election dates, as Deborah has already pointed out, as well as hiring staff on merit. Elections Canada would then have the ability to train all staff effectively prior to the start of the election period.

The third point is the accuracy of the voters' list. I have personal knowledge of inaccuracies of the list during an election. I came across several examples of individuals who were not eligible to vote due to age or citizenship, names of individuals who were actually deceased. Personally, both my wife and I were on numerous lists within Calgary.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): That's why we won.

Mr. Troy Tait: The fourth point is the need for diligence by Elections Canada staff for accuracy in their work. The Elections Canada web site had some errors that were only corrected after they were notified by the Reform Party of Canada.

The fifth point is a request for Elections Canada to start developing quality poll maps that are useful for all of us. The poll maps for 1997 were almost futile. I would also like to suggest that the maps be available electronically. This would save approximately 120,000 pieces of paper per party going to the national offices. That's a waste of paper and the tearing down of a forest.

There are also several things within the act—this is not in our paper—that need to be clarified. For instance, paragraph 84(3)(b) and subsection 24(1.1) of the Elections Act discuss the requirements of the return of the candidate's deposit. I recommend that paragraph 84(3)(b) be amended to read “valid” votes cast instead of total votes cast. That would allow consistency between the two sections.

The last point I'd like to address is the use of electronic voting. Advances in telecommunications technology today are providing many opportunities for streamlining and greater efficiency. We believe the Canada Elections Act should be amended to permit the Chief Electoral Officer to start experimenting with this type of voting for the future.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Troy.

I thank all the witnesses for keeping more or less to the time.

I have a list—Chuck Strahl and then André Harvey.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you. It's hard to know, when we have a pot-pourri of people to talk to....

I am interested, although it's not number one in importance, in the first recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer, which dealt with the appointment of returning officers.

I remember asking Mr. Kingsley at a hearing about, when we go overseas to lend our considerable expertise to other countries, whether we recommend that the governing party appoint the returning officers, or are they chosen in another manner. He said, oh, heaven forbid; we always recommend that they be from a neutral list. The governing party shouldn't have anything to do with it.

So I'm interested, from the Liberal Party, to know why you think we should be giving a different opinion here in Canada from what we give overseas. We are consistent in demanding that it must appear very fair. I have to tell you, I've had no problems with any returning officer. I mean, that is your point. The other side of it, though, is that when you pick a political animal to do an apolitical job, you end up with some problems.

I wonder why we couldn't change the system just to allow that appointment based on merit or training or whatever, as his recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer.

The Chairman: Mr. Mercer.

• 1955

Mr. Terrence Mercer: I think it's a good question, Mr. Strahl. One of our points, and my comment later on, was about the need for more political people in the Chief Electoral Officer's office, and the fact that people need to understand the process. If they don't know what you go through as a candidate, what I go through as a riding president or as a campaign manager or as a national director, then it's very difficult for them to respond.

Elections are short—six weeks long. We are all under a great deal of pressure and stress, and we need to make decisions quickly. One of the problems I have found and that I'm very concerned with is that if we institutionalize it and allow it to become more bureaucratic, we will lose the edge. Some of the people at Elections Canada who have a lot of experience are not members of my party, but were members perhaps of the Progressive Conservative Party or the New Democratic Party—I'm not sure which—but they have experience at the riding level, have been there. If you haven't been there, it's very difficult for you to understand what your needs as a candidate are, what your official agent's needs are, or what your volunteers' needs are.

With respect to your comment about overseas, I understand that, but I think you're comparing apples and oranges. We have a very mature democracy in this country and we're very proud of it.

I do agree with the comments that either the New Democrats or the Tories made earlier, that we need to have a provision for the removal of incompetent returning officers, but we need to be able to do that quickly and to provide an opportunity for replacement.

The Chairman: Are there any questions? Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, on the same question.

I would like to say that this should be looked at very closely. On the subject of returning officers, the Quebec Elections Act provides for a competition which is advertised in the newspapers for a set length of time, one, two or three years before the election. Anyone may apply, regardless of political party, provided they have some interest in the political organization, and they are required to take an examination. The person with the best results is appointed.

This procedure allows to select people with some background and an interest in politics. It is most important that returning officers convey the impression of fairness.

At the time of the last election in Quebec, there were many returning officers who had been candidates for the Liberal Party in the previous election. I do not think this is a good idea. In any case, we should at least have the decency not to appoint people who were candidates in the previous election, because even though they may be very honest and do the job very honestly, there is no appearance of minimal justice.

So there is room for improvement. I could mention a number of examples. In my own riding, the person who is appointed returning officer is married to the former liberal candidate. Obviously, that caused us to approach the individual differently than we would have had the honesty of the returning officer been well known. It is not really a question of honesty, but the appearance of honesty. In my view, there is an inadequate appearance of justice at the moment.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm going to try to keep it moving, because we do have several witnesses.

Do any of the other witnesses want to respond to that question? No?

Mr. André Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank all our witnesses, particularly Mr. Crête, who told us about a major event in cleaning up public affairs in Quebec, namely the Quebec's Act respecting Public Financing.

It is all very well that this be mentioned as an example, but that practice always involves some risks. I would like to ask Mr. Crête something. The cleaning up of public affairs in Quebec is attributed to the changes in the financing of political parties, but I am not completely convinced of that, as a Quebecker. The fact is that the improved management of public affairs was attributable to improvements in management procedures over the years, such as public calls for tender. The system is becoming more and more strict.

Given that there is a tendency to create a lot of myths about so-called public financing, I would like to ask Mr. Crete whether there are any ways of getting around this so-called public financing.

• 2000

For example, professionals can personalize their donations. They can be required to personalize their donations. However, people in the corporate world make donations and are subsequently reimbursed by their companies.

I would therefore like to hear what Mr. Crête thinks about these matters.

I think it is a good idea to mention this example, but I am not convinced that even though the legislation is very comprehensive, a company or a small business that contributes to a political party is really behaving undemocratically. Quite honestly, I am far from convinced about that. We have raised this matter on a number of occasions. I know that it has been considered at the moment in Canada and in some regions.

The Chairman: Paul Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: In answer to the first part of the question, we should remember the circumstances that led Mr. Lévesque to develop his democratic and public method of financing political parties. He had been Minister of Natural Resources in the first Jean Lesage government. The day after the election, when he was appointed minister, he saw people arriving with brown or sealed envelopes. He was told that that was how things worked. He said he wanted to change this practice, but he was told that he had to bear in mind that a particular asphalt company has contributed $3,000, $5,000 or $7,000. But Mr. Lévesque was not that kind of man.

Mr. André Harvey: Just a minute. At the time, the practice was much the same in other provinces.

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, yes.

Mr. André Harvey: And the situation has been improved without passing legislation on public financing. That is what I was getting at. I am not sure this system is perfect.

Mr. Paul Crête: Perfection is not of this world. You mentioned examples of professionals who could make donations of $2,000 or $3,000 as individuals. It is true that cases of this type do exist. However, they also exist in the current system in Canada. There is no system that people cannot get around. Fraudulent practices exist everywhere. We need to establish a system that produces the best possible results.

I am convinced of one thing, and that is that when a company can make a contribution of $50,000, $60,000, $80,000 or $100,000, this is way out of proportion compared to the impact that ordinary individuals can have. Which model provides the best balance? Does Canada need the Quebec model? That is something we can talk about. We can take a look at how the Quebec model works. I think that the current Canadian model contains some excesses that can be seen ultimately in the choices made by governments. I don't think such things should exist.

I will give you a very concrete example about bank mergers. A bank that makes over $1 billion of profits a year may decide to contribute $50,000, $100,000 or $150,000 to a political party, and I think that is way out of proportion to the contribution that individuals can make. I therefore think something must be done about this. The quality of democratic life has probably improved everywhere, but the rules on public financing in Quebec are a good thing, something the other jurisdictions do not have.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Just a moment. Are there any other witnesses who would like to answer this question?

Terry Mercer.

[English]

Mr. Terrence Mercer: I'm concerned that we spend an awful lot of time talking about this issue. The direction the Bloc seems to be going is similar to the American model, which restricts donations and promotes the setting up of PACs, or political action committees. There are numerous cases of how American donors have gotten around that. I know there are certain parties here who are opposed to special interest groups. I think this leads to the rise of special interest groups.

I think one of the issues we need to discuss more with respect to financing of campaigns is the practical terms. Why should you not be allowed as candidates to start raising money for your campaign that you can receipt locally on the day the writ is issued, rather than waiting till the day you're officially nominated? In many cases there's a week or ten days where, as candidates, it's not very practical for your campaigners to be out raising money and getting post-dated cheques. I think those are real issues that are practical to the cause.

The Chairman: Any other witnesses?

Can we go on, André, and come back?

• 2005

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I apologize to Mr. Crête. I don't remember whether your brief recommends specific measures such as maximum donations or other steps to introduce this practice progressively.

Mr. Paul Crête: We recommended that the Quebec model be used. The Bloc Québécois has to comply with certain contribution ceilings during election campaigns. We should be looked at closely, because the contribution ceilings have been raised in Quebec over the years. Political realities do exist, but I think it is essential to set some ceilings.

[English]

The Chairman: We'll move on. Stéphane Bergeron, then John Solomon.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): I have three questions, Mr. Chairman. The first is somewhat of a follow up to the question Chuck Strahl asked of the representative of the Liberal Party of Canada.

It is strange to note that, of all the parties present this evening, only one favours the appointment of returning officers, that is the maintenance of the current practice, whereby the appointment is made by the Governor-in-Council.

The brief presented by the Liberal Party of Canada concerns me a little. I see first that returning officers appointed under the current procedure are very competent. While we definitely cannot question the competence of some of them, we certainly can question the competence of others. Is competence determined by the number of years of work for the government party, or is it determined according to objective criteria that could be checked by Elections Canada?

Mr. Mercer was saying earlier that Canada has very mature, well-developed electoral practices. In the same tone of voice, he said that this was the best country in the world. We do not go to other countries to give them the best of ourselves, because we are dealing with countries with very elementary, rather archaic, electoral practices.

However, I should say that with respect to the appointment of returning officers, the electoral practices in Canada are still back in the stone age. The party in power appoints the returning officers, the people who are responsible for administering the electoral process in a riding. Why not leave the choice to an organized competition in which individuals who think they are qualified apply for the position and are judged according to a number of objective criteria? They would be selected objectively, and not very secretively, as is the practice at the moment. You may find out all of a sudden that the Liberal organizer in your riding has been named the returning officer.

I will start with this question.

[English]

The Chairman: Jack Siegel, Liberal Party of Canada.

Mr. Jack Siegel (Member, National Executive, Liberal Party of Canada): Perhaps I should begin by introducing myself. I may be mistaken, but I think I'm unique at the table in that I'm a volunteer. I'm a lawyer in Toronto, and I work in campaigns day to day. I've helped a couple of my colleagues over there in various matters.

The unique experience I have with returning officers, particularly as legal counsel for various campaigns when problems arise, is that the ROs with whom I have problems, particularly understanding how the system works and why we're making these various requests, are, without exception, those who don't have a background in politics in the field.

On the other hand, I've never had a problem with a diehard Tory who's taken on a position as a returning officer who recognizes that he has now done something that requires him to be objective and impartial.

In more than 20 years of dealing with grassroots elections, I have yet—and this is not only from my own experience but also from anyone I've spoken to in my own or other parties—to come across someone who has said, “That person appointed by such-and-such party has behaved in a biased fashion”.

• 2010

I have found mistakes made. I have been angriest, when I'm angry at a partisan appointee, at the ones appointed by my own party, quite frankly. During the last election I took a major run at one of our party's appointees just outside of Metropolitan Toronto.

The point is, it has nothing to do with party affiliation. When problems arise, and even the case that I'm raising arises, it is because they've not done this before. They got appointed because they've studied elections and they've persuaded a member, for whatever reason, that it is a good appointment.

There's nothing wrong with people without the background; it's the inadequacy of training that can only come from doing the election work in the field.

Quite frankly, I'd rather have you appointing, from your partisan perspective, someone who has agreed to behave in a neutral fashion than somebody who doesn't have the experience at all.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If I may, Mr. Chairman, the two are not mutually exclusive. It is quite possible to have someone who has some past election experience with some particular organization, and who has not been active in politics for a number of years. He or she nevertheless has the experience.

You seem to be saying that the experience with appointing returning officers objectively and impartially has not been conclusive. But let's take a look at what is going on in Quebec every day. In Quebec, returning officers are appointed completely impartially, without any political consideration. I must tell you that the Quebec electoral system is particularly well regarded throughout Canada, of course, but throughout the world as well.

I therefore come back to my basic question. What is there to prevent individuals with relevant election experience from applying for the position of returning officer, of going through the very open steps in the competition, and being selected by a very independent committee?

[English]

The Chairman: Jack Siegel.

Mr. Jack Siegel: A competition is something that I could not say is absolutely impossible. What I do see, invariably, is that, again, where somebody is there with their past partisanship on their sleeve, there is an added ability to behave in a manner that makes sure there are no accusations.

With all due respect, I was working as a scrutineer during the referendum vote on that day. In terms of how the Quebec electoral system worked I, again with all due respect, have never seen election officials behave in such a slanted manner.

The Chairman: Do any other witnesses want to respond to that?

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like to ask Mr. Siegel a question. Let us assume that you are a Member of Parliament who was elected two or three years ago, and that now an election has been called. About six months before the election, you find out that the returning officer for the upcoming election is none other than the person you ran against in the previous election. Do you think this shows due regard for the appearance of justice? Do you think, as a Member of Parliament, that you are being treated fairly, if the returning officer appointed is, by chance, the governing party's candidate in the previous election?

[English]

Mr. Jack Siegel: By and large, my experience with opposing candidates has not been so negative that I don't think they are capable of things. In fact, I think the history of a lot of political appointments over the years has been that people who run against one another develop some level of respect. A candidate I worked against in the local campaign I was most involved in last time would be someone I'd be happy to see in an official capacity.

The Chairman: John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All parties have made some very good recommendations, many that I think our committee should be looking at very closely. However, I would like to get a comment from all of the parties, if I could, on the Bloc's proposal with respect to putting a limit on contributions. They've proposed something around $3,000 and it would exclude corporations and perhaps even trade union contributions.

• 2015

Where would the parties come down on that, including the Liberal Party, Reform, the NDP and the Conservatives?

The Chairman: Does anyone want to respond first?

Reform Party, Deborah.

Miss Deborah Grey: I don't think we would support that.

The Chairman: Okay. Liberal Party.

Mr. Terrence Mercer: I should prejudice myself a bit, Mr. Chair, by saying that prior to becoming the national director of the party, I was the national director of fund-raising for the party. So I have an intimate knowledge of what Mr. Solomon speaks of.

We received donations from trade unions and corporations, but mostly from individuals. We had very few individuals donations above that amount. A limit is an interesting thought, but I don't necessarily agree with the $3,000 limit. It may be something we might want to talk about in the future.

Elections become more and more expensive every campaign, as you people know better than most, but I don't think limiting donations is the real answer. One of our biggest jobs as fund-raisers and as people who practise politics is to educate the Canadian public on the need for them to participate in the process by donating to the political party of their choice.

The Chairman: I'm assuming that the NDP and the Bloc don't need to reply.

Paul Lepsoe for the PCs.

Mr. John Solomon: The NDP need to.

The Chairman: Oh, okay. Can I go to Paul Lepsoe first and come back to the NDP?

Paul.

Mr. Paul Lepsoe: The royal commission did have a lot to say about party financing, and I guess that would be consistent with our presentation. I don't think a limit on donations can be looked at in isolation. Mr. Mercer is correct; there's a big problem about just how much it does cost to run national campaigns. I don't think we'd want that looked at in isolation, but if it were going to be looked at in the context of the royal commission recommendations, which looked at party financing quite extensively.... Well, we've already said the committee should look at that.

The Chairman: Thank you, Paul.

Peter Julian, NDP.

Mr. Peter Julian: We're in a very unique situation, because the bulk of our financing.... I guess I should use this moment just to mention that, coming out of the last campaign, we're in the best financial situation of any of the major political parties, and happy to be there. As a result of our 100,000 members and 250,000 affiliated members across the country, we basically financed the party with small contributions.

Certainly disclosure is a very important part of where we'd like to see the Canada Elections Act go. Presently there is fairly adequate disclosure in terms of corporate donations. But in the end, the reality for the party is that campaign limits, limits on contributions, wouldn't change anything for our party, given that the bulk of donations come in small donations from folks across the country.

The Chairman: Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Obviously, I would not say that we disagree with what we have said. That is not what I meant. What I mean is that in the federal election, for the Bloc Québécois, the maximum contribution was $5,000. We adopted the principle set out in the Quebec legislation, but the amount was up to $5,000.

The most important issue is whether or not people are interested in allowing only individuals to make contributions. That is the first question. As to the maximum contribution, that is a secondary matter in my view. If we say that only natural persons may contribute to political parties, I am convinced we will revolutionize politics in Canada.

If companies are allowed to keep on giving money, the amounts are very large because in my view, the influence of a company is very directly related to the amount it contributes during the campaign. No one can convince me that someone who gives $50,000, $100,000 or $125,000 will not get a more attentive hearing than someone who gives $25.

I think the way the lobbyist issue developed is quite significant in that respect. If we had that kind of constraint, the role played by lobbies in Ottawa would be completely transformed since elected representatives would be far less dependant on outside influences and more dependant on their members and their constituents.

• 2020

We are going through a funding campaign right now. Maybe it doesn't seem like much to you, but when you have to collect $10,000, $12,00 or $15,000 in a riding, that means knocking on 500 or 1000 doors. There are 150 or 200 special contributors who may give a somewhat large amount of around $100 or $200. That's not at all the same thing as a $25,000 cheque from a bank. Not at all.

[English]

The Chairman: John is next, briefly, because will go around again.

Mr. John Solomon: I have just a quick follow-up on the Liberal and Reform response. Some people perceive that if an individual or a corporation gives a political party $50,000, $86,000 or contributions of that level, there's a real opportunity for that donor to have significant influence on the party.

I'll have to ask Mr. Mercer, since he was involved in fund-raising in the Liberal Party, whether or not he believes contributions of that size to a political party from a company or a business influences the party in anything it does in the future.

My second question follows up on Deborah Grey's response. I'd be interested to know how the Reform Party believes financing should take place for political parties, if she doesn't agree with the broader-based proposal of the Bloc.

Mr. Terrence Mercer: Mr. Solomon, thank you for the question. I know I'm a witness as opposed to a questioner, but I could probably turn the question around and ask how influential trade unions would be in the New Democratic Party. In the New Democratic Party, as I understand the structure—and I've never been a member of the New Democratic Party—trade unions have a special place and indeed have delegates at the party's national conventions.

I have a national convention next week, Mr. Solomon, where thousands of Liberals will come from across the country, but none of them represent our corporate donors or the trade unions that donate to our party. The people who will be at the convention are the rank and file. Most of our donations come from individuals, and they're small donations. Our average donation is under $100, and we're quite proud of that. It means we're a broad-based party.

Do any of those people exercise influence over the party? People who have given large amounts of money to the Liberal Party over the years I haven't heard from since, so if they're trying to exercise influence over me or over the operation of the party, they have a strange way of doing it.

Miss Deborah Grey: Regarding the fact that that I said we do not support this kind of limit, I think if people really believe in something they have the right and the obligation, in terms of getting politically involved, to go ahead.

I echo the comment about the trade unions, when Peter talked about that. Do trade unions then filter cash down through their individual members, as it was referred to in the U.S.? I'm not sure. I would want to have assurance from the socialists that was not happening. If you're going to say, no, we do not take any large donations, I'd like to see how it filtered down to the individual level.

I think corporate donors should be allowed, too, but while we have had some corporate donations—and we have precious few corporate donations in our party—between 80% and 90% come from the grassroots level, with $100 here and $100 there. But we write letters to donors thanking them very much for their donation, and to please be advised that there are no strings attached, and there will be no pay-off for them.

The Chairman: Does anyone else want to comment on John's last question? We will be coming around again.

This question has taken us almost ten minutes. It's been a very useful discussion, by the way; I just think there are other topics.

Marlene.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): This is very specifically on the issue of who can contribute. My concern with the proposal put forward by the Bloc Québécois is not only that it eliminates corporations but that it also eliminates Canadian residents, individuals who are not yet citizens.

• 2025

First, I wonder why you would want to do that. Surely if we have new Canadians who are living here, working, paying taxes, sending their children to school, participating in every other way in Canadian society.... Part of becoming a Canadian is participating in the political process. I wonder why you would want to eliminate individuals like that from this way of participating in the political process.

I would like to have the views of the other parties on that point as well.

The Chairman: Could we start with Peter Julian?

Mr. Peter Julian: Just so I understand the question, could you repeat it?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The submission by the Bloc Québécois is that anybody who is not a voter not be allowed to contribute to a political party. That would eliminate a lot of people who are Canadian residents and fully participating in society in every other way except that they don't yet have citizenship.

My question really is to the Bloc Québécois. Why would they want to eliminate new Canadians from being able to participate in that way in the political process? I also want to know how the other parties feel about it.

Mr. Peter Julian: I'm not an expert on the Quebec electoral law. I can say I think Canadian residents do have the opportunity to participate and volunteer in political parties. As long as legally they are entitled to make a contribution, they should be able to do that.

[Translation]

I'd like to add that there are some aspects of the Election Act in Quebec that are not really advantageous. Let's take a look outside Quebec. Reference was made to the issue of the appointment of returning officers. We know for a fact that during the last referendum campaign, there were unfortunately a number of deficiencies in certain constituencies, mainly in Laval and the west of Montreal concerning the refusal of certain ballots. There were a number of irregularities.

Although the Quebec Election Act does contain a number of advantages, it is by no means perfect and some of its provisions are less positive. We must look at the Quebec legislation, along with that of other provinces and jurisdictions, to determine its best features.

[English]

The Chairman: Paul.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I'd like to answer the lady. It is a fact that the Quebec legislation refers to citizens but if as a result of this evening's discussion, it is decided that landed immigrants are also included in the next election, I think that it will be possible to come to some sort of agreement. At the same time we can feel we've made an important contribution to the quality of democratic life in Canada.

The saying is: “No taxation without representation”. It's the opposite that's taking place. If people are given a chance to elect members of Parliament, the people electing the members should be the ones authorized to fund election campaigns. Personally, I think that if there is a debate on this in the House, this matter could be discussed because there would already be a significant victory.

I think that Stéphane wants to react to what Mr. Julian said. I don't think there is any correlation. If there were problems in certain constituencies, and I say if there were, it has nothing to do with the fact that people are chosen by a democratic process on the basis of their ability. It has also done away with a lot of problems. If during the Quebec referendum the 125 returning officers had been systematically chosen by the party in power, this would have detracted from the credibility of the process. Thus, the 49.4% who voted yes and the 50.6% who voted no would have not accepted the result as easily. It's an impressive democratic model.

Even with a 0.5% difference, everyone accepted the result. People accepted the exact result the day after when it came out. If there had been 125 returning officers appointed by the party in power, the result might not have been as easily accepted but there has been no questioning.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm quite willing to go wherever the committee wishes, but it seems to me we should deal with a variety of topics.

Other witnesses on this? Have we said enough for you, Stéphane, with what Paul just said?

• 2030

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would like to add something.

[English]

The Chairman: Extremely short.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Siegel and Mr. Julian said something which I find very disturbing, as their comments clearly reflect misunderstanding of the Quebec Election Act. This misunderstanding is quite serious in that where there were problems, they were not the direct responsibility of the returning officer himself. There might have been problems regarding decisions taken by the scrutineers and clerks.

I must remind Mr. Siegel that in every polling division, there was a scrutineer representing the Yes committee and a clerk representing the No committee. In each polling division, in everyone of the 125 constituencies in Quebec, there were representatives of both sides at every table. If, as Mr. Siegel suggests, there are questions about the conduct of election officials, perhaps we should also look at the behaviour of the senior people in charge of both teams, of both options.

I'd like to come back to what Mr. Crête said. I think that is very important. Had there been 125 returning officers appointed by the government of Quebec at the time, everyone would have challenged the validity and the value of the referendum vote. Today, even with returning officers appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer in an open and objective process, people still make comments about the validity of the vote.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude on that point. It's not because you don't like the results of a referendum that you should criticize the process which led to that result.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have three questions, each of which can be answered in about 15 seconds.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: They tried to give us a hammering. We didn't get a hammering.

[English]

The Chairman: Ken Epp.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: They tried to give us a hammering.

[English]

The Chairman: Easy. Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Each of my questions can be answered in about 10 or 15 seconds.

I'd like to know whether you favour fixed-interval election dates—in other words, elections being held at regular intervals—and whatever your reason, I'd like to know your most profound argument for it.

The Chairman: Place all the questions at once, Ken.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

My second question is whether or not you feel the voters' lists would be more useful to you and more enhanced if the phone numbers were included on them. Should that be done?

Third, would you favour the use of voting cards? In rural areas particularly, some of our voters have to travel past polling stations to get to the one they're assigned to, which may be 10 miles away, passing the one that's 1 mile away. By presenting a voting card, they could vote in a number of different locations.

Those are my three questions.

The Chairman: We'll start with Terry Mercer and Paul Crête.

Mr. Terrence Mercer: Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify the last question. I didn't understand it.

The Chairman: The idea is, you have an identification card that would allow you to vote in any riding.

Mr. Ken Epp: Any polling station.

The Chairman: Is it any polling station in a riding?

Mr. Ken Epp: This is something we may want to look at in the future. I'm thinking along the lines of a voting card issued by Elections Canada to each individual, just like they send out their enumeration lists. It has an electronic identification on it such that the voter can go anywhere—

The Chairman: Okay, he's got it.

Mr. Jack Siegel: On the fixed dates, I think the most direct reason we would have some difficulty with that—and it's something I myself find organizationally appealing—is that in minority situations, if the government falls, we need an election. That's the strongest reason I can offer as to why that isn't the way to go in a parliamentary democracy as opposed to the American congressional model.

The Chairman: Next, voters' lists with phone numbers.

Mr. Jack Siegel: If this committee wants to put that forward, I will thank you, thank you, and thank you again. Absolutely.

The only argument that might be made out there would be by people who have unlisted phone numbers, but if this could be done centrally we would all benefit. We could communicate with the voters, which is what this exercise is about.

• 2035

With respect to voting cards, the only way to institute a voting card that avoids abuse—and I've done this in internal party elections and run into some significant trouble—is that if you issue a voting card, that voting card can be handed to somebody else. You go around and you collect the voting cards like you're collecting proxies for a corporate annual meeting and you do off. One person goes from poll to poll—because they're not allowed to vote more than once—so I vote in poll one....

If you go to picture ID, my concern would be the expense. It could get awfully expensive, because it's not the same as the driver's licence and it's not the same as your health card. It's a third photo process for something that takes place once every three or four years.

The Chairman: Paul Crête, Deborah Grey, or the Reform Party, and then the NDP.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: As regards elections on fixed dates, I would just say jokingly that when you are in opposition you are for fixed dates, but when you're in the government you want it to be the Prime Minister who decides. Even though I say that jokingly, that is nevertheless the reality of the situation. That is probably one of the advantages of winning an election, since the government in office can then decide the date of the next election.

It would be a major change to our British parliamentary system. There may be other kinds of parliamentary systems which can live more easily with that, but in our case at least, we would have to see what the impact was on the democratic balance since having a fixed date is very much to the advantage of the opposition. Would such a change impact on the democratic balance? I'm not sure whether that is the right way to go.

The Chairman: As regards telephone lists.

Mr. Paul Crête: With respect to telephone numbers, obviously hardly anyone is going to take the opposite position, but the issue has to be submitted to the Access to Information and Privacy Office. As you know, politicians are not the most popular people in Quebec, the rest of Canada or around the world, and not everyone would want his or her telephone number on that list. It's a little bit like those little green bags containing promotional and advertising material; there are a lot of people who prefer not to receive them. They might react the same way.

The Chairman: What about the cards?

Mr. Paul Crête: As regards voter cards, I must say that that problem... I myself am a member for a rural riding, and perhaps do not have the same kind of problems. If I understood correctly, there's no particular problem with the current system. As regards voting by mail, or with a card which can be filled in, away from the booth, or some other such system, those methods don't look very promising in terms of appearance of justice, if that's what we're looking for.

[English]

The Chairman: The Reform Party of Canada, and Troy Tait.

Mr. Troy Tait: Thank you very much. As far as the fixed election dates are concerned, we are very much in favour of them. The reasons for our support are pointed out on page 2 of our report. To save time for the committee, I'll leave it at that.

As for the phone numbers on the list, we would obviously be very much in support of them, as are the other parties. As has been pointed out by Jack, though, there has to be some concern for unlisted phone numbers. Other than that, there is no problem.

As far as voting cards go, again we would be in favour of this down the road. I think it would add a lot more flexibility for Canadians to be able to vote whether they're in any poll or riding wherever they are in Canada. I think that's a good move. We've also addressed that on page 12 of our report under electronic voting. It's a bit different, but on the same lines.

The Chairman: Peter Julian, followed by John Richardson and Bob Kilger, and then it's the second round.

Mr. Peter Julian: I'll start with phone numbers. Phone numbers are a very important tool to use with the voters' list to make sure that we can contact electors and supply them with the information they need to make the right decision. We would therefore certainly be in favour of that.

In regard to two other elements, on fixed election intervals, of course the party has always been in favour of increasing participation. It's a fundamental tenet of the NDP. I guess the problem I see, or the question that I would ask in regards to fixed intervals, is whether or not they increase participation.

I've been to the United States during election campaigns, and the reality is that where they have them, election participation is not greater, it's less. We know the famous example from the 1980s. Ronald Reagan was elected by a quarter of the American electorate. The turnout in American elections is very low.

This may be one of many contributory elements, but the reality is that fixed election intervals are not necessarily a panacea. If, in any event, we would bring on a lower level of participation than what we have right now, we would be opposed to it.

• 2040

So the question is, does it increase participation? If it does, it would be something we would certainly be in favour of looking at. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't be considered.

Finally, for voting cards, the same element. We would favour increasing participation in rural areas, of course. There are some advantages and disadvantages to a transferable voting card. We would have to look at the difficulties around that.

The Chairman: Paul Lepsoe, our other volunteer.

Mr. Paul Lepsoe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have very little to add to what has already been said.

About the phone numbers, I think all volunteers would dearly love to have them, but I really think the people, the voters, would object quite strenuously to that kind of information, every phone number in Canada, being on a CD or something. I think there would be a lot of objection to that.

To Mr. Epp's comments on the voting cards, this is probably an example of the sorts of things we were talking about, things that might be addressed administratively. If polling stations are being put in the wrong places and they are leading to the situations you are describing, it seems to me these are the sorts of things where the party should be sitting down with Elections Canada as a practical matter and asking why this is being done and what can be done about it.

The Chairman: John Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): I would like a clarification on the presentation by Mr. Crête. He threw some financial figures around and they don't draw the same as those from the other four parties here, who are representing the coast-to-coast-to-coast concept. It's a more concentrated basis of electioneering. It's contained in one province instead of nationwide. I just question what kind of factor one would put on them to put them onto a national basis for financing. I would discount those figures, because they were just for one province.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I just want the question to be put clearly, so that I can be sure I understand it. It says that figures on funding...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]... for an electoral system at the provincial level, as in Quebec, rather than at the national level in a large country like Canada.

Mr. Paul Crête: I see. I believe we should have this discussion internally. If the popular funding approach was approved in Canada as a basic principle, we would then have to establish an amount. That amount might be based on the cost of an average election campaign in a large country like Canada.

And since the government also provides funding for each voter, we have to think about the relationship between the two types of funding. There is a way of establishing a balance between the two. In Quebec, when there is a provincial election, the government provides a certain amount for each voter while the rest of the funding comes from citizens. I think this should be defined. We will of course have to make projections, but that is only after we approve the principle. Once we do that, we will have to talk about amounts.

[English]

The Chairman: Bob Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): I'll ask Mr. Mercer if he would possibly mind making an introductory remark on two recommendations in his brief, one on third-party intervention, the other on blackout provisions. Then I would like comments from representatives of all other parties at the table with us this evening on those two points.

Mr. Terrence Mercer: On the subject of third-party intervention, we're very much in favour of full participation of all Canadians in the political process, but under the same rules and under the same headings. We favour that those people who participate under the headings of the other political parties represented here.... I think we all play by the same rules. The rules that apply to third parties are not the same. We think this gives rise to special-interest groups exercising influence on elections.

I would contend, and I think I did so in my letter to the chairman, that in the most recent campaign the action by the Canadian Police Association was probably in contravention of the act as it relates to making false statements. It claimed that certain members of Parliament voted to free certain people from jail. You all know that was not true. The trouble with the situation is that it was directed, I think, exclusively at candidates for the party I represent.

• 2045

Somebody should take one of these third parties on, but nobody really wants to do that after the campaign, especially if you've won and especially if you look at the financing you require to mount a challenge that may indeed go to the Supreme Court of Canada. We are all supported by donated dollars and I'm not sure our donors would be anxious for us to be spending money going to the Supreme Court to fight groups like the Canadian Police Association.

Also, I think there's a great deal of reluctance on the part of the Chief Electoral Officer to adapt to some of the changes.

In terms of your second question, Bob, on the blackout provision, it gets very confusing. For example, the blackout provision for the candidate is one thing, then the blackout provision for the party is another, then on election day the party can advertise but the candidate can't advertise, etc. Let's get it straight. It's one or the other.

The only people who are confused by this and the only people who get themselves in a knot about this are the people who we represent, the political parties. On election day we read the newspapers and listen to the radios and we point the finger at the Reform Party or at the Conservative Party because we think they've broken the rules. We've wasted our time and we've wasted the time of Elections Canada in doing this investigation, because others have done the same pointing of the finger at our candidates. It doesn't make any sense.

Let's keep it open. Let's be able to advertise from the get-go right up until the close of the poll, or let's have defined rules that limit both the party and local candidates. To me, the fact that it's confusing allows us all to go through much too much work for very little gain, and probably absolutely no change in the rules on election day, when we accuse each other of contravening this particular portion of the act.

The Chairman: Any other witness?

Deborah Grey.

Miss Deborah Grey: Regarding third-party intervention, interest groups, etc.—and I think you're making specific recommendations, maybe, about the National Citizens' Coalition, who are just one example; I'm sure trade unions or other groups that want to make donations probably would fall into that category—when they are wanting to draw attention to anything, I think they should be given the chance to do that, whether it's the Canadian Police Association or any of these groups.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley, in his recommendations, said let's follow the guideline; if you choose to make those donations, then file a return, just like the political parties. Let's make it full disclosure, make it above board, make sure that people know exactly what it is, and just declare.

I think that's probably a wise thing to do.

Regarding the blackout, it seems to me that in the campaigns I have been involved in some well-meaning soul who is a volunteer and knows sweet nothing about all the ins and outs of the blackout period says, oh, I'll take this over to the newspaper. They get in their truck and away they go to deliver this ad, only to find out—when they didn't have a clue about it—that it was during the blackout period. Then there's big trouble, and we all spend time back and forth.

Nix it. I'd say all or nothing. I would have no problem with that. We're down to a 36- or 37-day writ period now. That is a very short time. People like my mother, who is not a political person, think all these ads are just insufferable anyway. She doesn't pay any attention to when they start, when they finish, when they're in or when they're out. In a 36-day writ period, if you're going to advertise, she says, well, I know we're into it now, and knows she's going to get bombarded on TV all the time.

These kinds of people pay absolutely no attention to the fact that the legality is thus. So just give 'er.

The Chairman: Paul Lepsoe.

Mr. Paul Lepsoe: With regard to the blackout, I personally feel I've wasted a lot of time in terms of helping out other volunteers by explaining the subtle difference between candidate advertising and party advertising for the purposes of the blackout. It's an absurd situation for any number of reasons, making these distinctions, and just technologically, a blackout is completely passé. The simplest thing to do is just to scrap it completely. Also, then there would not then be a distinction between political and third-party advertising.

• 2050

On third-party advertising, once again, the royal commission had a fair amount to say on that. Clearly, it's going to go on. It's neither realistic nor proper to talk about prohibitions. I personally am not sure how far you can really go down the road to even regulating it. Certainly, you have to make sure it's not a disguised breach of the spending limits on political parties and candidates, but I'm not too sure in this day and age how much more you can really do than that.

The Chairman: Peter Julian, Jack Siegel, and then Paul Crête.

Mr. Peter Julian: Briefly, on the blackout provisions, basically what we're dealing with is a legal limbo, given the Alberta Court of Appeal decision.

I agree with some of the previous comments on the blackout. It's a very confusing situation. It's confusing for parties as much as for candidates. We'd like to see clarity on the blackout provisions so folks know what the provisions are and that they apply equally to both parties and candidates.

It's the same thing with the third-party intervention. We're in a legal limbo, and hopefully this is something that will be resolved in time for the next election.

The Chairman: Okay. Jack Siegel.

Mr. Jack Siegel: It being the second kick for the Liberals, I'll take it very quickly.

It seems to me, though, on the blackout thing, the only point where it really matters is what we seem to treat as the cooling-off period on the day before and the day of the election. On the early writ stuff, if you're that well organized, more power to you. But on election day or whatever—just as we prohibit the publication of polls, there's some sense to that. Perhaps, however, it might be easier for the political process if you make that command to the media instead of to the advertisers, and say, “Thou shalt not publish”. They already know they can't publish a poll.

On the second point, in terms of this odd enforcement, I was nodding aggressively, Paul, when you talked about trying to explain the difference between the candidate and the party advertising. I can't tell you how many hours I've spent on the phone.

It seems to me Elections Canada can and should be encouraged to take a look at what the Supreme Court of Canada said last fall in the Libman decision, where the Supreme Court of Canada explicitly overruled Somerville and said the Alberta Court of Appeal got it wrong, and apply the law as it has been written and how it has been endorsed by the highest court in this land. That would simplify a lot of the difficulty that has arisen.

The Chairman: Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I think we do have some kind of consensus on advertizing. What's very confusing is what happens on the last day: identifying the candidate and not the party. So if the media make a mistake, we get into all kinds of difficulties. I think we should standardize all that.

As for third-party advertizing, since we are for donations and we believe that there should be less external influence, in line with the courts' decisions, of course, we should try to set things up so that such influence is minimized. Voters must be influenced by candidates and political parties, and we must attempt to minimize the impact of sometimes undue and artificial third-party advertizing during an election campaign.

[English]

The Chairman: Peter.

Mr. Peter Julian: I've already made my statement.

The Chairman: Bob, is that okay with you?

Mr. Bob Kilger: That's fine, thank you.

The Chairman: We'll go to Chuck Strahl, Ken Epp and Carolyn Parrish.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you. I think we are going to come to some agreement tonight. I mean, we all agree that the Saskatchewan thing has to be fixed, right?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So we are making progress.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Don't push your luck.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It is interesting that during the last revision to the Elections Act, it does say something about the parliamentary system that when we brought up that error in the system, the government refused to change it, because it was brought up by an opposition party, after all. That is interesting, but we won't dwell on that. It is interesting that now we all agree. That is good.

I am interested a little bit in why the Liberal Party is questioning the second recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer about nomination of candidates.

There was a case in my riding where a fellow was nominated. He changed his name to Mr. Tan and his first name to Sa, so that it appeared on the ballot as Sa Tan. That was his contribution to the system.

• 2055

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Chuck Strahl: He was a hot candidate. He had his own entourage. I won't get into the details, although it's a great story.

Anyway, he then went to about a dozen beer parlours, I'm guessing, looking at the signatures, and people put down their occupation as hashish dealers, pimps, whores, and what have you. So it was quite an interesting nomination sheet, when you got it in the end. He came to all the meetings, he had the horns on, and it was really quite...and not just because he was from the west. Not just because he was from the west.

He got 100 votes, too.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Chuck Strahl: My point is not that Mr. Sa Tan shouldn't be allowed to run. All the forces of good and evil were arrayed against me, and we still took 65% of the vote.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Something had to liven this up, Mr. Chairman.

I'm just wondering why you would oppose this particular measure, because in essence it deals with that problem.

What happens now, just so you know—and this is from being in the political process, Jack—is when someone submits their papers to the returning officer and he accepts them, that's it. You can look at the list and say, “Look at that: pimps, whores, and drug dealers are their occupations. This is obviously facetious”. But once it's accepted, it's a done deal and you can't unaccept it. He is a candidate. He's in like Flin.

This change here is a little bit personal for me, perhaps. I think anybody should be allowed to run, including Mr. Sa Tan, but he should have to go through a legitimate process, and part of that process, as the electoral officer says, is that there should be a better way of filing those papers.

You oppose the recommendation. I just wonder why.

The Chairman: Liberal Party first.

Mr. Jack Siegel: In short, it's because it adds a complication that I don't really see a need to add. It seems to me that if somebody can get 100 signatures, they can probably get 125 or 130 to cover the bases. But what about the situation of a badly enumerated riding, where we're cross-referencing the signatures against the voters' list and we're not finding these people, not because they're not electors, but because they didn't get enumerated or didn't register to get on to the new permanent register?

I run a lot of internal party elections, and we do permit review of nomination papers, and the amount of energy that gets expended in trying to challenge the validity of a signature is, to me, counterproductive. It seems we can all devote our energies to persuading people not to vote for the wacko instead of trying to undermine the mere fact that he's on the ballot.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just to let you know, this guy's campaign was to change Abbotsford to Abortsford, for more abortions, to sacrifice the virgins at midnight, and to defile the young women of the riding.

My point is, we can laugh about it a little bit, but I'm just saying there comes a time when you have to have a reasonable degree of certainty that Joe's Bar and Grill is not the main mailing address of everybody who lives in my riding.

The Chairman: Any other witness? No?

We go to Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: I have, again, several questions that would be quickly answered.

First, did your party, or candidates in your party, have hardships because of the shorter, 36-day campaign? Would you like to see it stay at 36 days, or would you like to see it lengthened or shortened further?

The second question I have is with respect to fund-raising. It's very restrictive to have fund-raising and the candidate being able to provide receipts for tax purposes and so on only during that very short period. Would you favour extending that maybe from election to election, making it a continuum, or, if we had fixed election dates, having it longer before?

Then my last question in this round is one of priorities. Of all the things we talk about and things that should be changed in the Canada Elections Act, for you, what would be the most important?

The Chairman: Who wants to start? I try to look around as well as I can.

The Liberal Party.

Mr. Terrence Mercer: I was doing fine until he asked the last question.

• 2100

With respect to the first two—I don't know if I'll have my answer for the last one right away—with regard to any hardship due to the 36-day campaign, yes, 146 of our candidates lost, and we know that in a longer campaign they would have won.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Terrence Mercer: In reality, though, Mr. Epp, no, we didn't find any great hardships with the 36-day campaign. It did compress things for us. It also, from a personal point of view, cut down the crazy time by two weeks for us.

I think we were able to respond, and our volunteers were able to respond. It was a little disconcerting, I think—and I'd be interested in hearing what other parties have to say—but in the first week, which would have been week three under the old system, there was a lack of activity because everybody was just gearing up and getting ready to go. Those of us who knew and were monitoring the 36 days realized that there was an awful lot of work that should have been done by then.

A lot of that I think will be eliminated in future elections by the fact that we have the permanent voters' registry. The closeness of the last enumeration with this last campaign sort of helped to carry us over there. I think when we get into the next campaign where we've had the permanent voters' registry—and we've been working with it for four years—I will get over my nervousness in that first week of the campaign.

In terms of your second question, on the extension of fund-raising, other than the fact that, as I stated earlier, I think candidates should be allowed to receipt money from the day the writ is issued as opposed to from the day they're officially nominated and your papers are filed with the returning officer, I think it makes no sense. It forces your fund-raisers to be a bit deceitful. Beyond that, no, we don't officially favour extending the fund-raising period for individual candidates beyond that 36-day period.

The Chairman: Next, Paul Lepsoe.

Mr. Paul Lepsoe: With respect to the length of the writ period, I think it was difficult for people to cope with this, this first time. It was a lot of reform that was jammed through at the very last minute, and frankly people weren't ready for it. But as we said in our brief, in principle our party is not opposed to it, and next time around presumably it won't be a problem.

With respect to fund-raising for candidates, just keep in mind that what we're talking about there actually are amendments to the Income Tax Act, and those provisions that are administered by Revenue Canada, not by Elections Canada.

In any event, yes, it does pose problems for candidates. It should probably be...I won't say “liberalized”, and I won't say “reformed”. It might be able to be dealt with administratively, though, just by the interpretation Revenue Canada actually takes over that provision, again just through some dialogue, because it does pose hardship for some candidates, unnecessarily.

The most important change? Well, for me personally, as Mr. Siegel picked up on, I spent probably too much time, in terms of Election Act administration, dealing with the niceties of the blackout, which I've already said I think is just a waste of time.

The Chairman: Deborah Grey.

Miss Deborah Grey: Your first question was on whether candidates have a problem with the shorter writ. I served in a large rural riding for eight years, and then ran and won in a city riding, this time. For rural candidates, with the absolute physical travel and the hours and hours it takes to travel around, 36 days turned pretty short, pretty fast. I of course ran in an urban riding this time, and I just could not believe how easy it was to get around and go from one subdivision to the other. I actually felt quite spoiled by being in an urban area; it was good.

Regarding fund-raising, receipts should be provided during the writ period, for sure. This business about when do we get our papers in, who's first, who's second—there's such jockeying for position and that. I think certainly the day the writ is dropped...and I just toss this around in my mind; I'm not sure what would be right or wrong. It seems to me that once a person is actually nominated, then you have the committee to elect Deborah Grey or whoever. Maybe that would be something to think about as well.

If I had one change, what would it be? As a candidate I'd like to learn to rollerblade. Instead of having been at 10,000 doors this campaign, I would love to have been at 20,000.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

• 2105

The Chairman: Peter Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian: We had some adjustments over the shorter campaign period this time around, but I'd say 36 days is about right, especially for folks in the central office. If you get through 36 days, you've had enough.

We've touched upon the whole question of nomination procedures, but not the second part, which is that nomination procedures should be simplified, One of the recommendations the Chief Electoral Officer mentioned. Given that the actual nomination period has been shortened, this is certainly a recommendation we would support, that the nomination procedures be simplified.

In our case, as a national party with 301 candidates across the country, 15 days is not a great deal of time to ask for them to get themselves nominated, set up their offices, etc.

On the second point, fund-raising and the tax receipting system, I agree with the other speakers on the writ period, but once the writ period, the election period, is finished, in our case our riding associations take over and the tax receipting process through our provincial sections works very well. I don't think there are any real reasons for extending the tax receipting system outside of the writ period.

In terms of your final question on what we would change, personally I think one of the key elements, which we've already talked about a number of times this evening, is the whole question of appointment of returning officers and the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to remove incompetent returning officers. That was a key issue in a number of ridings in the thirty-sixth general election.

We find it very important in working towards the thirty-seventh that a mechanism be put into place so that when there are clearly people who are in the position and are incapable of handling the workload they can be removed by the Chief Electoral Officer, who is the appropriate official for that.

The Chairman: Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: To my mind, the 36-day campaign is more in line with the way the media work today. It is a good change.

As for receipts, I don't think we need to make any changes there.

Obviously, for us, the most important measure in the next federal election would be one that meant we no longer needed to elect federal members of Parliament. But if that does not come about, we would be in favour of donations from the public, a subject our first witness spoke on at length.

[English]

The Chairman: Terry, as long as it's very short.

Mr. Terrence Mercer: I wanted to answer the third question that Mr. Epp had proposed, because as I indicated, I didn't have time to respond. I think that if out of this evening one thing could change it would be a more improved communications between Elections Canada and the parties that have representatives in the House of Commons, and the re-establishment of the ad hoc committee where we would be treated very similar to how Revenue Canada treats the accounting profession. Elections Canada should be treating those of us who are the professional practitioners of this game in that way.

The Chairman: Ken, thank you very much for the question.

We now have Carolyn Parrish and then Stéphane Bergeron.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I'd like to comment, because it's been frustrating to sit here and listen to Deborah talk about all the neat things she'd do to change the elections when I just have to ask questions.

First of all, I want to tell you that the maps stunk. They were the worst maps I have ever seen. There were no addresses, no street names on them. They were all but useless. They're the most disgusting mess I have ever seen, and there was lots of time to produce those. So that's one comment.

Secondly, on the nomination papers, I don't know what you'd do to fix that process. Both of my opponents, Reform and Tory, did not have the regulation number of proper electors. I didn't do anything about it, because if I had, everybody would have said, oh, there goes that big bully Liberal making sure she eliminates her competition. Instead, I beat them.

Neither of them had anywhere near the correct names, addresses and all the rest of it on their nomination papers. We checked them. So I don't know what you'd do to fix that.

I'd like to ask my own guys why they're concerned about the five-year changes in boundaries. As you both well know, I came from a riding that grew to 363,000 people before the election was called. The reason you give is something to do with, you know, not proper training for returning officers or whatever.

If you read the bill carefully enough, it talked about only changing boundaries in provinces that generated enough population change. It wasn't for the whole country. It even focused in on ridings very closely so that you weren't messing up the whole province.

• 2110

Because at 362,000 people, I was practically senseless by the end of the last term. This time it's down to 144,000, so I've got lots of time to cause you guys trouble and do all kinds of other things here that I couldn't have time to do before.

Here's my second question. I'd like the other parties to give quick answers on that boundary change, because I know Reform was on the committee when we did it. They supported it, and so did the Bloc.

As for the expenses, would any of the parties consider...? We dropped the election time down to 36 days, so I don't know why we don't drop the expense limits down. I think there's a lot of wasted spending going on in frantic sign erections and all kinds of other nonsense going on out there that's not necessary.

My expenses were 50% of my limit. It was a short, clean campaign. I didn't have to spend a lot of money. So instead of just spending like maniacs more and more every year, since we cut the time down, would you all consider cutting the expense limits down?

The Chairman: The Liberal Party of Canada.

Mr. Terrence Mercer: Well, Carolyn, if I can answer your second question first, on reducing expenses, I personally feel that would be the wrong way to go. It's becoming much more expensive to pay for the running of a campaign. It makes it more difficult to raise more money, because you have to raise more money at the local level. I appreciate that, but I think we have to streamline that process to allow it.

Consider my comment earlier about extending the period of time in which you can issue receipts as a candidate from the day the writ is issued, and I think Ms. Grey's comment, about the fact that if you're nominated from the get-go, maybe that helps as well. I think to run a campaign properly, we do need to properly finance it. Internal financing is something we all wrestle with. It's different in each party.

I personally would not see a need for us to reduce the limits. I think we need to monitor the limits. One of the interesting things—

The Chairman: Would that change affect the boundary changes?

Mr. Terrence Mercer: Boundary changes? Well, this is an argument we can go on with all night. While in principle I understand your argument, and I agree with the need to provide proper representation where there are major changes, particularly in large metropolitan areas, I think the rapid change does lead to a whole bunch of other things that happen.

Look at the final year of a parliament, when the boundaries are going to change. We watched it here not too long ago. Members of Parliament who were elected to represent a certain group of constituents a year prior to an election start to now represent a group of people who, in their own minds, never elected them. Many of them start to pay attention to who are not their constituents.

I appreciate the principle, but in reality, some of you in all parties started to pay attention to ridings you changed. I think that's a concern of mine. We need to find an easier way to make that transition.

The Chairman: Miss Grey.

Miss Deborah Grey: Regarding the redistribution, which is what Terry was just talking about, I can understand that with that many thousand constituents, you would want it sooner. The sooner, the better.

There's the fact that Terry said the whole process seemed to take such a long time with the last redistribution. Of course, it was a very premature election: it was after only three and half years. I think everyone just got caught in the middle of that, because there simply wasn't enough time.

I was the victim of a riding that was completely eliminated because of electoral boundary redistribution. I spent my last year in limbo saying to people that I was their MP, but that I really had no home any more, so I wasn't sure what was going to be happening to me. I felt pretty frustrated some days that I was just literally in limbo. I said that I was their MP, but the riding wasn't there any more because it was officially changed some time before the election.

Regarding expenses, do you cut the time and the money down as well? I think because of the shorter time you have to do a lot more advertising. Advertising is not getting any cheaper, so I think you have to spend your money wisely. There's nothing that says you have to spend the maximum, but I think because advertising is so expensive, and with the shorter amount of time, it's necessary.

• 2115

I did four complete literature jobs in the campaign, but I still felt that because I was a newcomer to that area, I hadn't saturated that market enough. We put a lot of money into advertising, and I think you need to do that a lot of the time.

The Chairman: Is there anyone else who wishes to answer Carolyn's questions?

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: With respect to changing the ridings, I should point out that before the commission we said that, by reorganizing ridings solely on the basis of demographic criteria, we encourage an exodus from the regions. I know full well that ridings in major cities contain many people. In rural ridings, however, people are leaving as it is. Let me give you an example. There used to be five ridings in eastern Quebec; now, there are four. That means there are only four members, not five, to uphold the interests of the region in any party or caucus.

By making the regions less important, we are encouraging people to leave. I think geographic criteria should be given much more weight. The physical size of a riding should be given more weight than it is now.

As for the proposed advertizing budgets during an election campaign, I consider them quite reasonable, particularly if we take rural ridings into consideration. We don't have the myriad of posters that you see in Toronto or Montreal. Just putting up posters and billboards in some areas is fairly expensive. These factors will have to be taken into account. Urban ridings and rural ridings are extremely different. I don't know whether that will mean amending the figures in some way.

[English]

The Chairman: Paul, then Peter.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Lepsoe: I have nothing to add.

[English]

Mr. Peter Julian: Just on the expense limits, it was the NDP caucus in the minority government of 1972-74 that forced the government of the day to bring in expense limits per riding and the new Elections Act that was brought in at that time. We felt very strongly about campaign spending limits in ridings.

I'd say the level of spending is appropriate right now for ridings. Despite the fact that the campaign is shorter, there are additional requirements for a shorter campaign in terms of getting the message out and communicating to electors.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron—and I think this is our last question.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: First of all, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the Chief Government Whip, I would like to reformulate the last sentence in my previous intervention. If the outcome of the last referendum did not disappoint you, it surely terrorized you.

That being said, I have a question for the Reform Party representatives, because there was a small passage in their brief that I find quite intriguing. It says:

... we recommend that [...] seats should be divided on the basis of the ratio of that province's population... which seems to me quite logical, taking into account the reservations expressed by my colleague,

...to Quebec, which would have as at present 75 seats.

I find it a little curious that we say on the one hand that seats will be divided on the basis of the population and, on the other, that a certain number of seats should be set out for Quebec. In the opinion of the Reform Party, should the 75 seats be allocated to Quebec regardless of the growth or decline of its population? If yes, I would conclude... No, I won't draw any conclusions at the moment.

[English]

The Chairman: The Reform Party of Canada, and Troy Tait.

Mr. Troy Tait: I want to make sure I get your question right.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I only want to know what you mean by this.

Mr. Troy Tait: Constitutionally, Quebec is guaranteed 75 seats. Not every province is guaranteed a number of seats.

Miss Deborah Grey: So make the correlation proportional. If Quebec is guaranteed 75 seats, then for every other province it would be wise to have a correlation like that.

Mr. Terrence Mercer: Using the Quebec model.

Mr. Troy Tait: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So, seats would be distributed in the different provinces on the basis of a number of voters per riding based on Quebec's 75 seats.

• 2120

[English]

Miss Deborah Grey: If you're using 110,000, plus or minus 15%, then if you're talking about representation by population, and if Quebec is guaranteed those 75, do the math and go accordingly.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So, as far as you are concerned, this recommendation is not intended to guarantee a minimal level of members for Quebec. The notion is simply to take the 75-seat threshold which has been determined, it seems in the Canadian Constitution and to use the same ratio to decide the number of seats that should be given to each Canadian provinces. In that case, why not use Prince Edward Island's ratio?

[English]

Miss Deborah Grey: There's not very many people there.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, I agree, but since both are constitutional provisions, why choose the one that refers to Quebec?

[English]

Miss Deborah Grey: As I understand it, those seats were guaranteed in the Constitution. There may be other provinces that might question that, but if you want to start talking constitutional amendments.... I'm not sure everyone in the country is thrilled about that right now. If you're going to open the whole thing up....

As it is now, you have the guaranteed 75. Carolyn here has a riding of 360,000 people. If you're looking at 110,000, plus or minus 15%, I mean, you need more than rollerblades.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So, if I understand correctly, basically your recommendation would have the short term net effect of reducing Quebec's number of seats in the House of Commons to far less than 25%.

[English]

The Chairman: Anyone else?

I want to thank the representatives of all the parties represented in the House of Commons at the present time for taking the time to be with us today and for making the presentation.

For your information, we solicited written briefs from all registered parties. We have received one or two briefs from unregistered parties in written form.

We appreciate this input. We are hoping to move on this matter in a very steady fashion in the next period of time.

For the benefit of members, our next meeting is tomorrow at 11 a.m. It's the same order of the day. Our witness will be Peter Milliken, whose main topic will be his experience with the Lortie commission. We will have here the summary of the Lortie commission. Our other witness will be Jean-Guy Chrétien.

That concludes the meeting. Thank you very much.