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]

Thursday, May 7, 1998

• 1112

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, I think we will begin.

As you can see from the agenda, the order of the day is the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 36th general election, issued pursuant to the Canada Elections Act, R.S.C., c. E-2, subsection 195(1), and in accordance with its mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi), examination of the Canadian electoral system.

I think and hope that it means we have a fairly simple meeting before us, although I hate to say such things with this group.

At our last steering committee meeting, the committee agreed on a strategy for dealing with our responsibilities with respect to the Canada Elections Act. As you all know, we have received a variety of witnesses, our colleagues from all parties, the parliamentary parties and the officials of the parliamentary parties. We have received written briefs from non-registered parties and from many of the registered parties that aren't represented in Parliament and so on. We have received the report of the Chief Electoral Officer. We were presented with a good deal of additional information from previous committees. For example, we had the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, the Lortie commission, and we had the recommendations of the House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform and so on. We have put a good deal of time into it, and we have a mass of information before us.

My purpose today is to try to take all members of the committee through the strategy that was accepted by the steering committee the other day. At the risk of boring members of the steering committee, that's what I intend to do.

If you could look first of all at the piece of paper that you have, which is dated April 30, it's addressed from myself to members of the steering committee and is called “Electoral Reform: Proposed Workplan”. That's one document you have. Later we will proceed to the other document you have, which is entitled “Preliminary List of Electoral Issues”. If you'll just look, I'll move quickly through this, and please stop if there is something you think I've missed.

• 1115

First of all, on the first page of the memorandum to the steering committee it points out the mass of material that we've received, all the issues that are before us. It also points out that a part of our mandate is to take advantage of the freshness of interest following the last general election, so that we can use that energy to make appropriate changes to the Canada Elections Act, rather than leave them to the hurried situation toward the end of a mandate, which has happened in the past. On page 2 in English it mentions again some of the groups, and so on, that have appeared before us.

Section C is very important for today and for our strategy. A key part of it is that we should table a report to the House of Commons before the House rises this summer, and that means from the point of view of our work we have to aim for a target date of mid-June. This means, by the way, getting a great deal of work accomplished before that target date, in order that we can produce a report we can have some idea on.

So the suggestion here is, and the steering committee agreed to this, that this report may well contain items on which there is no consensus here, and I think that's an important consideration for us all. It means, by the way, that if we get engaged in debate and if we have accepted the strategy, I'm going to say it seems to me there's no consensus, there's no agreement on this, and we're going to put it in the report on that basis. So that's important to our strategy.

I'm on the workplan now. It mentions Mr. Kingsley was supposed to appear. The suggestion is we postpone his appearance and it goes on to suggest that we spend the rest of our time at our regular meetings discussing electoral reform—in the meetings that are available.

So one part of the strategy is that we have a report that includes issues where there is consensus, or where there isn't. That's important. The next part of the strategy is that we take this mass of material we have and group them—in English this is at the top of page 3—in order that we can approach this matter in a structured, focused fashion, so that we can pace ourselves to produce this report we've agreed we're going to try to deal with. So part B of the paper you have before you deals with the approach to that.

The first part, B.1, suggests we agree that issues currently being challenged before the courts we will put aside. We might discuss, when the report is being published, whether they should be mentioned in the report, although there's an argument that even mentioning them in the report might create bias in the courts. On the other hand, they can be put aside as a group, as one group.

Secondly, this is item B.2, items that involve a change of the Constitution or significant changes in statutes other than the Canada Elections Act should also be put aside. By the way, as it says here in brackets in the middle of B.2, it might be that we would recommend that a special committee consider one or more of those issues, or it might be that we recommend we ourselves take up those issues the next time. By the way, such a recommendation would be included in our report, and in each of these cases you see examples in the paragraphs that I'm citing here.

So that's the second group. We have those being challenged by the courts. We have those that are constitutional and involve substantial changes to legislation. They're sort of in boxes, if you like. And then number 3 is described here as “administrative issues”, and the term is just one we can use so we can refer to them. The types of issues are those that are listed. Examples are given at the end of paragraph 3, and the suggestion here is that we refer these administrative issues to a committee, which, as it says there, Mr. Kingsley has already indicated he's going to revive.

• 1120

In years past there was a committee that included representatives of the parties, and that worked with the Chief Electoral Officer. It was then called the ad hoc committee. Mr. Kingsley has indicated before our committee that he is going to revive that committee.

The suggestion here is that we produce a list of administrative items and we refer them to that committee. By the way, during the coming weeks, we'll see what that committee has done. If they have not finished with them, then in our report we'll say so. We'll say that committee will continue to deal with those administrative items and that we'll be reporting on such and such a date.

So there are three areas: court challenges, major constitutional types of issues, and then these administrative issues. The ideas can be best dealt with by our officials in our parties and the Chief Electoral Officer.

That brings us down now to three categories. The first is referred to here as technical issues. Again, the term is simply for convenience. We have administrative and technical issues. In this case, the issues are technical and fairly non-controversial.

The idea here is that we will produce a list of these items. That list, with some appropriate phrasing, is taken by each party here, and the parties work on those items. You'll see when we get to the next part of the agenda that we have a suggested list and phrasing. The parties would indicate where they stand on those technical issues. That material would come back to us and would be included in whatever form. By the way, it might still include no decision from a particular party and that would be included in our report as technical issues. That would be done while we are dealing with the last two categories.

Now, in English, we're on page 4, number 2, substantive issues. Again, by the way, so you know what that means, if you look at the end of the paragraph, there are some examples. These are substantive issues that have arisen that we feel can be grouped together. That's one.

Then there are financial issues dealing with electoral financing that also can be grouped together. The suggestion is that we take the substantive issues and devote a week—that's two of our meetings—solely to those issues. We'll look at them. We'll keep our debate to those issues. We'll go through them. Again, where there's not agreement, we'll say there's not agreement. Where there is or where something is important, we want to emphasize it. We'll deal with them. At the end of that week, we would proceed to the second group, which would be the electoral financing issues, and we would devote two full meetings—that's a week of work—to those.

By the way, there's a last thing at the end, item C. We have had here as an observer a representative from Elections Canada, Mr. Jacques Girard, who has been sitting as an observer at our meetings. The suggestion in here is that he be invited to the table for our future meetings on this topic. He would be here not as a witness, but as a resource person. That's in there simply so that we can keep the thing moving.

The intent there, if I might interpret what the steering committee thought, is not that we constantly turn to Mr. Girard to ask him questions. We'll continue with our debate, but where we get stuck, if he can help us, he's there as a resource person. So the suggestion is that he would join us at the table, as he is here at the moment.

As for the last part under item C, with respect to the substantive issues and financial issues, it says that each party here could in fact bring in experts to sit as staff if they wish. This would be quite appropriate and they would help us move along the discussion.

Colleagues, if you think about that, it means that next week, if we accept this, we would deal with, for example, the substantive issues. The week after that, we'd deal with the financing issues. We would start the other procedures, such as the list going to committees and parties, as soon as we possibly can.

I would welcome comments on this. I hope for the steering committee members that this is a reasonable interpretation of what we agreed on.

Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I just want to compliment the steering committee. I think it's a very complex issue. I think you've organized this in a doable fashion. I looked at the task, and I wondered how the heck we were ever going to do this. I think this organization is perfect.

The Chairman: I appreciate that. As chair, I will need your support. Obviously, I usually won't be involved in the debate, but it's going to be my job to try to keep us on track, and I ask for your support in that.

• 1125

Are there any other comments on the procedure? Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): I just hope we can get through this much stuff in a few meetings.

I have a small problem on the referral of the administrative issues to the party and the technical issues or whatever we're going to send them. If we want an answer back from these people in a couple of weeks, our party convention is coming up in a couple of weeks, so I hope they can put some resources into doing that. They have actually done a submission to the....

The Chairman: There's a great deal of work behind us on this. I know it looks overwhelming. It overwhelmed me, because I had all the documents in front of me. It's not that we're skimping. The work has sort of been done, and we have to somehow bring it together into a useful report in order to maintain the momentum the committee's had so far.

Is that all?

Jacques Girard is now with us. We welcome you. At the meetings where this is the topic we will be delighted to see you at the table with us.

I might also welcome our colleague, Elinor Caplan. Elinor will be standing in for Bob Kilger, who is now home, as I think his colleagues know, and we hope is recovering well. Elinor, we're glad to have you as a permanent substitute, from the point of view of this time. Thank you very much.

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Thank you.

The Chairman: Let us proceed then to the list in English, which is the preliminary list of electoral issues. This is part of what we're doing. It's still organizational, because it has to do with how we operationalize what we've just discussed. They're clipped together here in the order I mention them in the briefing. The first list is a draft list of issues before the courts.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I'm just going to go up to see if there's a quorum call.

The Chairman: By all means.

This is a draft list, and as far as I'm concerned it can be updated at any time. As our discussions proceed we may say that actually sounds like something that should go on list so-and-so. I'd like you to look at that, because at the moment we're not going to circulate this one at any place. When we get to items like this I'm going to say that's an issue before the courts and we have an understanding that we're not going to deal with it. Right?

An hon. member: Right.

The Chairman: Okay. Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That sounds good.

I didn't mention in the steering committee my concern about the electoral boundaries readjustment issue. I realize it is before the courts in one province at least. Does that mean we can't deal with it under the substantive issues? Maybe we could agree—not about times past but from now on—what we want to do. I think we could come to an agreement on that. There need to be some changes. It is something Mr. Kingsley commented on, I believe. Can we not comment on it if it's before the courts?

The Chairman: If you raise that when we get to substantive issues, I will then have some sort of an independent opinion on it, because obviously we can discuss anything we like. This is the Parliament of Canada. We have to give thought to how we're affecting the court case.

If you were to raise that, I would say there it is. But in this case we'll have an opinion, I will give you that opinion, the committee will think about it and we'll see how we proceed. One opinion I have received is that even by mentioning these things it apparently affects the legal process. But I'm not a lawyer. Okay?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. The other ones seem quite different to me, like the voting rights of inmates. That will be a charter challenge kind of thing.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: This other one is, you know....

The Chairman: Okay. Could we take a five-minute recess while we complete quorum, or should the Liberal members just leave?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I don't know.

• 1130

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Yes, but we have work to do here in committee, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, well, you can leave.

Let's continue. I think your point's made. Are you comfortable with that?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I think so. I will raise it again under the substantive issues.

The Chairman: I realize that, and I'll be ready for it at the technical level, and the committee can be ready for it.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I obviously don't want to compromise a court case. It just seems to me that because it is an issue, because it has been dealt with.... I think Mr. Kingsley talked about the boundaries readjustment in his report, didn't he?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, so it's already part of the public debate.

The Chairman: If we could go, then, to the draft list of issues requiring constitutional amendment, again, I make exactly the same point. This is not a list we're going to circulate. It's going to be a list that is sitting here. It may be that we would take something off it or add something to it during our discussions, but I would have it here, and when an issue comes up I would simply draw your attention to the fact that we agreed on this draft list. Okay?

The draft list of administrative issues, so-called—and you see it's in quotes there, because I tried to make the point before that I don't want some debate on whether it's administrative or technical, or something like that.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether I understood you correctly. It appears that we are going to proceed directly to the administrative issues, whereas I understood from Chuck's comments that we would reserve the right to comment eventually on the draft list of issues currently before the courts and the draft list of questions requiring a constitutional amendment or some other substantive changes. As far as I'm concerned, if no one proposes any amendments on constitutional issues, then there will never be any changes.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. I can again comment on that. Obviously the committee can put in the report whatever it likes. We can certainly, with respect to the constitutional ones, mention them very clearly and firmly in the report with recommendations and things like that.

I think, Stéphane, on the question of the matter before the courts, we should be very careful before we do that. That's the difference. On the administrative list it is a bit different in this respect. We can put things on it or take them off, but we will have sent it to Mr. Kingsley and his committee, whereas the other two lists are going to be here. We could communicate with Mr. Kingsley's committee and say we want it taken off, we're going to deal with it, but we would have to do that. In that sense, the administrative list is different from the other two. Is that okay?

[Translation]

Are you okay with that André?

[English]

If I could continue, the same points I would make with respect to the draft list of technical and non-controversial issues, which is on page 4 in both the English and the French. Again, I would repeat, we can add—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but are you saying that we are referring the draft list of administrative issues to the Chief Electoral Officer and to his advisory committee?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I see. Basically, are these issues that we are asking the Chief Electoral Officer to settle in consultation with the advisory committee?

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, with the advisory committee, as you have called it, which includes the representatives of all the parties.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Let me repeat my question. Are we referring these questions to him so that he can deal with them along with his advisory committee?

[English]

The Chairman: Exactly. In fact, Stéphane, I would say we're referring it to the committee. We're not referring it to the Chief Electoral Officer, we're referring it to a committee, which he is convening, of representatives of our parties, yes. Okay?

[Translation]

Are you all right with that, Stéphane?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: The thing there is, Stéphane, if I could explain one more thing, it seems to me these administrative items did not require legislative change.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Fine. Mr. Girard, regarding the item "mobile polls" on the draft list of administrative issues, in your opinion, what action do you feel is warranted on the part of the Chief Electoral Officer ? Does the problem lie with the very nature of a mobile poll or is the problem the practical enforcement of the relevant legislative provisions?

• 1135

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane, I'd like to answer that instead of Mr. Girard, if you don't mind, because this is on our list. It's there because this was raised in our previous hearings. It is something that came up in the committee from witnesses or from wherever, and we've put it on the list and are asking the advisory committee to look at it. If you go back into the minutes of our meeting, it was raised by at least one witness—I think, Stéphane, we could find it—and that's why it's on. This is not a list we have picked out of the air. These are issues—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, I'm not saying you picked this list out of the air. I'm simply wondering why mobile polls is an item on the draft list of administrative issues. What seems to be the problem with mobile polls? In my view, the problem is much more than an administrative one. Why is this included in the draft list of administrative issues?

[English]

The Chairman: It's there simply because it was raised here and it's “administrative”—in quotes—because it does not require legislative change.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I don't think we're getting through to each other, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. We'll have the researcher explain.

Mr. Jamie Robertson (Committee Researcher): I believe we put it in two places, because some of the issues that were raised were technical administrative issues that can be resolved by Elections Canada outside of legislation. Other members, however, did raise other issues about the mobile polls and how there is a potential for undue influence, which is a legislative issue, so it would come up also under substantive issues.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: A little later on. Excellent.

With respect to administrative issues, what seems to be the problem with mobile polls?

[English]

Mr. Jamie Robertson: My recollection was that it was partly where they were located, and also the procedures at the polls—not what the law requires, but how the returning officers were administering the mobile polls.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Fine. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: That's a good example of how we're going to have to proceed. I understand these lists are for convenience. They're not, by the way, to reduce discussion at one end, in debate here in the committee.

So the administrative issues go to the advisory committee. Then let me proceed to the draft list of technical and non-controversial issues. This is the list that each of us will take to our party officials here on the Hill. In this case it's not going to be just a list where we say discuss this and come back to us. It's going to be a forum so that the parties can respond. The material that's coming around now helps you with that.

Of the two pieces of paper you've been given, I would ask you to look at the one that begins “The following issues have been tentatively identified as administrative”.

[Translation]

Does that answer your question, Stéphane?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, but I do have a question for our researcher. The document contains a reference to recommendations, but the very brief list that we have here does not contain any recommendations. For example, mention is made of Saskatchewan voting hours. We need to know the nature of the recommendation being made in order to agree or disagree with it. I have no problem with the voting hours in Saskatchewan, but what are they? Are we talking about before, after or during?

[English]

Mr. Jamie Robertson: It's not yet complete. The idea was to have this preliminary list for today's meeting, and if there is general agreement, I will provide by next week a complete list of what the recommendation would be.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Okay.

• 1140

Mr. Jamie Robertson: The recommendation would be specific, and the party could then decide, yes, we agree, or we agree with the following change.

The Chairman: This is on the technical one now?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Yes. The technical changes would be elaborated so that the full recommendation would be available.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Therefore, this is not a list that is going to be submitted to the parties, but rather a list of recommendations that will be submitted to us in several days' time.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes. Is that okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Can I again go to the one that deals with administrative items. It begins “The following issues have been tentatively identified”. This is a draft of the sort of instruction that will go to the advisory committee from us with our list of administrative issues. It simply directs them, gives them an idea of what they're supposed to do, and indicates that, by the way, we retain an interest in them and an influence over them.

Is that okay? That's the administrative one.

Then there is the technical one: “The following issues have been tentatively identified as technical or non-controversial”. Stéphane was discussing that, and you will see this is the draft. To give you an idea, it's going to be a form, which is different from the other one—not just a list, a form. We will take it to our parties. There will be a recommendation, and it will say “yes”, “no”—you see how it's indicated here—and then “discussion”. They will be able to attach discussion if they wish.

Stéphane.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Getting back to the list of administrative issues, a decision was made to consider these particular issues as being of administrative nature. This would include all of the issues found here on page 3 which we have just agreed upon.

[English]

The Chairman: That's right.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: We have agreed to the list, not to the recommendations—that kind of thing.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We don't have any recommendations about page 3. We deferred those questions to the chief electoral officer and to the advisory committee.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Right on.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So they will make recommendations after that.

On this second sheet we had only the list of those items.

The Chairman: That's right. And the advisory committee will have access to records of our meetings, the briefs presented to us. When the advisory committee finds one of these topics, they will look at it in the light of discussion that has taken place in this committee and in the light of briefs we have received. Okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, but we would have a better idea of what to expect, as you said earlier.

Do you have any idea right now of what this advisory committee will look like? Will the members of the committee be party officials or MPs?

The Chairman: Mr. Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard (Director and Registrar of Political Parties, Legal Services, Elections Canada): On Monday, we sent a letter to the executive directors of all registered political parties, not only those parties represented in the House, or to those persons whose name appears in the register, inviting them to come to an initial meeting or to designate someone to attend the meeting on their behalf. We indicated that one of the topics of discussion at this meeting, which is scheduled for Friday May 15, will be the mandate of this consultative committee and its modus operandi. Of course, we realize that we will have to make some adjustments.

For example, if a number of computer-related questions arise during a meeting, the executive director of a political party might not necessarily be the best person to discuss such matters. It will be up to the parties to choose the persons who can best represent them. Someone from your party told me that she would be designating a party representative to attend next Friday's meeting.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. For our colleagues, at the end of the meeting I'll take you through what it is you've missed here.

If we could go then to the draft list of substantive issues.... This is the draft list. Again, like the others, it can be changed as our discussion develops. The suggestion is that this is the list of topics we will be dealing with next week. There will be two regular meetings next week, and our focus in those meetings will be these topics.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Where are they, Mr. Chair?

The Chairman: It's page 5 of the thing you have in your hand, Rey.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you.

The Chairman: John Solomon.

• 1145

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. On page 5, under “Register of Electors”, I'd like to add “occupations”. The reason I say this is because many provincial lists do have occupations. What we have to end up doing with our lists is merging the provincial lists with the federal lists so we can have an accurate compilation of information. They also use it as a check, because if there's a person with the same name and the address and so on, they can use the occupation as a further check for voting purposes. I think it's an important piece of information for elected officials to have, for many reasons. So I'd like to add that, please.

The Chairman: John, I appreciate it.

It is my sincere hope, if this is the focus of our discussion next week, that we all take it away, look at the list, and when we arrive we very quickly can dispose of the matter of whether something should be on—something else—or whether something should be taken off—it shouldn't be on this list. We can deal with that and then we can discuss the topics. So I've made a note of that and I want to get to it.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Do you want us to do that right away or next week?

[English]

The Chairman: As long as we can do it quickly at the beginning of the next meeting, it's my hope that people will take the time to read this. We'll come back on Tuesday, but if you have suggestions now, Stéphane, that are short, I think—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The date of birth.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Sure.

Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just on the process here, Peter, looking at the substantive issues, we've got three and a half pages here. We're going to have two meetings devoted to this. I'm really worried about getting bogged down on this. Are we going to have recommendations before us on each of these as well as on the...? The only reason I say that is if you start with the appointment of returning officers, everybody spends two minutes on that and that will be 15 minutes, if we all agree with it—and we won't.

We won't even get to point—I'm just worried that.... If we had something before us and we said Mr. Kingsley has recommended changes on the appointment process, there was consensus from four or five witnesses, do we agree it should change, and then quickly go through it.... Aren't we going to get bogged down?

The Chairman: No. Again, the steering committee—we know this—is.... I'm hoping not so much to have recommendations, but when we come to deal with, for example, this list, Chuck, I will have some ideas of how they might be dealt with. Something might be dealt with very quickly; something else might become a focus of our discussion. Many of these items we have discussed already at considerable length.

By the way, going back to my remark, if in fact the sense is there's going to be no agreement, we are simply going to say that's what we've agreed to: no agreement.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. What I'll likely do, if that's the case, if there isn't going to be time.... If I was thinking politically here—not that I would—I would make up a motion for every single one of these. I would say, Peter, I move that all returning officers be selected by the chief electoral officer. That's my motion. Debate? Let's get at it.

Otherwise, if it's “what does everybody think”, we'll say, well, it has some pros and some cons. I could get 15 minutes out of that first one.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: May I make a suggestion? Since the issues on the list have already been raised by the parties or by the witnesses or MPs who appeared before the committee, rather than wait for proposals from the floor, which could take a considerable amount of time, perhaps we could attach a recommendation to each issue. For example, when the witnesses discussed the appointment of returning officers, they more than likely made some recommendations.

Why don't we group them together? For instance, our initial recommendation could be that returning officers should be appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer. Secondly, we could recommend that the status quo be maintained. We could then put the first recommendation to a vote, then the second and so on. This would go much faster than having to wait for recommendations to be drafted. If we receive additional recommendations from the floor, by all means we will consider them. However, we should already have a list of recommendations ready for each issue, recommendations arising from the testimony presented to the committee. We could then analyze, vote on and dispose quickly of each of the recommendations.

• 1150

[English]

The Chairman: I'd sooner not discuss this any further.

That's a bit stricter than I had in mind. I did have a strategy in mind. But when we appear here for the first meeting, I'll try to have a proposal that incorporates the discussion we've just had.

I do understand how difficult it's going to be for us to deal with all this material, but I hope we've agreed we're going to do it.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: On the right to strike for election officials, I think we should just say the committee does not believe election officials should have the right to strike during an election period, if that's the recommendation. Then you could say, “There's a recommendation. Does anybody have a real problem with that?” If not, then you, Mr. Chair, could take the vote.

The Chairman: Again, it's a way of structuring it that is a bit stronger than I had thought, but I'll give it very serious thought.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, I would like to follow on what Chuck just raised, because it's a very valid point in terms of how we hope to finish a very extensive list of items and issues of varying nature. Appointment, right to strike—some of these will encompass many different public policy issues.

My question is, are we trying to amend the existing law?

The Chairman: The agreement at the beginning of our document, the target of all of this, is that we're going to produce a report that will be finished before the summer and will include items on which there's no agreement—in other words, so that we take advantage of all the work the committee has done so far.

To be honest with you, Rey, if we don't, I have a terrible fear that we're not going to move on this Canada Elections Act stuff. As I said at the beginning, at the moment there's a momentum to do this, and we're trying to encompass that. So, for example, on one of these items, if it gets very controversial, we can just say the committee considered this and could not reach a consensus. Do you see what I mean? Otherwise all the material, the mountain of material, we've dealt with is just going to remain a mountain.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Okay. If I read you correctly, then, some of these things are in the Canada Elections Act itself and some of them are already working, and perhaps the witness will reconfirm to us that they're working. In that instance, do we need to change, and why do we have to discuss that issue?

What I'm afraid of here is that we are starting from a proposition I'm not clear on.

The Chairman: Okay. Rey, I can take you through it afterwards, but the first part of the meeting was dealing with that. We've in fact taken the material that's before us and put it into various categories. We're simply dealing now with the two categories that are going to be the subject of our next four meetings.

These are things that were raised for us in one way or another. They are not things I picked out of the air or anything like that. They're all mentioned in our material. Some of them are more important than others—we know that—but in all honesty, we tried to list the things that have been raised, and these are substantive issues to which we have agreed the committee will devote two meetings.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Okay. I have one last point, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Yes?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: When we look at these issues, will we have the privilege of examining these issues to the extent that these are now in the Canada Elections Act, or not? If not, then the process will be incomplete.

The Chairman: Our strategy is that Monsieur Girard is going to be here, and he could say that to you immediately. But generally speaking, the things that do not require legislative change—and I'd be glad to take you and some other colleagues through this afterwards—we hived them off and are dealing with them in another way. But Monsieur Girard is going to be sitting here as a resource person through all of these meetings.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, has the Chief Electoral Officer identified for us the problems to date?

The Chairman: We have received his full report, Rey.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Oh, okay.

The Chairman: By the way, we have included in here Lortie commission material, Special Committee on Electoral Reform material, the Chief Electoral Officer's material, MPs' presentations before us, the written and oral presentations of the parties, and so on. It's all in there.

Rey, is that okay?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Okay.

The Chairman: Colleagues, in light of the discussion, can we move on to the last of the list, which is the draft list of electoral finance issues?

• 1155

I would make all the same points. Again, we will try to get a strategy, because if it hasn't worked for the substantive issues we'll have another one for the financial issues. These will be the topics of discussion for the two meetings of the week following the break. Is that all right, colleagues?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes.

The Chairman: For colleagues who arrived a little late, I'll be glad to stay here and go through the strategy again. But as far as I'm concerned, we are now committed, with the various little provisos we've made, to meet next Tuesday for the first of two meetings on the list of substantive issues.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I want to be sure that everyone understood me clearly, Mr. Chairman. When we proceed to discuss substantive and financial issues, or technical and non- controversial issues for that matter, we won't need to waste an inordinate amount of time on this. Instead, we can focus on the recommendations made by the witnesses. However, there is nothing stopping a member of this committee from putting forward a recommendation. If we start with a series of advance recommendations, then we will be able to go much faster. Members would be free though to put forward new recommendations, if necessary.

[English]

The Chairman: Absolutely.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I just counted up the bullets in the substantive issues. There are 57 bullets. If we have 180 minutes in our regular meetings, you'll have to have a three-minute egg timer on your desk. That's what we'll have to average to go through that.

The Chairman: The strategy I have, which I will change, includes grouping of those issues. I understand that, and I hope the committee understands it.

Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm wondering on this substantive issues list if there's any way to get a sense of which ones there was agreement on and would go fairly smoothly, and which ones people felt there was not agreement on and you might want substantive debate. If we could get a sense of that in your sub-grouping it might help us move along.

The Chairman: I've had a lot of work to do, but that was part of my original strategy. I was going to appear with an indication of that. But I will now try to appear with some recommendations as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, since we didn't get a copy of these lists much in advance, it would be impossible at this time to say which issues we agree on. If a recommendation is non controversial, all we will ask is: "shall the recommendation carry?" And the answer will be: "Carried". Then we will move on to the next recommendation. This way, we could go through this very quickly, much like we often do for the clause by clause consideration of a bill, by adopting the recommendations one after the other.

[English]

The Chairman: We have an indication of agreements and disagreements already from the record of the committee. But I understand what you're saying. It's my sincere hope that colleagues will take these lists now—particularly the substantive list—read them and put their minds to them.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I realize that we might be putting some pressure on our researcher, but would it be possible to get these recommendations to us quickly, that is by Tuesday, the day before the meeting, so that we have an opportunity to familiarize ourselves with them?

[English]

The Chairman: The researcher and I will do our very best.

If there's nothing else, I appreciate your attention. I realize we have a very large task before us. It is my hope, in all sincerity, that we can move on most of this stuff. The Lortie commission recommendations are still ticking there from the huge commission that was conducted a long time ago, and we have an opportunity, I think, to move the agenda forward a substantial amount.

I will ask colleagues who missed some of the briefing to stay behind.

I thank you all. That's the end of the meeting.