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 28, 1998

• 1110

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, I call the meeting to order. We're going to continue our consideration of the Canada Elections Act. You will recall that we began to deal with the financial issues.

If I could remind you all again of how we are proceeding, we took the great mass of material that was outstanding from the Lortie commission, from the special committee in the last Parliament, from presentations we received, written presentations from all registered parties, oral presentations from the parties that are represented in Parliament, and presentations by individual members of Parliament.

We took out issues that are before the courts. We took out issues that required constitutional or other substantial change. We referred administrative issues to the advisory committee, which Mr. Kingsley now has functioning. They've already had one meeting, and they'll be having another shortly. The administrative issues are issues that did not require legislative change and with which it was felt a committee of representatives of all the registered parties could appropriately deal.

That left us with a number of substantive issues, which we have dealt with, and it finally leaves us with the financial issues, which are before us. In many ways, these financial issues are reflections of the substantive issues we were considering. So this is a very important stage of what we're doing.

I've mentioned all of that to remind all the parties here that the deadline for returning the—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Chairman, are there enough members present to hold the meeting? What is quorum? Four?

The Clerk of the Committee: Only the Chairman is required to be present to receive testimony.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I see. Thank you. Sorry.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

Tomorrow is the deadline for the return of the forms each party has dealing with the technical issues. So I do hope and urge that the parties return those forms, because my suggestion would be that next Thursday, a week from today, we consider the technical issues.

I've gone through this in part because, if that is so and if we agree to that, we had tentatively asked Mr. Kingsley to appear before us next Thursday, and it would be my strong suggestion that out of courtesy we advise Mr. Kingsley now that it's very likely we would not be asking him to be here next Thursday. Are we agreed to that?

[Translation]

Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): As far as the Committee's future work is concerned, Mr. Chairman, can you tell me when this Committee will be considering the Blais report?

The Chairman: Yes.

[English]

With regard to the Blais commission report, a notice will be going out today for a meeting at noon on Monday.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: At noon.

The Chairman: At noon. That will be an additional meeting, Stéphane, that has nothing to do with the consideration of the Canada Elections Act, which we're dealing with now.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Of course.

[English]

The Chairman: We have scheduled the meetings for the Canada Elections Act, so we're holding a special meeting for consideration of that report. Is that okay?

Colleagues, going back to my remark, if you are agreed, I will advise Mr. Kingsley that we will not be inviting him here next Thursday, but next Thursday we will be considering, among other things, the technical items. Okay?

If you'll give me a moment, there's one other thing I would like to mention, which is of a sort of procedural nature. That is, I have received from John Solomon, who is a member of our committee and the NDP whip, a letter dated May 27. John cannot be with us today, so we have Peter Julian representing the NDP. In the letter, he asks us to consider a suggestion that the deposit fee for candidates be reduced from $1,000 to $200. I would suggest that when I have the French version of this letter, I will circulate it to all members and we will return to this matter at our meeting on Tuesday. D'accord? Okay. Thank you very much.

We will proceed now, colleagues.

Elinor Caplan.

• 1115

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): I would like some clarification. When we dealt with the recommendations at the last meeting, there was one issue I felt we hadn't discussed, as I recall, one of the issues around the appointment of an agent for the purpose of being able to receive financial—

The Chairman: Could you give us chapter and verse?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes.

The Chairman: Colleagues, this is in the discussion paper on electoral financial issues, and Elinor will give us the page.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It was right at the beginning, on page 2. As I remember, the discussion at the committee had to do with whether or not we felt that associations should be registered. It was the general agreement, following on Mr. Solomon's remarks about the creation of bureaucratic kinds of stuff, that it wasn't necessary to get into a registration procedure.

However, as I recall, there was one recommendation here that would deal with the appointment of an agent other than just the chief financial officer or the treasurer of the riding association, who would be able to receive contributions.

I don't believe that issue was dealt with at the committee at the time when we had that discussion, and I wonder if the committee would like to revisit that before we pass along that part. I'd ask for some explanation, if we are willing to look at that, from Elections Canada's representatives, because I don't think we discussed that when we were at the last meeting.

The Chairman: It on page 2, under “Constituency Associations”. I think number 2(a) is the best item.

I'm going to ask Jacques Girard to reply first, but before I do that, I would like to mention that I believe that last evening our resource people, Jacques Girard and Janice Vézina, received a special award for their work on the electoral register. On behalf of the committee, I would congratulate you both on this for this wonderful work. We're delighted that your work in this matter is being so recognized.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: Now, back to business. Jacques, would you could respond.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard (Director of Legal Services, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): We're getting off to a good start.

Ms. Caplan, you are referring to 2a) on page 2. I'm going to try to put all of this in perspective and explain what the genesis of this recommendation was.

As I was saying last Tuesday, it is now recognized—at least within the academic community—that weaknesses exist as regards the transparency of financial operations carried out by political parties' constituency associations. Over the years, a number of studies have been done, each giving a different diagnosis or proposing different solutions. I will refer to two of them.

The Royal Commission opted for a very restrictive approach because in the end, it proposed that constituency associations be forced to register with Elections Canada and provide all kinds of information that would have required putting in place some sort of mechanism to update that information. We're obviously talking about 10 parties with possibly 300 and some ridings all across the country—in other words, potentially having to update data relating to 3,000 and some constituency associations.

When we looked at the Royal Commission's report, we asked ourselves what the intended goal was: to ensure that operations at the local level are transparent, of course, and that information can be disseminated so that Canadians can see what is going on. We saw no need to know things like who the president of the association is, and that sort of thing, but rather to know who is in charge of administering the funds, so as to keep that information in the registry and ensure that if there are financial transactions—and I say "if" because there may not be any—the party has the option of centralizing its operations nationally or based on its own internal systems, or delegating some responsibilities to constituency associations. The party has that choice.

If the party decides that financial transactions will occur at the local level, we are proposing that the treasurer—we will call him a treasurer or registered agent for the time being; a different name can be found if we decide we like the concept—submit a return to the party every year stating that he received so much money and spent that money in such and such a way, with a copy also being sent to the Chief Electoral Officer. Once we've received those returns, we can let the press and Canadians know that we have received them and that they are available if people wish to consult them.

• 1120

That is why I said on Tuesday that this is purely optional and that we felt it gave the parties more freedom to organize their operations as they see fit.

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me, Elinor, is that....

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I guess it was 2(c). I don't think that aspect was discussed at all, and I'd like us to focus on it.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: There again, we noted that it varies from party to party. At the present time, a political party can have registered agents who are authorized to issue income tax receipts. That is already possible. It is up to the party, o rather to the chief agent of the party, to decide whether he wants to appoint registered agents who would have the right to issue tax receipts. That is the status quo.

We are saying that in such a case, Elections Canada should be informed and that person should be required to submit a return, given that he or she holds considerable power in being able to issue income tax receipts. This really only confirms the practice that is already set out in the legislation, but it would be framed better.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: At present, it's my understanding that all tax receipts come through the central party—

Mr. Jacques Girard: Oui.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: —and that riding associations cannot issue individual tax receipts. Is that correct?

The Chairman: Janice Vézina.

Ms. Janice Vézina (Director, Election Financing, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): Yes, unless there's a registered party agent at the local level. It has to be a registered agent of the party who issues tax receipts and who is in the register of political parties officially as an agent.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The part I didn't understand was how this would change any of that. You already have the ability to have a registered agent at the local level. What would this change be? I didn't understand what this change would be.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: The connection we made was that this practice is already in place, but may not be sufficiently well- defined either in the legislation or in relation to the goal of transparency and disclosure that we are seeking to achieve. We hoped to be able to set out in greater detail how that mechanism would operate in practice. At the present time, there is not a very clear perception of how things work, and as you were saying...

The Chairman: Right.

Mr. Jacques Girard: We don't believe that such a power exists in the current statute.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron, followed by André Harvey.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I understand your explanation, but there is one element that remains unclear in my own mind. You say that you are going to be able to tell people that you have received returns from riding associations and that if anyone wishes to consult them, that information will be available. But that is only true if every riding provides you, through the national organization, with a breakdown of cash receipts and outlays. If only those riding associations with an agent authorized to issue income tax receipts provide you with that kind of breakdown, you will not be able to tell Canadians: "We have figures for all constituency associations and you may consult them, as required." I don't really understand what the point of all this is.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Let me clarify my thinking. There are two possibilities: either a party decides to decentralize or centralize its operations, or it opts for a mix of the two.

If there are operations at the local level, two things are possible. The national party can take care of them. After receiving the cheque given to the local agent, it issues a receipt. When that happens in practice, those transactions are public because they appear in party returns.

If the party decides to give more latitude to its constituency associations, the latter will have to submit a return detailing local transactions. No transaction will escape the attention of Canadians as long as it is clearly understood that as soon as there is a transaction at the local level, it must be public.

If the party decides not to authorize that locally—because the national party can decide based on its constitution and practices—there is no problem, because there will be no local return. In that case, the national organization will be responsible for submitting a return.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, but the point I am raising, Mr. Girard, is this: if the goal is to ensure greater transparency, a party may decide to have very centralized operations, meaning that at the end of the day, there will be no more transparency than there is now as regards the actions of the party's local associations. In the final analysis, you will submit a return at the end of the year or certain constituency associations will submit a return, whereas the riding associations of other parties will not have done so because those parties have opted for far more centralized operations.

What I was suggesting last week was that rather than getting involved in this process, which could result in to varying degrees of transparency, we should set a standard to be applied across the board, the national party would then be required to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a breakdown of cash receipts for every constituency association. Then we would achieve some degree of transparency.

• 1125

Mr. Jacques Girard: When we looked at that proposal, we were reluctant to move forward with it because it would have forced certain parties to completely restructure their current financial management system. We did not want to do that and that is why we did not recommend it.

Now, what you are saying may be true in the sense that if we had a return produced by a highly centralized party that included a list of 3,000 or 4,000 contributors, we would have to tie that in with other recommendations that appear in the appendix we will be reviewing later, where it says that if a party produces financial returns detailing contributions, additional information about contributors must be provided. But there we are getting into issues that we intended to discuss in upcoming meetings.

The problem with the Canada Elections Act, as you know, is that it is like a house of cards: everything is connected.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, I agree, but that doesn't solve the problem. Even if the national party provides more detailed information about contributors, that will not give us a detailed breakdown of cash receipts and outlays for every constituency association in each of the political parties. As I say, you will end up with varying degrees of transparency.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Some parties do not engage in local transactions, and that is their choice. If they do not, there is no need to submit a return. What we're saying is that if there are local financial transactions...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But what do you mean by "financial transactions"? You seem to be using it only in relation to the issuance of income tax receipts.

Mr. Jacques Girard: No, no. It involves more than issuing income tax receipts; we're talking about cash receipts. I think the best example would be that of a candidate who transfers his surplus to a constituency association after an election. No income tax receipts are issued and that does not give rise to credits. But people do want to know where that money is going and how it is to be spent.

[English]

The Chairman: By the way, I think this is a very useful discussion, but I would remind us all once again—and this is useful because it's simply giving the pros and the cons—to remember the nature of our report; it is that this is a very important issue, that we should have aired it, that it has already been aired by ourselves and our predecessors, and that we want the report to reflect these views.

André Harvey and then Elinor Caplan.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Do you think there is sufficient transparency at the national level?

Mr. Jacques Girard: No.

Mr. André Harvey: I see. And would you say that the vast majority of parties take responsibility for issuing receipts for official contributions? Can some parties here at the federal level issue receipts locally? I know that in my party, receipts are issued at the national level. When local associations raise money, the contributor knows full well that he will not be given an official income tax receipt.

Mr. Jacques Girard: As far as I know, it's a mix of the two. In some parties, such as yours, which are highly centralized, all contributions go through the national organization. However, other parties are decentralized and have local registered agents that can issue receipts. It depends on how each party wishes to manage its internal affairs. The party can appoint local agents and tell them it will not authorize them to issue receipts because it wants to maintain some control.

Mr. André Harvey: So, they issue receipts for contributions by proxy at the local level.

Mr. Jacques Girard: I believe so, yes. They would have the power to do that because current legislation makes provision for it. I believe there are internal agreements between the national and local organizations that vary from one party to the next.

Mr. André Harvey: Could you briefly summarize the way the parties operate? In our party, tax receipts are issued at the national level. Could you take two minutes to quickly describe the system in place in the Liberal party, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic party?

[English]

The Chairman: Janice Vézina.

Ms. Janice Vézina: I'm not aware of any that do issue receipts at the local level.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: But it is possible.

[English]

Ms. Janice Vézina: The possibility is there, but I'm personally not aware of it.

The Chairman: But to your knowledge, no one is doing it.

Ms. Janice Vézina: Not to my knowledge.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: So, you are confirming that no receipts are issued locally by any party?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No party currently represented in the House of Commons.

Mr. Jacques Girard: I would like to verify that and get back to you. Obviously, all that information is passed on to Revenue Canada. It's difficult for me to give you a definitive answer to that right now. But we could certainly make a phone call and find out very quickly.

Mr. André Harvey: In this proposal, you are recommending that this information appear in the appendix to federal national parties' returns and that there be an appendix to the financial returns dealing specifically with all the associations.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes, if the party decides to decentralize its activities. If it maintains the status quo, then that is what will prevail. We are just offering them an option.

• 1130

[English]

The Chairman: We have a couple of items from the last meeting, which will be circulated very soon, so if we can get that information it could be circulated at the same time.

[Translation]

Ok, André?

[English]

Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I didn't want to hold us up in our progress through the report, Mr. Chair, but I had some questions after our debate on this one at the last meeting. I'd appreciate the questions being answered.

One of the things I started to think about is the difference between the provincial legislation and this. I wondered whether it might be helpful for the committee to have a comparison or a table of how things are done. I don't want to take the time now, but I know there are differences, and a comparison might be helpful to us in getting our minds around this particular issue. I believe there is such a regime, particularly in the Ontario legislation, and it might be helpful for us to see how that works.

The Chairman: Janice, could you add that to your list? Thank you very much.

Can we go on, Stéphane?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would just like to make a comment. I'm a little uncomfortable with this proposal, rather than being opposed to it, and I want to explain why. I'm always a little bothered by a standard that is unevenly applied, depending on what the party decides to do, which in this case would mean that we would have detailed information about financial transactions and cash receipts and outlays for certain riding associations and certain parties, whereas in the case of the constituency local associations of other political parties, we may have no idea what is going on at the local level in terms of expenditures and cash receipts.

So, I am more uncomfortable with this proposal than I am opposed to it, and that discomfort stems from my view that it will create varying degrees of transparency.

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane, the report will reflect your reluctance. Is that all right?

Colleagues, can we now proceed to page 3 and the category of election expenses? This is a very important category.

Jamie, could you begin by talking about election expenses in general and then proceed to item 1?

Mr. Jamie Robertson (Committee Researcher): Currently the Canada Elections Act defines election expenses as those incurred “for the purpose of promoting or opposing, directly and during an election, a particular registered party, or the election of a particular candidate”. This definition of directly promoting or opposing is not all that helpful, because there are a lot of things done during an election that may not be directly involved in the campaign. This has led to some grey areas and some problems of definition.

Now I believe that there are some administrative decisions that have been made, sometimes going back to the ad hoc committee of parties, with the chief electoral officer, which have added some clarity or some consistency, but perhaps in themselves those decisions have also compounded the problem.

So the difficulty is to come up with a more acceptable, more complete definition of election expenses, and that is what is contained in this report, starting on page 3 and continuing on to page 4.

It has two components. One is that certain things would be explicitly included in the definition. That's the first part, items (a) to (f). And the second ones would be certain types of expenditures that would not be considered election expenses. As the introductory words indicate, that has two implications. If it's not an election expense, it's not subject to the spending limits and it also wouldn't be subject to being reimbursed, for the reimbursement provisions. And that is (a) to (h), at the bottom of page 4.

I don't know if the people from Elections Canada want to add anything to my report.

The Chairman: Before they do, this is from the chief electoral officer's report. You see that, all of it.

Does anyone have any questions—and perhaps Stéphane already does—with regard to what Jamie has just said? Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: As regards point 1, in part one, we are not really opposed to anything here, except perhaps to the section dealing with personal expenses. As I understand it, candidates' personal expenses are not currently subject to the limit on eligible election expenses. I would like to know why candidates' personal expenses are included here and why a distinction is being made between candidates with a disability and those without. It seems to me that is completely contrary to what people with disabilities have been asking for, which is that they not be treated any differently from others.

• 1135

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane, could I ask Jamie to consider that?

Colleagues, we're looking at page 4, item (d), and I would point out to you that child care expenses are also mentioned on page 5, number 2.

Jamie, could you address that difference?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: If you'll look at recommendation number 2 at the top of page 5, some of the ones that occur later in this section actually expand upon the definition.

As I understand it, candidates' personal expenses would be included as election expenses, but that would not include these expenses related to disability or child care. So those would not be included as expenses.

The Chairman: Janice, would you care to elaborate on that?

I read it, and I had some difficulty with it as well. It is personal expenses, which have to do with being involved in the election campaign. Is that the difference?

Ms. Janice Vézina: Yes.

The Chairman: As distinct from some other personal expenses you might have.

Ms. Janice Vézina: That's right.

The Chairman: Do you want to explain it in your own words then?

Ms. Janice Vézina: Yes. I'll answer the first part of your question, which is why do we want to include this in the limits? Some research has been done in that area by academics, who have come forward with the opinion that if a candidate spends an excessive amount on personal expenses—and that's travelling and whatnot—because they have the means to do so and it's not subject to the limit, it can give an unfair advantage to certain candidates. The limits are there to promote fairness in the system in terms of the amount spent, and because personal expenses are outside that control and that limit, they've been seen by certain academics and certain research that's been done as providing an unfair advantage.

We have seen cases where candidates have spent as much on personal expenses as on election expenses.

The Chairman: But the point is if, for example, I am a candidate and I have to take care of someone in my family, I will be reimbursed, per the first half, for the costs of that care while I am acting as a candidate. Is that what the first part means?

Ms. Janice Vézina: For the child care?

The Chairman: This is (d) now, yes. Isn't it the reimbursement part that's important?

Ms. Janice Vézina: Yes. The child care or expenses relating to a disability would not be subject to the limit but would be reimbursable.

The Chairman: My point is that's why it's in there.

Ms. Janice Vézina: Yes, that's why it's specifically mentioned.

The Chairman: That's right.

Ms. Janice Vézina: Those would be exceptions to the limit.

The Chairman: Yes.

So, Stéphane, is that all right? No?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I understood the explanation, but I don't find it convincing—far from it. First of all, how are we going to ensure that certain expenses are included in election expenses when others are not? Essentially, what this means is that candidates will have to detail their expenses so that we can determine which are election expenses and which are not. It also means that we will not be distinguishing between candidates who run in a much larger riding and have to travel more than others, between those who invest more in their appearance—their clothes, and so forth—and those who don't.

I believe this will penalize candidates. By attempting to eliminate certain inequities, we will simply be creating others. I am certainly not convinced that this is the appropriate response and I really don't like the idea of making a distinction between some personal expenses—which would be included as election expenses—and other personal expenses which would not be considered election expenses.

• 1140

For instance, if I have children in day care that I have to pick up at the end of the day, meaning that I have to go from point A to point B in my riding to pick them up, will that travel between points A and B in my riding be considered a legitimate personal expense to include in my election expenses or will it not? This is going to create a real mess—a kind of Spanish inn where no one will know what is going on. It seems rather complicated to me and I'm not sure that it is really all that appropriate.

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane, what was that expression? You said something “espagnole”. What did you say?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: A Spanish inn.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, Spanish inn.

Well, I think that was useful, and we can come to it, but could we start with 1(a) and look at it? Then we'll arrive again at (d), because that was a very useful discussion.

Could we look at (a), which is on polling and research conducted during the election period? What are the committee's thoughts about that being an election expense and therefore being reimbursable?

Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Actually what I'd like to know on this one is what was the original rationale for leaving it out? What was the discussion at the time the legislation came in? I'm sure this was discussed.

I can make the argument on either side that polling and research is an election expense or polling and research is not an election expense, if you consider your election expenses as influencing voters and all the things you do that influence them. It's a very grey area.

It's also very expensive, and if you did this, you would then have to increase the limit. So there would be a very big impact on the costs of inclusion. I'd be interested to know what the position is of the different parties, and was this discussed by the parties or were presentations made? Since I'm new to this committee, I'd like to know what representations were made by the parties on this issue.

I know all parties do it. It's expensive. I think most parties would probably like to see it reimbursed, but I'd also wonder what the impact would be if you allowed it at each of the riding levels, because not all ridings could afford to do it. Would it create an unfair advantage? I believe it would at the local level.

My last question: Was any consideration given to permitting this as an election expense at the party level, the central party level, but not permitting it as an expense at the individual riding level?

There are a lot of issues here that I hope we'll take some time to discuss, but I can see where you might want to differentiate between what's permitted for the party and what's permitted for the riding, and understand the fairness or unfairness for those ridings that have difficulty raising money and so forth, not being able to afford to do what the other ridings might be able to do.

The Chairman: Stéphane, would you like me to go to Jacques first and then come back to you, or would you like to intervene?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, I would like to comment on what Elinor just said.

The Chairman: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On our side, we fully agree with point (a). Personally, I see no point in making a distinction between polls conducted at the national level and those conducted at the local level. As far as I'm concerned, both should be on an equal footing.

It's quite true that there is unfairness in any electoral process, in the sense that in certain ridings, some parties start the race further ahead and in others, certain parties raise money more easily than others, which means that they can afford to do a lot more and to include a lot more things in their election expenses than another party that was only able to raise a limited amount of money for its campaign.

Since we're talking about unfairness, we could also talk about the fact that some parties decide to be far more transparent by accepting financial contributions from voters only, whereas others receive huge financial contributions from corporations. There is also unfairness in that. But is that a reason to claim that we should exclude local polling here because it would make for unfairness? In my view, no.

[English]

The Chairman: Jacques, I'll come back to you at the end.

Elinor Caplan.

• 1145

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There's a comment I want to make, just to see if I've got this right and to put it into context. Polling is permitted now by anyone who wants to do it. It's permitted by campaigns, riding associations, and national parties, and there's no problem. It's not considered an election expense today, so there's no reimbursement or cost-sharing of the cost of the polls. The issue we're debating here today is whether or not it should become an election expense for the purpose of rebate. You already have the situation occurring where if an association or a campaign is able to raise the money they can do the polling. So the issue is whether you want to make an election expense that would permit some rebate.

A voice: You would also be subject to the limit then.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: You would then be subject to the limit, or would raise the limit. That's the issue we're debating today. It's not the issue of whether polling should be permitted.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, no. We're not talking about whether or not polling should be authorized. That is not even part of the discussion. The question is whether it should be included in election expenses and thus subject to reimbursement.

However, if a party decides to conduct a poll and sees some benefit in doing that because polling expenses will be reimbursed, then that is problematical. As Elinor said, polling is very expensive. That means that the money it uses for polling is money it can't use for something else during the campaign because it is subject to the limit on election spending. So, in a way, a riding that decided to conduct a poll and had to count it as an election expense might find that to be both an advantage and a disadvantage.

In any case, it's kind of a strange discussion to be having at this stage.

[English]

The Chairman: The fact is the scale of the limits, the reimbursement, and what's allowed under the limit are all related.

Does any other committee member have a comment on this?

Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Just to answer the question from the very beginning, they're not included because some 20 years ago now.... I guess the adverb “directly” made the difference in that case. The act again refers to expenses incurred to directly promote or oppose, and the determination was that it did not directly oppose or favour a candidate. That was one reason. The other reason is the one just mentioned by Mr. Bergeron. If they had been included, the limit would not have been sufficient for parties.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I could make an argument that it directly impacts. It's an easy argument. You gather the information and that influences the printing of your literature and brochures, so that's a direct input.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Exactly. People would say conducting of the poll itself was not directly linked, but anything disseminated from the poll was directly supporting. That's the case now.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Is that the reason why it's being reconsidered now?

Mr. Jacques Girard: I guess it's more because of the rebate. Parties spend a lot of money. It was brought up before the royal commission.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: What were the positions of the parties? Did everyone say they'd like to have it rebated in total, for the national parties, or for local riding associations? Do you remember what the position was of the different parties?

Mr. Jacques Girard: At that time, it was quite unusual to have polling at the local level. We saw some polling at the last election, but I think the royal commission only addressed polling at the national level because it was only conducted at the national level at that time.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: So the proposal is polling at the national level. That would require the limits increased at the national level, and it would also provide a rebate. But you could still, without difficulty, agree to it for the national parties, but not increase the limits at the local level or have a rebate, because of either the cost or the argument of fairness.

Mr. Jacques Girard: I guess the only problem—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It would be fair if you had all the national parties do it—is that the argument?

The Chairman: Now I'm going to go to André Harvey, Peter Julian, and then Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: She answered.

• 1150

[English]

The Chairman: Jacques, are you going to reply?

Mr. Jacques Girard: The only problem with that approach may be the problem of consistency. You have a concept in the act where they finance a poll and you say it's an election expense because it promotes. Why wouldn't it promote the candidate if he conducted a poll?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: So the proposal is if you're going to have polling as an election expense, it would be an election expense and it would be available not only to a national party, but also to the local candidates and associations.

Mr. Jacques Girard: I would tend to think so.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Okay. Thank you for the clarification.

The Chairman: I'll go to Stéphane for a directly related comment.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The subtle way of getting around that would be for the national organization to do the polling, including for the riding, and then pass on the information to them. That way, it would benefit from the reimbursement. That expense is not counted in the riding expenses, but the constituency organization would benefit by being able to direct its campaign in such a way as to react to public opinion in the riding. So, if we decide to do it at the national level, we also have to do it at the local level. Nothing should be allowed.

[English]

The Chairman: André Harvey, then Peter Julian, and then John Richardson.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I may be wrong, but the Elections Act must do whatever it can to avoid voter manipulation. As far as polling is concerned, I would advise moving carefully—in any case, it is quite complex—before agreeing to include local polling done in the ridings. This could lead to incredible manipulation on the part of unaccredited firms whose work is of no value and that could ultimately completely distort the electoral process.

That's why I would be very careful about moving to include local polling done in the 303 ridings, because I think it could have a negative impact on the objectivity we expect from voters. We have seen this before. My inclination would be to recognize the eligibility of national polling. At the local level, any candidate could release fake polls favourable to him, even though in reality... I don't know whether my comment is...

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: With respect, they can do it now. We don't authorize which polling companies are acceptable or not. Today any campaign, association, or party can hire whoever they want to conduct a poll. Some do it through volunteers and make it their own poll, or as research and bill for it. Whether it's useful or not is up to the riding association and the political organization. The question here is whether it should be considered an election expense, not whether it's permitted. It is permitted. The question is whether it should be considered a rebatable election expense.

The Chairman: I will go to Jacques Girard, briefly, then Peter Julian and then John Richardson.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: I was going to make the same comments as Ms. Caplan. The fact is this is already allowed. As for your concern about possible manipulation, you have to remember there is a 72-hour blackout period at the end of the campaign during which polling results may no longer be released. I should take this opportunity to mention, although you probably already know this, that this provision has been challenged in the Supreme Court and that the court will be making its ruling tomorrow. So, some clarification will soon be available.

[English]

The Chairman: That's very interesting.

Peter Julian, and then John Richardson.

Mr. Peter Julian (Assistant Federal Secretary, New Democratic Party): Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.

The New Democratic Party would support the inclusion of both polling and research and point (b), the training of party officials, in the expense limits, just to provide more clarity in terms of overall expenses that are undertaken in an election campaign. So we would support those elements being included under the existing ceiling, at both the national level and the local level.

[Translation]

In response to the question raised by Mr. Harvey, at the present time, because it is not subject to the limit, there is a problem with those expenses being in a completely different area. It is possible that some polling will not be subject to the limit. That is something we should look at. Mr. Bergeron's argument about there being two tiers is also perfectly legitimate. We cannot have a double standard. If it is subject at the local level, it must be at the national level as well.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Richardson.

• 1155

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

What we're dealing with is something that's alive, but we don't want to admit it's alive. I don't think you can make decisions without reasonable input, and polling gives you some reasonable input. Until the polling became sophisticated, it was door-to-door canvassing and discussions at the doorstep that would give you some feedback. If you debriefed the canvassers as they'd come in at night, you'd know exactly what the issue had been been on that block or that poll.

I've never done a lot of polling in the sense of across the riding. I may go polling specifically on how an issue is going in a sector of the riding. I find that you do it with volunteers. You have a volunteer set of people, and you maybe get people working at the university to help you draft the questions.

They do cost money, though, in the sense that you sometimes drive up the long-distance telephone bills, and that they are a reality. At one stage we're going to recognize that it is a legitimate methodology in undertaking an election. If it is a reality, and it is practised by all parties, why not recognize it as a legitimate election expense? That's all I'm saying. It's there, and it should be possible—

The Chairman: Let's take that as a comment.

Yvon Charbonneau is next, and then if I could, colleagues, I'll wind this up. It's been a very useful discussion, but I think we should move on. Yvon Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière des Prairies, Lib.): I don't believe there is any generally recognized or accepted definition of polling and research. I see that the idea here is to cover anything that could be considered to influence voters' choices. That is basically the idea.

Polls that are conducted properly, using sampling and so forth, are one thing. If I go to 10 houses per street on 20 of the 50 streets in my riding, that is one kind of poll. I go to see people in their homes and have a little chat with them. I am conducting a poll or research of sorts. If I mandate four or five volunteers to go out and see what the situation is in one or two areas of my riding and I give them a week to determine voters' assessment of my performance in recent years and their general sentiments, that is also a type of polling or research. There is no specific definition of this term.

So, I think we are heading for a bureaucratic nightmare with this idea of polling and research. I would prefer that we set this aside, at least until it can be proven to me that there are recognized definitions of these terms in a dictionary somewhere. "Polling and research" is very broad. And the different ways of conducting polling and research cannot be defined.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. A very last, very short comment from Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There's one issue we haven't addressed, and that is whether it's only polling or research during the writ period, or whether it's polling and research done pre-writ, and during what time period pre-writ.

The Chairman: Elinor, it does say during the election period.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes, I know. I'm just saying there's a pre-writ period where if you've done a poll, you may want to consider a certain period of time pre-writ for inclusion, because in fact it is election preparedness and part of the election campaign.

The Chairman: Colleagues, in the spirit that we've done this before, and bearing in mind, as has happened before, that this begs a number of questions, like what the limit is, and all the things like that, could we take a straw vote? With respect to (a), which is the inclusion of polling and research conducted during the election period—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If I understand correctly, for this section, Mr. Chairman, you will be going through it point by point.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's exactly the procedure I asked that we follow on Tuesday...

[English]

The Chairman: So number 1(a). Right?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, I know, but on Tuesday I asked that we do that for the previous section dealing with constituency associations of political parties, and you refused to allow us to vote on these items separately.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So, if I understand correctly, you have given this some thought since Tuesday, and in your new-found wisdom have decided that we will now be voting on these items point by point. So, let's go.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: He finally agrees with you.

The Chairman: I could argue the point with you, because I think the others were more tightly related to each other.

• 1200

With respect to 1(a), colleagues, again we'll have a straw vote. Peter Julian is going to vote and he's not a regular member of our committee.

Those generally in favour? We'll count them. Those generally against?

Thank you. So we have more in favour than against.

Now we have 1(b). Could we move these things along more quickly? On the training of party officials and volunteers for the campaign, any comments? We generally think that should be in. Okay? We're going on.

Next is 1(c), the costs and production of campaign commercials or ads. It seems to be quite straightforward. Those in favour? We generally agree.

Did we deal with (d) sufficiently? My understanding was there was some disagreement here. We tried to get clarification of exactly what this meant. How do you want me to deal with this?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I want to come back to the last example I gave. We are saying that travel expenses will be considered to be included in election expenses. That brings me back to my example about travelling to the day care to pick up my children. Will that travel be considered part of my election expenses? There's no way around this.

I believe that candidates' personal expenses should continue to be included in election expenses because in trying to correct certain inequities, we are simply creating new ones.

[English]

The Chairman: That's right. Janice Vézina.

Ms. Janice Vézina: Can I just add some clarification? The example of having to travel to go pick up children at the day care would only be if the campaign is causing additional expenses over and above what you would have incurred had you not been in the campaign. In other words, it's costs over and above the normal daily routine that a person has.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Imagine the kind of controls that will be needed to determine whether my travel from Contrecoeur to Varennes to pick up my daughter at the day care is part of those expenses I would not normally have incurred had I not been running for office, since normally I would travel from Boucherville to Varennes to go and pick up my family. This is completely crazy! What this means is that if I leave from Boucherville to go to Varennes to pick up my daughter, that will not be considered an election expense because I normally go that way to pick up my daughter; however, if I decide to go from Contrecoeur to Varennes to pick up my daughter, that is considered to be an election expense. There's no way around this problem. It just makes no sense whatsoever.

Mr. André Harvey: I guess we'll just take a taxi instead!

Honourable Members: Ah, ah!

[English]

The Chairman: Remember the report is going to reflect these types of points.

Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: My view is that this has to be clarified. There are some personal expenses that are presently election expenses for reimbursement, it's my understanding.

Ms. Janice Vézina: All expenses can be reimbursed up to 50%.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Today, at present, candidates' personal expenses can be reimbursed. But they are technically not considered—

Ms. Janice Vézina: They're not subject to the limit.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: They're not subject to the limit. That was what it was. But they are reimbursable.

Ms. Janice Vézina. Yes.

Ms. Lorraine Godin (Agent, Bloc Québécois): Up to 50%.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: So I think that the principle of personal expenses being election expenses has already been accepted under the act. The question is how do you do it in a way that is fair and reasonable and not too complicated. And I would support (d) within that context of making it simple and clear as to what is and what is not an election expense and what is reimbursable, and provided that the limits are also realistic enough to recognize that this is an additional expense.

The Chairman: If you agree, I'm not going to call even a straw vote on this one. I think the report will simply reflect this discussion, the need for definition on these various problems.

Okay, (e).

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: My preference would be for a limit on candidates' refundable personal expenses, rather than a very complicated process whereby certain personal expenses would be considered to be part of one's eligible election expenses, but others would be refundable without necessarily being included in eligible election expenses. I think we would be creating a process that is likely to be extremely unmanageable, not only for Elections Canada, but for the official agent and the candidate himself. It will be just awful.

I think we should set a fair ceiling for personal expenses that would apply to all candidates, and that those expenses should be completely separate from election expenses that are subject to a limit.

• 1205

[English]

The Chairman: I think, Stéphane, we have that point. You've put it very well. We have that point and it will be reflected.

Now (e).

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Number 1(e) relates to the problem that between the time when the writ is dropped and when the candidate is officially nominated there is that grey period. This would cover off the expenses incurred during that period of time.

The Chairman: Is there any comment? People agree, so we'll move on to (f).

Mr. Jamie Robertson: The next one deals with the expenses of the leader of a registered party. Obviously, the leader incurs certain expenses as a candidate in an individual riding. They would not be included. This is directed at the expenses of the leader during the campaign, reflecting the fact that they are going across country and so forth.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Agreed.

The Chairman: Peter Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian: I just have a question, Mr. Chair. The leader's tour is already included in the case of a national registered political party. How would that change the existing legislation?

Mr. Jacques Girard: Actually, it would not. The point is that it was an obscure part of the legislation, and this interpretation that is there is the one in place now, but it flows from the ad hoc committee and it's part of our guidelines to parties. So what we say is let's make it clear once and for all and put it in the act. Just enact the practice.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are we generally comfortable with that? Yes, I think we are.

Can we move on to the second half then? These are the items that should not be considered election expenses and therefore not be subject to election expense limits nor to reimbursement. Again, remember that we have these related things. On (a), the cost of a candidate's deposit, is there any comment?

Mr. Peter Julian: Currently there are reimbursements for filing on behalf of candidates across the country. This would not change that provision then?

Mr. Jacques Girard: It would not change the refund actually in the legislation.

The Chairman: With (a) we're comfortable.

We'll proceed to (b), expenses incurred in holding a fundraising function, except for the cost of advertising. Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The concern I have on the cost of advertising is it has to be clarified that the cost of advertising does not include the ticket or advertising that you're having an event. I think we have to be very clear that any advertising related to the specific event is not an election expense, or a fundraising expense.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron, then Janice Vézina.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On the contrary, advertising for a fundraiser in the middle of an election campaign, even though it is related to fundraising, in a way amounts to advertising the candidate. For example, if in the middle of an election campaign it is announced that I am organizing a cocktail party and ads appear in the newspapers saying: "Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc Québécois candidate, is giving a cocktail party for...", that is a way of indirectly or even directly making myself known to the public as a candidate. So, advertising for that fundraiser should still be considered an election expense. That goes without saying.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: But not the printing of tickets or any of the things that you advertise. I'm just—

The Chairman: Ms. Vézina.

Ms. Janice Vézina: The thought behind this was that if you are advertising widely to all constituents concerning the fundraiser, that is a promotional activity, whereas if you're dealing strictly with party members, a fundraiser for members who are already supporters, that type of publicity or brochure that you send your members is not a promotion. They're already—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: But you don't just send it to your members. That's the point I'm making. When you send out your invitation to the fundraiser, that can't be considered advertising because it doesn't just go to your members. That goes beyond to let people who are not members know and encourage them to come and participate. That's exactly my worry, that your invitation can't be considered advertising. This doesn't work.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Do you think it should be considered as advertising?

The Chairman: No, it shouldn't.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No, I think the invitation to a fundraiser should not be considered advertising and—

The Chairman: With respect, I think we have that point. In other words, we have it in the context of the report, Elinor.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If I send an invitation to a party member, that is not advertising because one can logically of course it's a secret ballot—that this particular individual is already a supporter and is likely to vote for me.

• 1210

Ms. Lorraine Godin: Even if he or she doesn't go out to vote.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But if I send an invitation to members of the public or heads of corporations, then we are very definitely talking about advertising. I am going to give you a rather extreme example, but it's just to give you an idea of what I'm driving at. I could well decide to send a letter about fundraising to every person in my riding. By doing so, I am circulating my name and my party logo and promoting my own cause and my own candidacy. Consequently, that has to be considered to be advertising. I make no distinction between advertising that is carried out at large, so to speak, and advertising sent to party members, because we cannot cross that line.

[English]

The Chairman: With respect, colleagues, I think the point we have—and we have this discussion on record—is that there should be a clear definition of advertising.

Isn't that the point, Stéphane?

An hon. member: What is the bell for?

The Chairman: We're finding out what it is.

The Clerk: The votes are being deferred until Monday.

The Chairman: The point we have is the definition of advertising needs to be very clear. Right? Right.

Can we go on to item (c)?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: The cost of obtaining any professional services needed to comply with the act, which I presume would involve accounting services and legal services, would not be included.

The Chairman: Agreed?

When I say agreed, I mean are we comfortable with it? We know it's not formal votes. Yes.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Item (d) is “any interest on a loan to a candidate or registered party for election expenses”.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Agreed.

The Chairman: Peter, are you okay with that?

Mr. Peter Julian: Yes.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Item (e) is volunteer labour. There is a provision later on that would define volunteer labour, number 7 on the next page, but we'll get to that. This would basically say the value of volunteer labour would not be considered as a campaign expense, an election expense.

The Chairman: That's okay. Okay, folks?

Next is “payment to candidates' representatives at the polls”. We'll go Stéphane Bergeron, and then Peter Julian.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I am fundamentally and viscerally opposed to that. Mr. Chairman, we have two choices. Either we maintain the current rule, which is that...

[English]

The Chairman: I like that.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: ...what is paid to representatives is considered to be an election expense, or we follow the procedure used in Quebec, which is that the chief electoral officer defrays the cost of representatives' wages.

I could never support the idea that representatives would be paid without that being subject to the election expenses limit because it would result in basic unfairness, since some parties can easily raise money and could therefore be represented in the polling stations on election day—since they can afford to pay people to be present—whereas others have much more difficulty raising money in their riding and will either not be represented or will be under-represented there, thus perverting the entire democratic process. So, I am fundamentally opposed to that recommendation. Is that strong enough?

[English]

The Chairman: I wanted to speak to the translators and say that I enjoyed the translation, I think Stéphane used the expression “viscéralement”, which would be “viscerally” in English, and they translated it as “from the bottom of your soul”. I like that a lot.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's it.

The Chairman: Peter Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian: From the bottom of our soul, Mr. Chairman, we'd like to oppose this, too, for the reasons Mr. Bergeron mentioned. This opens a huge loophole in the act, and we would not support that change.

The Chairman: Okay, we're all agreed with that. Let's go on to item (g).

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There's a point I want to make.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, Elinor, I didn't see your hand.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I've never heard or thought that anyone would ever pay someone to go to the polls until—it's true, I have to say this—until we started to do this. It never would have occurred to me.

Now, you weren't paying people to go and vote for you, but you were paying people to go and scrutineer for you. That's a different thing.

The Chairman: That has been heard of as well.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That I've heard of.

The Chairman: Jacques Girard, very briefly.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: Mr. Bergeron was asking in an aside why we had recommended this. Perhaps Ms. Vézina could explain how it works because it is rather Byzantine, although the basic reasoning behind it is this.

Those people who are at the polling station on voting day are told: "You have to remain neutral and not show that you are in favour of any one party, and so forth." It is difficult to claim that they are there to directly promote the election of one candidate. That was our reasoning.

• 1215

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I apologize; I didn't get that.

Mr. Jacques Girard: In the definition it says that an election expense is any expense incurred to directly promote the election of a candidate. It is difficult to claim that the person sitting in the polling station is there to promote you directly.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But that's exactly what he does.

Mr. Jacques Girard: He is supposed to remain completely neutral.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But that's exactly what he does.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Not candidates' representatives.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, candidates' representatives; that's exactly what they do.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Not directly.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Come on now. They say so openly. They fill out a little sheet of paper to say that Mrs. So-and-so came to vote. The sheet is sent off and the place that does the phoning is given Mrs. So-and-so's name and people continue to phone sympathizers to get them out to vote. Even though these people don't openly express their support for any particular candidate when they're sitting in the polling station, they make sure the election process runs smoothly and directly favours the election of their candidate through their actions.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's putting democracy at risk.

Mr. Jacques Girard: I can tell you we had some pretty interesting discussions about that at our own office.

[English]

The Chairman: I think we are all agreed on this one.

Jamie.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Next is (g), expenses incurred exclusively for the ongoing administration of a registered party or local association. These would be ongoing administrative expenses. They would not be included.

The Chairman: Okay. Are we all agreed on (g)?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Next is (h), post-election parties. Are we agreed? We're agreed. Thank you.

Let's go to number two at the top of page five.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: This is, again, a clarification, a further refinement of personal expenses.

The Chairman: You see, that refers back to the point about the dependent persons.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: They would be included for reimbursement but they would not be considered election expenses.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron, then Peter Julian.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I must admit I have been feeling quite uncomfortable for the last few minutes because I'm used to seeing the Chief Electoral Officer make constructive, consistent and intelligent recommendations. But here my analysis is the same as previously and I have to say that we completely disagree on this point.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian: We would agree with this point, particularly in terms of handicapped or disabled candidates. To give you an example, some of the candidates who have run in the past, particularly candidates in wheelchairs, can undergo up to $10,000 or $12,000 worth of expenses during an election campaign, specifically related to their disability.

Of course it would be unfair to impose the election limit on those kinds of expenses, so there is debate around whether candidates' personal expenses should be included or not. Clearly, if they are included—and we would support that—disabilities and child care expenses should not be included, because they can be considerable.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments on this one?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's great. It's the first part that's no good. I already explained why we don't want candidates' personal expenses to be lumped in with election expenses. If we don't agree on the first part, we can hardly agree on the second, because that is part of personal expenses. But in any case, since we are keeping them separate, it's not a problem.

There are a couple of factors that have to be considered in cases such as this, but I am completely opposed to the first sentence under point 2, which says that candidates' personal expenses should be included as election expenses.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Actually, I support the inclusion of personal expenses because I think it gives you a chance to identify exactly what they are, what's covered. It's included in the limit. It makes it much fairer and they are then also reimbursable.

On the second part, the type of thing I can envision is, for example, the need for special kinds of transportation for a disabled person—a vehicle, and so forth—that would be very costly. I think it would be very unfair to include that kind of expense. Or I could think, for example, of the need of a translator for a hearing-impaired person that you had to pay to be with them during the campaign. It would also be unfair to include that as an expense.

I actually think this is good as long as—and I understand Stéphane's concern—the list of what is considered a personal expense is very clear. I think vouchers should be required and I think it should be within the limits, but the limits would have to be adjusted to accommodate that.

The Chairman: I think we've had a very useful discussion this morning on this matter. Perhaps we could proceed. I would suggest, colleagues, that we take another five minutes, if that's okay.

• 1220

Could we proceed to number three, Jamie?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Number three is consequential. If you are going to require personal expenses to be included, there would be a requirement for supporting vouchers. Obviously, if they aren't included, then they wouldn't be.

The Chairman: That's agreed then. Agreed.

Number four brings us back again. As I mentioned before, lots of these things are sort of circular. We agree to one thing, then we find it relates back. Jamie.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Number four would further refine what would be included as a fundraising function. It does not address the issue about advertising and what it is defined to include or not include. This is more a question of what kinds of events would be considered fundraising events. Basically, it would be one that is designed to raise money for a party or candidate, not for an annual general meeting or a social event to thank your campaign workers and things of that nature.

The Chairman: Are there any comments? Are we okay?

Let's go to number five, which strikes me as being very similar.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Yes. Again, this would require clarification of what is covered by advertising, but basically it's to identify the costs that are directly attributable to the fundraising event.

The Chairman: Again, to me that sounds reasonable.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: That ties back into the inclusion earlier on in the first part of the first recommendation.

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan and then Peter Julian.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): I have just one big point on that. For example, would the printing of the ticket, the printing of the cost of a ticket—

The Chairman: Rey, I'm sorry. We did actually discuss that matter in a previous item, and we've agreed that it has to be clarified, the nature of what it means. Is that okay?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Sure.

The Chairman: Peter Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian: Just to clarify this point, we're not talking about net cost. What would happen in the event of a fundraising event that lost money?

Ms. Janice Vézina: I believe the proposal would be that it would be considered an election expense if there were any promotional activity involved there, but if this were simply with members, there'd be a deficit. The deficit would be there, without reimbursement.

The Chairman: Is that okay, Peter?

Mr. Peter Julian: Yes, thank you.

The Chairman: Could we then go to number six?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Number six is when there's some question of at times, I presume, determining what the commercial value is of goods that are provided to a campaign or acquired by a campaign or donated to a campaign. This would provide a standard definition, the lowest amount charged for an equivalent amount of the same goods or services in the same market area at the relevant time. I think it's just for clarification of—

The Chairman: It excludes volunteer labour again for the reasons we all accepted.

Number seven.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: This, again, would be a definition of what is volunteer labour: work provided at no cost for which the individual providing the work does not receive pay from any source. So this would cover the situation where an employer offers to give two or three of his or her staff to work on a campaign. That would not be considered volunteer labour.

The Chairman: Yvon Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: It should be volunteer. What kind of a situation are we talking about? Let's take the example of someone who comes to help you out over a period of five weeks, working 30 hours per week for a total of 150 hours. You realize that there is some money left and you give him $500 for his 150 hours of work. Is he still a volunteer or is he no longer a volunteer at $3 an hour?

[English]

The Chairman: Janice.

Ms. Janice Vézina: It's certainly dependent on.... Because if we're talking poll agents or.... I don't want to go there. No—if they've received pay and have agreed to work for that amount.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: No.

The Chairman: The scenario given was that they had agreed to work voluntarily, but at the end, as a gesture, they might get $500—

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Yes, they agree—

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: After the fact, there is some money left on the table, $300.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's cheap labour.

The Chairman: Janice.

Ms. Janice Vézina: If the person were involved in the promotion of the candidate, then it would be an election expense.

The Chairman: Okay. George Baker.

Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): Suppose the person took their annual leave; they were still getting paid by their employer but they took their annual leave and went to work on the campaign.

Ms. Janice Vézina: Took a paid holiday.

• 1225

Mr. George Baker: It says here:

Volunteer labour should be defined as work provided at no cost, for which the individual providing the work does not receive pay from any source for the hours volunteered.

In other words, be paid specifically for working in the office.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. George Baker: Okay. And how about the answer, though, to the question of $500 at the end? Did you get an answer to that?

The Chairman: Yes; the answer was that one is an election expense.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That is not a narrow interpretation. This individual received a salary. He was paid. At least he was given financial compensation for the work he performed. That may appear to be minimal financial compensation—a pittance, even—but it was financial compensation all the same, and because that financial compensation allows that individual to perform work to promote one person's candidacy, that is an election expense. That is obvious. It is not a matter of interpretation; it is very clear. That individual who worked, shall we say, on a volunteer basis received financial compensation for the volunteer work he performed. So, that is an election expense. There's no doubt about it.

[English]

The Chairman: We've got that one. Jamie's point was specifically about people who are released by their employer to work on a campaign, and that is disallowed here. Right? If someone is given leave from their work teaching in school, for a week, to work on a campaign, that is not allowed.

Ms. Janice Vézina: Well, it's an election expense.

The Chairman: It's an election expense. So you charge the full salary they were being paid.

Can we go to number eight?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: It is recommended that the official agent of each candidate be required to open one new account for the sole purpose of each campaign and that the account be closed after any surplus funds have been appropriately dealt with.

My understanding is that at present there is no actual requirement in the legislation for a separate account. Therefore, on occasion, official agents are either appointed for more than one candidate and they put all in one account for different campaigns, or, alternatively, they don't even open an account, and just run it through their own banking arrangements.

This is probably not done that often with the representatives of registered parties who are running more professional campaigns, perhaps, but it is an issue, and there would be a requirement to open an account.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Before we leave the volunteer issue, I'm really concerned about this. I'm concerned that if someone—and it's happened—decides that they're going to take their holiday time and work on the campaign, technically they're being paid. They're volunteering their holiday time. The way this wording works, I think that would be a problem. I think we have to be very, very clear that people can volunteer their time and not have to quit their jobs.

The Chairman: We will clarify that in the report.

Number eight—any comments? It sounds straightforward to me. Okay? Agreed?

I would suggest we leave number nine, which is in fact quite complicated, and start at number nine the next time. We will continue this discussion at our meeting on Tuesday at 11 a.m. Is that all right?

Again, on the question of staff, we would be grateful if the staff would continue to attend. We were hoping to have finished by now, but....

Thank you all very much.

The meeting is adjourned.