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]

Tuesday, June 2, 1998

• 1136

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, could we begin? We're going to continue our consideration of issues relating to the Canada Elections Act. We've got to the part of our deliberations where we're considering financial issues.

I think every member has a copy of the discussion paper on electoral finance issues by Jamie Robertson, dated 19 May. In that document we're on page 6, and we're about to begin discussion of item number 9, which is the last item under “Election Expenses”.

I'd remind you of a couple of things. We have Jacques Girard and Janice Vézina here to give us advice. We also have Peter Julian, who's the assistant federal secretary for the NDP, and Lorraine Godin with the Bloc Québécois. I don't know if other staff members should be named, but they are here, we agreed, so they can participate in our discussions on the financial part of what we're doing.

For the one or two new members I see here, we're getting, I hope, towards the end of dealing with a very large amount of material, some of which we inherited from the Lortie Commission and from the special committee on Parliament last year, as well as from presentations made to us by colleagues, presentations made to us orally by the parties represented in Parliament, and written submissions that we received from all, or almost all, the registered parties.

The agreement we have is it would be a good thing if this committee could process all of that material and present it in a report, even if we don't agree on various parts of it. That's the procedure. I think the regular members of the committee are used to that. That's what we're doing.

If I can say one more thing, I hope, as I said at the last meeting, that the parties will submit their responses to our requests on the matter of the technical issues. There's a form, and the deadline was in fact earlier this week. I hope those responses will be submitted soon.

Can we go to item number 9, Jamie?

Mr. James R. Robertson (Committee Researcher): Item number 9 was included in the brief received from the Reform Party. It relates to government advertising and the inclusion of the cost of such advertising in party spending limits, if it is not restricted to informational advertising, during and just before an electoral campaign.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion or comment?

Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): The difficulty I have with that is the government business must go on. The House doesn't completely come to a stop. We stop sitting, but the business goes on, and if you have to announce things, you have to announce things. How would you decide which was promoting government policy? If you announced suddenly that you were lowering the GST, that would obviously be electioneering. But if you were announcing something that had been in the works for six months and had come into fruition, and if it were a positive thing, then it would be a value judgment.

I don't see how the heck you'd ever implement that. I don't know what board of wise old men would sit around and decide what was promoting government policy and what wasn't.

• 1140

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): We'd have to use wise old women.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: There are no old women, only mature women.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): I would like to ask the officials from Elections Canada something. If we assume for a moment that this recommendation is implemented, could it be implemented in a realistic way?

The Chairman: Jacques, would you care to respond to that?

Mr. Jacques Girard (Director of Legal Services and Registrar of Political Parties, Elections Canada): Well, I guess we would have to count on citizens to inform us of any violation of that, and then we would have to make an investigation. That's part of the proposal there, that those matters should be complained about to Elections Canada. But it would be difficult of course. The election period is a very short period of time.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In light of the concerns raised by caucus colleagues, distinguishing what may constitute true government initiatives and achievements and so-called partisanship—

Mr. Jacques Girard: You're quite right; in some cases it would be a judgment call. But it might be interesting to look at the royal commission on that, because they put as a principle that there should not be any advertising from government, but they provide some exceptions.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Is that during the election or before the election?

Mr. Jacques Girard: During the election.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Okay.

Mr. Jacques Girard: We're talking during the writ period here.

Unfortunately I only have the one in French.

The Chairman: Perhaps Rey could see that.

Would you like to read that, Rey?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, not at this time.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The point I'm trying to make is that at least the Lortie one would be during. And of course the other point I have here is: who will know what constitutes three months before the election? We never know when the election will be called until the time it is called, so it would be very onerous.

The second point I would make is this. If two have to advance this recommendation at this point, then I would add, “including by the opposition parties”, because they too receive government funding in terms of research funds, and they can do the same thing. Adopting a recommendation limiting only the government would imply that the opposition parties are free to do otherwise.

The Chairman: Jacques Girard, then Elinor Caplan, and then Chuck Strahl.

Jacques, are you going to respond? No? Okay.

Elinor Caplan and then Chuck Strahl.

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): I'm not going to be supporting, and the reason I'm not is that, frankly, you never know when an election is going to be called, which is point number one, and second of all, I think the voters can decide whether advertising is appropriate or inappropriate. There are very specific rules during an election campaign period. It's very hard to impose rules in a pre-writ period. Having Elections Canada have to make that judgment is inappropriate, and that's not their role.

The Chairman: Bearing in mind that it's in the light of this discussion that this will be mentioned in our report, Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I would agree that given our current electoral system, there's no way of knowing what the three months prior to an election are going to be, so I don't know where that came from. Although apparently our party made some recommendation that way, I don't know what they're talking about there. During the electoral period is what the Lortie Commission is dealing with, so that's the one that makes it interesting, and they do recommend some restrictions. That's the only period I would think it could even plausibly be addressed here.

The Chairman: In the light of that discussion, again, I'll call our usual straw vote.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Could I say something?

The Chairman: I'm sorry.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: There's no doubt one can always denounce advertisements that appear excessive. That part of the political game. If it doesn't make sense, we say so and that's it.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It's your job.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You're not going to be given a chance not to do things that don't make sense.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: We agree.

The Chairman: Madeleine, I apologize. I didn't see your name on the list.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): This is the last time.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: In the light of the discussion, I'll call the straw vote. Those generally in favour? Those against?

A large majority is against.

So we move on to the “Spending Limits” section, and there are three items.

Jamie.

Mr. James Robertson: The first recommendation here came from the Reform Party again. It suggests that now that we have a permanent voters' list, it is possible to calculate spending limits on an annual basis in advance of an electoral campaign. Therefore, it would be advantageous for both MPs and potential candidates if the spending limits for each riding were announced in advance on an annual basis so that people could plan accordingly, instead of waiting for the campaign to start.

• 1145

The Chairman: Ms. Caplan and then Mac Harb.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Actually, I think this is a very good idea, and it's made possible by a permanent voters' list. But I think it should be an approximate, because we know the spending limit changes during an election.

So the only suggestion I would have here is that when the legislation is drafted, it should be an estimated spending limit.

The Chairman: Mac Harb and then John Solomon.

Mr. Mac Harb: It causes a major problem for a constituency like mine, an urban setting, where about 15% of the people in my riding move every year. I can estimate what the limit is, personally, through the vacancy rate in my constituency. I look at an election and say, well, this election was a $50,000 limit. If the vacancy rate was, for example, 2% or 3%, I would know 2% or 3% are not living in those dwellings.

Frankly, I can live without it. I wouldn't want to create extra work for Elections Canada in order to print out lists every year, unless that is easy for them and does not constitute a problem. If that's the case, that's fine.

The Chairman: John Solomon, and then I'll go to Jacques Girard.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): If anyone's been involved with budgeting for an election campaign— you are always a bit nervous because you're not certain what's legal and what's not legal. I think this is an excellent recommendation.

It should be stipulated, as a matter of fact, that this is the expenditure for your riding in this calendar year and this will be your figure; it may be more, but this will be your floor price. So you have a floor you can budget on in the event there's an election. It may not have to be every year, but I'd certainly like to see it in the third and fourth year of a mandate. It should be a floor number as opposed to a ceiling number, so you can budget accordingly. If you end up being a little more in terms of dollars when the final tally is done, then you can spend that extra money. But there should be some idea given to all the parties as to what you might spend in that riding.

The Chairman: I think I could go to Jacques Girard because I hear murmurings about the last part. Jacques, do you want to comment on that?

Mr. Jacques Girard: In terms of whether or not it would be difficult for us, no, it would not. We provide you with a list every year, so we have the numbers of voters, and we publish something in the Gazette April 1 of every year. So it's easy.

In terms of the floor you're talking about, that may be another issue, because we have to take into account that the limit is based on the preliminary list of voters. In some circumstances, it can happen that between January and July—let's say there's an election in September—the population in a district would decrease, and the amount published could decrease as well. So it could be an indication that the spending limit would be around that amount, but it could go down as provided otherwise.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan, and then right back to me.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Where I think it would be helpful is as an estimate where you could see the trend year after year and know approximately how much you'd have to raise to be able to support your campaign. But I don't think there's any suggestion that there be either a floor or a ceiling. It would just be an estimated amount to show what the population trend is in the riding.

Mr. John Solomon: What's the point?

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan and then Carolyn Parrish.

Colleagues, I think I have a sense of where we're going with this one, if we can keep it short.

Rey.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I would favour a floor, because the essence is to be able to be safe on having a budget minimum. If it happens to be higher, of course, there's no question raised. If it happens to be lower, we can conclude that because there is a floor established by law, the candidate acted in good faith. If per chance the numbers had decreased, it is one of those bonuses that happened, and it would be isolated and few and far between.

The reason is this. If the rationale is for planning and the basis is very flexible—it is still an estimate—it can still provide the same difficulty. So I would tend to favour a floor, a very reasonable floor.

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I won't be popular, even with my own colleagues; I march to a slightly different drummer on this. I'm surprised no one has put in the suggestion that we cut the spending limits down radically. I think the limits are too high. I purposely kept mine under 50% of what my limit was. I'm surprised you guys didn't bring that in.

The other thing that concerns me a lot, which is not addressed in here, is the pre-election call spending, which can be enormous. You can spend as much as you want before the call. You get a sense towards the end of a mandate that an election is coming. And really there's far too much money spent on elections. I think we should be looking at cutting the total amount back. I'd like to go on record as saying that.

• 1150

The Chairman: The first part is number 3, I think, Carolyn, and we'll come to the second part later on. So we'd be glad to deal with it again.

It seems to me there's some interest here in this being addressed, but there are divergent views. With that in mind, in light of the discussion, could I see those in favour of this item? Who is against this? Okay, there are a couple against it.

Can we go on to number 2, please?

Mr. James Robertson: Currently, the Canada Elections Act provides for the postponement of an election in a riding where a candidate who was endorsed by a registered political party dies between roughly just before the period for nominations closes and polling day.

In such an event, the budgets of the other candidates are increased to account for the fact that the election is longer in those ridings. The difficulty is that the election is postponed only if a registered party candidate dies, not if any candidate dies, i.e. it's not if an independent candidate dies. But the wording of the provision for the increase of the budget applies to the death of any candidate, whether it's a registered party candidate or not.

So the proposal is that the act should be clarified such that the budget should be increased only if the election in that riding is delayed or postponed.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I can think of many ridings where this makes perfectly good sense, but we did have someone who ran as an independent this last time and got elected, and I think that makes him the front runner.

In a riding like that or in other ridings where an independent has a real crack at it, then it throws the whole thing into turmoil. I think this means that although this might work for 99% of the ridings in Canada, there's that other 1% in which it doesn't work. So I don't think it's necessary to have it for just registered parties. It's rare enough, so let's just make it the way it is now.

Mr. James Robertson: The way to approach it to make it consistent would be to say that the election is postponed if any candidate dies, rather than if just a registered party candidate dies. So the expense limit would be increased in every case.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes. Otherwise, you're presupposing that only a registered party can win, and that's been proven not to be the case.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): This hopefully won't lead to the murder of candidates.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Say no one has been elected, so nobody is declared a winner. Why would we make a special provision for an act of God?

The Chairman: Jacques, do you want to comment on that?

Mr. Jacques Girard: Actually, as it stands now, I think it's recognized that a party can have a candidate in each riding for an election. If a candidate from a party dies, the election is postponed to allow the party to file a new candidate. There's no similar provision for an independent candidate because it's the person himself.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: How many times has it happened in the history of Elections Canada?

Mr. Jacques Girard: A party candidate? Not to my recollection. Very rarely.

The problem with the actual provision, as Jamie explained, is that even if the election is not postponed because an independent candidate dies, we have to increase the limits. So why would we increase the limits if the period is the same?

The Chairman: Could I deal with this one, then? I'll call this. Then perhaps I could call a straw vote. I'll call Chuck's alternative too, which is that any candidate can be involved. Again, bear in mind that we're not ruling on these things; we're simply conveying an opinion.

So with regard to number 2 as it stands, those in favour? Those against? We have two or three in favour and five against.

Now Chuck Strahl's point. It would be the same thing, but it doesn't say “registered party”; it says “any candidate”. All those in favour of it phrased that way just in general terms? We have eight in favour and four against.

Thank you.

We'll go to number 3. Again, bear this in mind. I realize that for some people we're almost like an informed focus group giving some opinions on things that have been placed before us and our predecessors.

We're going to number 3.

Jamie.

• 1155

Mr. James Robertson: This was a proposal that came from the Lortie Commission. It is included here because it ties in with some of the recommendations that have been made elsewhere about the definition of election expenses. It is that:

The spending limits for individual candidates and registered parties should be revised, and should be adjusted annually.

I think the original proposal for this is that if you include additional things in your definition of election expenses, this will mean you'll have to increase your budgets or your expense limits in order to accommodate those expenses.

It might also be an opportunity to discuss Ms. Parrish's proposal that perhaps the spending limits are currently too high.

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish and then Jacques Girard.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Number 3 implies an increase. One of the difficulties that I find—when you analyse electoral returns, the big item is signs and stakes. I think Canada is maturing to the point where that's visual pollution; it's a mess. If you really force people to spend their money more frugally, you get more intellectual debates. You get more pieces of literature that are more important than a big ugly sign on somebody's lawn.

I'm very concerned that the limits keep going up without any apparent cap. And just as the Reform Party has been talking about capping the number of members in the House, I think at some point we have to say elections are running amok, people are spending far too much money, and they're not really running for election. It's a popularity contest with visual pollution.

I'd like to see the limits set aside—and I don't think you can do it in this report—and people to analyse what the money is spent on and what sort of reasonable amount could be expected to be spent, and start cutting it back. I think it would be a very responsible thing to do.

I would also like people to look at this concept of pre-writ spending. Some people can spend $20,000 or $30,000 pre-writ, and there are no limits on it. I think it gives the governing party an advantage, because they have a better sense of when the election is going to be called. I was cut short last time, though. I thought it was going to be three or four months after it was.

I think that pre-election spending should be regulated more. I think the limits should be seriously looked at. Analyse everyone's expenses last time, find out where the bulk of the money is spent, find out what's absolutely essential to run a decent campaign, and say, look, we're going to become more responsible and cut the money down.

The Chairman: Jacques Girard and then Elinor Caplan and Ken Epp.

Mr. Jacques Girard: I just wanted to remind the members that as it stands now, the limits are adjusted annually, under the current legislation. They are, yes, under the consumer price index provided to us annually by StatsCan. We publish a notice every April 1 in the Canada Gazette, and that indexes the limits.

The Chairman: Okay. Elinor Caplan and then Ken Epp.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think one of the reasons you want to be able to look at this and revise it is if, as we discussed in other parts of this report, you're broadening what our election expense is—you decide to include polling or those kinds of things—then the limits must be adjusted.

Having said that, I do want to respond to some of the things Carolyn said, and to say that while I understand where she's coming from, I disagree, and for the following reasons.

Incumbents have a huge advantage, which is primarily name recognition. For anyone who is challenging an incumbent, signs have become very important, if they're going to get their name out there. The name recognition that goes along with signs is important. If you're going to have a fair race, you have to give people the ability to get their message out.

I'm a member. I've been a member in Ontario for 12 years, and as an incumbent, there are many advantages other than just name recognition—the opportunities we have to communicate and so forth, on a fairly regular basis. The notion of thoughtful debate is interesting and important, but if you're going to give people a fair chance in an election, you have to have rules that have limits high enough to let them really compete. The truth is that low limits favour the incumbent, and I feel you have to have a limit that is high enough to give a challenger a fair chance.

I say that from experience, because I ran against a cabinet minister in 1985, and I understand how important it is for someone who is challenging a high-profile incumbent to use all of the tools that are available to them in order to be able to run a good campaign.

• 1200

I think it's noble and fine that incumbents want to keep their limits lower. I think it's environmentally reasonable to say signs are messy. They are. Notwithstanding all of that, as someone who believes in a fair, democratic process, the limits must be high enough to allow people to compete and we must not consider bans on signs or those kinds of things that allow people to have the kind of name recognition that is needed to run their campaign.

The Chairman: Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: I think we also need to keep in mind the fact that the costs of actually conducting a campaign vary tremendously from riding to riding. You have some ridings where you can walk from one end of the riding to the other. Then you have others, like mine, where even though I have a large population in urban areas, those urban areas are far apart and it takes an hour to drive from one place to another. I found it ironic that with the new ridings, for example—this has nothing to do with elections, but my office budget went down this year because I have more people in urban areas, even though they're farther away by another hour's drive. The same thing can happen with elections.

I think we should also look at—I don't know if this is the place—the limitations and the reporting requirements of all sorts of things; for example, the use of vehicles. There are some people who just donate it and there are others who put it in as an expense, and there's no way of controlling that with a whole bunch of candidates.

So I've hit a scatter-gun of different issues. I personally have often thought that we shouldn't have these things, all these reporting requirements. Let the market flow.

One more last thing with respect to reporting and spending limits. I think it's absurd for us to have to keep track of how many shirts we get cleaned during a campaign in the personal expenses department.

The Chairman: Again, colleagues, I think it's very appropriate that we get engaged in the debates and we get very useful information on the record so that this discussion will be reflected in our report.

Having said that, we're on number 3 and it says: “should be revised, and should be adjusted annually. ” Generally speaking, those in favour of the motion?

Sorry. Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: On a point of clarification, does “should be revised” mean those people who want it to go up can put their hands up here and those who want it to go down can also put their hands up? Does “revised” mean changed from what it is?

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Mac Harb: It's revised now.

Mr. Ken Epp: They're adjusted now.

Mr. James Robertson: They're adjusted now. I think the idea would be that they should be looked at and they should be revised up or down. I'm afraid the wording currently here is broad enough to cover both sides.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: There you go.

The Chairman: If I might comment on it, a lot of these things are circular. We've picked some of them up here. This list is not some sort of rational list. This is the list of all the things we have to consider. For example, there is the whole business of what are election expenses and what are pre-election expenses. All of those are part of this mix and we have to bear that in mind. The idea is that there be some revision, and this adjustment annually, which again, I suspect, reflects the fact that there's the automated voters' list.

Back to Ken, briefly.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I have one additional thought. We were advised that it was published in the Canada Gazette April 1, and I understand fully the rationale behind it. It's an official document. All legal documents are there, and yet in the reality of society, how many citizens read the Canada Gazette? Why can we not change the regulations so that when it is published in the Canada Gazette it is included in publications such as the usual dailies, including the Internet?

The Chairman: That will be reflected in the report, as we say.

Those generally in favour? If you don't want to vote, don't vote, because we can simply move on.

[Translation]

André Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): If we vote on something, even in the final report, are we opting for an upward or a downward trend? The philosophy is not the same at all in the application of the resolution. If we say that the trend is downward, the work will not be done in the same way. And we still have the objective criteria of the analysis of the consumer price index. I'm not sure I understand the usefulness of the resolution.

[English]

The Chairman: Again, I think we've agreed that if there are views that it should go up, our final report would reflect that. If there are views that it should go down, our report would reflect that. I could ask now, if you wish. Although it's not directly relevant to this, I could ask for a show of hands from those who think they should be increased, André. I could ask for a show of hands of those who think they should be decreased, just to get some sense of that, if you're concerned about it.

• 1205

Let's do that. Those who, in the light of this recommendation here that recommends it be revised, think that the revision should be upwards? Those who think the revision should be downwards? I think it's four to one. So in the light of that—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: How many want the status quo?

The Chairman: Okay, I'll ask them about the status quo. These are just ways of getting something into our report, that's all. For the status quo, we have down four and up one. I'm going to move straight on and leave that.

I'm going to move on, folks. I don't think it's appropriate to vote on this. I think André is right.

Let's go to “Official Agents”, which is the next section. You'll see there are a number of items in this, and if you can scan them, if you've not already done so, while Jamie is talking— Jamie, would you deal with that?

Mr. James Robertson: A number of these are fairly technical. They are to clear up ambiguities or unclearness in the statute. The first one is the change or the dismissal of an official agent. Currently the act provides that candidates can replace or appoint a new official agent in the event of the agent's death or legal incapacity. There is, therefore, some confusion as to whether they can dismiss an agent who is not performing his or her duties satisfactorily. This proposal would make it clear that a candidate could dismiss the agent providing they filed a written notice with the chief electoral officer, and this would be the way of formalizing the dismissal.

The Chairman: To me, if I could comment, this is very close to being a technical item.

Stéphane Bergeron and then Peter Julian.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I don't think this is simply a technical trick. I'm somewhat uncomfortable about this resolution or a certain ambiguity insofar as we all know that politicians are personalities who usually have very highly developed egos.

It can happen in some circumstances that an official agent does his work decently and proposes constructive suggestions to the candidate that don't necessarily concur with what he'd like to hear from his official agent. In some cases, it could be too easy to dismiss the official agent when he doesn't say what we want him to say whereas he's doing his work and constitutes, in a way, a financial advisor for the candidate.

Let's even push this to its logical conclusion. At some point, the official agent can indicate to the candidate that certain practices in the electoral organization are in conflict with the Elections Act. At that point, the candidate could say: "Yes, but that's how it works. If you're not happy with that, we'll simply replace you."

We need to be able to clarify the conditions under which a candidate can dismiss the official agent, and not allow this to be simply an arbitrary decision. I feel that the candidate should have enough freedom to dismiss his or her official agent insofar as there must be a relation of trust between the candidate and the official agent, otherwise things can't work. However, on the other hand, for all kinds of reasons that are also perfectly legitimate, the??? candidate must not be allowed to just make any arbitrary decision. Therefore, we have to clarify the reasons that could enable a candidate to dismiss his or her official agent.

[English]

The Chairman: I have Peter Julian, then André Harvey, then Rey Pagtakhan.

[Translation]

Mr. Peter Julian (Assistant Federal Secretary, New Democratic Party): I agree completely with Mr. Bergeron on that point. It is important that a candidate be able to replace his official agent if the latter does not do his work properly. That's a very important principle.

But as written here, the conditions under which a candidate could replace his or her agent are not quite clear. The current wording leads us to believe that the candidate can do this under any condition. We support the principle that a candidate can replace an official agent who is not doing his or her work properly, but under certain conditions, in order to avoid situations similar to the ones described by Mr. Bergeron just now.

• 1210

The Chairman: André Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Chairman, I totally disagree with making it more complicated for a candidate to fire his or her official agent. In an election campaign, if there is one boss it's the candidate. The one who holds the baton is the candidate. If we unduly restrict or complicate the way a candidate can change official agents, this will complicate the election campaign even more.

I think that the provision is very clear and very transparent. The candidate is the one who is responsible. He's the boss of the campaign. He's the one who wins or loses. He must be in a position to surround himself with people that he feels are able to respond to his aspirations. For heaven's sake, let's not complicate the responsibility that a candidate may have to fire his official agent. He's the one responsible for the campaign. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The power to appoint normally carries the power to remove. My concerns are these. It is only a six-week campaign now; it is no longer 54 or 57 days. If we allow a replacement on the decision of the candidate, how many times can such a replacement be allowed in a six-week period? If we allow it once, we ought to allow it many more times.

My question to the election official is this: in addition to death and legal incapacity— is resignation a part of that legal incapacity?

Mr. Jacques Girard: No.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: What happens, then, during a resignation by the official agent?

Mr. Jacques Girard: It's not provided in the act, so of course when we face this situation we allow the official agent to resign. What can we do? We cannot force the person to act. But he has to report, to provide the returns, up to the date of his resignation, to the candidate and then someone else takes over.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Okay, so this is taken care of by precedent.

Mr. Jacques Girard: By precedent, yes, but it creates a lot of confusion during a campaign.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: There's one amendment that we may introduce to change that, but I am persuaded not to allow it to be done on the so-called preference of the candidate. Since I have to assume that the candidate will have taken all the necessary care during the time of appointment of an agent—it is not a simple process—I would rather allow the six-week trial to proceed, except death, resignation and incapacity.

The Chairman: In the light of that discussion, for number 1, I'll ask for those generally in favour. Okay, we have four against and three in favour. I think the discussion reflects the situation quite clearly.

Next is number 2. By the way, again, I hesitate to say something is technical now, but it does seem to me number 2 is technical. Go ahead.

Mr. James Robertson: Yes, number 2 is fairly technical. It is related to number 1. It basically would provide that if a new official agent is appointed they should accept the appointment in writing, and a copy of the letter should be sent to the returning office and the chief electoral officer. As the note indicates, the act currently requires the official agent to provide a declaration to the candidate accepting the appointment, but there's no requirement that this declaration be filed or provided to anyone else.

The Chairman: Do you accept it as technical, folks? Okay, let's move on to number 3.

Mr. James Robertson: I think this was inadvertently put under official agents, but it really gets into definition. It defines what a contribution would be. It would be defined as:

any money provided that is not repayable and the commercial value of goods and services provided by way of a donation, advance, deposit or discount or otherwise of any tangible personal property or of services of any description, whether industrial, trade, professional, or other, excluding volunteer labour.

Fairly technical, I believe it would just clarify, for purposes of the legislation, what is a contribution.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan and Ken Epp.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: If it is technical and the act isn't clear, we should clarify it.

The Chairman: Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: There's one point of lack of clarity. It's my understanding that under the present rules, if you have a person who works, say, in the computer program area in his profession and he volunteers to help you in your campaign, because of his specialized ability you have to declare as an expense the market value of this time, whereas if it's somebody who does this as a hobby and maybe has the same ability, you wouldn't have to declare it as an expense. Could that be clarified?

The Chairman: Janice Vézina.

• 1215

Ms. Janice Vézina (Director of Finance, Elections Canada): That's the current definition of volunteer labour, in fact.

Mr. Ken Epp: But that is very inconsistently applied.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think this is a good opportunity to change that, so anyone who volunteers their time, talent, and expertise, as long as it's after hours volunteer kind of time, should be able to do that.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Rey?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I had the same point.

The Chairman: Okay.

In light of that discussion, can we leave this one and move on?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: We should have somebody who knows nothing about computers volunteer to run that computer system.

The Chairman: Yes, I know. The point is well put, but can we move on? Do we accept that? Jacques, are you okay with that?

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes.

The Chairman: Can we go to 4, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Aren't we voting on the third point?

[English]

The Chairman: Those in favour of 3, generally speaking, in light of the discussion. Against?

I see none against.

Okay. Number 4.

Mr. James Robertson: This one deals with banking arrangements for the official agent. It recommends, “The campaign account should be opened in the name of the official agent, using the title—”. Right now it is not technically required.

The Chairman: This is technical? Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Okay. Let's go on then.

Mr. Ken Epp: Hold it.

The Chairman: Ken, by all means. We're not trying to rush this thing.

Mr. Ken Epp: During the last campaign, I had a number of cheques that were just made out to “Ken Epp”, and we deposited them to the Ken Epp campaign. What's wrong with having an account called “Ken Epp Campaign”, even though the official agent is the signing authority for it?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: You're supposed to.

The Chairman: Can we go to Janice?

Mr. Ken Epp: Is that what I have, or is that what it would give me?

Ms. Janice Vézina: The law requires that the bank account be maintained in the name of the official agent, but the problem we're trying to address here is that there's some confusion over whether that can be a personal account of the official agent that exists or whether a new account should be opened. Sometimes the funds gets mixed and then there's confusion in terms of the accounting.

The Chairman: If your official agent were Marie Smith, for example, she might simply start using her own account as your campaign account. This is the technicality to say there must be a campaign account, right?

Jacques.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes, and the problem you also see is the person acting for more than one candidate will open only one account and throw all the money in there, and it's a mess.

The Chairman: Okay. Again, in light of that discussion we'll move on. We're now at 5.

Mr. James Robertson: This was a recommendation by the chief electoral officer. The act currently defines an election officer as a person having a duty to perform pursuant to the act for which duty that person may be sworn. I gather there's some confusion about whether Canada's agents are election officers for the purposes of the act. This would clarify that they are not. They are there on behalf of the agent of the candidates, not on behalf of the chief electoral officer.

The Chairman: I think it's technical. We'll move on to 6.

Mr. James Robertson: You're moving too fast for me.

The Chairman: Sorry about that, Jamie.

Mr. James Robertson: Number 6 says:

The official agent should be allowed, with the approval of the candidate, to provide written authorization for other individuals to accept donations on behalf of the candidate.

Currently, the official agent must receive the contributions and no one else. This would allow him or her to delegate that authority.

The Chairman: Mac Harb.

Mr. Mac Harb: That really poses quite a bit of difficulty. For example, say you have an event and many volunteers are selling tickets to an event. They will receive cheques from people such as John Smith, who wants to buy a ticket. It's a bit of a nightmare for the official agent trying to figure out who has tickets for this event. It will become overly bureaucratic.

As long as the contributions, as it is now stated in the act, are in the form of written cheques to the campaign, anybody who is receiving funds for a campaign should be able to, for as long as the campaign runs, know who that person is, which is the case now. I think complicating it this way will create a bit of a nightmare.

The Chairman: Sue Barnes.

Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): I'm going to go on the opposite on this one. In a city like mine, with a number of candidates all drawing on the same contributors, often there's one joint event. A number from all the supporters of the three different things comes in and then it's divvied up after—certainly not on some fund-raising event—or it's separated at the time of the organization. People are in charge of getting it to the right people and the right official agents. But there could be a very limited amount of time when the money comes in to some designated people and then is transferred. In fact, I know that occurs, and it's done properly.

• 1220

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: This may seen trivial and elementary for many people, Mr. Chairman, but on that point, I'd like us to specify that even if other people can be authorized to collect funds on behalf of the official agent, those funds must be deposited in the official agent's account.

[English]

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan, briefly.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'll ask Jacques to explain the rationale for this particular recommendation.

Mr. Jacques Girard: The rationale is found in paragraph 217(1)(b) where basically it provides that all money provided for a campaign:

shall be paid on the person's own behalf out of moneys to which he is beneficially entitled to the official agent and not otherwise.

So basically, a cheque made to a candidate would not be acceptable, if we're to be extremely strict, because it's not paid to the official agent. But what we're saying is give some latitude to the official agent to decide whether or not we want someone else to accept donations on his behalf and have all this money deposited into a bank account.

Ms. Janice Vézina: That's right.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It also permits the endorsement of cheques to the official agent.

The Chairman: Mr. Harb.

Mr. Mac Harb: What you are saying, then, in this provision here, is that somebody can write a cheque to Ken Epp, and then Ken Epp can sign it to my campaign.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes. It could be endorsed and made payable to your campaign for deposit only to your campaign bank account.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's provided there's written authorization that will allow him to do that.

Mr. Mac Harb: Oh, I see. Okay.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes. That's why I want it to be explained.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm not sure that I understood that little part. It seem to me that that was what was written there, but now it seems that we're saying something else. Could you repeat that for me, please? I don't understand it properly.

Mr. Jacques Girard: If the official agent has the power to delegate his power to accept contributions, he could, for example, delegate that to the candidate who could receive contributions and make sure that the contributions are deposited in the bank account.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But the contribution still has to be made in the name of the official agent.

Mr. Jacques Girard: No, not necessarily. The important thing is that we know who has made a contribution and where the money is going. If we know who the contributor is and where the money is deposited, we have the transparency that we're seeking to achieve.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Therefore, technically, I could write a cheque to myself, a personal cheque, and endorse it for deposit into the account of the official agent. Isn't it a bit bizarre to receive cheques like that from citizens in the riding?

Mr. Mac Harb: That happens a lot in campaigns, doesn't it?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, but I wouldn't accept that.

Mr. Jacques Girard: In that case, the candidate would have the option to ask the contributor to destroy the cheque and to write out a new one made to the order of the official agent. Do we want to impose that condition on the contributor?

[English]

The Chairman: I've got John Harvard, Elinor Caplan, John Finlay, and Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—Assiniboine, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I think the explanation is reasonable. In the past, I know I received donations sent to me personally, and I wound up having to return the cheque just so it was made out properly.

What this gentleman is saying is that it'll give the official agent the flexibility such that I would then avoid having to return the cheque to have it made out properly.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan, then John Finlay.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It's my understanding that this will clarify the act to allow what's sometimes happening anyway. It's a grey area in which a candidate or a person in the campaign will receive a cheque they want to endorse. The official agent has to then ensure it's a correct cheque with all the proper information. But this is to clarify a problem that's been identified and happens occasionally.

The Chairman: John Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Well, I'm not sure, Mr. Chairman, whether I need to say anything. I think Ms. Caplan has just explained it.

As for the cheques that come in to the John Finlay campaign, I may get them, the person at the door of the event may get them, but they all go to the official agent. Is that illegal?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Sometimes when it just says “John Finlay's Reception” not “John Finlay's Campaign”, or it's not made out quite exactly— Rather than going through the problem of sending it back to get another cheque again, you want to have an ability to endorse it over—

The Chairman: They're endorsed and placed in the particular account.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's right.

The Chairman: That's what it is. But again, the way this thing worked is that all this is useful commentary on this topic. We didn't come up with these. These are recommendations that have been given to us, as it were.

Rey Pagtakhan, briefly.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I think we should simplify the model as best we can. Cheques would be written to the name of the candidate, which is the likely name that would be remembered by any contributor, and then, “or the official agent” because of the old tradition. It was either/or or both. In that case I think it would solve most of the problems.

• 1225

Ms. Elinor Caplan: This should solve that.

The Chairman: In the light of that discussion, those generally in favour of number 6? Those against? I see none against.

Okay, we will proceed to number 7.

Mr. James Robertson: This deals with party leadership campaigns. This has been identified by various people as a grey hole that for the most part is currently unregulated.

The proposal by the chief electoral officer is that there should be a registered agent for each candidate or contestant, who would be identified and would be required to provide certain information on the leadership campaign to the chief electoral officer.

It should be noted that in itself this does not involve any spending limits on leadership campaigns. It is intended more as a way of ensuring that reports are filed.

The 1996 annex notes that Ontario law requires party leadership campaigns to disclose their revenues and expenditures within six months. It also imposes limits on contributions, although it does not give tax deductions.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think it is the practice of most parties now to raise funds for leadership candidates. According to my understanding, all this would do is give some transparency and clarity to a practice that I feel is appropriate.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments on it? Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: May I ask a question as a neophyte on this. When there's a leadership campaign, say, in the Liberal Party, do people have the right to make donations to the Liberal Party of Canada?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: In most parties they do, yes.

Mr. Ken Epp: Oh, really? I didn't know that.

The Chairman: John Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: I just have a technical question. Why shorten it to four months if the current practice is six?

Mr. James Robertson: I'm sorry. In Ontario it's six months. I think most of the limits that are proposed in the gist of this are based on four months. In my understanding, most parties and candidates have managed to get their reports in within four months.

However, that should be consistent. Whatever the reporting requirement is elsewhere should be the same here.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Generally speaking, that recommendation seems perfectly acceptable to me. It could indeed promote greater transparency in the operations of various parties during leadership campaigns. What seems a bit complex to me in this recommendation is that this will lead to some interference in the internal operating procedures of political parties. But despite that, I think we can live with this.

However, I would like to have some clarification about the need to present to the Chief Electoral Officer a report on any volunteer work done. What does that mean?

Mr. Jacques Girard: When we drafted the document, we made a list of the documentation on all issues that are raised in this document. We had in mind three objectives: transparency, openness and fairness in the system. There were obviously areas that needed greater clarification. The leadership campaign is one and volunteer work is another.

Political science professors who examine this aspect of election funding feel that we must attribute some financial value to volunteer work. There are people who give one or two hours of their time, and that's an accepted practice. But these professors denounce the fact that in some cases, volunteer work can represent 48 hours of volunteer work per week by a professional.

Given the financial importance imputed to this work, which is not taken into account, it should be disclosed. It is with that in mind that we included this paragraph. On page 13, paragraph 11 of this document, you will find this notion of disclosing volunteer work. It's mainly professor Stanbury, who had conducted an analysis for the Royal Commission, who recommended this approach.

[English]

The Chairman: I think we're dealing with the principle of this thing, not some of these details.

I keep saying that a lot of these things are circular and there's no logical thread to the way these things are presented here.

In the light of that—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: However, given the discussions—

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan, yes, okay.

[Translation]

I'm sorry. Stéphane.

• 1230

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Perhaps I'm wrong and perhaps Lorraine has a different viewpoint, but it seems to me somewhat bizarre to ask a candidate in a leadership race to report on volunteer work that is done. First of all, it's difficult to quantify insofar as there are organizations throughout the country where some volunteers devote 45 minutes a day and others work 30 minutes another day. And that same volunteer who worked 45 minutes may come back three weeks later and work two and a half hours. How can you keep track of that? That's the first problem.

The second problem is that if that principle is valid, it also has to apply to elections.

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Mr. Chairman, I think that this notion is discussed further on. I simply want to say that we didn't want to know the names of all the volunteers who work 15 or 20 minutes or half an hour a day. We want to know when it becomes significant.

We propose that 40 hours of volunteer work during an election campaign be reported, that is the equivalent of a full work week. It's a subjective criterion. It could perhaps be 100 hours.

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane, if I could interrupt you, I sense— I'm watching people around the table. I think we should simply take the volunteer labour part out of here, right?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chairman: I mean, I'm just watching. I think it overly complicates it.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Right.

The Chairman: The people agree with the general sense of the rest.

[Translation]

Stéphane, is that okay?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, absolutely.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. So in light of that, taking out the volunteer labour part, those generally in favour of number 7? Those against? Okay, I see none against. Can we—

Mr. Ken Epp: Can I say one more thing.

The Chairman: Please, by all means.

Mr. Ken Epp: There's now a requirement that all election materials be stamped as authorized by an official agent. I would like to know the reason for that.

I'd like to speak against it, because there are carry-over materials from one election to the next that are generic enough that you can use them. For example, there are door hangers that say, “I was here, I'm sorry I missed you”.

And here, the one I had in the last election, says “Official Agent”. Now those are no longer useful, or they have to be restamped to put on my new official agent for the new election.

I would like there to be a regulation that, instead of having to give the guy's name, simply says, this is official agent for a Ken Epp campaign, or whatever, instead of having that requirement. Is that—

The Chairman: It doesn't relate to the item we're discussing, but I think it's an appropriate thing to raise.

Jacques, do you want to comment on that now?

Mr. Jacques Girard: I don't think it creates any problem. The important point is to know where it comes from.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes, that's consistent with the Ontario act; the only requirement is that it's the official agent for the Ken Epp campaign.

The reason for having that is that it identifies all those things that are official. I think that's a good point. I don't think you should have to have the official agent's name on it.

The Chairman: It will be reflected in the report.

An hon. member: Can that be—

The Chairman: That will be reflected in the report.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I would just like to raise a new point. It is beyond the subject matter of donations.

The Chairman: We haven't got to donations yet. We're just about to. Can we start donations?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, before you do that, I just have one quick point.

The occupation of the candidate posed a problem in my riding during the last election and almost delayed the deadlines for forms. In other words, the incumbent members of Parliament could not identify themselves with the occupation “member of Parliament”. That was very ridiculous. Perhaps it can be resolved later on. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you. Don't worry. It's duly noted.

“Donations”, Jamie.

Mr. James Robertson: This first recommendation here is a proposal—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I apologize for interrupting you. I think that the point Mr. Pagtakhan raises is very interesting. Will this be discussed somewhere in the report?

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: It is not listed here, but we hope we will raise it when we come to the technical and clean-up issues on Thursday. I have a list of some that have come up, and we will make sure they are dealt with.

The Chairman: We'll be ready.

Okay, “Donations”.

Mr. James Robertson: This is a recommendation from the Bloc Québécois. It basically proposes that the Canada Elections Act should adopt a regime similar to Quebec's, whereby donations can only be received from registered voters, not from corporations, trade unions, associations—

Mr. Mac Harb: I like that.

Mr. James Robertson: —or any other groups that are not individuals and registered voters.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I'm well aware that I'm probably crying out alone in the desert with this proposal today, but I think that we must understand the logic underlying this proposal. It is not meant to complicate the lives of political parties nor make fundraising any more difficult. The point is simply to protect political parties and candidates from any undue influence from special interests, be they corporate or pressure groups of any sort. By establishing a maximum limit and ensuring that only individuals who have a right to vote can effectively influence the political process, we are guaranteeing greater independence for political players and, by the same token, greater transparency in the political system in general.

• 1235

Although it's not my intention to put salt on anyone's wounds or be mean to anyone in any way, I simply want to remind you of the incident that happened at the beginning of the current legislature, where somewhat dubious practices came to light in the case of a fundraiser for the Liberal Party of Canada who, in exchange for privileged information, obtained contributions from corporations. This produced extremely bad publicity for the Liberal Party of Canada. This is exactly the kind of situation that this would help us avoid, although of course it does not totally prevent such situations from arising.

[English]

The Chairman: Thanks, Stéphane.

Peter Julian and then Elinor Caplan.

[Translation]

Mr. Peter Julian: This recommendation is based on the Quebec Elections Act which contains certain very positive elements. The principle has certain advantages although in practice, there are ways to get around the Quebec law. In examining the annual reports that were tabled by the political parties in Quebec, we note that especially in the case of corporations, the managers and directors make maximum contributions as individuals, whereas in reality, these contributions come from the corporations. The Quebec legislation is not perfect.

The problem we have with these recommendations is that corporations will continue to find some way to contribute. Moreover, unions that democratically decide to make contributions would be prevented from doing so. This is why we oppose this recommendation.

[English]

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: My view is that what's important in campaign contributions is disclosure. That's the protection for the public interest against any undue influence: disclosure. You have to let everyone know who donated to your campaign and how much they gave to you.

I think the points that were made by Peter are excellent—

The Chairman: The other Peter, I might say. Mine are never excellent, I know that. Carry on.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I don't support this. In fact, I would just point out that the NDP in Ontario had a policy of not accepting from corporations but only accepting from unions, and they've now changed that policy, for exactly the reason that as long as you openly disclose where the funds are coming from, then the public interest is protected.

The Chairman: In light of that discussion, with respect to number 1, those generally in favour? Those against? I see a good number against.

On number 2, which is related—Stéphane, do you want to begin with that?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, it's related, Mr. Chairman but it's completely different. Right now, on the federal scene, there is no limit imposed on corporate or individual donations. For example, the recommendation that we presented here proposes a maximum limit of $3000, but that amount could be different. If colleagues agree with the notion of imposing a limit, I would ask them to vote in favour of this recommendation. Three thousand dollars is given there simply as an example; we could just as well insert $5000 or $10,000. We will have taken a major step the day we've determined the maximum limit for donations made to various political parties.

• 1240

Without wanting to harp unduly on past cases, one can certainly think that a company that donates $80,000 to a political party will get a very attentive ear from the leader of the party and eventually ministers, whereas theoretically, in a regime like ours, any citizen who knocks on the door should be able to get an attentive ear. The point is not to get the ear of a politician only because of the amount that's put on the table.

That's the reason for establishing a limit, whatever it may be.

[English]

The Chairman: Merci, Stéphane.

Rey Pagtakhan and Sue Barnes.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I oppose this, for the reason that it may not withstand a Supreme Court challenge, in the light that this donation can be construed as a freedom of expression. You express your support for a candidate by way of a donation. Again, disclosure is the critical thing to control it. On this basis, it may just be a provision that would be challenged, and again, another sort of legal battle.

The Chairman: Sue Barnes and then Stéphane Bergeron.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Thank you.

I also agree that disclosure is the important criterion, and that everybody knows where the money is coming from at all times.

For most of us, individual donations still are in the neighbourhood of about $100, but there are situations where people want to contribute to more than one individual's activities. That happens especially in large urban centres, where a Liberal or a Conservative supporter, or whoever—of what party it doesn't matter—wants to go to three or four different dinners in a year, and might want to go to the provincial level, or might want to fund federally.

I also want to point out that there are many situations I used to encounter in my practice where individual estates gave donations. I would think they would be covered in this section—situations where sums of money are donated at time of death, so that there are large moneys coming in to one particular party. I would strenuously object to this, and I would always want the protection of knowing who is giving what.

The Chairman: Stéphane.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think we're opposing two things here that should not necessarily be opposed. Proposals 1 and 2 do not exclude the fact that each donor must be known and each donation disclosed, so that the public can know exactly who gave how much and to whom. We're on the wrong track if we try to oppose those two principles.

With regard to the point raised by Mr. Pagtakhan, which at first had been raised by our New Democrat friend, no one has ever claimed that the Quebec Elections Act is perfect. It would be presumptuous to claim that any legislation could be perfect. But in my opinion, it is certainly less imperfect than the current federal legislation regarding political party financing.

Having said that, to get back to the point that Mr. Pagtakhan raised—and Mr. Girard can correct me if I'm wrong—I seem to remember that the limit imposed on voters' contributions in Quebec has been upheld before the courts up until now. There hasn't been a problem; it has not been deemed an unreasonable limit on freedom of expression to give $80,000 to a company rather than $3000. I don't believe that argument holds water, especially since it was pointed out to me earlier that in many provinces, such limits have already been set for the municipal level. Therefore, I don't think that argument can be considered valid.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. I think we've had a good airing of this one. In the light of that discussion, those in favour of number 2? Those against?

It's four to two, against.

Number 3.

Mr. James Robertson: This ties back to a discussion we had last week about the registration of individual constituency associations. Basically, that recommendation was made by the royal commission, by the special committee on electoral reform, the idea being transparency and accountability.

During our discussion last week, I believe the consensus was that the registration of individual constituency associations was neither necessary or desirable. However, one of the advantages of that would be that it would allow the registered electoral district agent—an agent or treasurer, as is currently the case—for each constituency association to receive donations and to issue receipts.

Currently, the only people who can issue receipts, as I understand it, are the treasurers of the registered parties, i.e. the central organization, and the official agents for nominated candidates. This would allow donations to be made to the constituency associations, which is sometimes the case now, and moreover, it would allow that person to issue a tax receipt for tax purposes.

• 1245

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron, Elinor Caplan, and Sue Barnes.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Robertson was quite right to remind us that we'd already discussed this issue and made a decision. For all the reasons I invoked during the previous discussion, I will oppose that point. It's mainly because we would be increasing the complexity of operations for local associations which as we all know are essentially run by volunteers. Therefore once again I would tend to oppose this proposal.

[English]

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'd like to give some information. I've thought a lot about this one, and I see this more as an option. I know this mirrors the Ontario act, which does permit local associations to issue tax receipts, and it has worked quite well. It's not complicated and it has not required a huge bureaucracy.

The question I would ask of the officials is, have they looked at acts across the country to see whether or not this is a provision that is consistent across the country, and whether or not, in putting this in the act, it would be an option so that those parties that want to centralize and do everything through the central organization could do that and those that want to permit riding associations to issue receipts could opt to do that? I see it as something we should consider as an option and look at what's happening across the country to consider whether or not we want to give ourselves that flexibility or not.

I thought about it afterwards, and I am aware, because of experience with the provincial riding association, that this is normal in the Ontario legislation. From my experience, the concerns that were raised when we last discussed this have not been a problem.

The Chairman: You should know I have Sue Barnes, John Finlay, Peter Julian, Stéphane Bergeron, and Ken Epp.

Sue Barnes.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: I am sorry, I don't have the knowledge of your prior discussions. I would want more knowledge on this area.

Again, I think the flexibility would be key. It's very frustrating if you've had a large fund-raising event and have to bug the national party to get the receipting out on time, and there is nothing that angers your own voter more than somebody's name being misspelled, or somebody that you know well but is just a name to somebody in another city, and they actually do you damage after you've been the beneficiary of their donation.

My real concern, even though I would like to have it localized, is that the legal liability would be so intense that the average volunteer treasurer who is not the CA or the CGA would be afraid from a legal liability viewpoint. If we could put enough protection around them and clearly not have everything so onerous that what is an easy job to fill right now in the riding associations becomes something on which you're pretty well saying, well, you can go to jail like this— I do with my official agent is a lot scarier to somebody than the speech that— In fact, it's not even my concern at the riding association level. It's just a usually not-so-onerous volunteer job.

I would like to go that way as long as we can still capture not scaring off the average volunteer. I don't want to see our associations needing such professional levels that we're not involving everybody.

The Chairman: I would remind you, by the way, that Jacques and Janice are not witnesses; they're simply here as aides to us.

Next is John Finlay and then Peter Julian.

Mr. John Finlay: I agree with Stéphane and many of the points Sue has made. I think we need the assurance of the party organization above the riding level. I have quite enough trouble with getting cheques signed to the right authorities and so on, and the membership list. I think the official agent position is supreme—you didn't let me speak earlier—

The Chairman: I apologize.

Mr. John Finlay: —and I think to lessen it in any way with respect to elections is wrong, and to increase the powers of the local treasurer is a mistake.

The Chairman: Peter Julian and then Stéphane Bergeron and Ken Epp.

Mr. Peter Julian: This issue is very strongly linked to the issue of registering constituency associations, as Mr. Bergeron pointed out, and they can't really be disassociated. If we provide the right to receipt at the local level on an annualized basis, then there has to be a reporting mechanism and a disclosure. Otherwise the system breaks down and it becomes a way of routing money around existing Elections Act structures.

• 1250

So given that up to this point we have put aside this question of disclosure and annual reporting, I don't see how we can support providing the right to receive contributions and receipt them annually. You just can't disassociate the two. For that reason we would oppose this particular recommendation.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's exactly what I wanted to say when I was listening to my colleagues opposite. They seem to want to consider this recommendation completely independently from the one that we considered a number of days ago, whereas we can't do that.

I would like to remind you of the two main objections that I had concerning the previous recommendation. My first objection was essentially the fact that, as Mr. Julian suggested, we may create some kind of transparency that I would call variable geometry transparency, in so far as local associations of political parties who indeed have an agent registered at the local level would file a report disclosing their financial income and expenditures, whereas the local associations of parties whose financial activities are far more centralized would not have to provide such a report. If we have to disclose income and expenditures, it should be done in a consistent fashion.

My other objection was simply that if we follow this approach, we must necessarily ensure that these reports are audited. This means costs and an increased administrative burden for local associations and I wouldn't want us to get into this kind of mechanism.

Moreover, to respond to Ms. Barnes, who expressed reservations earlier about contributions that are made during fundraising activities and the speed with which one can receive tax receipts, let me simply remind you that in any event, in all cases, tax receipts are issued at the end of the fiscal year, before contributors can file their tax return. You don't get a tax receipt three days or two weeks after having participated in a fundraising event, unless that even takes place in January. And even then, it's usually impossible. Therefore, the problem you've raised does not really occur.

[English]

The Chairman: Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.

I'm going to take the other approach. In our associations we already have audited statements every year. They are presented to the membership of the local associations, but they are audited statements. I think it would greatly streamline our operation in planning for the next election or fund-raising to be able to build a coffer of money for the election campaign, if we could do that locally in each association and if the local treasurer could have comparable powers to the official agent during an election. But to have those comparable powers between elections I think holds a continual line of accountability in each association, instead of having just a little spurt of it in the election and the rest of the time they do whatever they want without the accountability. So I would speak in favour of this.

The Chairman: Colleagues, I want to compliment you all on the way we're handling this material. Again, bear in mind what we're doing. These matters have been discussed before by ourselves in other forums and so on. What we're trying to do now is to gel some of the thoughts.

I thought this was an excellent discussion on this topic. In the light of the excellent discussion, those in favour of number 3? Those against number 3? There are a considerable number against.

Can we go to number 4 in this case? Janice, could you speak to number 4 for us?

Ms. Janice Vézina: This recommendation is the result of some concerns being expressed regarding the use of tax credits as a means to not only defray the cost of a portion of the contribution to a candidate in order to encourage participation of citizens, but that there are ways to structure the financial transactions so that the candidate and the individual can actually make money on the transaction. Therefore, this recommendation was put forward simply to highlight the practice and to foster some discussion on the issue.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

• 1255

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think the practice that has been described is one that we are and should be concerned about. The concern I have with the wording of this is, for example, I don't think a candidate should be required to accept donations. So if somebody gives you a donation and you don't want to accept their money, you should be able to say “I'm returning your cheque; please don't vote for me”, or something.

I want to make sure that whatever we put in the act, the right to refuse to accept a donation is okay. As I understand it, it's the “any portion of”; it's the kickback idea. When we talk about this—because I have some questions about it—I couldn't imagine how this would ever work.

So I'm not sure we want a full explanation of how it would work. We just want to make sure that nobody can use the act in a way that would be fraudulent or subvert the attempt of the act. However, I do think that candidates and candidates' agents, on behalf of the candidate, must be able to refuse donations without explanation.

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: —

[Editor's Note: Inaudible] —the section, when it it comes to drafting it, should take into account that in some cases it's legitimate to return a contribution, and this is not what was addressed here, as was mentioned.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron, then Ken Epp.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Precisely with regard to what has just been said, I think that I would add one small provision to the proposal specifying that no party should be authorized to return to the donor directly or indirectly any portion of a contribution that was made in compliance with the legislation, unless authorized to do so by Elections Canada.

As an example, the constitution of the Bloc Québécois stipulates that we must not accept contributions from corporations. It can happen that in the confusion of an election campaign, a corporate cheque can slip in and eventually be cashed. In accordance with our party's policy, we return those contributions. If this provision were to be adopted as such, this would restrict the possibility we currently have of returning a contribution that is deemed not to comply with our statutes and regulations. This is why we propose adding the words "unless authorized to do so by Elections Canada" specifying the reasons for which we returned this contribution and, in our case, that under the statutes and regulations of the Bloc Québécois that govern our operations, we are authorized to do so.

[English]

The Chairman: Let me go to Ken Epp. I'll come, Jacques, to you last. Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: I was going to suggest that this should include the idea of a donation for which an income tax receipt was issued, because if no income tax receipt is issued, that means really the government is out of the loop and now I can take and give that whole cheque back if I want to.

Mr. Mac Harb: Maybe this is a way out. This is a way of handling it.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes.

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: It's exactly the point I was going to make. That would allow us to do a follow-up with Revenue Canada and make sure the person who is being reimbursed does not get a credit for this same contribution.

The Chairman: I think I should not take even a straw vote on this because we no longer have a quorum, but I'd be quite glad to come back to that in a moment. The members have had to leave for reasons of—

Can we come back to number 4, the straw vote.

Can we go to number 5, then, please, and we'll come back on our straw vote thing to number 5.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We would have to contact the Liberal whip to make sure that quorum is maintained.

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: Recommendation number 5 would deal with the problem—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Recommendation 4.5?

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Is it true that we adjourn at 1 p.m.?

The Chairman: I'm going to try to keep going as long as I can persuade you to stay. I said 30 or 45 minutes, if we could. It's going to save us an evening meeting.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Let's continue.

• 1300

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: The difficulty now is that before a candidate is officially nominated, he or she cannot receipt any donations. Similarly, a political party, until they have nominated at least 50 candidates, cannot receipt any donations. That would not change; however, it would mean that the donations that had been received from the time the election was called until the official nomination could be retroactively receipted. Technically, at present they cannot be receipted at all.

The Chairman: Okay. Are there any comments on this one?

Mr. John Finlay: I think it's a good one.

The Chairman: Peter Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian: This is a good recommendation, because the practice is, as we all know, during election campaigns, contributions that are received before the official nomination are then normally deposited in such a way so that a receipt can be granted. It just makes a lot of sense to make legal the practice that goes on in ridings because of the complication between an election writ being dropped and having to wait for the official nomination process to be undergone.

The Chairman: Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Another way of handling this is that it just could say that the official agent, whenever he's appointed, is entitled to issue receipts for any money that's received on or after the date of the writ.

Mr. James Robertson: I think the concern is that until they are actually nominated, you don't know that the person is going to run.

Similarly, the party may only have 45 candidates. You don't want them issuing tax receipts, because if they don't have the 50 candidates, the party is not a registered party at present.

Mr. Ken Epp: Oh, okay.

Mr. James Robertson: The intent is to deal with it, but there has to be an official registration, or you have to meet the registration requirements or the nomination requirements in order to be able to go back.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion on this? We'll come back to them both.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'd like to know from the officials the implication of this.

The Chairman: Okay. Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Maybe Janice will want to add something, but I think that will ease the process very much, because actually what happens in some cases is that the cheques are returned to the donors and then they're asked to provide a new cheque. It just creates frustration.

I think the other good point about that recommendation is the fact that when an election is called, you cannot, as a candidate, file your nomination before the returning officer has issued his proclamation.

I will recall all my life the 1993 election, where the returning officers were more than pressured to open their offices and issue their proclamation so that some parties could file their candidates and start issuing the tax receipts. It created some confrontational issues.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Colleagues, I would suggest that we suspend for five minutes. We can collect our lunch, and we'll return to items 4 and 5 when we resume.

• 1303

• 1309

The Chairman: Okay colleagues, if we could begin, we'll look at numbers 4 and 5. With regard to number 4, straw vote-wise and on the basis of the discussion we just had—for our new members, this is just a rough indication of where we stand.

• 1310

Mr. Ken Epp: Can we tell them, Mr. Chairman, that our consensus was, verbally at least, widely in favour of both of these? Can we tell them that?

The Chairman: No, we'll see what it looks like.

We're at page 8, number 4. Those generally in favour of number 4, please so indicate in a straw vote. Those against?

We'll go on to number 5. In light of the discussion, with regard to number 5, those generally in favour? Those generally against? I see one.

This is page 9 now, number 6.

Mr. James Robertson: The recommendation here relates to the fact that, at the end of the campaign, if an independent candidate has any surplus funds available, they are paid over to the consolidated revenue fund, to the Receiver General for Canada. If that person runs in the next election, whether it's a by-election or a general election, the proposal is that the surplus funds should be payable to him or her by the chief electoral officer.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan, then Peter Julian.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: This is in fairness. An independent candidate has no party that can hold funds in a riding association between elections, so I think this would correct that inequity and make it fair.

The Chairman: Mr. Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian: I would agree with Ms. Caplan on that.

The only proviso would be that the candidate would have to run again as an independent, and that's not clear from how it's worded here. We would not be able to allow an independent, since registered parties can't do it, to run as an independent, build up a surplus, and then run for a registered political party in a subsequent election.

As for registered party candidates, their money doesn't follow them. A registered party candidate who changes will leave his or her money behind.

The Chairman: I think you've got a good point.

Jacques, you've got that?

In light of that short discussion, those in favour of number 6? It's a straw vote. Those against?

I see none against.

We'll proceed to number 7. Janice, should we go to you directly on this or Jamie?

Mr. Janice Vézina: Yes, I'm coming directly.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. James Robertson: Why don't I start and then Janice can add anything?

The Chairman: Jamie, then Janice.

Mr. James Robertson: This was a recommendation contained in the Reform Party brief to the committee, but it was also included in the annex. It basically relates to how unpaid accounts or accounts that are left outstanding for a lengthy period of time should be handled.

The recommendation is that they should, after a certain period of time—it may be six months or a year—be included as a contribution or donation to the party or candidate. This is because there are some campaigns that keep these things on the books for years. There's often an unstated or unwritten idea that they will never in fact be paid.

The Chairman: Okay. Janice.

Ms. Janice Vézina: The idea here was that most creditors will pursue people for unpaid debts and that unless this is a disputed claim where the candidate is objecting to the fact that there is in fact a claim to be made, then these should be paid within a reasonable timeframe.

Basically what we were proposing is that if the creditor has taken no legal action or if there's no agreement or anything in the process that would show that the creditor's taking action to collect this debt, then in fact it's a contribution from that supplier.

The Chairman: Are there any further comments on number 7?

Peter Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian: A concern here would be in the case particularly of small businesses. As it's worded now, what we would put them in a position of having to do is undertake expensive legal action or be listed as a contributor to a candidate's return.

Though I'm in agreement with the principle, I think that problem that may arise with small businesses has to be taken into consideration.

In other words, it should be relatively easy for a small business to indicate that the claim is still valid and that they are still pursuing that claim without necessarily having to undertake legal action to have that claim be paid. Otherwise, the control is really in the hands of the candidate, who can decide whether or not it's used to pay a small business. The small business, unless it wants to be listed as a contributor, would have to go court.

• 1315

The Chairman: Jacques Girard, do you want to comment on that? Then we'll hear from Elinor Caplan.

Mr. Jacques Girard: I would tend to agree with Mr. Julian. I would add to the discussion the fact that the mechanism to inform us will be provided in the new legislation that was passed in the House last Thursday, in Bill C-411, whereby the CEO will have the authority to allow for payments after deadlines. So we'll be aware of those situations.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The concern I have is that we're clear we don't include disputed claims; that where a candidate says, “I'm not paying that bill because the merchandise was bad”—you know, that we're clear that where there's a dispute over a claim, it doesn't get listed as a contribution.

The Chairman: Back to that discussion, those generally in favour of number 7? Those against?

I see none against.

Could we go to the category of third party intervention, on page 9?

Jamie, do you want to begin with this?

Mr. James Robertson: A brief background here is that there have been attempts in the Canada Elections Act to restrict third party advertising; that is, people who are not candidates or parties.

Those attempts have been struck down by the courts. However, the decisions of the Alberta courts, in both cases, have not been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. In 1993 there was a restriction of $1,000 on third party advertising put in. It was challenged successfully in the courts of Alberta, both at the Supreme Court level and the Court of Appeal.

However, in the decision on the Quebec referendum legislation last year, the Supreme Court of Canada indicated that it did not agree with that decision—that it felt restrictions on third parties were warranted and could be supported.

Right now there are no restrictions on third parties. There are, of course, spending limits and restrictions on candidates and parties. This leads to some unfairness and is perceived to be a fault in the system.

The proposal in number 1 is one made by Mr. Kingsley in his report on the 36th general election. It basically takes the provisions of the Referendum Act regarding referendum committees and adapts that to third parties. They would basically be required to register if they were spending over a certain amount, and some kind of spending limits would be calculated.

I don't know whether we want to get into the specifics here at this point so much as maybe the general issue of whether third party advertising spending should be limited.

One issue I will just raise now is that there are two types of third party advertising. One is where the third party has advertising that is designed to promote or oppose an individual candidate or party. Then there is issue advertising, where they may not be promoting or opposing individual candidates so much as talking about a particular issue, whether it's free trade, abortion or something else. The special committee in 1993 did seem to think that there should be different rules for the two kinds of third party advertising.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Actually I've given quite a lot of thought to this, and I believe that what we all want when we're looking for fairness during elections is a level playing field or similar treatment. This committee is interested in transparency and disclosure. Rather than seeing this as a restriction, I see that it's unfair for third parties not to be governed by the same sort of regime that political parties and individual candidates are subject to.

I think if anyone wants to participate in the election campaign in an advocacy format, either targeting an individual or an issue or a party, they should be able to do that, as long as the rules for doing that are clarified so that they are, as I said, subject to the same sort of regime that political parties and individual candidates are.

As I say, I don't see it as a restrictive format, I see it as a level playing field that says everyone plays by the same rules. You have the same disclosure rules for where the money comes from, and the same reporting rules. I would favour that kind of regime for third party intervention. When I say party, I mean not a political party but an advocacy group or organization.

The Chairman: Does anyone want to comment on the general point there?

You'll notice issue advertising is dealt with in number 2. What I propose to do is to take the individual items of number 1 in a moment. But in general terms, are there any other comments, before I start on the individual items?

• 1320

I'll start, then.

If you look at the first item, the first bullet—

Mr. Ken Epp: Is it registered?

The Chairman: Do you see that, Ken?

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes. I was asking whether the bullet was registered.

The Chairman: You missed your target there. It says:

Any group or individual that expects to spend—

Are there any comments? Okay.

The next one is:

Names of the groups and individuals registering as third parties would be disclosed.

Okay?.

The next is:

Legislated spending limits for advertising to support or oppose a political party or candidate could be established. The limits might take into account the average amounts that the various parties and candidates normally spend on advertising and will be lowered accordingly to create a level playing field;

Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, here's where we really open a Pandora's box.

Let's just take an issue—it can be any issue, so I won't name one. If there is a large number of people who have banded together to form an organization to oppose this policy, say, at the next election, if we have a rule like this, then all you're doing is saying, well, if your organization grows to a point where the limit is onerous and you can't accomplish your goals, just split, form a new organization, and now you have two organizations.

There really is no way of controlling this type of thing, as far as I can see, because no matter how you set it up, there's going to be a method whereby they can get around it, unless you say it's not permitted at all, and I think that would be a violation of freedom of speech and probably would be charter-contestable.

So I think we're on the wrong track completely here. We're not subsidizing these people with tax credits. They're using after-tax dollars to do their advertising, and I think we should just let them be.

The Chairman: Ken, I would point out that your point about collusion is dealt with two or three bullet points lower. It's under number 1, on page 10, at the second last bullet. Do you see it?

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, but—

The Chairman: I'm not being argumentative; I'm just pointing it out to you.

Mr. Ken Epp: But one could even argue that there's an outfit on the west side of Edmonton that's against gun control; there's an outfit on the east side. Who's to judge whether they've colluded? This one is called the West Edmonton Gun Club; this one is called the East Edmonton Target Shooters. They're not related. They may get together once in a while to talk or whatever, because they have a common interest. So do I, with other people. I think we have a real problem here.

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I would like to ask the officials, in light of that intervention, is this realistic of implementation on a practical level? Are those concerns very probable realities such that the reality of implementation is not realistic?

Mr. Jacques Girard: It's quite clear we're on unchartered grounds here, because the various attempts that have been made in the past to regulate third parties have not been successful.

I think you're right to say it's going to be difficult to control. I think it would be naive to think the first election that will be called after having new legislation will be perfect, but over time, people will know those provisions and should respect them.

If you look at the experience we went through in 1992 with the referendum legislation—it was brand new, with a similar scheme—it worked fairly well. So I'm confident that in the long run—

The Chairman: I think you should bear in mind that these bullet points are phrased in terms of “The limits might take into account”, and so on. It's that sort of an expression, because it's the general principle and some ideas as to how it might be handled.

Peter Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian: On the principle, we strongly support this.

We've been talking in the last couple of weeks about disclosure, about putting a structure around involvement in the political process. To not have third parties subject to the same kind of reporting mechanism and disclosure mechanisms is to say you can get involved in the political process, but the loophole in election time is to go the third party route, because there you don't have to worry about disclosure; you don't have to worry about reporting mechanisms. There's nothing. It's a new frontier.

• 1325

If we've agreed in the past couple of weeks on all of these points—disclosure, annual reporting, and making sure the public is aware of what's going on with the political process—it makes sense to subject third parties to the same kinds of rigorous control and public disclosure, so the public is aware of what's going on in the political arena.

The Chairman: I move to the next bullet point:

Any third part that received authorization would have to submit a report of its income and expenditures, and disclose all contributions pledged or received for the period of one year prior to the registration date to six months following election day;

Again, it's a suggestion.

Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I thought about this one, and some might ask what good it is to have the reporting a year later. I think it is valuable, because I think it's part of the regime of transparency, disclosure, and openness.

Mr. Mac Harb: You would support it.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I would support it, because I think we can't just have transparency for one side and not the other.

The Chairman: Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Let's say there's a denomination that decides to really work at informing the voters on issues such as abortion come an election. Are we going to register them? As soon as you do that— As a matter of fact, I think the Income Tax Act has limitations on how political they can be to be registered as a charitable organization, and yet surely they have the right to do that within a free society.

Isn't that what the word “liberal” means? “Liberal” means freedom, and I think we're going to get into all sorts of things here that are very, very negative in terms of freedom of expression.

If you want to know who these people are, they are more transparent than anybody. You don't have special interest groups influencing them; they are a special interest group. The identify themselves as soon as they get up, and we know who they are.

Mr. Mac Harb: All in favour.

The Chairman: No, we're going on to the next bullet. It says:

Where a company or union is concerned, the report must include the date and resolution passed by the governing body authorizing it to intervene in the campaign;

Mr. Ken Epp: I say again: a religious or church organization wouldn't be able to do this, unless they could show minutes of a meeting at which the congregation voted to do this.

Mr. John Finlay: That's right.

The Chairman: They might, Ken, at the beginning. The $5,000 is simply included. It's only if they spend, for the sake of argument, more than $5,000.

Next:

The Act would have to include provisions prohibiting collusion between candidates and third parties and among the third parties themselves;

Penalties would be levied for any contravention of the Act.

Yes, Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: What do you mean by “collusion”?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It's what he described before: two groups coming together or separating so they would be under the limits.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Oh, okay.

Mr. James Robertson: It would also cover the situation in which a special interest group and candidate combined, thereby effectively raising the individual candidate's spending limit.

The Chairman: Colleagues, looking at number 1 and bearing in mind what we've said, these are scenarios, you might say. Those generally in favour of number 1, so indicate, please. Those against?

Mr. Ken Epp: Why is it the Liberals want to control everything? I can't understand that.

An hon. member: Why not? Why not, Ken?

The Chairman: Number 2—this is the point Jamie made earlier about the difference between support of an individual candidate or party and issue support. Any there any comments on number 2? We had some discussion of it, I realize. Okay, in the light of the discussion we've had, those in favour of number 2? Those against?

Now we proceed to “Blackout Provisions”.

Mr. Mac Harb: It's technical.

Mr. James Robertson: This is as a result of an Alberta court decision, which basically struck down some of the blackout provisions. The result is one of confusion, which all the parties have identified.

• 1330

Currently the blackout on advertising at the start and end of the campaign applies to political parties and to third parties, but not to individual candidates. Individual candidates can therefore advertise at the beginning and end of a campaign period.

This, as I say, has created some problems. The chief electoral officer has not taken a specific position on this and the issue must be clarified. Either there has to be a consistent blackout or there should be no blackout.

One complication here is the recent decision on Friday of the Supreme Court of Canada on polling. It used to be that opinion polls were banned for the 72 hours prior to election day. That has been struck down. It is therefore perhaps a factor to be taken into account in determining whether there should be a blackout or not.

The other point is that a distinction could be made between election day itself and previously, or it could just be left up to the individual parties and candidates to choose how they wish to handle advertising on election day.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan, please.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Given the court decisions on this, my view is that we should not have blackouts for the reason of ending the confusion. In fact, if you're going to permit polling results, as a matter of fairness you may want to permit rebuttal or advertising.

My personal view is that if you're going to restrict, the day to restrict is election day. That's the day voters have the chance to go and participate in the rite of voting without being bombarded by advertising. As far as I'm concerned, that's the only caveat.

If it were a choice of blackout or no blackout, I would go with no blackout. If you could do something to give us peace on election day, I would support it. But if you couldn't, I could live with it being wide open, right up until the polls close.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have not had an opportunity to carefully examine the Supreme Court decision. I don't know if Mr. Girard can answer my question. Can we presume—if that's the case, we may have to adopt a provision to fill the void if there is one—that the court would deem that the fact of prohibiting the publication of polls on the day of an election is a reasonable limit to freedom of expression?

Mr. Jacques Girard: It's always delicate to make pronouncements on the scope of a decision, but my reading of the ruling is that the court would not find that reasonable.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Even on election day?

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes. It stated that there are other ways to allow voters to make up their minds and avoid the undue influences of false polls. Before choosing the worse method, a blackout, other methods should be examined, such as the publication of poll methodology. I get the impression that an embargo on polls even on election day, without any other measure, would be difficult to defend, though I say this with some reservations of course. I'm not a constitutional expert, but that's my reading of the decision.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Somewhere, there's some similarity between the two cases. In a way we are constrained by the judgment of the Supreme Court, the government of judges.

Mr. Jacques Girard: It will almost come down to an equity issue where a newspaper could publish a poll and the political parties and even the candidates would want to respond to this poll if it were false, and this would be impossible within the present arrangement. For example, a political party could not purchase a page of advertising to announce that the previous day's poll was misleading.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Or on the same day.

Mr. Jacques Girard: It would still be too late. Of course, on the same day, press releases could still be broadcast on the air waves, for example, whereas we presently have a total blackout. By lifting this blackout, we would allow parties and candidates to react to last minute polls which may have been misleading.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On the same day, if you allow me to use an expression—

Mr. Jacques Girard: It's an extremely difficult thing, I'll admit.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If a poll were published on election day, then people would get up in the morning, hear about the poll on the news and go to cast their vote when the polling booths opened. Later on in the day, we might hear retractions of every possible kind, but it would be too late: people would already have cast their votes. I wonder whether we should not try to set some limits at least for voting day and see how the tribunals respond to this.

• 1335

Mr. Jacques Girard: But now, you are not dealing with a blackout on publicity, but a blackout on polls.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On polls.

Mr. Jacques Girard: If the committee wanted to go down that route, it should add to this blackout some requirement for disclosing the methodology used in the poll. Otherwise, I feel that it would not be very effective. You may rest assured that the newspaper chains that challenged the previous provisions will also challenge the new ones.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But not on the same day?

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. John Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, if we can't have a blackout on an election day, then I just think it's going to create all kinds of problems.

Look around the world at election days. We send people to help for calm and reasonable elections. Are we going to allow signs and proselytising and loudspeaker trucks, etc., all over the place on election day? I don't think any pretence at making a reasonable decision in the privacy of a polling booth is reasonable at all. Let's just forget it. We'll line up at one door or the other.

The Chairman: Bear in mind that we're being asked here— I think, by the way, that everyone here would agree that the blackout rules should be clarified and made consistent. That's the recommendation, so I'll accept that.

But on the other hand, in the spirit of what we've been doing, what should I do? For a straw vote, I could do blackout or no blackout, and I could do the same on election day.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But this would also apply to polls.

[English]

The Chairman: Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: What is it now? Is it 24 hours or 48 hours?

Mr. Jacques Girard: For the polls, it's 72 hours; for parties, it's 48 hours.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

The fact of the matter is that if one releases a poll just before the deadline, and then no more communication is permitted—meaning no more advertising—you can't counter it anyway.

Mr. Jacques Girard: That's the point I made.

Mr. Ken Epp: Therefore, whether the election is on the boundary or 48 hours before or 72 hours before, it's really irrelevant, but there has to come a time when we say the communication end is over, so let the people go and decide.

I think it's reasonable to give peace on election day. I'm sort of inclined to agree with that. Let's have 48 hours—

Mr. Mac Harb: Well, 48 hours sounds like a good idea providing you can shut up the media from publishing sondages hours before.

A voice: Polls.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes, well, you can't.

Mr. Mac Harb: But if you can't shut them up, you shouldn't shut up the players.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I agree with Mac: if it's possible to have a level playing field whereby you say there will be no polls 48 hours before, then you can have a blackout for everything. If it's not possible to have a blackout for everything, then I think we should say election day is a day of peace.

The Chairman: I think the discussion has been very, very useful. Do you want me to try that, though? We'll do generally in favour of blackout or generally against, okay. Who's generally in favour of a blackout period?

Mr. Mac Harb: How long for the media?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Including polls?

Mr. Mac Harb: Including the polls.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The reports have already said you can't do that.

The Chairman: No, we can't do that.

A voice: It's got to be advertising.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: My view is that you can't have a blackout for advertising unless there's also a blackout for polls.

Mr. Mac Harb: Yes.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I would support a blackout, provided advertising was included.

Mr. Mac Harb: The committee's angry about that.

The Chairman: Does everybody roughly agree with what Elinor has said? That's straw-poll-wise?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Okay, what about election day, then?

Mr. Mac Harb: As for election day, I'll go for that.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Peace.

The Chairman: Okay, those in favour of a blackout on election day? Those against?

Mr. Mac Harb: Is that for the media too?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Hopefully.

The Chairman: Hopefully, yes.

Mr. Mac Harb: Hopefully. If it's hopefully, then why don't we go for 48 hours?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Because the courts have struck down 48 hours before.

Mr. Mac Harb: Well, then go for 36 hours.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: You know it's going to be struck down.

Mr. Mac Harb: Well then, how could you do it on election day then?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: On election day, you could make an argument.

The Chairman: The discussion is going to be incorporated into our report.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: You can make a very legal argument.

Mr. Mac Harb: Could you note that, please?

The Chairman: It's in here; it's recorded.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think it will make a better legal argument.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Once again, and coming back to the argument that I raised a while ago, if the publication of polls and of advertising is only prohibited on voting day, a poll could very well be broadcast on the previous evening's news, at 6 p.m. or at 10 p.m., with practically the same impact. People will go to bed having formed an impression of tomorrow's election results, and on rising the next morning would hear the same news once again.

• 1340

Perhaps the political parties will have already begun to respond, and perhaps not, or perhaps the reaction will still be at the very fragmented and preliminary stage. If this happens, people would cast their vote and it would be too late to change anything at all. Even on voting, it's too late for me.

[English]

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I have a sub-proposal to suggest. It seems that there's pretty much agreement on this issue around the committee. Could we not ask the special committee that's looking at this to discuss with the lawyers to see if there are some options that we might want to consider?

The Chairman: It's for non-legislative items.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Couldn't we ask them to look at this also, or establish a subcommittee that talks with some of the constitutional lawyers to look at the court— What we're dealing with here is a court decision, and we say we don't like the decision, but maybe there is something that is possible and maybe there's not.

The Chairman: Could I suggest that we might recommend to the government to do that, Elinor?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Okay.

The Chairman: Mac Harb.

Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chairman, we've spent quite a bit of time, but I swear to God and tell you that this is the most important subject that has ever faced us as a democratic society since 1867, because with the way the media is, with the heavy and concentrated type of media, close to a monopoly, you really are risking sacrificing democracy in a way by putting all of the balls in one basket.

I would suggest that we do whatever we can as a committee to ensure that the government looks at every single mechanism, including invoking the notwithstanding clause, in order to ensure that the people of Canada have a right to decide on their own on election day, without any interference by a third party, whether that is media or political parties, how they want to vote.

The Chairman: Peter, Ken, how do you feel?

Mr. Julian Reed: Ken's happy.

The Chairman: Our report would recommend to the government that this be looked at in great depth and very seriously.

Mr. Mac Harb: Yes, thank you.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Is it unanimous?

The Chairman: Is that unanimous?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay, let's go.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: And even if we considered applying the notwithstanding clause, there is no other way to ensure the best possible conditions for the unfolding of the democratic process.

[English]

The Chairman: Again, I thank you all for a very useful discussion.

Mr. James Robertson: I have one clarification. The blackout also applies at the beginning of the electoral period for the first few days. Do you want that deleted as well?

The Chairman: Yes, delete it as well.

Mr. James Robertson: Okay.

The Chairman: Now, can we go to “Auditing and Returns”?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: Stéphane.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: To reply to Mr. Robertson, maybe I am mistaken, but if I remember, the blackout at the outset of election campaigns was only meant to allow for census-taking and making sure that everything was done as neutrally as possible. But as the census is no longer taken, I think that there is no longer any point to a blackout at the beginning of the election campaign.

[English]

The Chairman: Good point. I've been wrong consistently, I know, but I think there are really only three items we need to consider under “Auditing and Returns”, and I think one of them is technical. So we might be able to complete it and then close the meeting.

Jamie, “Auditing and Returns”, number 1.

Mr. James Robertson: I think this is a fairly technical question. Basically it would require the auditing and verification procedures to be simplified by requiring candidates to submit their returns and everything directly to the chief electoral officer.

Currently they send them to the returning officer, who transmits them to Elections Canada.

The Chairman: Are people comfortable with that?

Stéphane Bergeron?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Oui.

The Chairman: Let's go to number 2, then.

Mr. James Robertson: The second thing, again fairly technical, is that an audit certificate would be established. The auditor would be required to complete it and sign it and it would allow clarification and standardization of accounting methods.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Everyone? Ken?

Yes, John Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: Would that get around this nonsense we've had this year?

The Chairman: Number 4 deals with that.

Number 3.

Mr. James Robertson: Number 3 would allow returns to be submitted electronically.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Hang on a minute. You don't want to be dominated by these Liberals. Okay? Colleagues?

Mr. Ken Epp: I have just this one question. It says “that a signed declaration be required to be submitted along with the electronic submission”. Are we getting into electronic signatures now, or what's the deal?

The Chairman: Janice Vézina.

• 1345

Ms. Janice Vézina: Currently the returns can be prepared electronically, but because of the wording in the act we require the official agent to actually print hard copies and everyone signs their part. Basically what we are saying is we'd like to be able to accept a diskette or an electronic transmission of the return, but until we could perfect something like electronic signatures, we would still require the declaration piece to be actually signed by the official agent and the candidate.

The Chairman: Elinor Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: My view is that the act should be sufficiently flexible so that when the technology permits, you don't need another amendment to the act to allow for it to be transmitted electronically.

The Chairman: I saw on CPAC the other day where I think a treaty was signed, was it not? A trade agreement was signed electronically by John Manley.

I see consensus. Number 4, I think is C-411.

Mr. James Robertson: Yes. This would allow an extension of deadlines. This has already been dealt with in the private member's bill that was adopted by the House last week, Bill C-411. So it's not necessary.

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Hasn't the Senate passed it yet?

An hon. member: The Senate will be studying it tomorrow.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Are we also intending to study the other bill regarding the ridings tomorrow?

An hon. member: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues, I'd like to thank you very much for this work. I hope it has saved us an evening meeting. I propose that we continue with this exercise at our meeting on Thursday.

At our meeting on Thursday, the agenda was supposed to be the technical items. I sincerely hope that each party, if they've not already done so, will at least bring, if they've not submitted, their technical forms to Marie. If not, bring them on Thursday. But on Thursday we'll start on page 11 with “Reporting and Disclosure”.

I particularly thank our colleagues who came in very late in this discussion. I think that was very worthwhile.

Mr. Julian Reed: We were shanghaied.

The Chairman: Shanghaied is the expression, yes.

The meeting is adjourned.