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 9, 1998

• 1110

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Colleagues, if we could begin, I would like to continue our consideration of the Canada Elections Act.

I would remind you that we agreed at the last meeting that we would extend this meeting through the lunch hour. I understand that a delicious pizza has been ordered at the request of the Bloc.

We are remarkably close to getting through this mountain of material. Specifically, we are nearing the end of dealing with the financial issues which are obviously very important and tie in to all the other issues.

There are a few miscellaneous items which have to be dealt with and then we will consider the returns of the questionnaires on the technical items. I think we can finish this material today and then we will be able to consider all or part of our draft report.

I hope to finish our work at this meeting, but if we do not, as there are votes at 10 o'clock tonight, I wondered if we could meet again tonight. It would be in this room so we would available for the House of Commons.

Could we have a meeting tonight to finish off anything that we don't do at this meeting? We have to be here anyway. Can I have some indication from members?

• 1115

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): That's reasonable.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): My colleague Peter Julian is not available tonight. But if the committee wishes to proceed I will be here until the vote commences.

The Chairman: We could think of a later time, but I was thinking of meeting maybe for a couple of hours tonight, say from 6.30 to 8.30, or something like that.

Mr. John Solomon: That's fine.

The Chairman: All right, there is general consent. We are going to try to finish this material now, but if we don't we will meet again in this room at 6.30 p.m.

I welcome again, Jacques Girard and Janice Vézina. We greatly appreciate your support. We also have with us Peter Julian from the NDP and Lorraine Godin from the Bloc.

Let's continue from where we left off. We are in the discussion paper on electoral financial issues. We are at page 15. The topic is reimbursement and we are dealing with item number one.

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): Number one was contained in a submission from the Christian Heritage Party. It objects to the refund of campaign costs. It supports the use of tax credits. Its point is that if public funds are refunded to parties or candidates, this essentially means that the money is going to candidates and parties which individual voters disagree with.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): First of all, there's a flagrant inaccuracy in this proposal. Presently, parties are not reimbursed 50% of their campaign costs, only 22.5%. So it's quite inaccurate to say that the parties get a 50% reimbursement.

As for the substance of the recommendation, that I don't support at all because I think it's quite praiseworthy for the State to contribute to the democratic exercise and the expression of the diverse opinions that are held by society, I would rather tend to suggest that, as is presently the case under the Quebec Elections Act, that the parties also be reimbursed 50% of their costs so that the next time the Christian Heritage Party of Canada will be right when it says that parties are reimbursed 50% of their costs which is not the case at the present time.

[English]

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

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I just want to say that I don't support this for similar reasons as those referred to by my colleague.

Mr. John Solomon: The NDP's position is that we would oppose this particular suggestion. We feel that having support during the election campaign from the tax base is a democratic and fair process which includes more political parties as opposed to excluding them. We would continue to support the subsidy rate as it now stands.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, is my suggestion going to pass?

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: I believe the question of the percentage comes under number 3, to some extent. Perhaps that would be the time to discuss the basis for the reimbursement.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So let's vote against that one.

[English]

The Chairman: With regard to reimbursement, number 1, those in favour? I see none. It is a straw vote.

Number 2.

Mr. James Robertson: This is a fairly technical point. As I understand it, the reimbursement of parties is currently made on the basis of declared election expenses and the chief electoral officer is proposing that this be clarified to be paid expenses. There would have to be an actual payment of expenses before the reimbursement would take place.

The Chairman: Are there any comments?

[Translation]

Ms. Lorraine Godin (Aide, Bloc Québécois): If I understand this correctly, the parties would be reimbursed if all the candidates of that party hand in their reports on time. Isn't that what is being said? It says:

...conditional on the filing of all required election expenses and fiscal period returns...

What it means is that only the party must have responded, not all the candidates. I want to be sure about that. How is it different from the present legislation?

• 1120

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard (Director, Legal Services, Elections Canada): For example, Ms. Godin, a party that hadn't filed its annual financial statements for a given year but filed an election expenses report would be reimbursed even if its books aren't up-to-date. That would encourage the party to get its affairs in order.

[English]

The Chairman: Those generally in favour of number 2?

Mr. John Solomon: Obviously we would support and do support the second part of that, that is, that there has to be a filing of your election expenses and there has to be some accountability.

However, I wonder how this would apply to a party which has support from business or other organizations which incur costs on behalf of the party, as opposed to making a straight cash contribution.

For example, the Great West Life Insurance Company in Winnipeg will, from time to time, loan staff out to a political party, not the NDP but another political party, and will pay the salary and expenses of that person. It is claimed by the party, but it is actually not money received.

Similarly, the NDP will receive on occasion a representative of a union who would be paid by the union. We claim those expenses as salary, but we don't get the cash. It is an election expense on behalf of the party.

If we were to agree to this, my sense is that those two examples would no longer count for potential reimbursement, when in fact they are donations, but they are donations in kind.

The Chairman: I think, John, that we covered this in the definition of volunteer.

Ms. Janice Vézina (Director of Electoral Financing, Elections Canada): That's true. That's a very good point. The definition of volunteer is fairly clear in that it talks about someone who does not receive pay.

Mr. John Solomon: They are paid by the insurance company or whatever. They are paid. They continue to collect their salary and their benefits.

Ms. Janice Vézina: Yes, and it's a contribution of goods and services. It is a contribution of services and an election expense.

But what this recommendation is trying to clarify is that election expenses should only be reimbursed if there was an actual outflow of cash. That is the principle.

Mr. John Solomon: We are concerned that the two examples that I have provided would be in jeopardy in terms of being reimbursed. I believe now that we are reimbursed for a portion of it. It is something like 22.5% of the federal party level. We feel very strongly that we don't want to jeopardize that.

I am sure the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Reform and the Bloc don't want to either because they receive similar benefits from businesses as well.

The Chairman: I would like to comment on this again, and this is not to cut off discussion.

As we mentioned, in this financial section a tremendous amount of it, in fact, is the follow-through to what we discussed before. We are voting on these things in the light of discussion. My sense of the discussion on the definition of volunteer was that people who are released by a corporation, in the way that John Solomon has just described, are not volunteers. They are, in fact, a cost of the campaign.

Am I right? Was that the way our discussion went?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: According to what I have just heard from the officials, in fact, this would preclude reimbursement for staff if it was an in kind contribution. Is that correct?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: The principle at stake is the following: is the wish to continue to reimburse the parties for expenses they haven't paid for themselves, the principle being that amounts actually expended are reimbursed? In the case of volunteer work, there is no expenditure for the party; there is no money going out. Should the State reimburse those expenses for which no money was actually paid out? That is the principle. One may agree or not.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: But if I could make a suggestion on the other side of that principle, an in kind contribution shows up as an election expense, so that is the other side of that balance sheet.

It shows as an election expense, but it is not a reimbursable expense.

Mr. Jacques Girard: It is now.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It is now, but this proposal would exclude it.

• 1125

Mr. Peter Julian (Assistant Federal Secretary, New Democratic Party): Currently the way things work is that those contributions in kind show up as election expenses and they are also part of reimbursable expenses. If this goes through, what would happen is that they would not be subject to the reimbursement or there would be a more complicated process of cheque exchanges that would have to be made to bring it from a contribution in kind to a contribution that has a cash allocation.

What it ends up doing is complicating the election process after the election day by having this flurry of cheques.

The Chairman: Colleagues, could I suggest that we include Peter's observation in the report with respect to this item?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think it is important before we vote on this to understand that there is a principle which says that reimbursable expenses should be cash contributions. On the other hand, it would be fairly easy to get into an exchange of cheques, as Peter just described.

Is it worth all the trouble? That is my question. You could have an exchange of cheques and then the person who comes in as a volunteer is actually being paid by you and you are receiving a cash contribution from either the union or the company that is making the person available.

If the intent of this is going to result in more complication, is it more trouble than it's worth?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: I hesitate to actually say "more complicated" because it's already complicated. The regime that applies to the candidates is not the same as the one that applies to the parties. In the case of the candidates, they're reimbursed for expenses actually committed to and paid out whereas the parties are reimbursed for their declared expenditures. For example, a candidate won't be reimbursed 50% of the cost relating to volunteer work that was declared. As it's both the contribution of goods and services and an expense, it cancels out and there's no reimbursement. In the case of a party, it's different. The party is not actually paying out any monies, but the State reimburses it for 22.5% of that expense. There's already a difference in the present legislation.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I just want to say that with that explanation I would support this. I think it is a reasonable provision in the name of transparency.

The Chairman: All right. John Solomon and then Peter Julian.

Mr. John Solomon: I think there is another example too. It is not just labour that is being donated, there are also individuals and businesses donating other things that they have as assets rather than cash. They are donating assets.

We have done this in Saskatchewan since the late 1970s. If a business, for example, happens to be a printing company and wants to contribute something in kind as opposed to cash, because they have the material to do so, they will do that and we claim it as an expense. Otherwise, it limits the number of donations one would receive from individuals, small business and others. It is not just the labour factor, it is also those sorts of things.

In Saskatchewan, by the way, the party gets reimbursed a third, not 22.5%, in provincial elections. The individual riding associations or candidates get reimbursed 50%, like the federal level.

It works very well in Saskatchewan. You are audited. There is transparency in that regard. But once that is stopped I think it excludes more people and more organizations from participating in the election process. So I would oppose it.

The Chairman: Peter, are you all right now?

Mr. Peter Julian: I just want to make the point that at the riding level, currently, paid expenses as defined by the act and all the reports that the official agents around the table for the candidates who are here would have filled out would have indicated paid election expenses as including those contributions of goods in kind. Those contributions were already rolled in.

There was a subsequent formula that was applied to those election returns that then took those particular provisions for goods and services out.

There is a very complicated process at the riding level. It would probably be much easier to make it less complicated at the riding level, bringing it more in line with how it works for registered parties, rather than to add an extra level of complexity with respect to the financial transactions. And all of these goods and services are election expenses, so they are subject to the limit.

The Chairman: I think, once again, we have had a very good airing of this topic. We will reflect it in the report.

• 1130

In the light of all of this discussion, those generally in favour of number 2? Those against? I see two and one.

Can we go to number 3?

[Translation]

Yes, Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So it's going through by the skin of its teeth.

[English]

The Chairman: Before we go to number 3, I would remind members that we are going through lunch and then we are proposing, if we need the time, to have a meeting that begins at 6.30 this evening.

Mr. James Robertson: I think numbers 3 and 4 can be read together. It also is appropriate at this point to address the issue raised by Mr. Bergeron, that the level of reimbursement for parties be increased from 22.5% to 50%.

Currently, as members know, individual candidates are reimbursed 50% of their election expenses. The reimbursement of parties is 22.5%. It is being proposed that the basis for reimbursement be changed to an amount per vote. In number 3 the recommendation is that the total amount of reimbursement would not exceed that of 1993.

With respect to number 4, the Green Party also liked the idea of a per-vote reimbursement, although it would not base it on the actual amount of expenses incurred.

The other proposal is that the percentage of reimbursement be made the same for both parties and candidates.

Those three proposals are somewhat interrelated and perhaps they are options that could be considered.

The Chairman: Are there any comments on numbers 3 and 4?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I don't think either of these are supportable. I think if there is going to be any change in the percentages, that is an issue for finance. We could refer that to the committee to consider, but at this point I wouldn't support either of these because I think what is working now is working quite well.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I have a question. Why is the reference to the 1993 general elections?

Mr. Jacques Girard: The appendix was written after the 1993 election.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's it. That's enough to vote against it.

Mr. Jacques Girard: The 1997 figures have to be taken into account.

There was no appendix in 1997, but the figures must be taken...

[English]

The Chairman: We have taken these references from different sources. So I guess that one is dated.

[Translation]

Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think there are two principles underlying recommendation 3. Tell me if I'm wrong. The first principle is that the reimbursement of election expenses for both parties and candidates should be the same. The second principle is that rather than trying to establish the amount through the use of a percentage, the amount should be established per vote.

The first principle is quite fine by me and I indicated that a few minutes ago.

As for the amount per vote, I find that a bit of a concern. As it is expressed presently, it doesn't seem very clear insofar as it reads "an amount per vote that in total", in other words the total of the sums that would be paid to all candidates and parties in Canada should not be superior to the total of the amounts paid to all candidates and parties in Canada during the preceding elections. Basically speaking, that's what it says.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Basically speaking, yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have two problems. First, how do you take into account a certain number of changes, for example cost of living indexation and a possible increase in the number of political parties in Canada's political make-up? All political parties would be authorized to get a reimbursement. From my understanding, if you establish reimbursement per vote, it means that all the parties that get votes will get a reimbursement which means that the portion that would be paid to those parties which, to date, qualified for greater amounts would be lesser.

Mr. Jacques Girard: There are many possible combinations. To our mind, there would be a minimum that would have to be met and that is the minimum that is presently found in the legislation which is 2 per cent at the national level and 5 per cent at the local level. The parties would have to reach those levels. Reimbursement would also be based on the number of votes.

• 1135

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That isn't spelled out here.

Mr. Jacques Girard: No. That's the very brief summary of a longer text.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: My understanding is that it's a reimbursement per vote. The minute a party gets one vote, it's entitled to reimbursement.

Mr. Jacques Girard: That could be one approach. The other approach could be to establish a minimum threshold over which you'd get a reimbursement.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: This recommendation doesn't seem clear to me.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Once again, Mr. Bergeron, we're summarizing pages of text in five lines. You have to take into account the context in which this was written. This recommendation that refers to the appendix is a very faithful adaptation of what the Royal Commission said. I would like to point out two of the Commission's points of logic in this respect.

The Commission said that more money should be given to the parties for two reasons, the first being that the trend appeared to be that reimbursements to candidates after elections increased over the years. So they had more money than in the past and this increase actually occurred to the detriment of the national parties. That's what the Commission was suggesting to correct this distortion that seemed to be happening. We'd have to see if there's been a confirmation of this trend over the last 10 years because the Royal Commission sat 10 years ago already.

Second, to the mind of the Commission, as local associations were being given the power, as long as they were registered, to solicit contributions, the candidates would have a far lengthier period to solicit funds. This will serve as a balance to this trend.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We know that the committee rejected that.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes, this recommendation is to be found in a general context that has to be adapted to those decisions which have already been made.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, can we expect to have a separate vote on both principles?

The first principle is the one that the parties and the candidates should be getting the same reimbursement while the second one is that the amount of the reimbursement be established based on the number of votes up to a given amount. I'd like us to vote separately on both principles if possible.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: If we vote separately on the principle of parties and candidates receiving the same percentage, we also agree to refer that to—

The Chairman: The advisory committee.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: —the advisory committee.

The Chairman: We must bear in mind that our votes are straw votes. They are just to give an indication.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In answer to Elinor, it seems to me far more fundamental than a simple matter of principle that should be sent back to the advisory committee. There absolutely must be legislative change because it's rather major. I think the committee should make a recommendation anyway even though it may have to be looked at more at length by the advisory committee later on. We can't just send the question back to the advisory committee. Something far more serious and solid is needed.

[English]

The Chairman: All, conceivably, by the government. Again, if we are dealing with principles, we aren't actually dealing with administrative matters.

Again, bearing in mind that we are trying to get an opinion here, if I could call numbers 3 and 4, and then I would be quite willing to call straw votes on Stéphane's two points.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The question I put to Mr. Girard had to do with point number 3 which contains within it two principles. I'm ready to vote for one of the two principles, but I'm not quite ready to vote for the other. If you're asking me to vote on number 3 in general, I won't know how to vote. Do you understand that?

[English]

The Chairman: I understand.

Colleagues, I am in your hands. You have heard what Stéphane has said. He is suggesting, as I understand it, that we call these two votes on principle, if you like, straw votes on principle I hasten to say, instead of calling number 3. Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Then there is the question of reference to the government and then there is the question of 22% or 50%.

Those in favour of the proposition that parties and candidates should both receive the same reimbursement? Those against? All right. There are a number in favour and one against.

Those in favour of the refund being on the basis of votes obtained? Those against? I saw none in favour.

• 1140

Again, this is a straw vote. Those in favour of referring this matter to the government for serious study, or words to that effect?

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, before voting on that one, could we send the matter back to the government together with a suggestion? I think it would be relevant to do so. Anyway, this report will be given a general once-over by the government and will probably wind up as a bill.

So I'd prefer we took a position. The government will examine it fully and decide whether or not to present a bill to change the present Elections Act.

[English]

The Chairman: It seems to me that the most appropriate place to do that would be when we are considering the draft report. That would be my suggestion.

We have a rather unusual committee structure. We have staff involved with us and when we get to this topic in the draft report perhaps at that point we should consider a special motion to that effect.

Again, I am in the hands of the committee, but that seems to me to be more appropriate. We have not been passing motions here of that type. Do you understand?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Fine. Perfect.

[English]

The Chairman: We will make a note of it. I will remember and we will come back to it.

Those generally in favour of referring this, in some way—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I think we should just leave it at that and resume our discussion when we get down to examining our draft report.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you. Are we agreed on that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: The last thing is, those in favour of an increase in the reimbursement from 22.5% to 50%? It is a straw vote. Those against? I see none against.

Can we proceed to number 4? In the light of the discussion, those generally in favour of number 4? Those against number 4? I see none in favour.

Can we proceed to number five?

Mr. James Robertson: This is a proposal by the Green Party, that there be a check-off box on tax returns to allow each voter to divert a fixed amount of public money to the party of his or her choice.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion necessary?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I speak against this. People now have the opportunity to make a contribution to the party of their choice and receive a tax credit. I think it works very well and I don't think this is necessary.

The Chairman: All right. On a straw vote basis I will call this one now. Those generally in favour? Those against? I see none in favour.

Number 6, please.

Mr. James Robertson: Number 6 is designed to address the problem of a candidate who withdraws. A candidate who has been nominated and withdraws does not get back any of his or her deposit and it was recommended that they should be able to get back half of it, so long as they complied with the production of their election expenses return.

This actually should not have been included since the committee had previously decided not to deal with any issues currently before the courts, and one of the issues before the courts is the issue of the deposits and the return of the deposits. It is related to that, whether it is directly on point or not.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I would simply say that if the matter is before the courts it is inappropriate for the committee to deal with it at this time.

The Chairman: Are we generally agreed on that?

Mr. Peter Julian: Yes.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Agreed.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Is what you're explaining to us before the courts?

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: The Communist Party has challenged the provisions regarding the number of candidates, the level of the deposits, the return of the deposits and the de-registration of parties. As I understand it, all of those issues are involved in that case to a greater or lesser degree.

The Chairman: All right. Number 7.

Mr. James Robertson: This is not required because in our discussion about electoral expenses we did not make a distinction between direct and non-direct expenses. So I don't think we need to discuss this. It was a proposal made by the special committee.

The Chairman: Agreed. Number 8.

Mr. James Robertson: Number 8 relates to the previous decision of the committee, which was that parties be required to provide reports related to their byelection activities. This is why we wanted those reports. It is because we would allow their expenses to be reimbursed on the same basis as during general elections, which is that they must obtain 5% of the valid votes cast. Currently they do not receive any reimbursement for expenses during a byelection.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: In fact, I think this one is extremely important. I thought this was included. I was quite surprised to find out that byelections were not covered. It just seems to me that it is an oversight in the act and this should move forward.

The Chairman: Any other comments on number 8?

• 1145

In the light of that comment, those in favour of number 8? Those against number 8? I see none against.

Now we are at page 17 of the general section, number 1.

Mr. James Robertson: This is a recommendation by the chief electoral officer which would basically allow him to determine the amount of fees, cost allowances and expenses of election officers. I think this is designed to provide more flexibility and would mean that instead of having to amend the act to change these things it could be done more easily.

Mr. Girard can explain further.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: At the present time, the Governor-in-Council fixes the tariff for election officers. It's a cumbersome and tedious process that almost no one understands except for the people at Elections Canada. The rule was sent back to the Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations which also made representations to the minister, I think, to have this provision of the Act revoked so that the Chief Electoral Officer would be able to determine the remuneration for election officers and change it as need arises because of changes in cost of living and so forth.

[English]

The Chairman: Are we agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Agreed, generally? Is anyone against number 1?

Number 2.

Mr. James Robertson: Number 2 has been dealt with by the House in Bill C-411, so it is no longer necessary.

The Chairman: That is George Baker's?

Mr. James Robertson: Yes.

The Chairman: All right. Number 3.

Mr. James Robertson: The chief electoral officer should be made responsible for ensuring the payment of all claims relating to the conduct of an election, under the authority of the act, in a manner acceptable to the receiver general. I believe this is technical in nature. Currently the receiver general has to pay all these claims.

The Chairman: Jacques, do you agree that it is technical?

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes. It is quite strange, but there is a section in the act which says that all claims relating to the conduct of an election shall be paid by separate cheque. We could not even make a direct deposit. It doesn't make sense, so let's pay the people the way we want to pay them.

The Chairman: It is technical. Are we agreed, colleagues?

An hon. member: Agreed.

The Chairman: We will proceed now to page 18, number 4.

Mr. James Robertson: Mr. Harvard proposed to the committee that increased public financial support be given to main party candidates in elections.

The Chairman: It ties in with number 5, does it not?

Mr. James Robertson: The opposite was proposed by Mr. White, which was that all public financial assistance be withdrawn from candidates. So you have your choice.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I don't support either of them. I think the regime that is in place now is working well and is reasonable. We just made the suggestion that we will be looking at what those levels should be and I think that is the appropriate course.

The Chairman: Colleagues, are we generally agreed? This for both numbers 4 and 5. All right.

We will now proceed to a discussion paper on miscellaneous issues.

Before we do that, I wonder if I could ask someone to move a motion. We agreed earlier that, if necessary, we would meet from 6.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. tonight, as we are going to be in the House of Commons anyway.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I so move.

The Chairman: The motion is that the committee meet this day from 6.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. for consideration of outstanding issues on the electoral law study.

This is about the meeting this evening, Stéphane.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Do we have to vote on that?

The Chairman: Yes, apparently we have to.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Because it is not the normal meeting.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: We will proceed now to a discussion paper on miscellaneous issues. At page 1 are the issues to be discussed. We will proceed with the first bullet.

Mr. James Robertson: In his appearance before the committee, Mr. Milliken proposed that the $ 100 threshold for publication of names of donors be raised to $ 200 or $ 250.

The chief electoral officer in his Strengthening the Foundation report suggested that it be increased to $ 250, noting that the act has not been amended and the figure has remained the same since 1974. Even if one takes into account inflation, it is perhaps out of line.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: My view on this is that there has been no adjustment since 1974, but in fact the referendum legislation set an amount of $ 250, and it would seem to me that we should have some consistency. So rather than looking just at inflation, I think it is appropriate for this committee from time to time to adjust the figure and I think $ 250 is a very reasonable number for 1998.

The Chairman: Your point is that it would simply reconcile the two acts.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes.

• 1150

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I am just curious as to why people don't want their names published at $ 100. It seems to me we are trying to avoid a little bit of work, but I think we are also trying to avoid the openness that we have right now.

I don't particularly see any pressing need to do this, even if it hasn't been changed since 1974.

Mr. John Solomon: Unless there is going to be a change in the tax credits payable, I think there is transparency with $ 100. Although I have sensitivities toward a 20-year inflation rate, which would make it about $ 250 now, I think that ours is more transparent. But we have no burning desire to support or oppose any changes at this point.

The Chairman: And you will notice that the tax credit is dealt with at the next bullet point.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I remember that during the presentations some colleagues did make that recommendation. More particularly, I have Suzanne Tremblay and John Harvard in mind and they raised that question.

I have no problem in supporting a proposal like that. In 1974, $ 100 constituted a considerable sum but today it doesn't have the same value anymore. Maybe we should update the amount to 1998 values. In the circumstances, an amount of $ 200 would appear quite reasonable and wouldn't detract from the fundamental idea that there has to be transparency. We have to be consistent with the spirit of the lawmakers in 1974. This spirit must also be ours today.

In constant dollars, we should consider that a $ 100 amount doesn't have the same value today as in 1974. With a view to encouraging citizen participation and considering that many people who otherwise would like to make a donation still wouldn't want their name to appear, I am of the opinion that we should increase this limit.

The Chairman: Agreed.

Yvon Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Just to give you an idea of what $ 100 was worth in 1974, I would remind you that...

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: In 1970.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: ... it was the matter of a general strike by the first common front of Quebec's public sector.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Exactly, for $ 100 a week.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: We wanted to get a minimum wage of $ 100 a week and it was only reached during the fourth quarter of the agreement, in 1973. It was the minimum wage target for a week's work in 1972-73. It just goes to show the relative value of the dollars that were running through our fingers and that aren't worth anything today.

The Chairman: Interesting.

[English]

John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: I would support adjusting the tax credit to $ 200, with a 75% refund on the tax paid, again on the basis of 1974. At that time my wage as a university grad was about $ 12,000 a year, and a member of Parliament today makes about $ 106,000, which is eight or nine times that, yet the political inclusiveness has not been expanded or broadened.

I would support that. If we were to support it, I would then support the $ 200 cap, in terms of publicly identifying contributors of more than $ 200 as opposed to $ 100.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The only reason that I prefer the $ 250 is because it is then consistent with the referendum legislation, so there will be no confusion amongst the public when they are making a political contribution. Whether it is under the referendum legislation or the elections act, $ 250 is the limit. I think it is well under what it be if inflation were to be taken into consideration. It would probably be closer to $ 350.

I think that $ 250 meets the test of transparency. There are many people who do not want their names listed for reasons of privacy or whatever, but it would allow them to participate and contribute.

The argument I would make on the transparency side of it is that we have to respect those people who prefer not to have their name listed. On the other hand, nobody is going to suggest that in today's world $ 250 is a significant contribution.

I won't speak on the second bullet point, Mr. Chairman, except to say that it should be adjusted.

• 1155

We could look at what the provincial legislation is. For example, in Ontario it is the first $ 200. I think it is time, as well, to look at adjusting that. But I also think, since this is a financial issue, that we should, as we did with the other one, refer it to finance for consideration because of the financial implications of such a move.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I am going to go back to John Solomon's point. If the two are connected together, then I would withdraw my objections to one.

It is also fair to warn everybody—and I notice that there is a great gap in one party over here—that there is a private member's bill coming forward that says that the taxable amount should be reduced to put it on par with charity. So be prepared. If we all agree to this we are going to get a little hassle from that gang when we come back.

The Chairman: Carolyn, that group has staff here.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: All right.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Once again, on Elinor's relevant comment, I'd simply like to add that in any case every committee report gets back to the government one way or another and it has to prepare an answer. So, technically speaking, we don't have to say that such or such a question is being sent back to the government because all the recommendation contained in the report are sent back to the government. The government does whatever it wants with those recommendations and those reports and follows up on them however it wants.

I don't think we have to spell out in each and every recommendation that the matter will be sent back to the government because the recommendations in the report we'll be tabling in the House will be sent to them anyway.

[English]

The Chairman: I would remind the committee that what we are engaged in is a very useful exercise. We are telling the government to look at these areas and to consider legislation in these areas. We are trying to give it an immediate capsule of views. Of course, this capsule simply reflects all the discussion that has gone on, the previous reports, presentations and debates. So, again, it is a very useful discussion.

In the light of that discussion, under issues to be discussed, bullet number 1, those generally in favour?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In favour of what—$ 200 or $ 250?

The Chairman: To be honest, I was going to try to avoid that. If you want, I could do them one by one. I heard $ 200 and $ 250.

So leaving it at $ 250, those generally in favour? Those against? I see no one against.

With respect to bullet number 2, do we need any more discussion?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It being understood by the members of the committee that both questions are very directly linked one to the other, we should adjust the $ 200 amount to $ 250 and perhaps also recommend that the other reimbursement thresholds be adjusted. We're talking about 55 per cent of the remaining amounts. Of course, we'll start higher and we'll have to adjust the other thresholds in consequence: 55 per cent and then 33 and 1/3 per cent.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes. It is sort of the same regime, but dealing with a higher figure. I heard $ 200 mentioned, because it is $ 200 in the Ontario legislation. On the other hand, I heard a discussion on $ 250 to reconcile the Referendum Act and the Canada Elections Act.

I am going to say $ 250 for the moment, but on the other hand there is the other discussion because of the regime in Ontario.

Those generally in favour of bullet number 2, with 75% of $ 250, the discussion including the fact that this means the other percentages will be adjusted accordingly? Those against?

[Translation]

André Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): The change concerning the 75 per cent and the $ 250 amount doesn't necessarily have to change the percentages applied to the other thresholds.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It will jack them up.

Mr. André Harvey: That's not necessarily so. I don't think so, but it remains to be seen.

What we're interested in is increasing the number of donors as some people don't want their name to appear in our official publications. It's not necessary that the subsequent percentages, that decrease with the size of the gifts, be affected. That's strictly a comment. It remains to be seen.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I rather disagree with my colleague's remark because I think that the 50 per cent applies to gifts up to $ 450, if I'm not mistaken.

[English]

The Chairman: If I might, I don't think we are in the position of making a very, very precise recommendation to the government.

• 1200

I think, André, that we are talking about the general regime. The suggestion is that there should be some increase in the disclosure level. That is one thing. And then, I would assume, the rest of the regime would adjust accordingly. That is our suggestion.

So in the light of that, those in favour of bullet point number 2 with $ 250? This is a straw vote. Those against? I see none against.

We will proceed to third bullet point.

Mr. James Robertson: This was inadvertently left out. Basically, the Canada Elections Act currently allows members of Parliament, or people who were members of Parliament at the time of dissolution, to register in an electoral district other than the one in which they reside. Therefore, a member who is running in a riding where they do not live will, nevertheless, be allowed to vote in that riding. I believe that also applies to their family members. It would apply to dependant family members anyway.

Mr. Kingsley, in his 1996 report, recommended that this be repealed and the question is whether the members of the committee agree with that.

Mr. John Solomon: We oppose this on the basis that in Saskatchewan it is not only the MLA who can vote, but the candidate who is running can choose to vote in the riding in which they are running. I think that is a fair way to do it and it would include their immediate family as well, their spouse and children, if they are of age. So I think we should let it stand.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I agree. I think that it is an important provision, particularly given the fact that so many MPs actually move their families to Ottawa and maintain a supplementary residence in their riding, and even for those who don't spend much time in their ridings and consider their constituency offices to be their second home. I think that the provision as it stands in the act is a good one.

The Chairman: In the light of that, with regard to the third bullet point, which would repeal section 60—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Could I have a bit of clarification? I'm not sure I quite understand the scope of this clause.

Mr. Jacques Girard: There is a specific provision in the Canada Elections Act that applies only to members and not to candidates and that's the primary reason we made this recommendation. If you're a candidate, you stand and you have no choice: you vote in the riding where you live. If you're a member, you have a choice: you can vote either where you live, or in Ottawa or in the riding where you're a candidate. We were wondering why these particular conditions for members and why they shouldn't have to submit to the same rule as all Canadians, which is that you vote where you have your residence.

If the intent is to keep clause 60, perhaps it would be equitable for all candidates, not just members, to have this choice. I must say that during some election campaigns, I got calls from candidates who weren't members before the elections were called. These candidates would say: "How come my opponent doesn't live in his riding and he has the right to vote for himself but I don't live in the riding and I don't have that right?»

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I understand.

[English]

The Chairman: In the light of that, with respect to the third bullet point, which would repeal section 60, those generally in favour? Those against? It is a tie.

Can we proceed to the bullet point regarding the occupation of MPs?

Mr. James Robertson: This was raised at a previous meeting of the committee by Dr. Pagtakhan and Mr. Bergeron. In the nomination papers candidates are required to set out their occupation. The policy would not allow a person, who at the time of dissolution was a member of Parliament, to indicate their occupation as member of Parliament.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think the solution is to repeal the requirement that you note occupation. It doesn't appear on the ballot. I don't know why it is important to have anyone declare what their occupation is. I know that it creates a problem because once the writ comes down, technically, you are not the MP.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We just need to be paid as an MP.

• 1205

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There are provisions for that, but in the declaration concerning the status of your occupation you are not permitted to say that you are the MP.

The Chairman: It is a schizophrenic situation.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: As I understand it, it is a peculiar situation.

My suggestion is that we recommend that an individual filing nomination papers to be a candidate under the Canada Elections Act not be required to declare what their occupation is.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): I second that. There is no requirement, there is no standard, there is no qualification that requires something, so why should you name your occupation? I can't understand that at all.

The Chairman: First of all, we spoke of getting rid of this, but then there was the discussion that the way to do it would be to simply not to require occupation to be listed.

Have we generally agreed with that sort of approach to this bullet point? Those in favour of that sort of approach? Those against? I see none against.

Can we move to the item concerning the restoration of the 47-day election schedule? This is an interesting one for us all.

Mr. James Robertson: In their brief to the committee the Green Party proposed that we return to the 47-day election period, as opposed to the 37-day period which we currently have.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: The theory is that the longer the election period, the better chance the opposition has. But I don't think the Green Party is going to get elected, no matter how long it does it.

We just recently shortened it—

The Chairman: Excuse me, Carolyn. John is leaving and I want to remind him about tonight.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: We have a four-year election period and I think we have a lot of time to make our points. We shortened it to cut the expenses down and the aggravation to the public and everything else.

In the United States, where they have longer periods to campaign, the people get so sick of it they don't turn out to vote.

I think one of the reasons we shortened the period was to keep interest lively. To drag it back to 47 days would be very regressive and I wouldn't support it.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think it's a rather simplistic assessment to say that the Americans don't vote because the election campaigns are too long and people have had enough. I agree that a shorter election campaign would lead to savings but I don't think, and I've said this in front of this committee before, that we should be saving money at the expense of democracy.

Based on the experience we had during the last campaign, I rather think that shortening the campaign from 47 to 36 days was a draconian change. We all know we have to rent space and have phone lines installed. Often, by the time you've finished installing the phones and setting up the offices, the first two weeks of the campaign have already gone by. It doesn't make any sense. It's way too fast. So I don't agree with a minimum 47-day campaign period. I rather think it should be lengthened by at least a week which would give us 43 or 44 days.

Mr. Peter Julian: I may be wrong, but the participation in the 1997 campaign was lower than in the 1993 campaign. Even if the election period was a lot shorter, fewer voters participated. That's an important point. The public didn't get the opportunity to consider all the subjects under discussion at length. So I agree with Mr. Bergeron. Maybe 47 days was too much. We've been through those campaigns and they were unfortunately very long. On the other hand, the present period is too short because you don't necessarily have notice before the campaign begins. The election is called and there are all kinds of difficulties for the people planning the elections and for the candidates. The present period, in our opinion, is too short and we should look at increasing it to increase participation but also to give everyone a chance to proceed properly at all stages.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: My experience with the Ontario law, which is 36 days, is that it works fine. The phone companies adjust. Your phones are in very quickly. Accommodations are made—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That was not the case in—

• 1210

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I am saying in Ontario, because it has been 36 days for as long as I can remember, and I was a member for 12 years. That is a normal period for an election. It has never been a problem.

There is always a problem when you make a change, until there is an adjustment. But my view is that 36 days is an appropriate period of time. I would not want to see it either shortened or lengthened at this point. I think, if anything, you need another campaign to iron out the kinks that perhaps occurred last time because, from the federal perspective, we weren't use to it. But, as I say, Ontario has been with 36 days for a long time.

The Chairman: Can we have a straw vote on this one?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, please allow me to express how ill at ease I am once again. I can't vote for this...

[English]

The Chairman: No, Stéphane. I was going to say “Could I call it this way?”

I will call a straw vote for those in favour of extending the current election period. Then I would call for those against.

During the discussion I didn't hear anyone say they wanted 47 days. At least, I don't think I did. But, on the other hand, I heard several members say they want a shortened version. I am going to call it that way.

Those in favour of extending the present election period, would you please so indicate? Those against? There are four in favour and three against. It was a straw vote, of course.

Mr. John Richardson: I didn't get my vote in there. I should have indicated—

The Chairman: All right, then it is a tie.

I would suggest that we take a five-minute break.

• 1212

• 1218

The Chairman: Colleagues, we will resume. The more we can complete the better.

We are now at page 2 of the discussion paper on miscellaneous issues. It is the item that is headed “Agents at Polling Stations”.

Mr. James Robertson: This was a recommendation contained in the brief of Mr. Rocheleau. There are three elements to it. Perhaps it would be easier to go through them one by one.

The first one recommends that the Canada Elections Act be amended to clarify that an agent of each candidate can deal with the supervisor. Currently two agents can be present at the table, but there is no provision for dealing with the supervisor. He would like to have some clarification in the statute.

The Chairman: Are there any comments?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We're at point (a), Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: That's it.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Are you actually allowed two agents for each candidate at the table at each polling station?

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I believe this is a suggestion that would not permit two people to be at the poll. Am I correct?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No.

• 1220

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No. This is the one that says you want a third person. Could you explain this again? You have committed two people now.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Not with the supervisor.

[English]

Mr. Jacques Girard: The supervisor is the person standing at the door. When you enter you give the supervisor your name and they tell you which table to go to. They take care of traffic. The proposal is to have a representative of each of the candidates to be with that person, which in our opinion is useless.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: You already have two scrutineers at each polling station. You could designate one of them.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Actually you can't.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Explain it. I don't understand what the problem is.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Well, the present Act doesn't allow that. It does not allow for an agent of each candidate to deal with the supervisor.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Actually, it doesn't provide for it.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's it.

[English]

Mr. Jacques Girard: Actually, each candidate is entitled to two representatives at each polling table and they are supposed to stay there. They are not supposed to run around the polling room. So they want to have someone else to be with the supervisor. To do what is not clear to me.

Again, personally, I would not favour it because it is already overcrowded and I think to have a person telling the voters where their polling booths are is not required.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I think it would be in our interest to have an agent to deal with the supervisors. Situations happen. I don't have much experience, contrary to a lot of people around this table, but I have witnessed some situations anyway. At the entrance, your leeway, the lighting, the heat, the ventilation, the drawings on the wall... For example, some candidates didn't want certain drawings on the school walls because they looked like maple leaves. I witnessed that.

That can't be settled at any given table. These are matters that have to do with the whole site. It would be best to have an agent accredited with the supervisor.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, with the utmost respect for Mr. Girard, I think we're getting a couple of things mixed up right now. I agree that there are too many people and that we shouldn't be adding any. The problem is that there are already too many. I think one agent per candidate per table at each polling station would be plenty. So I think that we should actually elect one agent per candidate at the polling table because the problem will probably arise at that table far more than anywhere else.

In those ridings where you have eight candidates on the lists, if each candidate shows up with his or her two agents, you'll have 16 people around the table plus the deputy returning officer and the clerk which is a total of 18 people. That is the problem, rather than having a simple agent dealing with the supervisor for the school. You shouldn't mix up the two things.

In my opinion, there should be only one candidate's agent at the polling table but you should also have an agent dealing with the supervisor for the excellent reasons set out by our colleague for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I believe that the status quo, which permits two representatives, is appropriate. Most candidates have someone who acts as an inside scrutineer and keeps the list and then someone from the outside comes in, they exchange information and leave.

It is very unusual that anyone would have two representatives sitting there at all times, but I think it would be very difficult and very confusing if the second person, as a scrutineer, walking in the door was told “I'm sorry, you can't come in until the other person leaves”.

I would not support reducing the number to one.

I do believe that whoever is there acting on behalf of the candidate should be able to talk to the supervisor if there is a problem. If that is what is required as far as a change to the act, that I would support. I would not support adding an additional person whose responsibility it would be to speak to the supervisor.

Just to be clear, I think that two people is reasonable. It allows for the interchange and exchange of dialogue between the inside and the outside scrutineer. But I think if there is a change that is needed, it would be one that would permit the scrutineers to speak to the supervisor if there was a problem.

• 1225

The Chairman: The first part about the number of representatives per candidate is dealt with again in the technical issues for each of the parties. That is the next item on our agenda. The number per candidate we will deal with again, so let's keep to the other issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, once again, with all due respect for my colleague, she's getting the two things mixed up. It is quite possible for a representative at the candidate's table to be replaced during the day if need be, on the one hand. On the other, with a power of attorney, it is also very possible for a party agent to come and check the lists.

So it's not necessary to have two people assigned to a table for a single candidate, one to transcribe electors' numbers and the other to give these numbers to the parties or candidate's agent outside the school. That is not at all necessary. So, you don't absolutely need two agents for each candidate at the table.

Of course, we'll be reexamining this question, Mr. Chairman, as you reminded me so advisedly, but I wouldn't want us to get things all mixed up and rely on seemingly irrelevant arguments to prevent their being an agent dealing with the supervisors.

[English]

The Chairman: We are dealing with the part that is addressed in item (a), which has to do with the supervisors.

Those generally in favour? Three. Those against? Three to one.

Colleagues, I would suggest, as the bells are ringing, that we proceed to the vote. I would be most grateful if you would come back as promptly as you can so that we can continue with our work.

For the record, the meeting is suspended until the end of the vote.

• 1227

• 1301

The Chairman: We will resume our meeting. For the new members, we'll get you the material in a moment. We are on the discussion paper, miscellaneous issues, page 2. The topic is agents at polling stations, (b).

Again for the benefit of new members, we're operating almost like a focus group. You will notice that we have staff at the table engaging in our discussions on this part of the development. These items are what are left of a whole mountain of material on the Canada Elections Act, some of which we inherited from the Lortie commission and the special committee of the last Parliament, some of which was from written and oral briefs to us by members of Parliament, some written and oral briefs by the official parties.

Mr. James Robertson: This was the second recommendation by Mr. Rocheleau. It would provide for the payment of the agents of registered parties. This is something I believe is currently provided for under Quebec's electoral legislation. He is proposing that such a regime be brought in at the federal level.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): I think that's outrageous.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I don't share the opinion of our friend, Ms. Cohen. Of course, it will immediately be argued, and I think that it's quite legitimate, that all this will represent considerable cost for the public purse, but as I was pointing our before, I don't think we should entertain this kind of discussion when we're talking about protecting democracy and the presence at the table. The best way of ensuring that agents from all the main political parties are present at the table is to set things up so they can be remunerated. I think the best guarantee we have that the process will be proper and equitable is to have people on the spot to defend the interests of the opposing candidates.

That procedure exists in Quebec. In the Quebec Elections Act, the remuneration of the candidate's agent is paid by the Chief Electoral Officer. It represents a cost, of course, but I think it affords an additional guarantee for the integrity and transparency of the electoral process.

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'm going to use the old nursery rhyme: he who pays the piper calls the tune. If the chief electoral officer is paying the agents then the agents are loyal to the electoral officer and have to remain neutral, which absolutely negates the function of an agent. I would be absolutely opposed to this.

The Chairman: Again for our new members, we have straw votes on these. They are opinions that we are expressing. In the light of that discussion, those in favour of (b) so indicate. I see two. Those against. I see five.

Mr. James Robertson: The third recommendation by Mr. Rocheleau was that the agents' tables be arranged next to that of the deputy returning officer in order to properly carry out their functions as long as there is no interference with the voting process. This may be an administrative matter, which could be referred to the committee.

• 1305

The Chairman: We are on miscellaneous items here. Any interest in this one?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Of course, maybe this is a far more technical matter that should be sent back to the advisory committee. I have no problem with that.

I think that recommendation is fully relevant. In some polling stations, there was a table for the deputy returning officer and the secretary of the voting section and there was a table next to it for the agents. How can the agents concretely play their role and make sure that the electoral process is being carried out correctly and without any problems if they don't even have access to the table and the documents they need to do their work?

[English]

The Chairman: I suggest we refer it to the advisory committee. Bear in mind, colleagues, this is simply a group catch-all of things that we sort of missed. Agreed.

The next bullet point is regulation of and restrictions of nomination campaigns.

Mr. James Robertson: This was raised by the Lortie commission. It wanted a reasonably tight regulation of the nomination process.

The committee has previously considered this in the context of providing reports on nomination expenses and at the meeting last week did reject that. In this case, Mrs. Catterall did ask that it be put on the agenda, so I added it to our list here.

The Chairman: We did discuss both leadership campaigns and nomination campaigns at some length at previous meetings. Is there any further discussion we should have here? I see none.

I suggest we move to the bullet point measures to increase representation in Parliament of women and aboriginal peoples.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On the two preceding points, what is your conclusion? We're not discussing it, but is there going to be any follow up in the report based on the discussions we've had on this matter?

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: Yes.

The Chairman: My thought was, Stéphane, that the previous discussion will be reflected in the report.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Perfect.

[English]

The Chairman: My sense from the table was that would be enough and we can discuss it again at that time.

[Translation]

Is that OK?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: OK.

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: The Lortie commission did make various recommendations for enhancing representation in Parliament of women and aboriginal candidates as well as minority candidates.

This was not something raised to the committee by any of the witnesses or people making submissions. Nor was it raised specifically in the reports of the chief electoral officer.

I don't know if the committee wishes to make any recommendations or discussion or whether we want to discuss this at a future date.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I'm rather uncomfortable with that point. Although I am fully in favour of increasing the participation or representation of women and of Aboriginal populations in Parliament, I still have some difficulty in supporting the adoption of affirmative action measures in an act.

Is our intervention going to be limited only to women and to Aboriginal people, or should we not also foster the participation or representation of youth in Parliament, the representation of handicapped persons and of cultural communities? When we open the door to certain given categories, which might even be referred to pejoratively as ghettos, we are opening a Pandora's box which will be difficult to close afterwards.

Besides, we must have a clear idea of what kind of measures we want to implement and we cannot simply say that we want to implement measures. We must be much more specific in order to guide the government in drafting a new bill. Such a vague proposal does not seem very attractive to me. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I am uncomfortable, and I don't see why we should commit ourselves any further in this matter.

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Stéphane, I think in an ideal world you'd have equal representation of women and men and you'd have all kinds of broad spectrum representation.

I think it's up to the individual parties to encourage it in various ways, and I don't think we're here to regulate a quota system of any kind. That's really not democracy.

• 1310

I wouldn't be in favour of tampering, particularly when it's such a vague statement.

The Chairman: Bear in mind it's in here because this matter has been addressed by us and by our predecessors, so there is discussion of it on the record.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I can follow the reasoning. And there is no doubt that this reasoning is sound. It has the right objective. This might not happen with this committee and probably not with this Parliament, but if we ever really wanted to have an equal representation of both females and males in this country, there could be some ways of doing it. And I won't go any further into this now. I'll stop right here. Or else Pandora's box will be open and will stay open. This might not be the right time to delve into these methods, but if we use our imagination, without infringing on the rights of anyone or of any Canadian voter, there could be ways of getting it done. Just because we bypassed this debate would not prevent a Canadian parliament or a parliamentary commission or some other Parliamentary organization from coming back to it.

Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): I agree with the tone of the debate, but certainly I think the key word is “participation”. The danger always when we focus on any particular group, and I come from the visible minority group, is that when we give that kind of special attention then we may potentially exclude others. Unless we are really prepared to study the question thoroughly, and I agree with my colleague that we should address the issue, perhaps a key point at this time is to say we will ensure that measures are in place to encourage the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In this case it will be all-inclusive. You will never exclude anybody and it will be left to the imagination of each political party, as my colleague has said, to institute the specific measures.

[Translation]

Mr. Peter Julian: We are digressing from the substance of this recommendation, but some points do have to be raised. It is incumbent upon each political party to take steps in order to increase participation. This is an unavoidable problem. We want to have greater participation of women and of the Aboriginal community.

Our party took the necessary steps, mainly an affirmative action program, and now we have the most representative caucus in all of Canadian parliamentary history, with almost 50% women and representatives of visible minorities and Aboriginal communities. I am taking this occasion to invite other political parties to follow our example.

The Chairman: Mauril Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, this matter goes far beyond what we are discussing here. Now we're talking about the responsibilities of political parties. I think that it is much too easy to say things like that. Perhaps the country has a collective responsibility for looking into different ways of running elections.

I am going to express an idea that I haven't really thought about that much. So I wouldn't mind at all if someone tore it down. Rather than electing one person per riding, why shouldn't we elect two, one of each gender? The election would be run on the basis of two-person teams. Each riding would then have one representative of each gender. We could cut the number of ridings in half so as not to have too many members.

There are scores of state mechanisms we could consider without necessarily tying everything to political parties. That's all. I think that with goodwill, people will find a way of doing this. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: I would suggest that our report reflect this discussion but we have some sort of a conclusion, which is that this matter requires further consideration.

• 1315

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: With all this overwhelming enthusiasm, can we go on to the following point?

[English]

The Chairman: Yes. Bear in mind that this is about the 950th point we've considered, and it is considered elsewhere. Let's go to the last bullet point.

Mr. James Robertson: The last bullet here refers to internal democracy. This was a major preoccupation of the royal commission, which proposed various measures to ensure internal party democracy. It involved things like a code of conduct for members of parties. Out of completeness it was added in here, but we did not hear very many briefs or evidence on this.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, if I may make a comment, I would say that the debates we have had about regulating nomination campaigns and the restrictions that should apply to these campaigns, as well as party leadership campaigns, could address to the concern shown by the Lortie Commission regarding greater democracy within the parties.

As soon as the terms of the debate we have had about leadership races and nomination campaigns in various political parties are in the report, the government will perhaps see the need to legislate. And then, we might be able to solve this problem.

[English]

The Chairman: Are we comfortable with that? Again, that will appear in the report.

Before we go on to technical issues, I want to bring back John Solomon's letter to me of May 27. You have copies of it. The important part is the first paragraph:

In our current study of the Elections Act I ask that we add the following amendment for the committee's consideration: That the deposit fee for candidates be reduced from $ 1,000 to $ 200.

I wanted to mention it because John is a member of our committee and it's before the courts. My understanding is that a decision is going to be rendered.

Jamie, do you want to speak to that?

Mr. James Robertson: Yes. This is the very issue, as I understand it, in the Figueroa case, which is challenging the deregistration of the Communist Party of Canada, and part of that is relating to the requirement for deposits. On that basis it would be inappropriate for the committee to take a position while it's before the courts. I believe a decision may be forthcoming reasonably soon. Obviously at that point, depending on the decision and whether any appeal is made, it would be the appropriate time for either this government or the government to address it.

The Chairman: The point is we have a category of items before the courts and the suggestion is that this is a part of it, but it has been raised in our discussion.

Mr. Peter Julian: For the record, the point we would like to make on this is there has been an impact on raising the deposit fee on the number of minor political parties that can participate in the system. If our principle is that we want a participative democracy where everybody who has a point can get into the system easily and make their point, and it's up to the electorate to decide, the fact that there is now this financial barrier has made a difference. That's something we would like the committee to consider.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I'd say that in an ideal world, this would be perfectly true. In an ideal universe, each and every individual with a worthy idea should be able to stand for elections in order to communicate their point of view.

The problem is that all too often, there are purely frivolous nominations. If our friend Chuck Strahl were here, he would certainly remind us of his famous example of a candidate named Satan who opposed him during the elections.

But, in his great wisdom, the legislator had the idea of increasing the deposit to $ 1,000 so as to avoid this kind of frivolous nomination. In spite of this $ 1,000 deposit, it seems that some frivolous nominations still manage to get through and to pervert the electoral system.

• 1320

[English]

The Chairman: I remind members that in our scenario we have the items that are before the courts, which will be mentioned. We have items that require substantial legislative change outside of the Canada Elections Act. They will be mentioned. We have the substantive issues we discussed at length over two or three weeks, or whatever it was. We have just finished dealing with the financial issues and we're moving on to the technical. This is one of the items that in my understanding will appear in our report as being before the courts.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, I am relating only to this particular letter. To argue that $ 50,000 is too much for a party to field 50 candidates on the basis of $ 1,000 per candidate, it is my understanding that a deposit is made by the individual candidate. It ought not to be the responsibility of the party. Therefore this argument to me loses relevance.

Second, we have to consider that the fee is in part to help defray the expenses of Elections Canada in addition to indicating a reflection of seriousness. So I think on that basis the current amount is reasonable.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Why not just be honest about it and get rid of the deposit altogether? You either have a deposit or you don't, but niggling over how much it's going to be is kind of stupid.

The Chairman: Again, this discussion will be reflected in our record. By the way, there are other discussions of this matter in the record, which is beneath the comprehensive report we're trying to develop. But my understanding is it's before the courts and it will be left like that.

Mr. Peter Julian: I'll just make a final point on this. It's my understanding that we had 18 registered political parties at the end of the 1980s. I think Janice and Jacques would know better. We're now down to 10. So there has been a very clear impact in terms of the number of registered parties that participate with recognized candidates across the country.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: How do you know that's the reason?

Mr. Peter Julian: This is one contributing factor. That's our point.

The Chairman: We'll move on to technical issues. You have the list before you. It's my understanding that in English and French the numbers are exactly the same. So I will not refer to pages, I will refer to numbers.

Again for the benefit of our newer members, this is a synthesis of questionnaires that were completed by each of the parties represented in the House of Commons. These are supposed to be technical items, non-controversial items. We begin with number 1.

Mr. James Robertson: I can go through it very quickly, as there is consensus on most of them.

Number 1 would address the problem that arose in Saskatchewan where because it does not change its time it ended up closing an hour later than it was supposed to. All the parties agreed with the proposal of Mr. Kingsley.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Carried.

The Chairman: By the way, Mauril, these are straw votes. You said carried. We're not actually voting on them in that way.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's all right, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Number 2.

Mr. James Robertson: In number 2 there is a requirement that there be level access for polling stations but not for revisal offices. The parties all agreed with this proposal of the chief electoral officer. The PC party felt that it was not necessary to have it in legislation. I think the disabled community would like to have it enshrined in legislation.

The Chairman: By the way, I'm assuming this is going to appear in our report.

Mr. James Robertson: Yes.

The Chairman: So this or the final version of it is going to appear in our report. So when you see an item like the comment there, the comment will appear in the report.

Number 3.

Mr. James Robertson: This was a recommendation by the chief electoral officer, that the name of candidates be centred on the ballot. I think Mr. Girard can explain why this recommendation is being made.

The Chairman: There's a note there. The Liberal Party asked for an explanation. Jacques Girard is going to give it.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: I will try to explain, but it is very complex because we have to use visual imagination. It is difficult to express in words. To simplify the matter, I brought a sample of a ballot, one which bears the name of one of the committee members who, unfortunately, is not here today, namely Mr. Epp.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: "Unfortunately"...

Mr. Jacques Girard: Unfortunately, because he would have been pleased to see me using his ballot as an example.

Look at this ballot. The problem is that the format is prescribed in the Act. So, you can't really change it. When you have a long name, it takes up most of the space. In Mr. Epp's case, he is third, and so his name has to be spaced all the way to the end.

• 1325

I remember one candidate, during the 1993 elections, whose name was even shorter; it was Lee Ng. The letters had to be spaced almost an inch apart.

So, let us do as we do for the parties. Let us make sure that each candidate's name has the same format, the same letter size, and we'll put periods after each name.

[English]

The Chairman: That sounds very clear to me.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: This is not a problem.

[English]

The Chairman: In light of that, first of all, I would suggest that we delete the thing from comments and we put the name Liberal under yes. Can we move on, colleagues? Number 4.

Mr. James Robertson: The recommendation of the chief electoral officer was that the logos of registered political parties be printed in black on the left side of the ballot preceding the candidates' names. I think this was intended for people who may be illiterate or not able to read. Therefore if they saw the logo they would be able to identify which candidate was running for which party. All the parties agreed with this except the PC party. It did not agree but did not give any reason or explanation.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I rather agree with this recommendation. However, I think my colleague would be better placed to discuss this matter. We had a similar problem during the previous legislature, when the logos of various political parties were to be shown on television in the House of Commons. We quickly realized that from the point of view of their shape, the logos of the parties didn't all take up the same amount of space, and in this way some logos stood out more than others. So we will have to find some way to regulate this provision in the Act so that some logos will not be more obvious than others so as not to give any candidate an undue advantage over others.

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I have a slight difficulty with this one because of the words printed in black. Part of political logos are more often associated with colour than with the visual component itself. This could actually tend to confuse. If it is printed in black, I think we might be confusing more than anything else.

The Chairman: It seems to me that there's an administrative or cost element.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm not suggesting that they be put in colour.

The Chairman: I'm just adding my comment.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: To carry on with my comment and perhaps to respond to Mauril's comment, I should say that one reason why we had concluded that some logos were more visible than others, was partly due to the colour of the logo. Some colours catch the eye more than other colours. Aside from the shape of the party logo, there is also its colour which can make some party logos stand out much more than others.

That is why we should print the logos in black and set out some very specific rules about their morphology, so that some parties do not have an advantage over others.

[English]

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: I think this is really dangerous unless we know exactly what the logos are, what size they are going to be, how they are going to be used during the campaign. In Windsor the New Democratic logo has always been “The New Democrats”, written out, or has been in recent times. You see different logos for that party all across the region. I don't know how you control this thing. Then it changes from election to election, which means that fonts have to change.

I don't know who they asked here. They didn't ask me about this. Had they asked me, I would have said no, and I think a lot of members would have said no, in which case I doubt that the Liberal answer here would be yes. If they asked Terry Mercer, I'm sure he gave it a lot of thought. Who did they ask?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I wasn't asked about this either, and I would have said no.

There's another thing I think adds confusion. What about independent candidates? What logo will they be allowed to put on there? They should be entitled to a logo.

• 1330

Mr. Peter Julian: Other democracies have logos on their ballots. South Africa is one example, India is another. They have coloured logos on their ballots for one simple reason: there are a lot of illiterate folks who vote. Illiteracy is a problem in Canada. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians, adults, who are functionally illiterate, and having logos on the ballot would allow those folks to participate in the electoral process in a way they can't necessarily now.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Back in another life I was a teacher. You can still teach someone who is totally illiterate to sign their own name and you can teach them to recognize the word “Liberal” or you can teach them to recognize a candidate's name. So the onus is on the people conducting the elections for their candidates to make sure that functionally illiterate people are assisted. They can also ask for help in the ballot box from a returning officer.

I think this is the dumbest idea I've ever heard, and I would not support it. I don't know where the heck it came from.

The Chairman: It came out of this pile of things we've tried to synthesize, from some place, somebody's submission.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Next you're going to have the flower of the province.

The Chairman: My suggestion is that this be left where it is, that we have in the comment column a referral to a short paragraph that will be in the report discussing this matter. I suggest that paragraph include that these concerns members have and also the suggestion that the advisory committee might look at this very seriously.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: There's a lack of consistency here, though. We keep hearing the argument that we're trying to open the process to all kinds of non-affiliated people and people with great ideas who want to run for election. What the heck would they put on there, and who would regulate their logos? They could be obscene or bizarre.

Mr. James Robertson: This would apply only to registered political parties, which would mean that a party would have to nominate at least 50 candidates.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: That's not fair either. It makes the other guys look like poor—

The Chairman: Carolyn, if I might answer your question, we're getting toward the end and we keep coming across it. This is not some sort of logical series of things we've been discussing. We went through. We found all the suggestions that have ever been hanging out there and we said to ourselves we want to perform the service of bringing this stuff into one place so it's all there. Someone can search this and go through and find where it came from and discuss it.

As I keep saying, we're a terrific sounding board here to get to the nub of some of the problems with these things.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, should we not be considering the possibility of having photographs of the candidates, rather than logos? Posters are one of the basic ingredients of an election campaign today, where people can see the "beast", so to speak, together with their name, the party logo and the party name.

[English]

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: I think we should put the leader's picture too.

The Chairman: I think, Stéphane, the program was meant for some of us more than others.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Fine. In that case, I will pass.

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues heard my suggestion. This is obviously a serious matter with us all. So it will be mentioned in the body of the report.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: There are photos of candidates on ballots in a number of countries.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Is that not correct?

[English]

The Chairman: In the comments here it's going to refer to that paragraph. My suggestion is the paragraph include the idea that it be at least referred to the advisory committee.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: I think it should say it's a dumb idea.

The Chairman: The paragraph is going to pick up the sense of this discussion. What we're trying to show in this report is that we've considered these items and to reflect the views on it. In this case it seems to me there's a lot of concern about it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Reject it.

The Chairman: The opinion we have so far is that four parties said yes.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Who, the executive director of our party or the president? I don't think that's good enough.

The Chairman: In our party there were two people.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Who?

The Chairman: I won't name them.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: I think it's a dumb idea.

The Chairman: We're going to reflect this discussion in the report and reflect the consultation in the tables.

Number 5.

Mr. James Robertson: This is tied into the recommendation earlier. It was proposed that members of Parliament not be allowed to vote in a different riding from the one they live in. That was rejected by the committee. The chief electoral officer also suggested, however, that transfer certificates continue to be made available to candidates within a riding.

• 1335

Basically this means that if a candidate lives in one part of the riding but his or her campaign office is somewhere else or at the other end of the riding where they're going to be on election day, they will be entitled to get a transfer certificate from the returning officer to vote elsewhere in the riding. This is a continuation of the existing.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: But that should be limited.

Mr. James Robertson: This is available only to candidates.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: I think that should be limited. For me to get a certificate to vote in a different part of my riding is outrageous. I could walk the riding. There's absolutely no reason for that. It should be limited to ridings where there is difficulty in transportation. But if you live in downtown Montreal you should be able to get across the street to vote. Or in some of these Toronto ridings where there is dense population and every apartment building is a different poling booth, you could make it.

The Chairman: I assume it means where necessary. For example, in the downtown Montreal case one might not be accessible, one's own polling booth, if one were handicapped.

Jacques, it doesn't mean people are going to use it loosely.

Mr. Jacques Girard: The problem we're trying to address with that recommendation is the fact that there's a lack of clarity within the legislation now. I have unfortunately had to argue at every election with some candidates because they read the section as allowing them to vote in the riding where they are candidates even if they don't reside there, and that is certainly not the intent of the legislation.

The Chairman: This has nothing to do with that.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: I don't live in my riding and I vote for Susan Whelan. I don't vote for myself. I can't vote for myself because I don't live there.

Mr. Jacques Girard: You will be able to now, because you are an MP, but that's another issue.

The Chairman: But, Jacques, this refers to polling division.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes, in the same riding. The act does not specify that it has to be within the same riding and candidates are taking arguments from the fact that it's not in the act to allow themselves to get a transfer certificate and they say it's open all across the land.

The Chairman: So the argument is that these certificates are available to candidates, and some candidates at the moment think that it gives them the right to vote in another polling division in another riding.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: That's it.

[English]

The Chairman: Have you got that, colleagues? It's a very technical point they want to change in the legislation.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Just to clarify it, because there are arguments all over the place on polling day....

The Chairman: We'll leave that and the note is in there as indicated. Number 6.

Mr. James Robertson: This would allow people working at a polling station to be issued a transfer certificate. I believe this covers in particular the situation where somebody comes in at the last minute.

Mr. Jacques Girard: No. Actually the act is drafted in such a way that the transfer certificate can be issued only to DROs and poll clerks. There are other election workers. So we say all those who work in a polling station should be able to have a transfer certificate.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We tend to be opposed to this idea, Mr. Chairman, because the Act already allows people working in polling stations to vote, either in the advance poll or otherwise, but at some place other than the polling station in which they're working on election day.

This may be understandable in the case of candidates, because there may be a political advantage in voting on election day rather than in the advance poll. However, I think that the electoral staff and the representatives of the various parties can certainly exercise their right to vote under the current provisions in the Act without necessarily asking for permission to vote in a polling division other than their own.

The Chairman: Jacques Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: The current act covers people who were appointed after the special poll. If this provision is not expanded, we would be removing the right to vote of people who are appointed at the last minute, for example to replace someone, and who have not been able to vote.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That is not stated here.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Once again, this must be read with the current provisions of the Act.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thus, point 6 must be understood with the clarification you've just added.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In that case, I think we can say that the Bloc Québécois supports this.

[English]

The Chairman: In light of that discussion, we move the Bloc into the yes column.

Number 7.

Mr. James Robertson: Number 7 is one I was confusing it with. This is where the person is appointed to be at a polling station after the advance polls have been held. Maybe the morning of they need an extra body. They are appointed. They need a transfer certificate in order to be able to vote. It is a fairly technical point.

• 1340

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It seems to me that is what you said, Mr. Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: It is essentially the same. Let me check my notes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I am no longer sure that I voted the right way on point 6.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Point 7 is there to deal with situations, which are unfortunately too frequent, where, on election day, the returning officer gets five calls from people saying they have resigned and he must immediately replace them with people who may not have voted yet. Consequently, we would allow transfer certificates to be issued to these individuals, because there is a deadline for issuing them.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But does point 6 not cover this as well?

Mr. Jacques Girard: It is a combination of the two: one relates to the deadline, and the other to the people. The objective is to ensure that if people are asked to act as election officers on election day and have not yet voted, they should be able to get a transfer certificate in order to vote where they are working. Finally, since they're working for Elections Canada that day, they will not be...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: They have not voted because they were appointed after all the provisions...

Mr. Jacques Girard: After the deadline for all the other available provisions has passed. That is the point.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Is that the thinking underlying both point 6 and 7?

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: I think the Bloc comment on number 7 is well taken and should stay there.

Can we go to number 8, please?

Mr. James Robertson: This entitles people who have disabilities to be able to get a transfer certificate if the polling station they are scheduled to vote at does not have level access.

The Chairman: Are we comfortable with that?

Number 9.

Mr. James Robertson: This was a proposal that Canadian citizens who are temporarily abroad be able to submit their special ballots through an embassy, high commission, consulate, base or other location.

All the parties, except Reform, supported this proposal. They did not indicate the reason for their objection.

The Chairman: Are we comfortable?

Number 10.

Mr. James Robertson: This is a case where a person who is using the special voting rules makes a mistake, creates a problem, and wants a replacement ballot paper. Obviously this would be before they have put it into the box. Currently there is no provision for them to be issued a replacement ballot. This would clarify that they could get one, assuming the other one was returned and destroyed or kept aside.

All the parties supported this, except Reform, which wanted to discuss.

The Chairman: I don't hear any discussion.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So the discussion has taken place. Let's pass it.

[English]

The Chairman: I think we should leave it as that. We will leave it as it is in the report. Of course, it will be a draft report. We can deal with it again if we have to.

Number 11.

Mr. James Robertson: Currently the returning officer is required to fill out polling day registration certificates and record the names. I think because the returning officer has more than enough things to do on polling day it is proposed that a deputy returning officer or poll clerk be allowed to fill out the certificates.

There was no consensus on this issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, if I remember correctly, and Mr. Robertson will correct me if I'm wrong, there's no unanimity on this issue for the simple reason that we decided at our last meeting to no longer distinguish between rural and urban regions regarding registration on election day.

Mr. Jacques Girard: So we will drop this.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I really don't see the relevance of this recommendation in that case.

Mr. Jacques Girard: It is true that if we eliminate that distinction, there is no reason to have this recommendation.

[English]

The Chairman: Could I suggest that as a comment? Just so it is covered, a note will go in the comment column saying that the committee believes that in the light of...whatever.

Number 12.

Mr. James Robertson: That the minimum age for candidates' representatives be 16.

There was agreement from all the parties on that one.

• 1345

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I want to register opposition to that, Mr. Chairman, for two reasons. One, I don't think it is right. If someone is 13 years of age and the candidate has no problem involving such a young person in the process, why not? It is a simple question. Why not? I was 13 when I was an agent for a candidate.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral:

[Editor's note: Inaudible]. Think about that.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's where it leads.

[English]

Secondly, how are you going to monitor that and verify it?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: I understand your point, and, at the same time, I think you will understand ours. We have to answer questions asked by voters who go to vote and are asked for identification in a cavalier way by a 12-year old, and it's difficult to explain that this 12-year-old boy has every right to demand that.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: People acting as agents for a candidate do not have to deal with voters directly. Elections Canada officers are supposed to do that.

Mr. Jacques Girard: We understand that, but in practice, you know very well that a 12-year-old child...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Then an Elections Canada officer is required. Let him do his job!

[English]

The Chairman: I would suggest that this comment appear with our comments.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: If we are making comments, I want to bring some balance to this. I disagree with my colleague, although I agree with him on almost everything else we have discussed since I was elected.

I think there has to be a minimum. There are many jobs 13-year-olds can do in a campaign. I have them doing all kinds of stuff in my campaign. But I think there has to be a certain age at which you are involved in such a serious process. You are dealing with older people and professionals.

I have a lot of problems with a 12-year-old or 13-year-old. What will we go to, a 10-year-old or a 6-year-old?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I tend to agree with the recommendation, Mr. Chairman, although, logically speaking, I'd go much further. However, that is a different matter, because I'm thinking about the voting age.

[English]

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: If we were being honest, that is what we would do.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That is right. I think that once young people are allowed to work, drive a car, or pay taxes, all of which start at age 16...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Didn't you recommend 14 as the age? No, that was the Parti Québécois.

[English]

The Chairman: We have dealt with the voting age elsewhere in our report.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I know, I'm just speaking in terms of my own personal logic. I'm not speaking for my party, but rather for myself. I also think that if we want to encourage young people to take an interest in politics, we should not have any objection to their participation in the electoral process before age 18.

However, I do agree that we have to have a minimum age, because of the arguments I mentioned earlier. In addition, there is the fact that most parties require people to be 16 before they can become a member. There must be a logical reason underlying this decision, and it is probably similar to those I explained earlier and those stated by my colleague Ms. Parrish. So I tend to agree with recommendation number 12.

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I have a last comment. I suspect there are other parties, other than the Liberal party, whose recruitment age is less than 16. I have a question for those parties, and I suspect the NDP is one of them. If you allow recruitment in your own party for people who are younger than 16, yet you don't allow them to do certain things, such as being an agent for a candidate, where is the internal consistency?

The Chairman: This is going to be reflected on the record and in the comments of this section.

I would suggest, colleagues, that we continue for five minutes and then we will resume at 6.30 this evening.

Number 13.

Mr. James Robertson: This was a recommendation that only one representative of each candidate be allowed to be present at the polling station. I think it was referred to earlier. Three parties disagreed, one wished to discuss and one supported it.

The Chairman: Peter Julian, on discussion.

Mr. Peter Julian: I want to hear the justification for that recommendation, as well as for number 14.

The Chairman: We had some discussion on this before, as has been indicated. Did you get anything from our earlier discussion?

Mr. Peter Julian: Yes.

The Chairman: Is there any other discussion on this?

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: I don't think that the New Democrats in Windsor would support this, because they have 14 at every polling station, all wearing little CAW shirts.

This would create all sorts of problems. When one person is relieving another, can they both be at the station at the same time, carrying CAW coffee mugs? We had them all thrown out. It was unbelievable.

• 1350

When you only have one person, then can there be two people for the purpose of standing there to exchange lists and that sort of thing? Why don't we just regulate the hell out of this? This is a really anal exercise.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Anal? That's an orifice.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No juicy details, please.

[English]

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: This is crazy. Limit them to five or something, but one person is nuts.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: We have already discussed this.

The Chairman: I know we have.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Why are we rehashing it?

The Chairman: First of all, we are going to strike out that the NDP wishes to discuss because we have done it.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Let's just strike out the NDP.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We can't do that.

The Chairman: Do we leave it in as is?

Mr. James Robertson: Do they want to indicate whether they are in favour of or against it?

The Chairman: NDP, do you want to go into the no or the yes column?

Mr. Peter Julian: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will indicate that this evening, or our representative will indicate that this evening.

The Chairman: Very good.

[Translation]

Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on this matter for the benefit of our two colleagues who were not there earlier, when we discussed this. First of all, I don't think the current Act prohibits replacing agents while they go to the washroom, go to eat or if they have to leave for the rest of the day. All that is required is a power of attorney authorizing this. The agent can be relieved very easily.

Moreover, the current Act does not prohibit another representative from coming to pick up the list periodically, every hour, half hour or every two hours, depending on the internal strategy of each party. The Act allows this, provided the person has a power of attorney. So there's absolutely no need for each candidate to have 2, 3, 4 or 12 representatives. That simply makes the procedure at the table more cumbersome and makes life even more difficult. If there are 12 tables in the gymnasium, the situation would be absolutely impossible, even before the voters arrive. So for purely logistical reasons, we recommend that there be only one representative at each polling station. Actually, that is not even my recommendation. That was implicit in the motion we passed earlier, which would allow another representative, but in that case the supervisor was involved.

[English]

The Chairman: All right. Jacques Girard, briefly. This is the last comment. We are going to adjourn until 6.30.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard: I would just like to explain the origin of this recommendation. It's important to put it in the proper context, particularly because this is something that happens in worst-case scenarios.

Those are cases of ridings with 10 or 13 candidates, all of whom want to have two representatives. We have seen cases where they all wanted to be seated at the same table. That is quite impossible. There is endless bickering even before the polling station opens.

There may be some alternatives. I'm thinking of what is done in Quebec. In fact, in most provinces, candidates are allowed only one representative, but someone representing the candidate is allowed to come to each table to pick up the lists. In Quebec they are called list collectors. That achieves the same objective and avoids having crowds at each voting table.

[English]

The Chairman: Mauril Bélanger, very, very briefly.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: What is the difference between 26 and 13 at the table? It's still a zoo.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Girard:

[Editor's note: Inaudible] ...who are quarrelling.

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues, I want to thank you all for sitting through lunch. I suggest we continue this at 6.30.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What is the result of our study of...

[English]

The Chairman: My suggestion was simply to leave it in. Stéphane, it would be to leave it in without a consensus.

We will begin at number 14 at 6.30. I would greatly appreciate it if everybody could be here promptly. We have to finish the technical section and then we will map out what we do next. Our objective is to get substantial parts of the draft report prepared and translated so that members can read it before Thursday.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Chairman, when we come back at 6.30, I don't want to go back and rehash these items because other parties appear. You are going to start at that number and you are going to move forward all night, are you?

The Chairman: That is my assumption.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you.

The Chairman: We have had staff from each of the parties here most of the time.

Thank you all very much. I appreciate it.