HAFF 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, November 30, 1999

• 1914

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): We'll reconvene. We're continuing our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-2. We left off completing and carrying clause 337. We would now normally move to clause 338, but I'm going to allow clause 338 to stand momentarily.

(Clause 338 allowed to stand)

The Chair: I'm going to get us off on the right track, and I'm going to go to clause 339. We'll come back to 338. This is just so everybody gets into the spirit.

(Clause 339 agreed to)

• 1915

(Clauses 340 to 348 inclusive agreed to on division)

The Chair: Now, wasn't that easy?

(On clause 338—Factors in allocation)

The Chair: There are three amendments proposed by Mr. Bergeron. Mr. Bergeron, would you introduce those?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): I have a point of order. Did we just allow clause 345 to stand?

The Chair: No. We carried clauses 339 to 348 inclusive. Is that okay?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I believe so.

The Chair: If it's a problem, your colleagues would have an open mind. You let us know.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Back to clause 338. Mr. Bergeron is to introduce amendment BQ-59, which is found in the brick at page 110.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the result of the many presentations we heard, especially coming from the small parties that are registered but didn't have as much success as those sitting in the House of Commons presently or those who are not yet registered but who once were and so on.

The consequence of the half weight provided for in the Elections Act is to the disadvantage of the small parties as the length of the broadcast is based on the number of candidates supported by that party. It is clear that the smaller parties have problems qualifying because of the weighting. We would thus like to see this weighting disappear, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Is there further discussion? Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): I'd just like to put on the record that the Reform Party of Canada had of course challenged parts of the broadcasting provisions in this bill, so on principle we would certainly like to get rid of that part. We'll be supporting the Bloc amendment.

The Chair: Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on amendment BQ-59? There's no comment from any quarter.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): I'd like a recorded vote.

The Chair: We have a request from Mr. Anders for a recorded vote on this amendment.

Mr. Ted White: We have to do what we have to do. Sorry.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 5)

The Chair: We now move to amendment BQ-60. You will find that in the brick at page 111. Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a corollary. Of course, to be consistent, I should withdraw it. However I remember that at the beginning, when we took a position on non-contentious clauses, I showed opposition to certain clauses and the members on the government side seemed to want a justification for this opposition.

Could the government explain why it opposed amendment BQ-59 in view of the presentations before this committee? What arguments does it have to oppose an amendment like that one?

• 1920

[English]

The Chair: Are there any other comments? Seeing none, I'll put the question on amendment BQ-60. All those in favour of adopting that amendment, please show your hands.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm sorry. I'd like an answer to my question, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: I took your question to be rhetorical. Why would the government support something—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: I took it as being rhetorical. I didn't think you were looking for a specific answer. There doesn't appear to be an answer, in any event.

The amendment wasn't carried. We did debate this amendment just previously. It was the question we dealt with.

Now we're on BQ-60, and we're looking for further discussion, if any, on BQ-60. Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): I think the general point is that you shouldn't give established parties the same weight as a fringe party. If 100 parties run, we don't think you should give one-hundredth of the time to all the parties. While we know we're open to the criticism that works to our advantage as the governing party, the dominant party, we're prepared to take that criticism on the chin, and we're prepared to support this part of the legislation.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to point out for everyone's benefit and for the record of this meeting, that this amendment's effect was not to give exactly the same time to everyone.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you for noting that.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We now move to BQ-61. That is on page 112 of the brick. Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is to delete the expression “or contrary to the public interes”. We do not wish things to be done contrary to the public interest, far from it, but this expression gives very great powers to the arbitrator. We have already made representations to this effect since we started presenting our amendments. We are opposed to these powers which are ill-defined and are not spelled out in regulations or in a specific provision of the Act.

[English]

The Chair: Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 338 agreed to on division)

(On clause 349—Definitions)

The Chair: There is an amendment moved by Mr. Bergeron numbered BQ-62, and that is found in the brick on page 113. Mr. Bergeron, would you introduce that amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What did he just say?

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: We're on part 17.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson is keeping us pointed in the right direction.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If we go by that, we're not out of the woods.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to broaden somewhat the definition of eligible expenses for a third party.

• 1925

I put a question to the Minister during his first appearance about third party expenses that were limited to expenses for publicity. If applicable, it might appear that monies are spent without necessarily being directly tied to any particular candidate's or party's election expenses but that in any case these might be monies spent in favour of or against the election of candidates or political parties.

In consequence, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment, as I was saying before, is to slightly broaden the definition of eligible expenditures for a third party by going a bit beyond mere publicity. I hope that this time the government will give its reasons for opposing this amendment as I presume it will be opposed to it.

[English]

The Chair: I'll go to Mr. Knutson on this.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I appreciate what Mr. Bergeron is trying to do and I can say I have some sympathy for it. However, I believe that the language being suggested would be too broad, and therefore the government prefers to stick with the language presented in the act.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, the way I read the amendment it would basically add onto and bump up the expenses or the advertising costs of political parties for the—

Mr. Ted White: No, third parties

Mr. Rob Anders: —third parties, excuse me—for the purposes of inclusion here. Mr. Chairman, I think we already have a nasty situation where the government is I think moving to severely restrict third-party election advertising to the point where it's a mere fraction and pennies on the dollar of what political parties in this country are going to be able to spend. By going ahead and including and expanding the definition of what is an election advertising expense, all it does is further restrict the freedom of speech that I think this government is already erring on in terms of restrictions.

The Chair: Are you speaking in favour of the amendment?

Mr. Rob Anders: No, unfortunately, I have to speak against the amendment. Many times have I walked arm in arm with my Bloc colleagues on this bill, Mr. Chairman, but unfortunately this is not one of those times when I may warm the cockles of my heart by their fire. This is one of those times when I have to stand up for the freedom of speech, Mr. Chairman, and vote against.

The Chair: I thought as much.

Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, the witnesses who came before us to argue the third-party situation all made it pretty clear that they're pretty angry with the legislation as it is. Now if we go adding additional restrictions, you can bet they'll get into court even more quickly than they're going to already. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation said they had the money and they're ready to go to court the moment we pass this bill. The National Citizens' Coalition have made it clear they're going to court. They're already advertising. Frankly, it's almost a waste of time trying to amend any of this stuff because it's all going down to defeat. There's no doubt about it. So we will definitely vote against this amendment.

The Chair: Is there any other discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question on the amendment.

Mr. Rob Anders: We want a recorded vote on this, Mr. Chairman.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 2)

• 1930

(Clause 349 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 2)

(On clause 350—Spending limit)

The Chair: There is an amendment in the name of the government, G-16. You'll find G-16 in the brick at page 114. Mr. Knutson, will you introduce this amendment?

Mr. Gar Knutson: It's a minor amendment, more for housekeeping. It just makes certain that when we're defining third-party spending in regard to a by-election, if there is there is more than one riding that's being contested the $3,000 would apply per electoral district.

The Chair: Is there any discussion on this? Mr. White and then Mr. Anders.

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, these sorts of restrictions on third-party advertising wouldn't even be necessary if we obeyed the will of our constituents in this place, if it was a place of the people rather than a place of the parties, and third parties play an important role in identifying the dysfunctional nature of this place.

So to try to restrict their expenditures in any way is certainly unconstitutional, and the courts will tell us yet again very soon that it is.

We are opposed to the whole clause here, although we acknowledge that this is an improvement—somewhat of an improvement—because it specifies that it's $3,000 per district as opposed to $3,000 total. But we're going to have to vote against it on the basis that the whole clause is faulty.

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: I recognize that this as an attempt by the government to move in the right direction, considering all the legal challenges they're going to have on this matter and that they will lose—I suspect, anyhow, Mr. Chairman. It's still implicitly restrictive and it's still implicitly corrupting of the freedom of speech in the electoral process, and so I'm opposed to it.

The Chair: Thank you. Any other discussion? Your chairman would just comment.

Mr. White, you referred to colleagues listening to their electors or not, and I'm confident every colleague around the table considers the views of their electors when they do their work here.

Mr. Rob Anders: Some more than others, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Secondly, I'm sure Mr. Peirce is ready to deal with any challenges that might be out there.

So I'll put the question on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 3)

(Clause 350 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 351—No combination to exceed limit)

The Chair: Shall clause 351 carry?

Mr. Rob Anders: On recorded division.

The Chair: Are you going to indicate your position on it?

Mr. Rob Anders: I request a recorded vote. I'm opposed to the clause.

The Chair: All right.

Madam Clerk, we might want to hang on to some of this pizza just in case we run a little late tonight with all these recorded votes.

• 1935

(Clause 351 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 3)

(On clause 352—Advertising must name third party)

The Chair: Shall clause 352 carry?

Mr. Rob Anders: No, there's an amendment.

The Chair: Is there an error on the agenda?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, there is in fact an amendment, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

(Clause 352 agreed to)

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, we moved an amendment to clause 352. I apologize, Mr. Chairman, it seems this is a typographical error.

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Rob Anders: Just to set the matter straight, we should have a recorded division.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Bergeron, there's a typographical error in the agenda. So we will then consider an amendment in relation to clause 352.

Mr. Rob Anders: There should be a recorded division on clause 352.

The Chair: So we have carried clause 352. Let the record show that.

Mr. Rob Anders: I request a recorded vote.

The Chair: We will now deal with clause 353.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chair, did you not hear the request for a recorded vote for clause 352?

(On clause 353—Registration requirement for third parties)

The Chair: There are four amendments proposed for clause 353. Mr. Bergeron, would you please introduce yours?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: We're sitting all night.

The Chair: I'm sorry, was there a point of order over here?

Mr. Rob Anders: Yes, there was.

The Chair: What was it, Mr. Anders?

Mr. Rob Anders: I was wondering about the hearing of the chair with regard to asking for a recorded division on clause 352.

The Chair: Clause 352 had been carried before the recorded division was requested. I had already called it carried.

We'll go to clause 353. Mr. Bergeron, would you care to introduce an amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Amendment BQ-63?

[English]

The Chair: We're dealing with amendment BQ-63, which we'll find at page 116 of the brick.

Mr. Rob Anders: Nay, nay, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I'll hear you from time to time.

It's page 116 of the brick. Mr. Bergeron, would you care to introduce that amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, the objective of amendment BQ-63 is to ensure that third parties register not only for the election period, but for the entire calendar year. The purpose of this is to prevent parties from spontaneously appearing during an election campaign. It was repeated over and over during the process... What was I trying to say?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): There's nothing like clarity.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I agree, there's nothing like clarity.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Then lay your cards on the table now.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We want third parties to register in advance to prevent them from spontaneously mushrooming during a campaign.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: After the rain.

[English]

The Chair: Any further discussion of this? Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: It's outrageous that a third party should even have to register, but it's an interesting amendment. I'd like to ask a question of legal counsel on this one. It says in the amendment a third party shall register before the issue of the writ. Now if a third party doesn't know when the writ is going to be issued, which of course none of us do, and so it doesn't register, is it then not a third party and therefore not subject to the provisions of this act if this amendment goes through? Unless you register prior to the issue of the writ, you're not a third party. Therefore, you can do anything you want.

Mr. Michael Peirce (Director, Legal Operations, Advisor, Legislation and House Planning/Counsel, Privy Council Office): It would be unable to engage in election advertising.

Mr. Ted White: In any election advertising? Wow, let's pass this and get rid of the whole clause right away in the next court challenge.

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

• 1940

Mr. Rob Anders: I have a question for legal counsel as well. What if a third party challenges this clause? What then? Is it fair to assume that somebody's going to challenge it based on the fact that they don't know when a writ is to be dropped?

Mr. Michael Peirce: It would be beyond me to speculate as to whether it is going to be challenged.

Mr. Rob Anders: Aside from Mr. Knutson's intervention, then, what would be your recourse if somebody were to challenge you based on what I consider to be a bit of a parliamentary silly bugger in terms of the timing here?

Mr. Michael Peirce: I think we'd be up against it if this clause were to carry and then we were challenged.

Mr. Rob Anders: You'd be up against it?

Mr. Michael Peirce: Yes.

Mr. Rob Anders: Okay.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's a rather onerous and restrictive clause, and I hope the courts dispel and dispense with it accordingly.

The Chair: You do not support this amendment?

Mr. Rob Anders: No, I do not.

The Chair: Okay. We've had discussion on the amendment.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I have some additional information. I wanted to say a little earlier during our hearings that according to several witnesses, third parties could advertise during the entire period preceding the campaign. It's right that these groups should be able to do that before the elections. That way, groups financed by unknown backers and defending whatever cause cannot be created on the eve of an election. The established political parties will have to deal with these third parties which will make themselves heard throughout the campaign, at least within the limits set out in the bill. Therefore, it is important that these third parties be identified.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

I'll now put the question on amendment BQ-63.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded division.

(Amendment negatived: nays 11; yeas 2)

The Chair: The next amendment is BQ-64. You'll find it in the brick at page 117.

Would you introduce that, Mr. Bergeron?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw that amendment.

[English]

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: We'll now go to amendment BQ-64.1, moved by Mr. Bergeron. You will find this in a new document, which is now called group D. It's a second set of amendments.

I'll tell you what we'll do. Because we're not able to locate it, nor can Mr. Bergeron, in the event it turns up, do I have the consent to come back to this section later?

Mr. Rob Anders: We can stand it down.

The Chair: No, we won't stand it down. We'll carry it, but we'll get an indication now that I can come back in the event there has been an oversight and an amendment has slid on by. Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, how come you have a copy and we don't?

The Chair: I don't have a copy of the amendment, only reference to it.

We will then vote on clause 353.

(Clause 353 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

• 1945

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I don't know where the number 64.1 came from, but the amendment numbered BQ-63.1 deals with section 353.

[English]

The Chair: I think we're all right.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We are?

The Chair: Yes, this is a no-fault disposition moving on to the next clause. We have carried clause 353.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chair, you said if we happened upon it, we would come back. You're directly contravening what you said you would do.

The Chair: We have carried clause 353. If we have to come back to it because we've omitted dealing with an amendment that has been temporarily misplaced around here, we will come back to deal with it.

Thank you.

(Clause 354 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 3)

(Clause 356 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 3)

(On clause 357—Authorization by financial agent for expenses, etc.)

The Chair: We have an amendment from Monsieur Bergeron, and it is numbered BQ-65.

Monsieur Bergeron, will you introduce BQ-65?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, we might consider withdrawing it. Can you give us a few seconds?

Mr. Chairman, despite the pressing arguments made by my colleague Mr. Anders, I will not succumb and will withdraw the draft amendment.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

[English]

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: Mr. White again requests a recorded vote on clause 357.

• 1950

(Clause 357 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 3)

(On clause 359—Election advertising report)

The Chair: There is an amendment in the name of Mr. Bergeron and it is numbered BQ-66.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, this draft proposal seems to be quite reasonable. But what's reasonable for the opposition is usually automatically the opposite for the government. The amendment would subject third parties to the same standards of transparency as those for established parties. The court's ruling on third-party financing has been mentioned over and over again. We've agreed that it should be allowed, that there should be a spending limit and that it should be higher than that for political parties, since the latter basically have to fight for their seats during an election campaign. This is not the case for third parties.

If we decide that the rules must be as strict—if not more—for third parties, it would not be necessary for them to file a report of any contribution exceeding $200.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Is there any further discussion? Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Yes, Mr. Chair. First I need to correct this misapprehension that the Bloc is labouring under that somehow the Libman decision has any relevance to elections. It had to do with a referendum result. Mr. Chipeur, who was the constitutional lawyer here before the committee, made it very clear that a referendum yes-or-no question, expenses-type situation has no relevance whatsoever in the context of an election, which deals with many issues and varying numbers of candidates and so on.

It's going to go down to defeat again. We're wasting our time passing this entire part 17.

For this specific amendment here, it requires third parties to begin six months before the issue of the writ. I again point out that third parties do not know when the election is going to be called, yet they are supposed to start six months before the issue of the writ and keep records of everybody who has donated more than $200. They're supposed to do this regardless of whether or not the money is used for election purposes. Political parties don't have to do that, so this is completely unreasonable and unfair. We should vote against it, and I'd be pleased to see the government join us on this one.

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, I once worked for the National Citizens' Coalition. There were circumstances in which, in places like—and I'm going to name some of them—Atlantic Canada, Newfoundland in particular, operatives for parties go into law firms and basically demand that certain amounts of money be given for the purposes of election. If that money isn't given, those firms are in a very difficult position because it is made clear to them that they will not receive contracts after the election if they don't make the requisite contributions. As a result, those types of individuals or firms are in a very difficult situation whereby what they do in terms of giving to a political party or not giving to a political party is very obviously observed and recorded by the Chief Electoral Officer. They face a form of coercion or duress as a result of whether or not they give or don't give.

When those organizations or individuals choose to give to organizations or third-party advocates like the National Citizens' Coalition or any number of other organizations, they have a degree of anonymity as a result. If you take that away from them, I think it corrupts the democratic process. You leave it in the hands of politicians and their henchmen in places where I frankly don't think we have a truly democratic nature of government. They're left to that form of coercion and duress aforementioned.

Mr. Ted White: Very well done, sir.

The Chair: Hopefully the record won't show scattered applause.

Is there any other discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the amendment. Shall BQ-66 be adopted?

Mr. Ted White: Record it.

The Chair: Mr. White requests a recorded division on BQ-66, Madam Clerk.

• 1955

(Amendment negatived: nays 11; yeas 3)

(Clause 359 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 3)

Mr. Ted White: We're almost through that section.

(Clause 361 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 3)

(Clause 370 agreed to)

(On clause 375—Registered agents)

The Chair: There is an amendment proposed by Ms. Bakopanos in connection with clause 375. The amendment is BA-1.

Madam Bakopanos, please introduce that amendment.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What the amendment seeks to do is to first of all amend the clause by changing the word “may” to “shall”. The reasoning behind this proposal will come to another amendment later on in the bill itself, clause 560—and the two go together. We can issue receipts during election campaigns. Why not also allow the local riding associations—with the permission of the political party involved, of course—to allow the issuing of receipts for donations between elections? I believe it will simplify the process.

If the political party doesn't want to give permission because there is an association that, for whatever reason, does not have proper accounting in its books, that liberty will be given to the party according to the amendments I'm proposing later on in this act.

Again, I ask members to support this. And by the way, I am presenting this as an individual member in the House, not as a government member. I want to make that point.

The Chair: Colleagues, because we have moved into the financial administration, part 18 portion of the bill, we're going to ask Madame Vézina, from Elections Canada, to be available for questions. She has had responsibility for the management of the financial provisions of the existing statute and presumably in the early drafting of this bill.

• 2000

The amendment has been introduced. Is there any commentary? Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The government is opposed to this. I'm not telling any secrets when I say our party's still trying to work this through. To date we haven't reached a consensus, so we're standing by the legislation that's been presented.

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This changing of the word “may” to “shall” looks like empowerment of the grassroots to me, and I think it's a great idea. I'll certainly be voting in favour of this one.

The Chair: Mr. Anders, I think you're next, and then Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Rob Anders: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, feel this follows along the lines of devolution of power or subsidiarity. The one question I have—and I'll pose it to counsel, or maybe those in the financial aspects of Elections Canada wish to comment on it—is with regard to the word “appoint”.

I think this amendment generally moves in the right direction. By the use of the word “appoint”, though, I'm wondering if this could potentially be a situation in which the national office or the national party chooses to put in its own representative rather than one requested or suggested by the local riding association.

As I say, I think this is moving in the right direction, but I merely pose that question.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Bergeron, and then Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, at first glance, the amendment seemed reasonable. But upon closer examination, I had a few reservations which I want to explain to Ms. Bakopanos. Perhaps she can then respond.

First, it says “a registered party shall (...) appoint”, and not “may appoint”. You said earlier that there is a further provision giving parties the option of not appointing a registered agent. This may apply to less dynamic or unorganized riding associations, which may not get the receipts right.

If later on we give that kind of leeway to parties, why do we withdraw it in this amendment? Moreover, in my mind there must be some kind of obligation that comes with this power. Therefore the power to issue tax receipts comes with the obligation to table somewhat clear and specific financial statements. We discussed the issue with the Chief Electoral Officer. I didn't feel that there was a lot of interest, especially from your part, Ms. Bakopanos, for such a disclosure of the electoral district agents' reports.

If there is a delegation of authority from the party to the district agent, the obligations of the party agent, that is the duty to table a detailed and specific report to the Chief Electoral Officer, must necessarily be also those of the electoral district agents.

If anyone can give relevant and satisfactory answers to these concerns, I could eventually support that amendment.

[English]

The Chair: The questions were again rhetorical. Or were they directed to Ms. Bakopanos?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes.

[English]

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I'll try to answer as best I can.

[Translation]

I asked for clearer wording because it is possible that a political party's internal rules would not allow for such actions. That is a decision that is up to the members. I believe that it is important to set forth that duty in the Elections Act. I'm not a lawyer, and it is possible that the experts that are here today may not agree with my point of view. A political party could decide that no association has that right and that the internal rules of the party take precedence.

• 2005

As for the association's financial statements, I think, Stéphane, that we've already had that discussion and that I clearly stated my point of view. If we pass this amendment it is quite possible that the next step would be to insist that associations table their financial statements with the Chief Electoral Officer.

What was the third question?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: My question dealt with the reporting to the Chief Electoral Officer.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I think this will also help us.

[English]

The Chair: Now Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): As my colleague pointed out, before we reach a decision, I would like our counsel, Ms. Vézina, to tell us more about the impact of that amendment; in fact, this amendment seems to transform in a radical fashion the current funding of national parties.

[English]

The Chair: Instead of just asking her what she thinks, we might be a bit more specific. For example, is the amendment viable in relation to other sections of the act?

Ms. Janice Vézina (Director, Elections Financing, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): My first impression, when I read this amendment, was to say there is a provision there now for a local association to name an agent and inform the party. I guess the catch is that the party may inform the Chief Electoral Officer of that appointment. Unless the party informs the Chief Electoral Officer officially and names that person as a registered agent, it does not have the right to issue tax receipts.

I guess you're trying to put an obligation on the party to have to name somebody.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: That's right. They have that option now, but it's not exercised very often, to my knowledge.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

I see Mr. Anders and Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: I posed a question before to legal counsel and to the financial arm of Elections Canada, Ms. Vezina. I guess I'll pose the question to Ms. Bakopanos. I understand the intention and where you wish to move with this. Do you foresee that by allowing the federal national party to still appoint, you could be potentially...? I'm still going to vote for this because I think it's a move in the right direction, but do any of the people you've talked to, or the drafters of this, think this could lead to the national party putting somebody in as a financial watchdog on your own riding association?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I suppose the possibility is always there, Mr. Anders, but I think they do that anyway. The riding association right now has to report back to the party in terms of the actual expenses. We went through this discussion earlier when we were talking about the riding associations reporting to the national parties. I know in my case we do it. We report to the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal party. We give an accounting at the end of the year of what we have received in donations, even though those donations were signed off at the headquarters and the receipts were issued at the headquarters. I'm simplifying it by taking away the step at the headquarters and bringing it down to the level where the donations are given.

It would also speed up the process. I don't know how fast other political parties are, but sometimes it takes a year to get the receipts issued. The donors often say, “Why am I waiting a year or eight months for a receipt when it could have been issued right away the minute you received the donation?” We could issue that receipt locally.

So I'm trying to simplify the process. It's not going to change the accountability, at least according to the way we run things in Quebec. The riding association will still have to be accountable to headquarters in terms of how they spend the money that is given to them. As I've said before, in our case, one-third is for the riding association, one-third goes to the party, and one-third is put in a trust account.

The Chair: I have a question for Ms. Vezina.

• 2010

As you understand it, if a local electoral district association, in taking the authority provided for in this amendment, failed to deliver on financial accounting or other accountability mechanisms in the statute, would the registered party have to carry the responsibility, even though the local association had failed to properly administer their element of financial accounting?

Ms. Janice Vézina: As I understand it, if the agent is a registered agent of the party and is acting on behalf of the party, or in other words, if the party has given the authority to that agent to issue tax receipts for contributions, then those contributions should be reported in the party return. So the agent should be acting on behalf of the party and the transactions related to the party.

The Chair: So the party would ultimately be responsible. The agent who was appointed by the party would have responsibility. Thank you.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 375 agreed to)

(On clause 376—Agents—eligible corporations)

The Chair: There are three amendments. One is from the Bloc, one is from the Progressive Conservatives, and one is from the government. I'll follow the order in the agenda. I would ask Mr. Bergeron to put amendment BQ-67, which is found on page 121 in the brick.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is quite simple. We simply want to make sure that a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada or a province is not eligible to be a chief agent. The reason we move this amendment is quite simple: we know that a corporation can cease to exist at any time and if this were to happen there would be no one who would have to account for the financial management of the political party. We want to make sure that the chief agent is in fact a natural person.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Before we go to comments, can I just ask counsel to clarify something for me? Is it possible for a corporation, under the provisions in the bill, to be a registered agent of a political party or an agent?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou (Counsel, Legislation and House Planning/Counsel, Privy Council Office): Yes, it is.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: I just want to ask counsel about the comment that was just made by Mr. Bergeron that there's always this danger that a corporation will cease to exist if it happens to be the chief agent. Could you make a comment as to whether that is a practical problem?

The way Mr. Bergeron has portrayed it, this chief agent, which is a corporation, could somehow cease to exist, and all the money or assets of the party could evaporate as a result.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: If you're asking if there have been some examples, I think Elections Canada is probably better placed to answer.

If your concern is more general, I think a corporation may carry thousands of employees and funds and have heavy responsibilities as a commercial business, and we don't forbid them from having those responsibilities. So I guess my answer is that in other situations corporations carry the same kind of heavy responsibilities.

Mr. Ted White: Perhaps Elections Canada could comment on whether it's been a problem in the past.

Ms. Janice Vézina: No, we haven't had a problem with that.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We'll move now to amendment PC-5, which is shown on page 122 in the brick.

Monsieur Harvey, will you introduce that amendment?

• 2015

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I'd be very happy to, Mr. Chairman.

We are moving an amendment to section 376 simply to make the text clearer. Section 376(1) states that a corporation, such as the PC Canada Fund, can be a registered agent of a party, but section 376(2) states that the agent must be an elector.

I'm quite sure, Mr. Chairman, that you do differentiate between the two paragraphs of that clause. Since a corporation is not an elector, if there is no amendment similar to the one we just moved, there would be a contradiction between the two paragraphs. This is a technical amendment, which is quite legitimate, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The government is prepared to support this amendment and withdraw our amendment G-17.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Harvey, you've hit the jackpot. Technically, then, we have negatived BQ-67, we have withdrawn amendment G-17, and we're about to consider amendment PC-5.

Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Yes. Perhaps legal counsel can assist here, but despite the explanation given by the PC member, I don't really see the need for this amendment at all. It seems pretty clear to me that subclause 376(2) is dealing with persons as electors. I know that sometimes a corporation is considered legally to have the same status as a person, but I don't think there's any confusion at all. It just seems to me that it's unnecessary additional wording. Perhaps you could comment on that from the legal perspective.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: At clause 376 you have the right of a corporation to be a chief agent, and at paragraph 376(2)(c) you have the fact that this person should be an elector, and obviously a corporation cannot be an elector.

Mr. Ted White: At subclause 376(2), it says “the following persons are not eligible to be a chief agent”. It does specify in subclause 376(2) that the following three categories—(a), (b), and (c)—are actually persons. So I still don't see the reason.

Mr. Michael Peirce: It was exactly as you explained; it is that a person includes a corporation.

Mr. Ted White: From a legal standpoint.

Mr. Michael Peirce: From a legal standpoint. You were right.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: It's just for clarification.

The Chair: Okay, that's good. I'll put the amendment then.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 376 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 382—Changes in registered information)

The Chair: We now move to clause 382. There is an amendment in the name of the government that is numbered G-18. It is on page 125 of the brick. Mr. Knutson, would you introduce amendment G-18?

Mr. Gar Knutson: G-18 is on page 153. We're adding the words “a report” on line 17 and taking out the word “application”. This is a drafting mistake, so we're fixing the only drafting mistake we made in the whole bill.

The Chair: The omission is remarkable, as is the absence of other drafting errors.

Mr. Anders, do you have a question?

Mr. Rob Anders: I'm wondering, for the purposes of the act, what the difference is between an application and a report. This is a question to legal counsel.

Mr. Michael Peirce: I couldn't tell you what an application is, because it doesn't exist in this context. It is only a report that exists. You'll see throughout clause 382 references to “report”. At the end of line six, you have “shall report”. In line 8, you have “the report”. At the beginning of subclause 382(2) you have “a report”. We use the word “report” throughout.

• 2020

The Chair: Okay, thank you. I'll put the question on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

Mr. Gar Knutson: I have a point of order. The government would request that we stand the clause down. We're anticipating another amendment.

The Chair: To clause 382?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes.

The Chair: It is the will of the committee to stand down clause 382 as currently amended.

Yes, Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, can we pass it, with the agreement that we could come back to it as we did it earlier for the clause dealt with in amendments BQ-63.1 or BQ-64.1?

I suggest that we simply pass this clause and that we come back to it later, when the government will have prepared its amendment, as we did a bit earlier.

[English]

The Chair: That's a kind of strange circumstance, but we have done it earlier, as you point out. If the government is certain that an amendment will be proposed, then I don't think we should carry the clause.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I was also sure there was an amendment before, but we couldn't find it.

[English]

The Chair: That was conditional on there being an amendment. In this case....

Mr. Knutson, can you indicate if the government intends now to put an amendment here?

Mr. Gar Knutson: We do, and I will remind my honourable colleague that it requires unanimous consent to reopen a clause. The government is prepared to give its consent—it can't give unanimous consent—for his amendment. I can't speak for the others.

The Chair: Okay, just to keep it within the rule book, we'll stand clause 382. Thank you for the suggestion, Mr. Bergeron.

(Clause 382 allowed to stand)

(On clause 385—Suspension—less than 50 candidates)

The Chair: There's an amendment in the name of the government—G-19—in the brick at page 126. Would you introduce amendment G-19, Mr. Knutson?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Well, amendment G-19 is a most interesting amendment. It regards a paragraph that deals with suspension for fewer than 50 candidates, and the intent of the amendment is to make the English consistent with the French.

Since I only speak one language, I can't talk about consistency between two languages. So you'll have to rely on the officials for this—at least for a little while longer.

The Chair: The purpose is to correct the English version so it coincides with the French version.

Mr. White has a question.

Mr. Ted White: In terms of this entire clause and the amendment, the witnesses who came before committee for the smaller parties made it clear that 50 candidates was unacceptable as a number. The courts in Ontario have struck it down and have said that two is a party.

If the government had bothered to consult with the small parties, it would have discovered, as we did here in committee, that all of the small parties would have agreed to the number 12, and it could have been the end of the discussion if we had just incorporated 12 in the bill.

As it now stands with this number 50 here, it's going back to court, you can be absolutely sure it'll be struck down again, and it's just a terrible waste of everyone's time.

So we'll vote against this clause and put it on the record that we think the government's been very foolish in this regard.

The Chair: In any event, we have to put the amendment.

Mr. Anders, if it's strictly relevant to the amendment, I'll accept your intervention.

Mr. Rob Anders: I think that even though I don't vote for the Christian Heritage Party, the Libertarian Party, the Communist Party, the Marxist-Leninists, the Natural Law Party, or the Green Party, etc.—

The Chair: If your question is relevant to the amendment, please deal with that directly.

Mr. Rob Anders: The question is, how will this be affecting these parties? As a result of these very types of amendments, these very types of clauses, those parties will not have the ability to have their party names listed next to their candidates in upcoming elections. Is that not correct, legal counsel?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: As a general rule in the act, but not in this particular section.

The Chair: Thank you.

• 2025

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: I will now put the question on the clause.

Mr. Ted White: A recorded vote, please.

The Chair: Shall clause 385 carry?

Mr. Rob Anders: A recorded vote, please.

The Chair: I have heard you both twice now.

Mr. Rob Anders: Well, there have been times when the chair hasn't heard us.

The Chair: I will ask the question again: shall clause 385 carry?

A recorded vote, Madam Clerk.

(Clause 385 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 6)

(On clause 389—Procedure for non-voluntary registration)

The Chair: There is an amendment standing in the name of the government, amendment G-20, which is found in the brick at page 127.

Mr. Knutson, would you introduce amendment G-20?

Mr. Gar Knutson: This amendment makes the English and French consistent.

The Chair: Thank you.

Any discussion? There being none, I'll put the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 389 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 394 to 396 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 398 agreed to)

(On clause 399—Remittance of remaining balance or initial surplus)

The Chair: There is an amendment standing in the name of the government. Amendment G-21 can be found in the brick at page 128.

Mr. Knutson, will you introduce this?

Mr. Gar Knutson: As with the previous amendment, this amendment makes the French consistent with the English.

The Chair: Another amendment to make the two languages consistent.

Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Yes, I have just one comment. I realize this is just making the French consistent with the English, but because this clause deals with the remittance of assets of parties to the Chief Electoral Officer, we're going to need a recorded vote on the clause, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: That's fine.

I'll put the question on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 399 as amended agreed to: yeas 12; nays 2)

• 2030

(On clause 404—Ineligible contributors)

The Chair: We now move to clause 404, where there are two amendments, one from Monsieur Harvey and one from the government.

Monsieur Harvey, amendment PC-6 can be found in the brick at page 129.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The government is prepared to accept this.

The Chair: Mr. Harvey, go buy a lottery ticket.

I think we had better have Mr. Harvey introduce the purpose of the amendment for the record.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: It's to bring the English version into line with the French one, Mr. Chairman.

M. Stéphane Bergeron: In other words, to improve it.

Mr. André Harvey: To improve it.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

The Chair: The amendment of Mr. Harvey is adopted even though he almost voted against it—I'm kidding. It's adopted.

Mr. Knutson, what happens to amendment G-22? Is that still to be moved?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes.

The Chair: Would you introduce amendment G-22, which is found in the brick at page 130?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'd be happy to, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment G-22 amends clause 404, which is the ineligible contributors clause. The effect of this amendment is to make the English consistent with the French.

The Chair: All right. This is another technical amendment to make the provisions in both languages coincide. Is there any discussion? There being none, I'll put the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 404 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 405—Prohibition—making contributions)

The Chair: There are three amendments proposed by Monsieur Bergeron, BQ-68 through BQ-70. BQ-68 can be found in the brick at page 131.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Can I expect the government members to support this proposed amendment dealing with something on which Mr. Boudria and I agreed in public? We were in agreement as to the necessity of establishing rules concerning candidates' trusts.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: This is the first I've heard of an agreement. I don't doubt Mr. Bergeron's word. I'd like the clause to be stood down.

That's not to say I doubt what you're saying.

(Clause 405 allowed to stand)

The Chair: There are two other amendments, but they can wait as well, I presume.

(On clause 407—Election expenses)

The Chair: We'll now move to clause 407, which is going to take some attention. There are a number of amendments moved by each of the opposition parties. The first one is moved by Mr. Harvey. It's shown as PC-7 and it is located in the brick at page 134.

Would you introduce PC-7, Mr. Harvey?

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Chairman, unless the officials tell me that this is an essential amendment, I'm ready to withdraw amendment PC-7.

[English]

The Chair: All right. I'll just look around the table. Mr. Harvey would withdraw his amendment unless—

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: This amendment is not essential.

[English]

The Chair: All right. Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

(Amendment withdrawn)

• 2035

The Chair: Now there remains, Mr. Harvey, PC-8, which is also in your name, having to do with the same clause and subclause. Could you introduce PC-8?

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Chairman, the amendment reads:

or a candidate during an election period but does not include a personal expense.

Without a specific exclusion, the personal expenses of a candidate would be considered electoral expenses. Other clauses say they wouldn't be, but it would be clearer and easier for the reader if it were spelled out. I think our amendment would be acceptable to distinguish between the candidates' personal expenses and their electoral expenses.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Perhaps Mr. Harvey could clarify here that the purpose of this clause is to define expenses used to “directly promote” or oppose a registered party. So in what context would a personal expense be used to directly promote or oppose a registered party, its leader, or a candidate? It seems like an unnecessary addition of words.

Maybe legal counsel can make a comment?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: The distinction between an electoral expense and a personal expense is already at clause 406.

Mr. Ted White: So it's already taken care of.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: So between election expense and personal expense, we believe...if you're satisfied with that in clause 406.

The Chair: Yes, as I read this—

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: The prior distinction provided for in clause 406 is acceptable, Mr. Chairman. So I can withdraw our amendment on this matter.

(Amendment withdrawn)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. I was just about to say the same thing. Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

We now move to the amendments NDP-19 and -20. They are located in group D, on pages 17 and 18.

I would ask Mr. Solomon to please introduce NDP-19.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr. Chair, I'm actually going to make reference to the whole combination here, mainly because I have no reason to believe that NDP-19 and -20 should even be there.

What my amendments will do is the following. Number 21 will include as an election expense carrying out polling by a party, but more importantly, number 22 would provide a ceiling for individual candidates' expenditures when they're running for nomination of a political party, Number 23 will put a ceiling on expenditures for leadership candidates of registered parties. I think these amendments are actually related to numbers 19 and 20. The drafter has added those words. I'm not sure exactly why they were changed, but they may be directly related. Maybe somebody could advise me on that.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: It's a consequential—

Mr. John Solomon: It's a consequential amendment to the others that follow. We could stand these until we get to the others. That would be my preference.

The Chair: Both of your amendments?

Mr. John Solomon: Yes, until we get to the ones I just referred to.

The Chair: Okay. I understand, and I understand why.

(Amendments allowed to stand)

The Chair: We'll move, then, to amendment BQ-71, under the name of Mr. Bergeron. It is located in the brick at page 136.

Mr. Bergeron, BQ-71.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to clarify the contribution rules within the context of funding activities. I know there are provincial legislatures, such as Quebec, who make no distinction between what is given for a funding activity and what is accounted for as a contribution to political parties.

• 2040

Presently, if I organize a fundraising dinner costing $25 and I ask for $100 for this dinner, I can only give an income tax receipt for $75 even though the elector did give me $100. The effect of this is to considerably complicate the process not only for the party but also for the elector who has trouble understanding why, if he's giving $100 to the political party, he's only being given an income tax receipt for $75.

It would be far simpler for the elector making a 100-dollar contribution to get a 100-dollar tax receipt. The political party would consider this as a 100-dollar receipt on one side and as a 25-dollar disbursement on the other side to pay for the cost of the meal.

This provision would considerably simplify the procedure not only for the political parties but also for the elector who would then understand that when he gives $50 he's given a 50-dollar income tax receipt and not $42, $43 or $47 which complicates things needlessly. It would be far simpler if the political party received $50 and accounted for this money as a contribution and recorded the meal as an expense.

As there is already legislation to this effect in Canada, it would also ensure compatibility between federal legislation and the legislation of some provinces.

For the time being, it's doubly complicated for electors. In Quebec, for example, an elector contributing $100 to a political party in the context of a funding activity where the dinner costs $25, gets an income tax receipt for $100 while at the federal level, for the same meal and the same contribution, he gets a 75-dollar income tax receipt. People have problems understanding these rather byzantine and bureaucratic distinctions in the legislation.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

First Mr. Knutson, then Ms. Catterall.

Mr. Gar Knutson: With respect to what Mr. Bergeron just said, I think it's in reference to the Income Tax Act and what makes up an eligible contribution. As I read BQ-71, eliminating the exclusion for fundraising expenses would have the effect that if someone did all their fundraising pre-writ, and they have a block of money of, say, $60,000, they could go and spend it. If someone else had raised only $20,000 but spent another $10,000 trying to raise the difference up to $60,000, they would have to allocate the $10,000 they spent trying to raise money as an election expense even though the purpose of spending that $10,000 wasn't to persuade people. It wasn't about dropping flyers. It wasn't about putting up lawn signs. It was about raising money.

I mean, it might have been spent on suppers, or renting a hall, or renting a sound system. It had nothing to do with getting your message out and what we think are core activities during a campaign. It had to do with the important activity of raising money.

That's how I read BQ-71. I know that doesn't follow with what Mr. Bergeron just said, but that's how I read the effect of this amendment. Therefore, the government would oppose it.

The Chair: Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I think Mr. Knutson's right. It doesn't seem to me to accomplish what the mover said it accomplishes. It also seems to me there's a substantial cost to the government, to the taxpayers involved, because it would increase the tax receipts, and I don't think we have any information on what that financial impact might be.

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure whether or not this would be better dealt with through the Income Tax Act or whether or not this amendment of Mr. Bergeron's would actually result in taxpayer subsidy of leadership races or of various other fundraising activities.

I can definitely state that I'm opposed to the idea that taxpayers fund any of our political activities. I don't think any of it should be funded and subsidized by the taxpayers. But to desire that taxpayers pick up an even bigger tab is, I think, above and beyond.

• 2045

The Chair: Monsieur Bergeron, last word.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, just as a clarification, I think Mr. Knutson's intervention was quite relevant. Actually, carrying amendment BQ-71 would have had the exact effect he was pointing out before, but I respectfully submit that when one organizes a funding activity in the context of an election campaign even though the primary objective of the activity is not to promote, it remains that, by ricochet, the impact of that kind of activity will also help promote a candidate. There will be journalists reporting the event and people will be present at an important activity. To all practical intents and purposes, you can equate this to a public assembly and a public assembly must be considered as an activity helping to elect a candidate or a political party. So this is an electoral expenditure and that is the logic I was defending before: first a receipt and then an expenditure.

[English]

The Chair: Is there any response or further discussion?

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I understand Mr. Bergeron's point. There's a line you have to draw. It can be a thin line or a vague line. I appreciate the point he's making, but I stand by my original comments.

The Chair: The discussion has been useful. I'll put the amendment on BQ-71.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We now move to a series of amendments proposed by Mr. Solomon.

I gather we're going to take up amendment NDP-21 first and then move through the others, including NDP-19 and NDP-20, which have been described as consequential amendments to these amendments. You'll find NDP-21 in group D, at page 19.

There has been an issued raised by the clerk. You will all be familiar with the parliamentary principle that requires a royal recommendation for a bill that requires the spending of money or alters a money-spending provision of an existing bill. In looking at these amendments, it is somewhere between possible and likely, or maybe even definite, that these three amendments, NDP-21, -22 and -23, involve a requirement for a royal recommendation that this bill does not have. A provision that does require a royal recommendation must be moved by a minister in the House.

The clerk has looked at this and has advised that NDP-21, -22 and -23 do require a royal recommendation because they involve—

Mr. John Solomon: There's no expenditure.

The Chair: —an alteration of an existing expenditure.

• 2050

While I don't always read from Beauchesne's for support, for the record, under the rubric “The Admissibility of Amendments in Committee”, it says:

An amendment is out of order if it imposes a charge on the Public Treasury, if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation.

You are at liberty, of course, Mr. Solomon, to explain the purpose of your amendment. I will be guided by the committee, but at some point we would have to make a decision on whether or not this is out of order.

If you could introduce your amendment, we'll measure it with reference to that section.

Mr. John Solomon: Every amendment we've taken so far will not cost the treasury one extra dime; is that what you're saying?

The Chair: Absolutely not. Every time you breathe in this city it costs the taxpayers a nickel.

Mr. John Solomon: All of the extra work we've given the Chief Electoral Officer, printing new forms and all that type of stuff; that's not going to cost a dime? I'd like to know who's going to pay for it.

With respect to this amendment, this is to include, because parties really do this, a more transparent overview of what expenses are of a political party or a candidate. NDP-21 suggests that we should include polling or election surveys as part of the outlined expenses during a campaign, because they are actually costs incurred.

Regarding the other two amendments, Mr. Chair, all they are doing is setting out a ceiling of what a party is spending or can expend in their own nominations.

There's no reimbursement there. I'm wondering how that fits into a royal recommendation.

The Chair: We'll keep that in mind.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'd like to speak to the royal recommendation. I agree with Mr. Solomon; I don't see how making a policy decision that polling expenses are going to be counted as election expenses is somehow putting forward a money bill against the rules of Parliament. That doesn't mean I support it, but I don't think you can rule his amendment out of order. So I think you should rule the amendment in order and then we could debate the substance.

I'm talking about NDP-21. I haven't looked at the others.

So I think you should rule the amendment in order, and then we can debate the substance of it. But don't take the fact that I think it's in order as any kind of indication that we're going to support it.

The Chair: Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The act already establishes the spending limit. This cannot and does not increase the spending limit. It has to be done within the spending limit, and the government has already provided for that, it seems to me. It's in order; it's definitely in order.

The Chair: The chair at this point is going to accept that this amendment is in order.

Mr. Solomon, do you have further description of the purpose?

Mr. John Solomon: That's all I wanted to say. It itemizes and provides more transparency. As Marlene Catterall commented, it's not going to add to any expenses; it's just going to put them on the table when they're incurred.

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: I'd just make the observation, Mr. Chairman, that when we get through and the government has defeated all of the NDP clauses, it won't have mattered if they wanted to spend $10 million.

The Chair: Easy come, easy go.

Mr. Ted White: Easy come, easy go.

The Chair: I'm going to put the question on NDP amendment 21.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Mr. Solomon, you're up with amendment NDP-22.

• 2055

Mr. John Solomon: NDP-22 basically puts a ceiling on nomination races for political parties, at $5 times the number of registered members in your party. We include it in this section because it's related to expenses, but certainly it's not an election expense. It's to make nomination races more democratic. It discourages buying nominations by candidates of political parties. In our view, it's a reasonable ceiling to put on nomination races. You can expand the numbers by having more members.

The Chair: There's an interesting amendment.

I'll recognize Mr. White, and then Mr. Anders.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chair. With all due respect to Mr. Solomon, I don't think this amendment would be very effective. For example, the Liberal Party of B.C. has no fee to join the party. They consider anybody whoever contacted them about anything to be a member of the party. We all get membership information from the Liberal Party of B.C. because they just consider everybody in the province to be a member. You could multiply the $5 times as many people as you want to be members if you don't have a fee, so it doesn't work.

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add that in my own nomination, I was restricted to a spending limit of $5,000. I stuck underneath that despite the fact that our membership level was just a little over 1,600 members, I think it was, so we actually had considerably less than $5 per member. I think, though, that parties should be able to determine their own limits.

Mr. Solomon, if this act only gets reviewed and actually successfully passes the courts, my guess is that $5 locked in, in terms of 1999 dollars, will be a small pittance indeed 20 years from now in terms of seeking nominations.

Mr. Ted White: Especially if the socialists get power.

Mr. Rob Anders: I offer that.

Mr. John Solomon: It's enough money for your partner, but not enough for you.

They're the two solitudes.

The Chair: Is there any other discussion?

Mr. Gar Knutson: The government agrees with Mr. Anders.

An hon. member: No, don't put us on their side.

An hon. member: I'm leaving.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It's an internal matter for all parties to determine.

The Chair: I misunderstood Mr. Knutson. I thought he said the government agreed with this amendment.

If there's no further discussion, I will put the amendment NDP-22.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 2)

The Chair: We now move to amendment NDP-23. Mr. Solomon, please go ahead.

Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Chair, if the members liked the previous recommendation, you'll like this one even better.

This addresses Mr. Anders' problem about not enough money, but it puts a ceiling on leadership candidate expenses for the leadership of a registered party. The ceiling is $25 times the number of registered delegates with approved voting credentials who attend a convention for the purposes of voting for that leadership candidate.

We believe this is a very democratic, inclusive suggestion that would make democracy work even better than it does now.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Solomon.

I'll recognize Mr. White, and then Mr. Anders.

• 2100

Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to see you're feeling better. You've definitely come back from the edge there.

Quite apart from the cost considerations—which I'm sure my colleague is going to address—again, I don't think this amendment really takes into consideration the reality of the new technologies that are out there. Already some parties have had leadership races in which people have voted by touch-tone telephone. They're not actually registered delegates, but certainly they get to vote for the leadership. That complicates this amendment, so I don't think it's really workable in its present form.

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to point out that the Progressive Conservative Party in the province of Alberta switched from having a delegate selection process to having a broadly based membership vote. They had a poll set up in every single one of provincial ridings. As a result, they were replicating what would have been a general election, except that instead of several thousand or 20,000 people voting in each riding, it was the membership of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta voting. As a result, I don't think having something that was based on a delegate number would be representative at all of the process the Progressive Conservatives used.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, I'll add that the Reform Party reserves the right to use that same type of process in a leadership selection within the Reform Party.

I'd like to add that $25 time 3,000 people—and I'm using 3,000 because I think that's a fairly large number for a leadership delegate selection meeting nationally—would equal only $75,000. Mr. Chairman, I think back to when Brian Mulroney sought the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party. I believe it was the highest per delegate spending this country has ever seen. Certainly I don't think Mr. Solomon would be suggesting this country should have been deprived of Brian Mulroney.

An hon. member: Look what he did for us.

The Chair: Okay, the banter continues.

Having had discussion, Mr. Solomon gets the last word, and then I'll put NDP-23.

Mr. John Solomon: I think Mr. Anders makes the point that he supports leadership candidates who can buy the leadership, as opposed to trying to win the leadership on the basis of policies and platform.

I think the record should show very clearly that the NDP federally has used the combination of one member, one vote. That would not hinder candidates from spending a little more money on that particular period in a one member, one vote race. But when you get to the leadership conventions, that's where problems can arise, when you have very wealthy campaigns that can influence the delegates. I think that should be avoided as much as possible. I would therefore suggest, Mr. Chair, that members should seriously consider this very progressive amendment, and consider voting for it.

The Chair: I think members have seriously considered all of your proposed amendments, Mr. Solomon, and we thank you for reminding us about these things.

Mr. John Solomon: I'd like a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 2)

• 2105

The Chair: Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: I will withdraw amendments 19 and 20.

The Chair: Amendments NDP-19 and NDP-20 are withdrawn.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Did Mr. Solomon withdraw amendment NDP-20 or NDP-19?

An Hon. Member: NDP-19 and NDP-20.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Now I'm with you.

[English]

(Clause 407 agreed to on division)

(On clause 408—Contributions for ticketed fund-raising functions)

The Chair: There is an amendment in the name of Monsieur Bergeron. Amendment BQ-72 is found in the brick at page 137.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is simply what I was saying in my lengthy explanation before. It's for the price of the ticket to be included in the contribution to considerably simplify matters.

[English]

The Chair: That's a succinct introduction.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, the lengthy presentation has already been made.

Before going to the next amendment, may I ask for an explanation as to why this is being opposed? It seemed reasonable to me. Is there some reason I just can't manage to grasp except the fact that this is an opposition motion?

[English]

The Chair: Is there a disposition on the part of Mr. Knutson to answer the question that has been rhetorically put by Mr. Bergeron?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'll speak to it. Mr. Peirce would also like to speak to it, and Madam Mondou.

My argument is there's no disrespect on this point that just because they're proposed by the opposition, the government is discounting them out of hand. I think you will find there have been some amendments the government's accepted from the opposition—some from Mr. Bergeron.

Let's take two people. One person spends $50 on dinner at a nice restaurant. This person has a nice meal, comes home, and then sends a donation off for $100. He or she spends $150 that night and gets a receipt for the $100 donation part. The same person spends $150 and has a nice meal at a fundraising event.

Our argument is that really the only contribution you're making is the $100. Given that these things are subsidized 75% on the first $100 by the Canadian taxpayers, and if this act passes, 75% of the first $200 by the Canadian taxpayers, do we really want Canadian taxpayers subsidizing the meal portion of a fundraising event? That's our reasoning.

The Chair: Okay. Good question and good answer.

(Amendment negatived)

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think you saw that correctly, Mr. Chairman. It did carry, absolutely.

[English]

(Clause 408 agreed to on division)

(On clause 409—Personal expenses of a candidate)

The Chair: There are four amendments. Two are government, one is from Mr. Bergeron, and the other is from Mr. Solomon.

• 2110

I will take the two government amendments first. One is G-23. We'll find it in the brick on page 138. The other is in group D.

Let's take G-23 first.

A point of order.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I would like to speak to it once it's placed on the table.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Knutson, would you introduce it?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Amendment G-23 has been replaced by G-23.1.

The Chair: Thank you. Amendment G-23 is therefore withdrawn. Would you speak to G-23.1?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Amendment G-23.1 is on page 22 of package D. It amends clause 409 on page 164.

This amendment includes child care expenses as part of the personal expenses of a candidate. It also includes expenses in relation to the care of any person, such as a disabled person, with a mental or physical disability, who is dependent on and living with the candidate. I think it's self-explanatory.

The Chair: That's a good explanation.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The difference between this amendment and the NDP amendment is ours qualifies that the disabled person has to be living with the candidate. That's the only difference.

Mr. John Solomon: The candidate normally takes care of the needs of the person.

Mr. Gar Knutson: You can normally take care of the needs of a person but not live together.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): A child would qualify in ours—

Mr. Gar Knutson: If they're disabled.

The Chair: We'll have a chance to get to all of that. We want to get all of this good stuff on the record. I will first go to Ms. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I like the thought that this is what we're going to do, but I'm a little concerned that we're limiting it to someone who's living with a candidate. For example, you have an aged parent who's living on their own but requires daily personal care. They need someone to go in and cook the meals, shovel the snow in winter, and cut the grass in summer. They may be dependent on you, but they're not living with you. I would hate to see those situations not included.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We haven't. If you feel that strongly, you should vote this one down and support the NDP amendment.

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: I have a question for the legal counsel on this particular one. We already know from earlier discussions yesterday that these expenses apply only for the period of the election campaign. But I'd like to ask legal counsel for the definition of a physical disability. For example, a person may be dependent on the candidate because of illness. A person may have been in hospital and had an operation, an appendix removal or something, and needed care at home during the campaign period. Would that be a person with a physical disability?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Probably.

Mr. Ted White: Is that defined somewhere legally, so it wouldn't be a problem if somebody said their husband or wife just had an appendix operation and needed care at home during the campaign period?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: The vocabulary used is very broad, so that would be covered.

The Chair: Is there any other discussion?

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We seem to be debating both amendments at the same time—I think that's fine. The government doesn't like the NDP amendment because—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's from the NDP.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Not at all. If you're paying a monthly fee to take care of someone in an old age home as your normal practice, and all of a sudden you become a candidate, those monthly fees to take care of a dependent person shouldn't be part of your personal expenses or paid for by your campaign.

The Chair: Ms. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I can understand that if I had been paying all along, but I can't see where it is excluded where I provide the services. I go over and cut the grass. I go over and shovel the snow. I go over and provide the meals. Now, as a candidate, I'm not able to do that. I think those should be personal expenses.

• 2115

I agree it might not include expenses that I've been paying all along because it's now no different, but it's where I have been performing the service or where a candidate has been performing that service. Perhaps there needs to be that clarification.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson, do you have a suggestion here?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I would invite Madam Longfield to work with G-23.1 and perhaps provide additional language to be tacked on after “the candidate”. That would probably just take a phrase like “not living with the candidate but dependent on the candidate's personal care”. I would invite her to draft an amendment, and I suggest that we stand this one down.

The Chair: As I see this, the concern raised by Ms. Longfield is that we may have a situation in which there are expenses incurred to replace services that would have been otherwise provided by the candidate. Perhaps using that wording or something similar, it might be possible to address the issue that's been raised here. In light of that, if the committee wishes to do so, we can stand this clause down. It's up to the committee. I'm not going to stand it down unless the committee wants to.

There's still another amendment moved by Mr. Bergeron, and another one moved by Mr. Solomon.

Ms. Parrish wants to speak.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Actually, I think we should stand it down, because I'm at the point at which I'm starting to think of ways you could turn this into a fraudulent thing. I think it has to be worded properly. If we ask the drafters to take a look at the concepts that have been flying around the table and to come up with something airtight, it's better than doing it this late at night.

The Chair: That's probably true, Ms. Parrish.

As usual, Ms. Parrish and Mr. White are our experts at countering election fraud, so I will stand it down if it's the will and consensus of the committee.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The officials will have language in fifteen minutes.

The Chair: That's pretty express.

An hon. member: They're sharper than we are at this time of night.

The Chair: All right. Is it the will of the committee to stand this down for a little while?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: In the meantime, shall we address the other amendments, or should we just stand the whole thing down?

An hon. member: Stand the whole thing down.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, Mr. Chairman and I'll explain why. The purpose of the Bloc amendment is exactly the same as the NDP's and the government's concerning babysitting fees, but we're also adding a reimbursement for the interest on loans made to the candidate.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

I would just ask that either the members or their staffers try to put together something in the next quarter hour or so, and we'll come back to it. It's stood down.

Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: How does that address Mr. Bergeron's concern? As he mentioned, his amendment has to do with repaying the interest on a loan made to candidates. That's not actually being incorporated into whatever is happening here, so are we putting off consideration of his until later, or do we deal with it now?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Will you?

Mr. Ted White: It may be that we all agree that should be in there too and the officials could work on the whole package.

The Chair: Okay, start jaw-boning. We have a short period of time in which that could be done.

Mr. Ted White: I need some clarification then, Mr. Chair. Maybe Mr. Bergeron can explain the circumstances of this loan that a candidate would have.

What is the meaning of your amendment, Mr. Bergeron?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think it's very simple, Mr. Chairman. It may happen that, for his election, a candidate must obtain a personal loan. There is interest on this personal loan and we suggest that this interest should be considered as part of the candidate's personal expenses.

[English]

Mr. Ted White: I can't make up my mind whether that's reasonable or not.

The Chair: I heard the wheels turning.

We've been here for over two hours. What I'm going to suggest is that we take a five-minute break. The five minutes will expire at some point, so we're going to suspend for five minutes. Then we can work on this amendment and the other—

• 2120

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Ten minutes?

The Chair: The expandable five.

We're suspended.

• 2121

• 2133

The Chair: We're back in session.

We were debating amendment G-23.1. We were looking for a possible alteration to the amendment to accommodate a concern expressed by Ms. Longfield. As I understand it, we have not yet completed that exercise. If I had a signal from Mr. Peirce that we were completed the exercise, I might....

Mr. Michael Peirce: You want it in writing, right?

The Chair: I would prefer that Ms. Longfield, Mr. Peirce, and whoever else is interested be in agreement that the draft accommodates the concern.

So while that's going on—on the assumption it can be completed shortly—I think we'll go to Mr. Solomon or Mr. Bergeron. We're not ready to complete with either of those members.

I don't have any choice, colleagues. We're going to stand down clause 409 until we're finished our internal discussion.

(Clause 409 allowed to stand)

(On clause 410—Evidence of payment—expense of $50 or more)

The Chair: There's an amendment proposed by the government, number G-24. It will be found in the brick at page 141.

• 2135

Mr. Knutson, will you introduce that amendment?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I would be happy to. Amendment G-24 is a technical amendment that makes the English consistent with the French and adds the word “than”.

The Chair: That is correct. It looks very straightforward. Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, I'll put the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 410 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 414—Inflation adjustment factor)

The Chair: There's an amendment from the government, numbered G-25, contained in the brick at page 142. Could you describe that amendment to us, Mr. Knutson?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Amendment G-25 is similar to the last amendment and makes the English consistent with the French.

The Chair: It makes the language correction to have the two languages coincide. Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, I'll put the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 414 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 419—Irregular claims or payments—Chief Electoral Officer)

The Chair: There is an amendment moved by Mr. Harvey, numbered PC-9. It's located in the brick at page 143. Will you introduce the amendment, Mr. Harvey?

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Chairman, we have checked the legislation and we have decided to withdraw amendment PC-9.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Harvey.

(Amendment withdrawn)

(Clause 419 agreed to)

(On clause 420—Irregular claims or payments—judge)

The Chair: Clause 420 has an amendment in the name of Mr. Harvey. Amendment PC-10 is located in the brick at page 145.

Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Having checked into it, Mr. Chairman, we withdraw this amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

(Amendment withdrawn)

(Clause 420 agreed to)

(On clause 421—Proceeding to recover claimed payments)

The Chair: We go to clause 421. There is an amendment in the name of Mr. Harvey, numbered PC-11. It's on page 146 of the brick.

Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Having checked into it, we withdraw this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

(Amendment withdrawn)

(Clause 421 agreed to)

Mr. Rob Anders: I'm starting to get worried, Mr. Chair.

(On clause 422—Maximum election expenses)

The Chair: Clause 422 has an amendment in the name of the government, numbered G-26. It is contained in the brick at page 147. Mr. Knutson, would you describe amendment G-26?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Amendment G-26 refers to clause 422, which regards maximum election expenses. The substance of what this amendment does is set the limit based on the revised list. It will allow for only upward revision.

The Chair: Do colleagues understand that? With reference to the statement made earlier to us by the minister, Mr. Boudria, the calculation of the election expenses for candidates is going to be based on the revised list, not the preliminary list. The amount calculated cannot be reduced. It would rely on the greater figure of the two.

Mr. Anders has a question.

• 2140

Mr. Rob Anders: While I do agree that the figure probably should rely on the greater of the two, I have a question with regard to whether “all preliminary lists” and “the preliminary lists” are one and the same or whether there is a difference between those two terms.

I'm referring that to legal counsel to ask what they think of that. Is there a substantive difference between “the” and “all” preliminary lists?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: No, not at all.

The Chair: Ms. Mondou is indicating that there is no distinction that can be made between “all” preliminary lists and “the” preliminary lists.

Thank you, Ms. Mondou.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 422 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 424—Return on financial transactions)

The Chair: I see a flurry of paper here in regard to clause 424. There are a number of amendments from various quarters, including the government, and one additional amendment from Mr. Bergeron, which is being distributed now on a separate handout and is referred to as amendment BQ-71.1.

Let's take the amendments in order. First, Mr. Harvey has amendment PC-13.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Having checked into it, we withdraw this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: We'll now go to amendment G-27, in the name of the government.

Mr. Knutson, would you introduce that?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Amendment G-27 is adding language simply for the purpose of clarification. It doesn't make any substantive change. It's just what we think is an improvement in the drafting.

The Chair: All right. I neglected to indicate the location of that, but it's on page 149 of the brick. Mr. Knutson has explained that it is only for the purpose of providing greater precision.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Harvey, there is another amendment in your name, amendment PC-15. Would you introduce that amendment?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What happened to amendment PC-12?

The Chair: I'm following the order in the agenda. If it's okay with Mr. Harvey, we'll go to amendment PC-15, which is located in the brick at page 154.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Having checked into it, Mr. Chairman, we withdraw amendment PC-15.

[English]

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: We'll now go to amendment PC-14, which is located in the brick at page 153.

Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Having checked into it, Mr. Chairman, we withdraw this amendment.

[English]

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: We'll go to amendment PC-12, which is located in the brick at page 151.

Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: We withdraw this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: We'll go to amendment PC-16 at page 157 of the brick.

Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Chairman, having checked into it, we withdraw this amendment.

[English]

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: Now we'll go to amendment G-28, in the name of the government. It is located at page 155 of the brick.

Mr. Knutson.

• 2145

Mr. Gar Knutson: Amendment G-28 amends clause 424 on line 44 simply by adding some language for clarification—“in whole or in part”, simply to improve the drafting.

The Chair: Mr. Anders has asked for a recorded vote on amendment G-28.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 5)

The Chair: Now we'll move to amendment BQ-71.1, which is on the separate handout you've just received.

Mr. Bergeron, if I may, to simplify, there are actually two amendments, BQ-71.1 and BQ-71.2. Both ask that the reference to generally accepted accounting principles be added to the two separate subsections in the act. We can deal with the discussion on both of these amendments at the same time.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I find that quite reasonable, Mr. Chairman.

The purpose of these two amendments is simply to have the report on the surplus or the deficit as well as the report on the receipts and disbursements presented according to generally accepted accounting principles. We simply want to ensure ease of understanding and analysis of results as well as making sure the results comply with the facts.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: I am in support of the idea of generally accepted accounting principles. I know when this government took office it had difficulties with regard to the lack of generally accepted accounting principles used by the government previous to its administration in 1993. I think most people out there would like to be able to read most government financial documents in generally accepted accounting principles, so I support this, not just for the purposes of the Election Act, but it's something that should be carried across the board for all aspects of government finance.

The Chair: On the surface, the amendment appears fairly rational, but could I ask Ms. Vézina, in the absence of any reference to what we call “GAP” in English, what principles would be used by the Chief Electoral Officer in assessing the integrity of the accounting?

• 2150

Ms. Janice Vézina: I think that's probably the intent of this amendment. If we're asking now for balance sheets and income statements, these statements need to be developed in terms of standards. What these principles do—and what the handbooks the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants produce—is they are the rules by which organizations will do their accounting for fixed assets, for accounts receivable. These are the types of things you'll see in a balance sheet or an income statement.

So it's very important that if these documents are to have integrity, that they be based on some kind of standard, so that when you look at a balance sheet for the Liberal Party and a balance sheet for the Conservatives, or Reform or Bloc or NDP, you're looking at the same type of information; it was based on the same standards when it was developed.

The Chair: So I take it there's at least some favourable disposition toward the amendment here on the part of the body you work for.

Ms. Janice Vézina: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson, what does the government think of this?

Mr. Gar Knutson: We'll support it.

The Chair: All right. There are two amendments. We've discussed them both together, but I think I'll put them separately.

So on amendment 71.1, dealing with line 21, all those in favour of the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Shall I apply the same vote to amendment 71.2? All right.

(Amendment agreed to)

Clause 424 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 425—When contributions forwarded to Receiver General)

The Chair: Now we move to clause 425. There's an amendment in the name of Mr. Bergeron. Would you introduce amendment BQ-74, which is located in the brick at page 158, Monsieur Bergeron?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, we withdraw amendment BQ-74.

[English]

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

(Clause 425 agreed to on division)

(On clause 426—Auditor's report)

The Chair: We have three amendments to clause 426, one coming from the government and two from Monsieur Bergeron. Amendment G-29, in the name of the government, is found in the brick at page 159. Mr. Knutson, would you introduce amendment G-29?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I move amendment G-29. G-29 amends clause 426 at page 172. It expands the language to include trust funds, thereby including trust funds in the auditor's report.

An hon. member: Good idea.

Mr. Gar Knutson: And it improves the accountability.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Hear, hear.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Now I'll go to you, Monsieur Bergeron, for amendment BQ-75, located in the brick at page 161.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, the effect of amendments BQ-75 and BQ-76 are exactly the same as the two amendments that have just carried and that concern generally recognized accounting principles.

• 2155

It was pointed out before that these generally recognized accounting principles are to the accountant what the probability of circumstances or rather the balance of probabilities... the balance of probabilities is to lawyers. There you go.

[English]

The Chair: I think we understand where those amendments are coming from then.

Mr. Knutson, is there a position you have here?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I think it would be the government's intent to accept the will of the committee in regard to generally accepted accounting principles, and any place in the act where that needs to be included to make the act consistent, they would fix at report stage rather than us trying to amend the bill tonight.

My officials here, who are distracted while I'm discussing...can we support BQ-75?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Yes.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes.

The Chair: All right. Now that we have expressions, we've staked out our ground here.

For the record, I suppose, I want to ask the question: if we insert provisions piece by piece, making reference to generally accepted accounting principles, and we leave it out someplace else in the act, is that a potential problem?

Mr. Gar Knutson: No.

The Chair: No? Let's ask counsel.

In terms of a legal test of interpretation there, if a provision is included in one area and left out of another area, there is an inference that can be drawn that it was intended to be left out of the other area. Therefore, as we insert this provision here and there, we may in fact fail to put it into certain sections of the bill, thereby allowing an inference that we would not have intended. May I simply raise that as a possible issue? Is there any reaction from counsel on that? No reaction, okay.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I thought I heard an indication that given that the committee has accepted this principle, the officials would in fact make that correction wherever in the act it needed to be made before report stage.

Mr. Gar Knutson: You did hear it.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: That's what I thought I heard. Okay.

The Chair: I am sorry that the chair did not fully grasp that when it was said, because I'd just gone through and spent a minute and a half....

In any event, the record has the benefit of my wanderings. Let me put amendment BQ-75.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: I will now put amendment BQ-76.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Good work, Mr. Bergeron.

(Clause 426 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 428—Trust funds)

The Chair: There are four amendments.

Mr. Harvey, the first amendment stands in your name, PC-17. That amendment is located in the brick at page 165.

Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Chairman, having checked into it, we withdraw this amendment.

[English]

(Amendment withdrawn)

• 2200

The Chair: I now move to three amendments in the name of Mr. Bergeron. Amendment BQ-79 is found in the brick at page 166.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to have the trusts also audited by an auditor so that we can have the guarantee that the monies coming from the trust and eventually paid to a political party be as transparent as the political party's funds themselves.

Mr. Chairman, it is important to point out that we have just carried a government amendment to clause 426 which goes exactly in the same direction. The amendment we're moving to clause 428 is consequential to the amendment to 426 that has just carried, as recommended by the government.

[English]

The Chair: All right.

Is there any other discussion?

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The government doesn't see this as a consequential amendment and isn't supporting it.

The Chair: All right.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We move now to amendment BQ-77, and that is located in the brick at page 163. I'm only reading the script.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is simply that trusts not be registered only during the election period, but year-long so that the process can be assured of some transparency as a lot of things can go on in this kind of trust between election periods.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Is there any other discussion or reaction?

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The government stands by the language in the act, which regulates trust funds during an election. So we're opposed to the amendment.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion around the table?

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm somewhat surprised at the government's reaction to this because it doesn't seem to be consistent with the statements made by Mr. Boudria on the matter of trusts. He was particularly proud of the new things being brought in by Bill C-2. If the trusts are registered only during the election period, then you're leaving the door open to any kind of manipulation and this does not lead to the transparency the government wished to implement with its legislation on trusts. I'm very surprised. Perhaps you might want to consult Mr. Boudria.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, am I to understand, from the arguments I've been hearing, that the government, to all practical intents and purposes, wishes to have 36 days of transparency every four years with these trusts?

• 2205

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think I'm confused about which amendment we're dealing with.

The Chair: We are now dealing with amendment BQ-77.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Maybe he's confused also.

[English]

The Chair: Now, Mr. Knutson doesn't take the challenge.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm happy. I understand Mr. Bergeron's reasoning. It's perfectly valid reasoning. I think, however, we have consulted with Mr. Boudria and the government stands by the language that's in the bill. I would perhaps...if the opposition wants to bring this for debate at report stage, they're free to do that. But in the meantime, the government is standing by the language that's in the bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I withdraw this amendment.

[English]

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: For the record, I want to indicate that amendment was discussed at committee. It was presented and discussed.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Let's not get into that.

The Chair: Okay. Anyway, it's been withdrawn, and now we move to amendment BQ-78, which is located in the brick at page 164.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, amendment BQ-78 provides the addition of the expression “in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles” which, I am told, are to accountants what the balance of probabilities is to lawyers. This time, I didn't blow it.

[English]

The Chair: This wording would at least add the generally accepted accounting principles.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The government is prepared to accept this.

The Chair: Are there any further discussions on amendment BQ-78? Seeing none, I'll put the question.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 428 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 434—Extension or correction—judge)

The Chair: There is an amendment in the name of the government, numbered G-30. It is located in the brick at page 167.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Amendment G-30 makes the English and French consistent. I know that because it's got the English version on both sides of the page. When that happens, make the language consistent.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The parliamentary secretary is a genius.

[English]

The Chair: Well, this is about as easy as it gets then—an amendment to clear up language.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 434 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 435—Certificate)

The Chair: In the name of Mr. Bergeron, we have amendment BQ-79.1. You'll find this in group D, at page 25.

• 2210

As we look at this, Mr. Bergeron, I just want to indicate that the staff has alerted your chair to the royal recommendation issue, but please feel free to introduce the amendment at this point.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, this is a proposed amendment that was discussed at length especially with the women's groups who came before this committee. The Minister was open to this kind of amendment at all stages of the examination of this bill. Thus I am submitting this proposed amendment which was concocted, I must point this out, by my colleague from Longueuil, Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire, and its effect would be to set up a financial incentive for those political parties encouraging the participation of women in politics.

[English]

The Chair: As your chair understands it, this amendment would cause a payment out of moneys as an incentive to advance representation of women in the House of Commons. The difficulty with it procedurally is that it would authorize the payment out of moneys. For those kinds of payments, I am advised that procedurally a royal recommendation would be necessary. Therefore, it's not possible to deal with this at this committee, and I would have to rule that this amendment is out of order.

Ms. Bakopanos.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, what you just ruled would be in the indication that the 30% does occur. In other words, if it doesn't occur, there is not necessarily a payment out. There's a technicality here. You're assuming that there will be a payment out, when there may in fact not be one. I'm not a constitutional expert, but the order could come out after this section is adopted by the House of Commons or Parliament.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: It's only before the payout.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: There is not necessarily a payout. The assumption is made that if the critical mass is met, then there will be a payout. There is not necessarily a payout in this.

The Chair: I don't want to be in a position of debating different members, so I'll hear representations on the issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, strictly from a procedural point of view, I understand your objection. I must however say that I am particularly surprised at the turn of events insofar as we all know that this kind of amendment can't normally be introduced without there being a royal recommendation. My colleague from Longueuil asked for this royal recommendation from the Minister responsible for the implementation of the Elections Act, Mr. Don Boudria, after he appeared before this committee and indicated he was quite ready to welcome an amendment coming from this committee. We then submitted an amendment to the Minister's attention. I am surprised that you are now indicating today that we don't have this royal recommendation while the Minister did indicate that he was open to such an amendment. We have submitted an amendment to his attention and this committee did not get the royal recommendation we were expecting from the Minister in view of his own statements before this committee.

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you've ruled this out of order. Why are we debating it?

• 2215

The Chair: I was hearing representations from members before I finalize the ruling, but I think I've heard enough. If anyone can add anything new, I'll hear them. But I think I've heard sufficient comment to rule on it. If no one else wishes to intervene, then I would.... Are you signalling that you want to speak before I rule, Mr. Solomon?

Mr. John Solomon: Our amendment is similar in many ways, so I just want to concur with Mr. Bergeron's interpretation of Mr. Boudria's interest. Both the Bloc's and the NDP's amendments deal with this matter, and they provide for an incentive to have parties recruit more women candidates. I don't see why they don't put it in the act. I don't know what you're ashamed of.

The Chair: I think everyone's—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Could I suggest a compromise? The amendment proposed to 435(1)(a) that we have before us does not provide in any way for any expenditure whatsoever. So I will submit this part of the amendment to the attention of the members of this committee, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: I'm going to first rule on the whole amendment as proposed, without severing it.

Mr. Knutson, is your comment on this before—

Mr. Gar Knutson: I can make it after your ruling.

The Chair: Okay, sure. Let me finish, then.

Because the amendment BQ-79.1 would require payment out of moneys following the achievement of a threshold of election of parties to the House of Commons, it does require the payment out of moneys. It therefore does require a royal recommendation, which can't be done in committee but could be done in the House. So the entire amendment, BQ-79.1, is therefore out of order.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Could I jump in?

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Earlier today a member of the committee asked for time to put forward an amendment regarding this clause. I indicated the government's willingness to stand it down if by chance we got to this clause.

I'm also advised by my officials that they won't have language regarding the clause on dependent care, so we're going to have to have at least one meeting to deal with two clauses tomorrow. I know we're going to get everything else done, though.

So speaking for the government, I'd be satisfied if we were to set this clause aside. If Mr. Bergeron wants to submit another amendment just in regard to paragraph 435(1)(a), then we can look at it tomorrow and have it in writing.

The Chair: First, I've ruled on BQ-79.1, so there's no going back on that. That is out of order and is essentially struck from our considerations now. There are amendments proposed by the NDP dealing with the same thing, but we haven't dealt with them yet. There are other amendments dealing with other elements of the section, I gather.

Is it the will of the committee to stand the rest of it?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Clause 435 allowed to stand)

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, on a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, may I withdraw this amendment? Thank you. I withdraw it.

[English]

The Chair: No, it's not possible to withdraw it because it's already been ruled out of order. It's already gone, but you're at liberty to propose another amendment because we've stood the whole clause.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Could the amendment before me be admissible if the Minister deigned grant us royal recommendation tomorrow morning?

[English]

The Chair: In theory, that would be great, except that I am advised the only place you can get a royal recommendation is in the House. Members can speak with Mr. Boudria about the technical aspects of that, and Mr. Knutson, along with counsel, will undoubtedly have to consider this later. There are a number of members who want to address this at committee and probably in the House.

• 2220

So we'll be able to take this up tomorrow. That allows us then to proceed to clause 437.

(On clause 437—Bank account)

The Chair: We have an amendment numbered BQ-81, located in the brick at page 172.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to correct a technical detail. As worded, the clause requires the date the account is opened to be specified. This date is a bit superfluous as it is the same as the issuing of the writ.

[English]

The Chair: Is there any comment from Mr. Knutson or the officials?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Can Mr. Bergeron explain again—sorry, it's late—why he wants to remove the date?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, the clause provides the heading of the account must specify the date and the name of the holder while the date, inevitably, is the same as the one the writ was issued.

Also, Mr. Chairman, it is important to point out that the date the account is opened must appear on the statement.

[English]

The Chair: Could we have a response from Mr. Knutson or Ms. Vézina as to the need for specifying the date in the clause?

Ms. Vézina.

Ms. Janice Vézina: Thank you.

Basically what we have seen in the past is confusion over the use of the bank account. Some official agents used an existing bank account, and moneys were mixed between the campaign and what the account had been used for previous to that.

Also, in terms of the name of the account holder, we've had the candidate's name and we've had a local association bank account used as the account. I think the act is quite clear that there should be a separate account opened for each election. We wanted to ensure that this was clear. In fact it's more of a compliance issue than anything else, to see that there's an account in the name of the official agent for a particular candidate for a particular election.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, I previously was going to try to express what I thought Mr. Bergeron had expressed, and what the intent of it was, when the question was put generally,

• 2225

My question would be to Madame Vézina. I take it you've encountered some problems in the past with regard to this. Mr. Bergeron puts forward the idea that somehow the dropping of the writ always corresponds with this. I take it from your statement that some official agents have used pre-existing bank accounts, that it is not always the case that the setting up of the account corresponds with the dropping of the writ. Is that the case?

Ms. Janice Vézina: That's correct. In fact, a bank account should be opened in the name of the official agent whenever you receive a contribution or make an expense, even if it's prior to the writ, if it's in relation to your campaign.

The Chair: Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: There's something in Ms. Vézina's explanation I don't understand. I thought that an official agent could not manage the financial operations of a candidate using an already open account and that if he did so he would be contravening another provision of the Act. We shouldn't try to correct this kind of practice by asking for the date to be written in, but rather by implementing the provisions of the Act. If I am in error, please tell me.

On the other hand, I would point out to the members of the committee that in Bill C-2 there is an incongruity between the French and English versions. The English version reads:

[English]

“The account must indicate the year in which it was opened”

[Translation]

while the French version reads: "L'intitulé du compte précise la date de son ouverture", and so on. The English version requires that the year be given while the French version requires the date. Maybe it would be simpler to require nothing at all.

[English]

The Chair: All right. I think we've had good discussion. Officials have expressed their views, as have Mr. Knutson and the mover.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: The amendment is negatived. I will therefore put the clause.

Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would submit the last argument I submitted and that you perhaps didn't hear. The clause cannot carry as is as the English version does not correspond to the French version.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I propose an amendment in the English section only to change the word “year” to “date”. Call that Knutson amendment 001.

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: In an election year, especially, it is far more important to know the date than the year. It is a crucial bit of information.

[English]

The Chair: All right. Mr. Knutson is moving that, if someone would put something in writing.

Are we able to operate without writing in this case?

Mr. Bernard Fournier (Procedural Clerk): We're all right for that.

The Chair: All right. The record will show—it's a very simple amendment—that the English word “year” in the clause we're dealing with has been changed to the word “date”.

All right. That amendment has been moved by Mr. Knutson.

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron, for pointing it out.

Thank you, Mr. White, for bringing our attention to something else.

Mr. Ted White: I think it should say “date on” rather than “date in”, so I think it needs the two words changed, not the one.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'll accept that.

The Chair: All right. Thank you.

Mr. Ted White: You can call that White number 10, or something like that.

The Chair: White 000—is that okay, Mr. Clerk?

Mr. Bernard Fournier: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Knutson 007.

The Chair: Okay—“date on”.

I have to put that amendment. All in favour of Mr. Knutson's amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Are you calling amendment 001 or 002, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Now I will put the clause.

(Clause 437 as amended agreed to on division)

• 2230

(On clause 438—Prohibition—making contributions)

The Chair: There's an amendment in the name of Mr. Harvey. It is PC-20 and it is located in the brick on page 174.

Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I'm sorely tempted, Stéphane, but I shall try to refrain.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We're moving this amendment strictly for purposes of clarification and concordance with the other provisions of the bill. The registered agent of a party surely has the right to deliver receipts for contributions made to a party. Our amendment would eliminate a contradiction in clause 438(3). It's simply a matter of proper wording.

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: We agree.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: He doesn't know why, but he agrees.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Sometimes you don't need to know why.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson, our officials agree this could be a good clarification.

All right. If there's no further discussion, I'll put amendment PC-20.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: I'll now go to Mr. Bergeron for amendment BQ-82, which is included in the brick at page 173.

Mr. Bergeron, BQ-82.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The government accepts this one.

[Translation]

We agree.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Is there any further discussion?

There being none, I'll put the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: I'll allow Mr. Bergeron seven and a half seconds to state the reason.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that the government has recognized there was an incongruity in the bill because without this amendment a registered party would not have been able to make a contribution to a candidate. It is a good thing this amendment carried.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.

Now I'll put the clause. Shall clause 438 as amended by PC-20 and BQ-82 carry?

(Clause 438 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 439—Limits on expenses)

The Chair: Now I go to clause 439, where there's an amendment in the name of Mr. Harvey, PC-21, located on page 175 of the brick.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Having checked, Mr. Chairman, I will submit amendment PC-21 to the vote.

Our amendment clarifies the application of the expenditure ceiling for a candidate and specifies that this is for meetings held during an election period. In my opinion, it is quite logical to specify this. I should have moved all my motions during the day; we would have had peace and quiet. What do you think, Raymond?

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

Any further discussion? There being none, I'll put the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 439 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 441—Base amount of expenses)

The Chair: Now I go to clause 441, where there's an amendment in the name of the government.

Mr. Knutson, G-31.

• 2235

Mr. Gar Knutson: G-31 amends clause 441 on page 180. Clause 441 regards the base amount of expenses, and this suggests that it's based on a revised list, which we discussed earlier, to the amount which is greater.

An hon. member: Brilliant. Well put.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 441 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clause 442 agreed to)

(On clause 448—Irregular claims and payments—judge)

The Chair: We'll go to clause 448, where there's an amendment in the name of the government. Amendment G-32 is found in the brick at page 178.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It regards clause 448 and it makes the English consistent with the French.

The Chair: Okay, that's a translation initiative.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 448 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 449—Proceedings to recover payment)

The Chair: I go to clause 449, where there is an amendment in the name of the government, amendment G-33, found at page 179 of the brick.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It amends the French in order to make it consistent with the English.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 449 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 450—Deemed contributions)

The Chair: I go to clause 450, where there's an amendment standing in the name of the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Bergeron, BQ-83. Would you introduce the amendment? It is found in the brick at page 180.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, this is a technical detail. We are suggesting the deletion of 450(2)d) to eliminate any possibility of abuse. If this paragraph were maintained, all the creditors could unilaterally decide that their debts are uncollectible.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Any comments?

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm advised by the officials that without paragraph 450(2)(d).... In the past suppliers were shown as contributors—when they had no intention of being shown as contributors—when they hadn't been paid for their accounts. That's why this was written in.

The Chair: All right. If there's no further discussion, I'll put amendment BQ-83.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In answer to Mr. Knutson, I would like to ask you if including 450(2)d) isn't a way to get around the process of accounting for contributions. If that is the case, I'm concerned that we would allow a mechanism that could be used to get around the provisions of the Act whose purpose is to ensure a certain transparency through the statement of contributions.

• 2240

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I think Mr. Bergeron raises a valid point, but I would just remind him that Elections Canada, in reviewing the returns, I think could spot what is a fraudulent claim. For example, if you have unpaid bills you're trying to write off and yet your campaign ran a surplus, to me that would be evidence that you're doing something untoward, whereas if you had a huge debt, that would be evidence that you genuinely couldn't pay people and you weren't anywhere near the spending limit.

I accept his point, but I don't think that's enough to amend the act.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 450 agreed to on division)

(On clause 451—Electoral campaign return of candidate)

The Chair: There's an amendment in the name of Mr. Harvey, amendment number PC-22, shown on page 181 of the brick.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I rise on a point of order.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: On clause 451 the government is planning amendments. We would like the clause stood down.

The Chair: Agreed?

(Clause 451 allowed to stand)

(On clause 452—When contributions forwarded to Receiver General)

The Chair: There is an amendment in the name of Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We withdraw this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

(Amendment withdrawn)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.

(Clause 452 agreed to)

(On clause 478—Provision of forms to candidates)

The Chair: There's an amendment in the name of Monsieur Bergeron, BQ-85, located in the brick at page 183.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. André Harvey: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I believe you went a bit too fast and that you forgot amendment PC-22. Am I mistaken?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: He went to PC.

Mr. André Harvey: My colleague from Verchères is right. I simply wanted to point out that, having checked, I withdraw it. You had a premonition.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Harvey, that particular section was stood down because the government indicated it would like to make an amendment. So you are still at liberty to withdraw or you may—

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: In that case, I will be happy to maintain it. I hadn't quite understood, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Keep it until we deal with it again.

Thank you. So PC-22 will stay. The whole thing is stood down.

We're back, Mr. Bergeron, waiting for you to introduce amendment BQ-85.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, this clause has to do with providing the candidates with a sufficient number of each and every prescribed form. It seems to us the returning officer and the candidate might have a different evaluation of the number of forms required to see the operations through. We're back to this business of photocopies we discussed yesterday with Ms. Bruyère.

[English]

The Chair: All right.

This is an operations-type thing rather than a financial accounting thing. The section now allows the returning officer to make the decision about how many copies would be satisfactory for a candidate's requirements.

Mr. Bergeron would like the candidate to be able to make that decision for him or herself. I could let Ms. Bruyère comment on this amendment.

• 2245

Ms. Diane Bruyère (Assistant Director of Operations, Electoral Coordinator, Elections Canada): I would have a tendency to say the section as it appears in the bill would work well. I mean, common sense will prevail. The only concern I have with the way the amendment is drafted is you could have candidates who would come up with something that would be really unreasonable and we would be in a position where we wouldn't be able to comply.

I've never heard of a situation where we refused a candidate anything they've asked for that they were entitled to get. But if you draft it the other way, then we might be in a position at some point that we just simply don't have the material on hand and they're asking for a huge amount of something, for whatever reason.

The Chair: Yes, a candidate or his or her agent could ask for 20 or 30 copies when they only need two.

Ms. Diane Bruyère: Yes.

The Chair: Any other discussion? Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: I have a question for Elections Canada. Do you have an idea of what the maximum number of forms that have been requested in any given election has been? Is there a high-end ceiling case to demonstrate here?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: No, I don't think it has ever been an issue, but I could see the potential for it at some point. We have, unfortunately, some candidates who are perhaps a little bit more overzealous than others in trying to get a whole bunch of material they don't need, and we try to be environmentally friendly.

Mr. Rob Anders: I have further questions. What's the usual? It says forms, but what's the usual parameter?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: I guess it would depend on the form. We have over 800 forms that returning officers use, and most of them can be provided to candidates. I can't think of one in particular that we hand out in huge numbers. Some could be tens and others could be hundreds. It depends on the application and what is required.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Anders.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, would Ms. Bruyère be satisfied if I added to my amendment: “a reasonable number of each prescribed form requested by the candidate or his official agent”?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: That would be more reasonable. I would agree.

[English]

The Chair: Can we get something in writing here?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Just as before, call this Bergeron amendment 001. I move the addition of the word “raisonnable”, “reasonable”, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: All right, if it's just the one word.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We don't object to the word “reasonable” being added.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: We're very reasonable. It's getting late; I have to get my jokes in where I can.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We'll support the change.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: All right. The amendment is modified to include the word “reasonable” in front of the word “number”. With that modification, I will move the question on the amendment.

Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: I'm sorry to do this to you again, but there are not too many interventions at the moment. The word “the” should be changed to “a”.

The Chair: “A reasonable”. Yes.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane Bruyère: In French, we should also specify "a reasonable number".

[English]

The Chair: Okay, I'll put the question on amendment BQ-85 as modified.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 478 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 479—Duty to maintain order)

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, there's an amendment to clause 479, BQ-86. It is located in the brick at page 184. Would you introduce that amendment, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, in the Elections Act, at least in Bill C-2, there are presently rather vigorous provisions concerning the use of force, if necessary, by the staff of the polling station to react to problems occurring inside the polling station. We wish this amendment to carry to allow the use of stronger force by police officers.

• 2250

[English]

The Chair: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I don't think we need to put it in legislation that these people can call the police. They can do that in any event. They're bound by the common-law rules of using force, and we think that's satisfactory. We're not in favour of the amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: This is a question for the Elections Canada officials. As a matter of curiosity, have there been instances where police have been called in? I assume this is referring to the deputy returning officer. Are there situations where the deputy returning officer has had to perform an arrest without warrant?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: Using an arrest without going to a police officer is something that is extremely rare. It has happened maybe once or twice in the last 10 years.

The first step in the process for a deputy returning officer, according to his instructions, is to call the local law enforcement agency. In some areas of the country, however, that could be an hour away, so in a case like that they could use this. It would be a case, for example, where someone wanted to walk away with a ballot, something serious, or someone ate a ballot, and they couldn't get the local law enforcement people in quickly enough, because it is an offence.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'm sorry, this is—

The Chair: Mr. Anders, I distinctly heard you say “as a matter of curiosity”. I don't think at 10.50 p.m. it's time for curiosity. I really don't.

Mr. Rob Anders: It's very pertinent to the—

The Chair: Not as a matter of curiosity. You'll pardon me for being a little bit short with you—

Mr. Rob Anders: Knowing whether or not it has ever been used, Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: Put your question very quickly, please. Thank you.

Mr. Rob Anders: This is another matter. Can somebody be arrested for eating a ballot? That's the question I'm asking.

A witness: Yes, for destroying a ballot.

Mr. Rob Anders: It sounds absurd to me.

The Chair: Thank you. I'll put the question on the amendment. Shall amendment...? You've introduced the amendment, Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes. Does that mean I've lost any right to speak during the discussion, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: Go ahead. We'll give you the last word.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Is this power to use reasonable force to evict someone from the polling station or arrest someone that is given to election officials set out in any detail in any other provision of any other Act?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: The present legislation is far broader. In fact, the present legislation gives returning officers powers that are those of a peace officer. This article restricts the cases in which they will be able to use their powers of arrest or eviction.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So we don't have to call on peace officers because they will be peace officers themselves, unless I am mistaken.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: That was the case before, but not anymore.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Not anymore.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: It's more restrictive.

[English]

The Chair: That's great. Good discussion.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 479 agreed to on division)

(Clause 496 agreed to)

(On clause 497—Strict liability offences—summary conviction)

The Chair: There is an amendment, BQ-87. Monsieur Bergeron, would you describe amendment BQ-87? It's in the brick at page 185.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, before, the government showed itself ready to...

• 2255

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: I have a point of order. I apologize if I've cut Mr. Bergeron off, but I just want to point out that this is consequential to other amendments that have been stood down. So I suggest we stand it down. I apologize.

(Clause 497 allowed to stand)

(On clause 500—Punishment—strict liability offences)

The Chair: There is an amendment in the name of the government, G-34. Mr. Knutson, would you introduce amendment G-34?

Mr. Gar Knutson: The offence part was missing from subsections 480(1) and (2), so this amendment ties the penalty to the offence.

The Chair: That's fine. Seeing no further discussion, I would ask.... Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: What I'm trying to track here is that I see in the bill there's a reference to sections 481 to 483, and you're adding a reference to section 480 in front of it. I'd just like to take a quick flip back to clause 480 for a second, Mr. Chairman. This is very important because this deals with third parties and the provisions that would be brought against them. I just want to take a quick peek at that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Michael Peirce: It doesn't touch on third parties.

Mr. Rob Anders: I see third parties mentioned. The heading for subclause 500(6) is “Additional punishment—third parties”, and you're dealing with subclause 500(5). So I think it is pertinent.

Am I to understand that if somebody is holding a public meeting that is in contravention, that will be punishable by a fine of thousands of dollars? Is that right?

Mr. Gar Knutson: If you incite people to act in a disorderly manner with the intention of preventing a transaction of business at a public meeting, this subclause now provides a penalty for that action.

The Chair: Are we almost satisfied? Do we at least understand it? Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'm trying to get a sense of how it jives, because right after that it talks about:

a fine of up to five times the amount by which the third party exceeded the election advertising expense

In terms of a third party exceeding the election advertising expenses you've laid out in this bill, how is that related to upsetting a public meeting?

Mr. Gar Knutson: In amendment G-34 the new language is underlined in black. It refers to subsections 480(1) and 480(2), which refer to people who are inciting people to be disorderly with the intention of delaying or obstructing the electoral process, and that is the only language that's being added in.

The Chair: Good.

Mr. Rob Anders: I have one last question. Were these people who upset public meetings previously not fined $2,000 or $5,000 for upsetting those meetings and now you are fining them?

Mr. Gar Knutson: There was an offence before, but this bill wasn't drafted properly to hook the penalty to the offence.

Mr. Rob Anders: Was the offence punished by $2,000 or $5,000 fines?

Mr. Gar Knutson: It was exactly the same.

(Amendment agreed to)

• 2300

(Clause 500 as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 2)

(On clause 502—Illegal practice)

The Chair: I realize it's late, but this particular clause—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman...

[English]

The Chair: I hear you.

This particular clause, clause 502, is a government amendment that deals with the same clause 480. So if we could deal with that, we may conclude our business for the evening.

An hon. member: Thank God.

The Chair: Can I have Mr. Knutson introduce amendment G-35 under clause 502? Again, it deals with clause 480, which we've just dealt with.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The same reason that I gave in the last amendment carries. All this language does is make the section clearer and better drafted.

The Chair: All right, dealing with those same obstruction clauses.... I'm going to put the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 502 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: It is 11.03. It has been brought to my attention that there are only 10 clauses left, but there are other clauses that have been stood down and that we have to go back to. I think I'll take direction from colleagues here.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It's fine. If people want to go, that's fine.

I just wonder if we could ask the clerk to combine all the remaining clauses into one package.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Definitely the clerk doesn't sleep tonight.

Mr. Gar Knutson: They can do it tomorrow between 9 and 3.30.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Are we getting any new sign by-laws?

The Chair: All right, colleagues, as it stands now, we are scheduled to sit tomorrow afternoon at 3.30. We would sit certainly until the supper hour.

The chair intends to speak with Mr. Solomon, who will have to attend an event tomorrow evening. We had indicated that we would try to accommodate that, but that doesn't mean we can't continue with the bill. We'll size up our termination time after we start tomorrow at 3.30.

Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I won't be able to be present at tomorrow's meeting. I hope I can count on the co-operation of my colleagues to move the three motions I have left or the two motions that are officially left. No, I am not withdrawing them. I am only withdrawing amendment PC-23; I am maintaining amendment PC-24. The other three amendments can be put to the vote, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. They're still good proposals, as you know.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. So you're going to withdraw PC-23.

Mr. André Harvey: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you. We'll make sure your amendments are put. We can't guarantee they'll be adopted, but they'll be put.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I wanted to have a word with the clerk.

[English]

The Chair: We'll adjourn now until 3.30 tomorrow.