[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, November 28, 1995
.1107 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Since we have a quorum, we can begin.
[English]
The first order of business is the report, long considered by this committee, into the question of the electoral boundaries.
Are there any further objections or comments in respect to the report?
Accordingly, Mr. Boudria moves that the draft report as amended be adopted and that the chairman be instructed to present the report to the House.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: I think Mr. Boudria also moves that in accordance with section 22 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, as amended, the commission report for British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland be returned to the Speaker, together with a copy of the objections and of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence with respect thereto.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Let me turn to the Sub-committee on Members' Travel. Mrs. Parrish moves that notwithstanding the committee's decision of Thursday, May 4, 1995, the deadline for the Sub-committee on Members' Travel be extended to February 29, 1996.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: I would suggest that given that this committee will not be sitting in full, the Sub-committee on the Referendum Act might want to meet on Thursday morning at 11 a.m., if that's possible, to at least organize and plan the work of the subcommittee.
We've now completed our electoral boundaries work, and I think it was agreed we'd leave this until that time.
The members of the subcommittee are McWhinney, Langlois, Harper and me. We'll call the members and see if they're available for Thursday morning. We'll have some fun.
Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): Mr. Chairman, may I just make a brief report on behalf of the Sub-committee on the Business of Supply?
The Chairman: Yes, certainly, Ms Catterall.
Ms Catterall: You referred an item to us, a report from Treasury Board, with the proposal to change the content of the votes with respect to the estimates.
Yesterday we had as witnesses representatives from Treasury Board and from the Office of the Auditor General. There was substantial discussion. The committee concluded that it wanted a little more time to consider this.
We'll be meeting again either on Thursday or Monday, so it can report back to this committee by Tuesday. There are concerns, but the main reason for doing this - deferring our decision for a week - was that it has been our tradition not to approve changes in the way the House deals with its business unless there's general consensus among members.
.1110
In that case there certainly was not consensus. Mr. Williams of the Reform Party had some concerns he really wanted to address.
I might seek your guidance as to whether the committee should proceed to recommend any concurrence if in fact there is not general consensus among the different parties on how this should be dealt with.
The Chairman: I guess we're looking for a report from you on the subject. If you can get a report from your committee on the subject....
As I recall it, the idea of the presentation was to change the estimates for the coming fiscal year.
Ms Catterall: Yes.
The Chairman: So there's some speed necessary if it's going to be done at all.
So I'd suggest the subcommittee perhaps meet and either recommend that the full committee hear the witnesses and make a decision or give a recommendation to the committee that we could then act on.
Is that the submission -
Ms Catterall: My expectation is that we'll report to you next Tuesday.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Is that satisfactory with everyone?
Mr. Boudria?
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): I'm just wondering here. The reason we got into this business of supply is specifically as a result of a directive of the House initiated by, I believe, the same member. It is he who -
Ms Catterall: This is not part of the mainstream business of our committee, except that -
The Chairman: It was a request that came from Treasury Board.
Ms Catterall: It was a request from Treasury Board to have the opinion of this committee on the change to the vote for the next year's estimates, which will be before our committee reports.
The Chairman: Could I ask this, Ms Catterall? Would it be worth our while getting the Treasury Board officials here next Tuesday, with your report, so that if committee members wish to ask questions of them, that would be possible? Is that worthwhile?
Ms Catterall: I think that would probably be a good idea, and we should have them available, at least provisionally. If we can come to a conclusion either on Thursday or Monday and you feel that's not necessary, then we can let them go.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Could I also ask about one other item on our plate? That is Mr. MacLellan's bill. Has anyone any idea whether he's found a solution he wants to bring back to the committee?
Check that soon because the information I have is that apparently there has been some redrafting done.
Today we have - yes, Mr. Ringma.
Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): This is our Stephen Harper? I just want to verify which Harper it was.
The Chairman: Yes, that is Stephen. Sorry.
Mr. Ringma: Okay, thank you.
The Chairman: If there are any changes, you can let us know.
We have before us today the chief electoral officer and Monsieur Girard, the director of legal services with Elections Canada.
[Translation]
They have prepared a brief presentation for the committee. Mr. Kingsley, you have the floor. Thank you for appearing before us.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): I'm very pleased to appear, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
I might add that this presentation is owed to the fact that the chairman and I recently had a discussion concerning the fact that I intended to send a copy of the text that is before you now to all members of Parliament and all senators.
These will constitute the shortest remarks I will ever have presented in terms of an initial discussion. If you'll allow me, I will, perhaps with some bit of emphasis, read the text I've prepared, which will be very brief.
In June 1992 Parliament enacted the Referendum Act. Parliament included section 7 in the Referendum Act, which gives the chief electoral officer the authority to adapt the Canada Elections Act for the purposes of a referendum, as well as to make regulations respecting the conduct of a referendum. Parliament's apparent or evident intent was, therefore, to adopt the procedures of a general election for the conduct of a referendum.
.1115
In May 1993 Bill C-114, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, was passed, significantly amending the enumeration and revision processes, as well as the special voting rules and refining many of the administrative provisions for conducting elections. Therefore, the previous adaptation is no longer applicable. Consequently, subsequent to the amendments made to the Canada Elections Act by Bill C-114, it has been necessary to review and modify the adaptation of the Canada Elections Act that was completed in 1992 in order to make it conform to the legislation now in force.
[Translation]
The adaptation process was undertaken at the beginning of this year and completed this summer. The proposed regulation was submitted for the review of both this committee and the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, as required under section 7 of the Act. Both committees had the proposed regulation reviewed by independent legal counsel who discussed and resolved with the legal staff at Elections Canada concerns raised in his review of the regulation. Further to the report by the independent counsel, both this committee and the Senate committee expressed satisfaction with the proposed regulation as finally submitted. The regulation was made and registered on June 26, and published in the Canada Gazette on July 12, 1995.
Since then, we have been working on an office consolidation of the regulation, which I am pleased to report is now available. I am providing copies of this consolidation to your committee and it is my intention to send a copy to parliamentarians in the very near future, that is, in the course of this week, as I indicated in my introductory comments.
I would like to take this opportunity to assure all members of the committee that according to the Referendum Act of Canada and the Canada Elections Act, the Chief Electoral Officer must always be prepared to handle an election or a referendum. I'm raising this issue because it was raised during the Quebec referendum and led to speculation about all kinds of scenarios according to which the Chief Electoral Officer was preparing for a myriad of possibilities. Fundamentally, that's true, but that is simply part of the responsibilities of the Chief Electoral Officer, who does not have to wait for anyone's call to take action.
I will tell you what my main source of information is. It is the media. It is on that basis that I step up preparations, if I feel it is appropriate, or that we continue to do our planning so as to minimize the cost associated with preparing for an election or a referendum. We know that over 630 tons of paper and supplies are required in the event of an election or a referendum in Canada.
Therefore, unless there are problems, I propose to have the document distributed and to make it available to Canadians in general, as well as to returning officers, who always need to know the legislation they must apply in the case of a referendum or an election. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Kingsley. Are the regulations and Referendum Act also available on diskette?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes.
The Chairman: On CD-ROM or on diskette?
Mr. Kingsley: It's probably on diskette.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Boudria, you have questions?
.1120
Mr. Boudria: I have a few. Are you going to send all parliamentarians the office consolidation of the regulations that you referred to in the last paragraph of your document?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes.
Mr. Boudria: Is that necessary? Why don't you send a letter to members of Parliament telling them that it is available? I don't know anyone who keeps this in his office, except Mr. Arseneault who reads it at night. If we want to be practical and economical, is it really necessary to send this to all parliamentarians? Is that a requirement under the law?
Mr. Kingsley: It's not a requirement under the law as such, but it is part of the practices that have been established in the past. As a matter of fact, that's why it's in a binder. It allows you to replace pages when amendments are minor. We always felt that parliamentarians were interested in the Elections Act and the Referendum, Act because they always have a role to play in a referendum or election.
But if the committee is in favour of your suggestion, I will be pleased to accept to it and I will do that willingly. I could very easily write to senators and members of Parliament telling them that this is now available and if they want a copy, they simply have to contact my office.
The Chairman: That would be preferable. That's often done in the case of other government documents. The annual reports of several departments are no longer distributed. However, the ministers inform us that these documents are available. It would be better if that were the case for your document.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: It was just a suggestion.
[Translation]
Mr. Kingsley: I would be very pleased to do that. I have no problem with that. If I did, I would tell you. But I would like to specify that that's in relation to the document on referenda, because with regard to the Elections Act, I would still like to send it to all MPs.
The Chairman: If other members are not of the same opinion, we will hear them during question period.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: After the return of the writ, the report of the chief electoral officer to the Speaker and to the House with regard to proposed amendments that are desirable or necessary for improving the Canada Elections Act - did we get that yet?
Mr. Kingsley: No, we didn't. I referred to it in the report that I tabled within the severe time constraints. I referred to the fact that I would be tabling with the House an annex to my report, and we are in the throes of finalizing that at the present time. It has taken us longer than I anticipated for a number of reasons, in part due to a lot of work that had to go into Bill C-69 and in part because the recommendations or views being expressed cover the gamut of what is left and have not been touched by the legislature since the royal commission tabled its report. I expect that to be ready soon because we're at the penultimate draft right now.
Mr. Boudria: The only reason I'm wondering about it is that we are quickly approaching the second half of this government's mandate. If we're going to make any changes - perhaps none are necessary - for the next election, we'll have to start thinking about it. We know that as you get into a mandate, House time comes at a premium. It's harder to get bills through and every other problem. You know what those are like in the second half of a mandate. I just want to be sure that any changes necessary to enable you to do your job...that we're able to deal with those appropriately and in time.
Mr. Kingsley: Your comments constitute very good advice, and we will strive to table a document to coincide as closely as possible with the resumption of parliamentary activities in 1996.
Mr. Boudria: For February?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes.
Mr. Boudria: Thank you.
.1125
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Kingsley, you are aware that Reform is an advocate of referenda. We think that's good stuff, but we're very conscious of the fact that, as you pointed out even in your brief dissertation, it's tremendously expensive. Tonnes of paper are involved, etc.
One of our aims is to have more and more referenda conducted in conjunction with elections. I am just wondering, first of all, because you are the professional in Canada on this subject matter, whether you see it as being a relatively easy thing to coincide a referendum with an election. To what extent has that process been taken account of in your rehash of these rules?
Mr. Kingsley: I think that the appropriate time to be looking at that would be when this committee is looking at the review of the referendum legislation, which is to be undertaken, I understand, in the near future.
In terms of my report, I was not going to broach that because it is more associated with the referendum legislation as such. I am sure you are aware of the fact that the referendum legislation prohibits a referendum from taking place at the same time as a general election.
To the extent that under the Referendum Act, if a referendum is taking place and a general election is declared, the referendum is dropped and we change gears into strictly an electoral one...that is the extent to which the previous Parliament thought the two should be separate and distinct.
I would be more than happy to broach with the committee our views on what would happen if the two were to be held simultaneously. Obviously, there would be economies of scale.
Some of the apparent difficulties that come to mind relate to the different financing provisions that apply under an election as opposed to under a referendum. Under the election, with parties being limited in terms of their expenditures, and especially candidates, and with referendum committees being without any control on numbers effectively so long as they intend to spend more than $5,000, how would one reconcile this with the party platform? To what extent support for opposition in a referendum is related to support for a particular party on a particular issue is something that I think parliamentarians will want to look at.
It is nothing, but I will answer you this...nothing is impossible.
Mr. Ringma: I thank you very much for that ``so far'' answer.
Just to continue for a bit, having seen the apparatus of government at work, if we were to have an election in 1997, at this point it would be almost impossible to have a referendum at the same time, would it not? Although, as you say, the caveat...nothing is impossible. To me, as I view it, it would be a tremendous amount of work to get legislation lined up such that it would be possible.
Mr. Kingsley: In terms of having them simultaneously?
Mr. Ringma: Yes, in 1997.
Mr. Kingsley: The burden would be yours as parliamentarians and it would not necessarily be an impossible burden for me in terms of the administrative machinery. If I were instructed by parliament, I would certainly look at it.
Mr. Ringma: All I wanted was your general view and opinion, and I appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Arseneault (Restigouche - Chaleur): I note that Bill C-69 came up in an answer to someone else. Mr. Kingsley, has your office been in touch with the Senate or vice versa with regard to Bill C-69?
Mr. Kingsley: Most significantly. I have been called as a witness before the Senate committee looking after this matter on a number of occasions.
The chair of the Senate committee almost always personally calls me to invite me to appear whenever he feels it is important for Elections Canada to be heard by the Senate committee. We have provided them with all the information they have asked us to provide to them. As a matter of fact, I've provided formal testimony to them on a number of occasions.
.1130
Mr. Arseneault: Specifically with regard to Bill C-69?
Mr. Kingsley: Dealing strictly, only and specifically with Bill C-69 on a number of occasions, the last one being this summer.
Last week, as well, without my being present, Mr. Girard appeared before the Senate committee that considers this matter.
Mr. Arseneault: Have you indicated to them the time guidelines, the restrictions Elections Canada would have to implement such a bill?
Mr. Kingsley: Oh, yes, we have, as we have to this committee. It's something that is public knowledge. In order to serve Parliament, we have to serve a Senate committee as well as we have to serve you.
Mr. Arseneault: What type of reaction did you get from that committee with regard to the time guidelines?
Mr. Kingsley: Well, I was not there for that particular question.
Perhaps with your authorization, Mr. Chairman, I could ask Mr. Girard to reply in terms of the reaction.
The Chairman: If he could reply, we'd be delighted to hear his view.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Girard (Director, Legal Services, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): For the most part, it's difficult for me to prejudge their reaction, but they certainly displayed a great deal of curiosity regarding the short and long-term implications of Bill C-69 as drafted.
Once again, this was limited to extremely technical questions. They were wondering what would happen if this or that...
Mr. Arseneault: What are the implications of that? What would be the deadline? How late could the Senate pass it for it to come into force? I know that depends on the date of the next elections.
Mr. Girard: Indeed, it depends on the date of the election. Right now, we know that since the motion will be adopted by the committee this morning, the commissions will be provided with the objections reports in the coming days. They will have 30 days to dispose of them and afterwards, we will prepare a representation order which will come into force five days later. Therefore, we're talking about late January. We should then have a new order which will come into force one year later.
We were asked certain questions, among others: starting from today, what would be the earliest date on which we could have a new riding? The answer is very simple. The process that was developed here by the committee lasts 23 months. Therefore, November 1995 plus 23 months brings us to October 1997, provided the commissions do not request an extension, to which they are entitled under the law.
Mr. Arseneault: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Frazer, please.
[English]
Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): Mr. Kingsley, I think you were saying there is no limit to the amount of funds spent on a referendum. Is that correct?
Mr. Kingsley: Well, there are limits established for each committee. Any group, person or committee that wishes to spend more than $5,000 must register with the chief electoral officer and must also indicate in which ridings it intends to have effect.
Based on that, a limit is set on the amount of moneys that committee can spend.
Mr. Frazer: Who sets that limit?
Mr. Kingsley: The chief electoral officer does.
Mr. Frazer: Based on...?
Mr. Kingsley: Based on the previous lists at the election for that riding. It is on a per capita....
Mr. Frazer: Okay.
Mr. Kingsley: I think that as a safe rule one could say the committee is authorized to spend in the vicinity of 50¢ - now, please don't hold me to 5¢ on this - per elector on the lists.
So nationally, for example, a committee that would claim to have a desire to have an impact nationally could spend in the vicinity of $10.5 million.
That's what I meant by the ability to spend; it is quite wide. You're not restricted, as under Quebec law, to one umbrella yes and one umbrella no committee, with a limit that applies to both sides. It depends on each committee that is established.
Mr. Frazer: I guess if that's the case, then I don't quite understand your problem with running a referendum concurrent with an election. If the funding is clearly identifiable and separate, then where is the problem?
Mr. Kingsley: Well, the problem would be, for example, if a party associates itself very closely with one position in a referendum and incorporates itself as a referendum committee, the X party for the yes side on an issue, and it happens to be the same as the federal party participating in the election.... There's a limit again of approximately 50¢ per elector for the federal election. The party intended to spend, let's say, the full limit to support its position there and at the same time as that is being held, the party also has sufficient funds to participate in the referendum, registers as a referendum committee, and puts out ads favouring its position on that. There would have to be financial accounting and reconciliation of how the moneys were spent and whether or not there was any attempt to deviate from the limit set for the election. That is what I meant by my comment. But it is not something that is impossible to overcome.
.1135
Mr. Frazer: It would be complicated, but not necessarily impossible.
Mr. Kingsley: It could complicate, and there would have to be solutions found and there would have to be agreement by Parliament that those are the appropriate solutions.
Mr. Frazer: If three or even four questions were to appear as referendum items with that election, would that amount, then, be for each of those? Do you call those separate referenda, or what? For instance, suppose we were to go to euthanasia and capital punishment as two separate items being dealt with. Is that one referendum or two?
Mr. Kingsley: It would depend on how Parliament approves the question, whether it considers it to be one question or two questions. In other words, it could be two referenda being held at the same time. I think that would have to be discussed by parliamentarians and agreed to beforehand. In terms of the establishment of committees, one can easily see here that there may be a slew of persons or groups who wish to be yes on one side, but the same groups may wish to have a no position on the other issue, or the reverse position and they may register themselves with the chief electoral officer on the other side. So you would have a yes and a no for the same group of people.
They may wish to support it in one part of the country as opposed to all the country. So all of those things are variables that would have to be thought out before there's simultaneous referenda. I might say, too, that we should be looking at it now because that question may be asked in terms of a federal referendum as the legislation exists. One could have five questions on a referendum ballot and there may be people who favour, as I was saying, no on one, nothing on the others, or yes on three and no on two. They would want to incorporate yes on three and no on two because they feel strongly about the issue.
If you'll allow me to come back to you on that one, it is pertinent and the question did not arise through the workings of the previous referendum because there was only one question.
Mr. McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): I understand you are under severe constraints of time and I will respect that and therefore withhold my question to a later stage.
If I may, though, Mr. Chairman, you and I corresponded about the issue of releasing a letter I had sent to you on the constitutional role of the Senate in relation to the House and the conventional limitations imposed by contemporary law and practice on that, covering both rejection and also inordinate delay of foot dragging as a method of rejecting by the back door. I think we left it undecided. I gave you carte blanche. Have you made a decision on the appropriateness?
The Chairman: No, and I'll have to speak to you about it, because attached to your letter was a different letter and I wasn't sure....
Mr. McWhinney: That's to say the third party involved - I understand that, but I think at some appropriate stage we should have some discussion on this issue. I take a very severe view of the Senate's, in my view, violation of the whole contemporary constitutional norms.
The Chairman: I'm sure it would be very nice to put your views on the record and send a copy down to the members of the justice and whatever affairs committee...to the Tories at least on it who have been so uncooperative and who have botched the handling of this bill.
Ms Parrish.
.1140
Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): Despite divine intervention, the riding boundaries machinery is under way and you say that a year from now the new boundaries will be in. If an election is called in six months, do we run it under the ones we just ran it under?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes, even within 12 months. An election held after January 1997 would have the new boundaries.
Mr. McWhinney: February 1, 1997.
Mr. Kingsley: Yes, approximately.
Mr. McWhinney: Approximately.
Mr. Kingsley: We're expecting the proclamation order to be issued in mid-January 1996, with the train continuing now that it has left the station under present legislation.
Mr. McWhinney: Send a plague on the Senate for holding up the House, a non-elected body holding up an elected body...the will of the people. We need an Oliver Cromwell.
An hon member: Are you advocating an elected Senate?
Mr. McWhinney: Indeed I am, among other things.
Ms Catterall: Locusts or other types of pests?
Mr. McWhinney: Oh, yes, indeed -
An hon. member: It's a start.
Mr. McWhinney: I'll join you -
Mr. Ringma: You have potential.
Mr. McWhinney: - and the GST senators, whose appointments I still regard as flawed and subject to constitutional revocation....
The Chairman: Perhaps on Tuesday we'll have time to have the benefit of Mr. McWhinney's views on the record. In the meantime, Mr. McWhinney, I announced at the beginning that our subcommittee on the Referendum Act will sit on Thursday at 11 a.m., since this committee is not sitting. I note that you're a member of that subcommittee and we can start -
Mr. McWhinney: No, I'm not a member of that subcommittee.
The Chairman: I'm advised by the clerk that you are. You're going to enjoy the work immensely on this thrilling -
Mr. McWhinney: This is the first I've heard of it.
An hon. member: You came in late.
The Chairman: Perhaps you weren't here when you got appointed, but with your constitutional expertise....
I want to thank Mr. Kingsley for his attendance. We look forward to getting to work on this referendum bill.
In light of the comments, I think the safe thing to do might be to send a letter to members, indicating that the document is available. If they would just fax the letter back or phone your office, Mr. Kingsley, the copy could be sent to them if that's okay with you.
Mr. Kingsley: As I've indicated before, it is okay with me in terms of this specific document.
The Chairman: Some of the members of this committee who are doing all kinds of work might need more than one copy and that might free some up. I can see that Mr. McWhinney will want some for his staff so they can read it. I'm sure he will have one copy at home, at his bedside, to read each night.
Mr. McWhinney: Every document means more British Columbia forests chopped down, sir, and I'm in favour of the forests.
The Chairman: Mr. Kingsley.
Mr. Kingsley: In light of the fact that we have been doing some work to get ready for a referendum review, if it is acceptable to the committee I would like to ask one or two members of my staff to attend if I'm not able to.
The Chairman: We hope that will be the case. It would be very helpful to us. Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.