STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, November 24, 1999

• 1541

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I see a quorum, colleagues. We're continuing our study of Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act.

We are delighted to have one witness with us at this point today. I understand the government House leader will be attending right after this witness has completed, or as soon thereafter as he can logistically be here.

We'll get to our witness, who is Madame Manon Tremblay, an associate professor of political science at the University of Ottawa.

[Translation]

Welcome.

[English]

We usually ask our witnesses to make a submission of approximately 10 minutes, and that's followed by questions and answers from the members of Parliament. If that is satisfactory, you may commence your submission.

[Translation]

Ms. Manon Tremblay (Full Professor, Director, Centre for Research on Women and Politics, University of Ottawa): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to stay within my allotted 10 minutes. As you know, I'm a university professor, and we tend to talk a lot.

I want first of all to thank the members of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Procedure and House Affairs for agreeing to hear me today concerning Bill C-2, An Act Respecting the Election of Members to the House of Commons.

My presentation will deal with the legitimacy and the importance of increasing the number of women in politics in Canada and thus of adopting measures to promote the election of women.

I am speaking today in my capacity as full professor in the department of political science, and director of the Centre for Research on Women and Politics at the University of Ottawa.

I shall begin by outlining parliamentary representation of women worldwide and putting Canada in perspective. Then I shall discuss some arguments for increasing the number of women in politics and some possible measures for achieving that objective. Lastly, I shall comment on the proposal by Caroline St-Hilaire, MP for Longueuil, to include in the Canada Elections Act a financial incentive for political parties to elect more women.

The idea I want to defend today is this: Where gender equality is concerned, Canada must keep pace with its forward-looking Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and must adopt measures to promote the election of women to the House of Commons.

One characteristic of international politics in the past 50 years has been a spread of democracy, in the form of constitutional parliaments. However, as table 1 shows, this democratization of politics has largely ignored women. According to a study by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, on January 1, 1997, women accounted for an average of 11.7% of members of the lower chambers of approximately 200 parliaments worldwide. Some will claim that Canada's performance of approximately 20% women MPs is not too bad. However, the world average is brought down by the inclusion of many countries whose records of respecting democratic principles have not always been exemplary. In fact, Canada's performance is mediocre in comparison with those of the Scandinavian countries, which are genuine world leaders where representation of women in politics is concerned: Norway's Storting has nearly achieved gender parity. In other words, the countries with the highest representations of women in politics are often democratic leaders.

• 1545

Women are under-represented in politics. Why should their representation be higher? It is argued that many communities such as economically disadvantaged persons, persons living with disabilities, gay men and lesbian women are also excluded from power, and that complying with women's demands may well open up a practically endless list of criteria deserving of parliamentary representation. Women, however, are not a minority like other groups: they are one of the two components of the human race, and therefore transcend all social categories. Furthermore, greater representation for women is simple justice and equality: since women make up half the population, it is normal for them to be equally present in the corridors of power. More women in political institutions will enhance the legitimacy of the political system. Representative democracies are based on the idea that no groups must be manifestly excluded from power. The flagrant inequality of representation between men and women in positions of power suggests that the present rules of the political game promote certain profiles at the expense of others. A more diversified Parliament will also likely help solve the representation crisis that politics has been experiencing for several years.

I will give you a few strategies, which basically fall into two categories, of measures for achieving the objective of promoting the election of women.

First, nationally legislated measures, which is what we are talking about. The purpose of these measures is to ensure that a certain proportion of seats won by a political party in an election are held by women. There are various strategies to achieve this objective.

Second are the measures adopted by political parties. These are measures voluntarily adopted by political parties in order to encourage women to run as candidates. The proposal under study sits halfway between these two main categories.

These are voluntary incentives that improve chances of success. If political parties have no genuine will to promote the election of women, however, the proportion of women MPs will not change. This will must be fostered through government incentives. Canada has a powerful tool for achieving this objective: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Caroline St-Hilaire, MP for Longueuil, has proposed that the Canada Elections Act include a financial incentive for political parties that elect more women. Under this proposal, a registered political party would be reimbursed for part of its election expenses if at least 30% of its elected candidates were women.

This legislative measure, while minimal, would be an initial incentive encouraging political parties to have women run as candidates in constituencies where they do have a chance of being elected. Some will argue that this measure is anti-democratic and creates inequality between candidates of a given party by making some candidates more cost-effective than others. However, the purpose of this temporary measure is merely to correct an actual inequality among candidates that has always worked against women.

My research shows that some elements in political parties have always resisted women's entry into politics, arguing that women would be less competitive candidates than men or that voters would not prefer women candidates. These arguments are forms of prejudice that do not stand up to empirical study of the facts.

Others would argue that the only thing that counts is having the right skills. But what, in fact, are these skills? In today's world, these skills are based more on the way men are socialized and on their experiences, rather than on the way women are socialized and on their experiences.

Unfortunately, prejudice often wins out over facts. In addition to education, legislative measures encouraging political parties to nominate women candidates in constituencies where they do have a chance of being elected are front-line, if partial, strategies for increasing the number of women in the House of Commons.

Furthermore, this type of legislative measure is particularly significant for Canada, since it goes beyond words and reflects a genuine commitment by the government to gender equality in politics. I need not remind you that section 15(1) of the Charter sets out the principle of individuals' equality before the law and their right to be treated under the law without discrimination.

• 1550

Section 28 provides that the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter apply equally to women and men. More interestingly, however, section 15(2) affirms that affirmative action is compatible with the principle of individuals' equality before the law. In addition, the Supreme Court has indicated that the Charter guarantees of equality were aimed at offsetting disadvantages. Women's low representation in decision-making bodies suggests that women wishing to run as candidates are subject to many disadvantages, and research has repeatedly documented this fact. Thus it is imperative to adopt measures that promote the election of women and cannot be interpreted as being anti-democratic or unegalitarian.

Unless the Charter and especially section 15(2) are declared anti-democratic, these legislative measures are entirely acceptable in a democratic society. They are also compatible with the principle of gender equality, at least if that principle is given a nuanced reading that takes into account the effect of social relationships.

Temporary legislative measures to reestablish gender balance are often criticized as running counter to gender equality by treating women and men differently. However, treating everyone in the same way when they are not all equal in fact is a deceptive ideological game. Instead, a more nuanced reading of equality—the one that underlies section 15(2) of the Charter—is that a different, adapted treatment is required if equality is to be achieved. To do otherwise is to perpetuate inequality in the guise of equality.

In closing, I can only recommend that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of the House of Commons endorse the proposal that the Canada Elections Act include a financial incentive for political parties that elect more women.

This measure—although, I repeat, insufficient—is essential in promoting the achievement of a Parliament that is more inclusive and more representative of social diversity.

Thank you for your attention.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll now move to questions, and we'll start with Mr. White, for five minutes.

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Thank you.

Ms. Tremblay, are you the person who gets grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to send questionnaires to MPs about representation of women in politics?

[Translation]

Ms. Manon Tremblay: Yes, and I am very proud to say that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada has regularly funded my research since my master's degree in 1985. The fact that I received scholarships is proof of the excellence of my work since many people vie for that honour.

[English]

Mr. Ted White: I've twice written about your grants in the column I write in my local newspaper. On both occasions when I wrote about it, I received hundreds of phone calls and letters criticizing it as a complete waste of money and a self-serving survey that had nothing to do with the will of voters.

• 1555

Professor, I'd just to ask you, do you know what sort of electoral system exists in Norway? You mentioned Norway and the representation of women there. Do you happen to know what kind of electoral system they have?

[Translation]

Ms. Manon Tremblay: You have asked two questions. I obviously consider my work as being essential. As to whether my peers agree, let me remind you that these funds are granted on the basis of merit. I'm also very proud to say that I am usually in the top 10% of funding recipients. That's all I have to say on that matter.

The Nordic countries have a proportional electoral system, as well as a political culture based on the equality of men and women. Canada could compare its system with theirs and view the Nordic countries as a model in that regard.

I'll complete my answer by saying that we must discard the idea that the proportional system will automatically favour women. The proportional electoral system may help get more women elected, certainly, but real change will only come if political parties show the will to get more women elected.

Take the example of Great Britain, which has the same electoral system as we do. I'm not talking about Scotland, but Great Britain. In 1997, during the last election, the Labour Party, which was elected, had adopted affirmative action measures within its party, and the representation of women doubled, going from 9 to nearly 20%. This happened in a system based on a majority of votes, but only because the political party wanted to elect more women. In fact, practically no female Conservative candidates were elected. They were mostly from the ranks of Labour.

[English]

Mr. Ted White: You can argue that the proportional system doesn't have anything to do with it, but the fact is that all around the world where there's a proportional element to the electoral system, there's a much greater representation of women. Frankly, the proportional element has a much greater impact than anything else you can use an example. You used the British government example of the Labour Party going from 9% to 20%. Well, we're already over 20% here, so that's not a very good example to use.

I would suggest, actually, that you're insulting the voters of this country with your proposals. You are taking away their freedom of choice to choose candidates to represent them. at the riding association level. You've also missed the point of the whole exercise. We are here to represent our constituents. It doesn't matter whether it's 100% women here or 100% men. If we're doing our job properly, then we are representing our constituents properly. I would put to you that what you want is equality of outcome for an exercise that should have equality of opportunity.

[Translation]

Ms. Manon Tremblay: I'm sorry, but voters' freedom of choice is an idea I cannot agree with. Today, it is mostly political parties, through their nomination process—which is something I could talk about at length—which run candidates during an election, of whom very few are women. So the voters don't have a pure choice, since the political parties have already chosen whom they want to run. That is precisely why I think change should happen at the party level.

Furthermore, I do not want to go further than what is being proposed. The nomination process must be changed. We know that there isn't much happening at the nomination level in Canada these days and that when there is a nomination meeting, it is usually stacked, as they say, which means that vote-buying occurs. So our democratic system is based on vote-buying during the nomination process. I wouldn't say that's democracy.

Political representation can be interpreted many ways. My research has led me to believe that one's body and ideas are not distinct from each other.

• 1600

As such, your body affects your ideas, since the fact that you are a man or a woman—I could even say the colour of your skin—is a kind of filter which affects your interactions with society and the way you experience life.

My research has clearly shown that the men and women in the House of Commons don't support the same issues, particularly when viewed through a left-right axis, liberalism-conservatism, irrespective of political affiliation. Generally speaking, men and women have different ideas.

You have talked about the role of representation, but let me say that this role of representation can be interpreted many ways.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Ted White: Do I have any time left?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Ted White: Okay, I'll wait until the second round.

The Chair: Sure.

[Translation]

Ms. Dalphond-Guiral.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Before asking Ms. Tremblay a question, let me say, in response to what my colleague from the Reform Party said, that I was pleased to have to campaign against two handsome young men in 1993. Based on the election results, I deducted that the voters of Laval-Centre probably preferred old ladies to young men. I might also say that I won the nomination against men. It was a hard fight, and given our discussion, I am pleased to share this with my colleague.

That being said, let me come back to Laval, that extraordinary place where three female MPs were elected, two for the Bloc Québécois and one for the Liberal Party.

Before the last election in 1997, the Prime Minister of Canada exercised his right—the right of every party leader, some of whom exercise it more than others—to name female candidates. This was the case in Laval, where three female candidates ran, which is a good thing. One of these women won in a sure riding, and I can say this because it's public knowledge. If you run women candidates in sure ridings, that's one way to get them elected.

Of course, you can also implement financial incentives which, and I agree with you on that point, should only be temporary. I would like to know whether you think Canada, which is a very diverse country with many points of view, should eventually have a proportional system to increase female representation in politics.

I would also like to know what you think of the following. It is extremely difficult to find women who want to run for public office. I don't think it is because we are lazy or not articulate, but I wonder whether the fact that politicians are not held in high esteem deters very competent and educated women who earn a good living and are recognized in their profession from entering politics. It's a long question, but it's my only one.

Ms. Manon Tremblay: You asked two questions.

The argument made most frequently against proportional representation is probably government instability. As for Canada, some people have also argued that a proportional system would divide the country, as opposed to the first-past-the-post system which unites it. Since 1993, this argument does not hold water anymore since fortress Canada has crumbled into many pieces.

• 1605

I personally am in favour of a combined system like the one recently created in Scotland. On the one hand, you would keep the first-past-the-post system, and on the other, there would be a second chamber of proportional representation. This system would let us maintain our historical traditions, but it would also allow us to correct the current imbalance between the percentage of the vote and the number of seats.

As I was saying a few moments ago, a purely proportional system does not guarantee the participation of a large number of women. Consider Israel, for example. So a proportional system is not a guarantee. However, there is a mechanism that would ensure 50-50 representation in a proportional system, and we call this mechanism the zipping system. Some political parties in the world have suggested alternating between a man and a woman, a man and a woman, and so on, or a woman and a man, on a closed list, a list on which you cannot change the order of names. If four members from that party are elected in a given constituency, there will have to be two men and two women.

With regard to the proportional system, I will stop there, but I must point out to you that we don't have to look very far for examples. Look at the proposal made by the Nunavut Implementation Commission, which was to have dual-member constituencies—one man and one woman—within a first-past-the-post system.

So there are a number of mechanisms that are entirely available to us. It is now up to us to consider them. That, of course, is another matter.

How do we encourage women to go into politics? That's an interesting question. As all opinion polls show, we live in an age that is less and less favourable toward political governance: social criticism, cynicism and so on and so forth. In the conclusion of my last book, Des femmes au Parlement, I suggested that citizenship courses be given very early on, perhaps even in primary school or in early high school to encourage young people to take an interest in public life. These days, we have the impression that people take very little interest in public life. We must get them interested in public life. Some political parties are working extremely hard to organize workshops and training sessions. I'm thinking particularly of the New Democratic Party, which pays for child care during the nomination process. That's an interesting initiative.

There are all kinds of possibilities out there that should be looked at. It isn't necessary to move heaven and earth, because these possibilities are relatively accessible. But first and foremost, there is one fundamental ingredient: political parties' desire to increase the number of women. If that isn't there, there is no point in trying to increase the number of women. Political leaders have to be convinced of the importance of increasing the number of women and having governance that is more balanced than it currently is in terms of gender.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Thank you very much.

I represent the New Democratic Party, and I come from Saskatchewan. Both our provincial section of the party and our federal party have incentives to encourage and recruit female candidates, and it has worked fairly well. Our federal caucus has 40% of the female members of Parliament, and I think that's a good step in the right direction.

We find, however, that the funds that we support for nomination expenses, for family care and for election purposes, don't seem to encourage as many women as we'd like to seek nominations—and I appreciate your comments about that earlier.

• 1610

What specific incentives would you suggest we could consider in this Elections Act that would encourage more women to seek nominations?

[Translation]

Ms. Manon Tremblay: In response to that question, I'm going to repeat part of the answer that I gave previously to Ms. Dalphond-Guiral.

There are several possibilities. In particular, I know that the New Democratic Party actually has committees to find female candidates. That initiative could be expanded. Parties could also have permanent lists of potential female candidates.

You realize that people do not run for office overnight. To get into politics, you have to have a network. Many women have told me, “Yes, they came looking for me, but the organization was not behind me”. A few moments ago I mentioned education and training workshops for women. I would say that men also need to be educated within the political parties. We need to make some of them, not all of them, but some, more aware of the importance of having a political governance that is more balanced and more diversified in terms of gender.

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: What I was getting at, Mademoiselle Tremblay, was the financial incentives. Do you think there should be taxpayers' dollars involved in funding parties that achieve certain levels of women candidates in their rosters for federal elections? What levels would they be? For example, a party now receives a 22.5% rebate on general election expenses. If there were a threshold, say, of 30% of the candidates being female and a graduated scale up to 50%, would you increase that rebate to the parties based on that? Or would there be some other kind of schedule whereby you would cover family care costs, whether they're for a child, a sibling, or a parent?

[Translation]

Ms. Manon Tremblay: I would say that there are two movements here. On the one hand, there are State policies that operate through the refund provided under the Elections Act, and perhaps tax breaks as well. I think it would be more difficult to convince the public to agree to tax breaks for individuals.

Why not use an agency such as Status of Women Canada, for example, to establish programs? Besides, that sort of thing does exist. It has been done in Quebec. The Quebec government funds a program that offers leadership sessions. They are paid for by the government, and are organised by Quebec's Council on the Status of Women, I believe, although I may be wrong. I'm not sure whether it's the Council on the Status of Women that organises the sessions, but there are leadership programs funded by the government. That's the first movement.

As for the second movement, I'll go back to a recommendation that emerged from the Lortie Commission. It was Janine Brodie who made the recommendation in her study published in volume VI of the Lortie Commission Report. She said that the problem was at the nomination level. Winning a nomination can be a very expensive proposition. Her recommendation was to limit the amount of money spent to win a nomination. If my memory serves me, she recommended a $5,000 limit. That would immediately increase the number of women who could run for office.

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: I have just one final comment, if I may, Mr. Chair.

I have recruited candidates provincially and federally for the last 26 years now. The biggest problem we have in politics is that the job is not one that many women are attracted to.

• 1615

Secondly, women who do have children at home very rarely want to seek a federal position, in particular coming from out west, because it takes us around seven hours to get here and seven hours to get home, or maybe more for rural ridings. All of the terrific potential members of Parliament I've recruited who never agreed to seek a nomination had these reasons of family and travel. Who wants to be travelling all the time? Who wants to go to Ottawa? Ottawa is not the most dynamic place in the world to live. I know that shocks a lot of Ottawa MPs, but there are other parts of the country that people really would prefer to live in.

So there's a whole host of problems, and I'm not sure whether any financial incentives are going to cut it. Maybe we have to look at a whole new approach to this, whether it's having a special series of nannies in Ottawa to look after and support families, or care-givers in the riding, or counselling for the male partners of the relationship as to how they can handle this new lifestyle and encourage their partner to run. It's a really complex problem.

I'm here at this table because two very high-quality women candidates who I tried to persuade to run for my constituency wouldn't. I put my organization's support behind them. There was no money problem, because we put the money up and we gave them the organization's support. I basically guaranteed them a nomination, and they said, “No, we just don't want to do this.” So that's one of the many reasons I'm here.

I don't know if you want to comment on that. It's really a terrible challenge. It's a difficult challenge for us to try to get more women to seek nominations for our party, and maybe for others as well.

[Translation]

Ms. Manon Tremblay: I have three comments to make in response to your last remark.

When I do my research, I really enjoy asking male and female politicians questions. I remember, one day a female politician said to me, “You know, the problem for women in politics is that they don't have a wife at home.” It's incredible how remarks like that are imprinted in your mind. I never forgot that one.

Secondly, and I'd like to stress this point, this suggestion is one of many. I agree with you that we must ask ourselves whether it's sufficient or whether we shouldn't consider other strategies. There is nothing keeping us from looking at other strategies. This is not a negative strategy, but as I said in my presentation, it certainly is not enough, it certainly is a minimum, and it should be combined with other strategies.

Third, in the conclusion of my last book, Des femmes au Parlement, I suggested that male and female politicians with young children at home receive some kind of subsidy to help them make up for their absence or carry out their family responsibilities. We know full well that when a father is in Ottawa for five days, in practical terms, it means a lot more work for the other person. Not only does it mean more work, but often it means the other person's career suffers, which is something you can't attach a dollar figure to.

I would actually suggest some kind of fringe benefit for parliamentarians. Their employee benefits would include these subsidies, which of course would be palliative measures, probably insufficient, but at least they would help us reach a broader objective.

I realize that the public would not look favourably upon this measure, but I would justify it by pointing out that no matter what people may say, politicians devote a part of their life to serving their country and as a result, should be entitled to this form of compensation for the negative impact of politics on their private life.

• 1620

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Solomon, your chair always did want to hear your excuse for being here in Ottawa, for getting elected.

Mr. John Solomon: It's one of my excuses.

The Chair: But you did end your remarks by saying you would make a short comment, and then you expanded your short comment into a long comment and then invited a response.

Mr. John Solomon: You're very cooperative, Mr. Chair, and I really appreciate that.

The Chair: I'm too cooperative. I'm getting lots of eyes from colleagues.

I'm going to go to Mr. Richardson for five and then Mr. Harvey for five.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mademoiselle Tremblay, please accept my thanks for your coming here today and presenting before us.

The interesting thing about women in politics has been pretty widely discussed over at least the last 25 years. When I went to Ottawa University, they didn't even think about it.

I can only say this. If there's a shortfall here, there is a growth in municipal politics, where women can involve themselves in the community and at the community level as either alderwomen or mayors, and they make a contribution there, or they can sit on the hospital board as a chairperson or the school board as a chairperson or a trustee. They probably find meaning in that kind of instant gratification or instant feeling of insufficiency when things don't go right; there's that comfort level of being close to home in undertaking municipal politics.

In provinces that don't have a large land mass, such as Prince Edward Island to some degree, it's probably similar. It would meet that criteria. Many other provinces wouldn't because of their size.

I feel they want to give their time and their personal knowledge, background, and skills to their communities. It happens to be at a community that's close to them. I often equate that. It is that home base, close to home. The family is there.

When you come to Ottawa, it's a long walk here and it's a long walk back. I know Mr. Solomon takes seven hours. I live in Stratford, Ontario. I can't make it in less than six and I drive a car back and forth.

I just think this lack of moving from the home into the provincial and federal levels could be a territorial thing, and time—and the territorial is pressing the time on the person to give up travelling back and forth.

I personally would like to see more women because I'm often impressed with the contribution the women I work with make. But I'd throw out the territorial imperative kind of thing that came out of The Naked Ape years ago. You could say I'm on the wrong track here. This is my own experience I'm reiterating here.

[Translation]

Ms. Manon Tremblay: Mr. Richardson, I don't know whether you are mistaken, but I will tell you how I read the situation.

First of all, I don't know whether this is the case in the other provinces, but in Quebec, 10% of all mayors are women at the current time, and 20% of the members of the National Assembly are women. Actually, 25% of the members of the National Assembly are women, and 20% of Quebec's members of Parliament are women.

How many?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Twenty- three percent.

Ms. Manon Tremblay: So, this idea we often hear that women are more attracted by municipal politics does not stand up to a statistical analysis. On a proportional basis, the number of female mayors does not exceed the number of women who are members of the legislative assembly or members of Parliament. Actually, there are fewer female mayors in Quebec; 10%, whereas 20% of the members of the National Assembly and Quebec members of Parliament are women.

• 1625

Secondly, American studies—I would really like to do such a study some day—do not show a link between the proximity of the constituency and the election of women to Parliament.

Let's look at the question from a different angle. If we follow your logic, we would expect to see more women representing constituencies surrounding Parliament or we could expect to see more women representing the constituencies around Ottawa. That's not the case.

Third, I'm really not sure of this, but let's suppose that women are more interested in social issues, community issues and so on. That may be the case. These are themes that they can deal with both in Ottawa and at the provincial level.

I must say that I'm not convinced.

[English]

Mr. John Richardson: I don't have any stats or studies of it, just observations, particularly in my area.

[Translation]

Ms. Manon Tremblay: I would just add that intuitive observation of facts is absolutely fundamental; it is the starting point for research. Research stems from an intuitive observation of facts. So your observations are extremely important.

Mr. John Richardson: I quite agree.

The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): I would like to congratulate Ms. Tremblay on her research. I'm sure that the granting councils helped her with her research because the work deserved support. So I would like to congratulate her.

As for the issue of women in politics, I have the impression that we've entered the world of Alice in Wonderland, Mr. Chairman. I look around and I see my colleagues, Ms. Parrish, Ms. Catterall, Ms. Dalphond-Guiral. We are all human beings. Why are we trying so hard, from a mathematical and a financial point of view, to force women to increase participation quotas in a particular area, be it politics or another? I have the impression that this is an artificial constraint.

I listened carefully to my colleagues' remarks. I found them to be artificial. Individuals have to make choices. I think it's unhealthy to attempt in a very discretionary way to encourage women to enter one particular field of endeavour rather than another. I have many female friends who work in all kinds of areas, in all the professions; that's a personal choice.

You talked about nominations. I have run for office many times at various levels. Winning the nomination is a challenge that both sexes are able to take on. On the other hand, it's a challenge that you have to choose without regard to the financial considerations.

I just have one little question for you. Mr. Chairman, you talked about buying votes during nominations. I would like to hear more details about that. I would like Ms. Tremblay to tell us what that means during a nomination meeting.

For example, politically speaking, when an association has 1,500 paid-up members, people don't buy memberships. You just have to motivate people to get out and vote. That's what I understand, unless things are going on that I've never seen. That could happen. You can't see everything in life. People vote for the candidate of their choice, the votes are counted and it's all over. Then the person runs in the election.

I would like you to provide some explanations about buying votes. I have not seen that happen often. In any event, I have not seen that kind of thing often in Chicoutimi. We compete to sell memberships before the nomination meetings. After that, we try to get the vote out, and then we assume our responsibilities; we win or we lose. We don't buy votes.

Ms. Manon Tremblay: I have many things to say in response to the preamble to your questions. In particular, you said that both sexes could win nominations. I'm not so sure of that.

• 1630

As well, you said something about forcing.... I don't think I used the word “quota” up until now in my presentation. You argued that people are absolutely free to make their choices within society. I'm not so sure of that. Insofar as women and men are still socialized differently, I'm not so sure....

Mr. André Harvey: I don't understand. Could you tell me what you meant by those last remarks?

Ms. Manon Tremblay: Simply put, women and men are not socialized in the same manner. Just recently, I was reading a report about the presence of women in non-traditional occupations, the occupations that usually are the better paid. I can assure you that reading a report such as that one does not encourage many women to opt for those occupations.

As for the issue of choice, I maintain that choices are not absolutely free within the context of a society that socializes its individuals. Certainly, we are all human beings, but these human beings are socialized in different ways.

Let me remind you of a famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir, “One is not born a woman, one becomes one.” That saying made her famous, just as Sartre became famous thanks to his saying, “Hell is other people.” I think that still holds true. There have been a tremendous number of changes over the past few years, but men and women are still socialized differently. We mustn't deny that changes have occurred, but look at all the figures.

Just last week, I was looking at some figures about women's access to university. Women are not in areas such as computer science, mathematics, the pure sciences. They are not present in the areas of the future. I admit that women are more present than they were in days gone by, but they certainly aren't there to take up the challenges of tomorrow.

As for buying votes, you said that before a nomination meeting, you had to move quickly and sell membership cards. What I've heard along these lines has been: "Listen..."

Mr. André Harvey: I said that you had to sell cards.

Ms. Manon Tremblay: Yes, you have to sell cards.

Mr. André Harvey: There are deadlines.

Ms. Manon Tremblay: Of course, and the standards vary a great deal from political party to party. Some parties allow you to sell membership cards almost up to the night before the meeting, and that's what I was referring to. I am not the first person to say these things. In particular, look at the work done by professor Carty in British Columbia, who has done a great deal of work on the whole issue of nominations. He too has raised many issues about the democratic nature of nomination campaigns.

That being said, we have to be careful. It's just like statistics. We probably need to move beyond individual cases and look at generalities. I am not questioning the nomination of each and every person; I'm speaking generally. Some university researchers have questioned the process used to select candidates. That's what I meant.

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I'll go to Ms. Parrish and then Mr. White.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I'm going to leave the realm of philosophy and get back into the trenches.

I absolutely agree with you that the nomination processes that are strictly controlled by parties are unique, to say the least.

What I want to get at is this. My understanding from most political scientists is that 90% of your vote is based on your party, your leader, and so forth. So if you go back and say, “Okay, how do we get the candidate?”, which is the nomination process you're talking about, that's where being able to collect money makes a difference. My nomination had 15,500 Liberals signed up, and it cost me $42,000.

Let's say no one bought any memberships in that whole thing—no one bought votes, no one bought memberships—you still had to do three mailings, you had to explain how a preferential ballot worked, you had to have refreshments for your workers. It was a very, very expensive process.

Of that $42,000, I would guess $37,000 was my family funds. Had I been one of my opponents, male, connected to all kinds of professional organizations, and so forth, I think I would have been spending other people's money.

• 1635

Let's go back to the concept. It's really starting to wear on me, this idea of giving people a bonus for getting more women elected. That's not going to fix the problem. I think the problem lies with the nominations. I guess I just want you to confirm that. I would like you to give me your studied opinion, if you disagree with me, on how we fix that particular problem.

[Translation]

Ms. Manon Tremblay: Ms. Parrish, I agree with you completely. Let me reiterate what I told Mr. Solomon a few moments ago. This is just one of many possibilities. I would say that your case bears witness to what my studies demonstrate: the problem is with the nominations, which is why Professor Brodie recommended to the Lortie Commission that nomination expenditures be limited to $5,000. You said you spent $37,000 on your bid for the nomination. How many Canadian women can afford that? Of course, you could ask me, "How many men can afford that?"

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I couldn't afford it.

[Translation]

Ms. Manon Tremblay: Of course.

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: The longer I'm married, the bigger the mortgage on my house gets. I'm surprised my husband stays with me. After 32 years I can't train a new one.

[Translation]

Ms. Manon Tremblay: We might also wonder how many men can afford that, although from a statistical point of view, men are richer than women. I'm not saying that each individual man is richer than each individual woman. What I'm saying is that from a statistical point of view, men tend to have more money than women. Women are more likely to be poor, are less likely to have that money for the nomination, to build a network, to win party loyalties, if you prefer. If you don't like the expression “buy votes” we could say, “build loyalty.”

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'd like to add for Mr. Harvey that if I came to your door and sold you a membership—I sold 3,800—I think there's a moral obligation for you to vote for me when you go to the convention. So I think this concept of vote buying isn't vote buying; it's membership subsidization, if some people do it—I don't think any Liberals do that.

I think in these cases, when the money gets big and the numbers get big, the well-connected people, whether.... I was in municipal politics, so I had a good following, but people who are right out of the household or right out of a very simple profession do not have access to the backing that people who have spent a lot of time in the business world have.

You said $5,000. We have limits set per riding of x number of dollars, depending on the electors in the riding. If, as some women in the Liberal Party are suggesting—you said a 15% limit—15% of the eligible expenses of an election could be for a nomination, do you agree that would be fair?

[Translation]

Ms. Manon Tremblay: I'd say the situation would certainly be better than the present one. I'm not saying that the situation would be ideal, but that the conditions for running for a nomination, because that's what we're talking about, would certainly be brought back to more modest proportions and thus be accessible to all.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Tremblay, I just thought I'd bootleg on an issue. It is clear some colleagues in the House of Commons—maybe many colleagues in the House of Commons, we're not sure—would like to put measures in place to advance and increase the representation of women in the House of Commons. I don't have a particular problem with that. We're trying to turn something around that has existed for 5,000 years.

We seem to be heading in the right direction. Some MPs would like to put in place laws that would give a preference to female candidacies, at some point in the electoral system. Our laws normally would not let us do that. They would not normally let us favour a gender.

• 1640

Our Constitution would permit us to do that if women, or one of the genders, were disadvantaged. Throughout these hearings I have personally been looking for an articulation, a listing, of some of those disadvantages. A disadvantage is not the same thing as being under-represented. Women are under-represented on the Montreal Canadiens hockey team; I'm not so sure they're disadvantaged. Men may arguably be under-represented in the nursing profession; I'm not so sure the men are disadvantaged.

You touched on one of the possible disadvantages when you were talking about the financial resources of women. But do you have a short list of disadvantages in Canadian society that would better describe the disadvantaged condition of Canadian women, for our purposes here and for the public record? I think we need that. If we do anything on the subject, we'd like to have something on the record.

[Translation]

Ms. Manon Tremblay: Your question refers to chapter 1 of the book I published in 1995 called Que font-elles en politique? I had the great pleasure of questioning Quebec MNAs and Ottawa MPs. I'll summarize, for the information of the members of this committee, the three major obstacles confronting women.

First, you have those obstacles deemed to be structural in nature which have to do with socialization. As I was mentioning before, women and men are still socialized in different ways. I'm not saying that's negative as such, except that at the present time, women's socialization does not encourage them—although I must soften this by saying that they're certainly encouraged more than they used to be—to see politics as something possible for them. So there are structural obstacles, socialization problems.

Second, there are situational obstacles. Here we mean the roles apportioned out according to sex. Once again, things have changed during the last years, but it would seem, as all statistics show, including those from Statistics Canada, that it is still the women who have the main responsibility for the children and, if I may say so, for managing daily family life. A woman who wants to get into politics has to build up a network and get involved with a political party. If she has a family and work outside the home, being active in a party definitely means a third day's work for her.

Finally, there are very major obstacles that are deemed to be systemic and that have to do with the political system as such. First of all, you have the obstacles set up by the rules of the electoral process. I've already said this, but I'll repeat that in our political system, what really counts is first and foremost the will of the parties. The characteristic of our single constituency electoral system means that only one person bearing the colours of a given political party runs in a riding. There is only one and not four or five as is the case in some kinds of proportional systems.

As my research clearly shows, the local political elites have a certain model in mind as a winning candidate. That's the one the British studies, especially those done by Pippa Norris and Joni Lovenduski, identify as the homo politicus, in other words the quite informal model presented as being neutral of the winning candidate. If you want to understand the characteristics of this homo politicus you only have to look to this House.

• 1645

Even though I've just spoken about our electoral system, I was also, of course, alluding to our political parties. Before I emphasized the importance of having workshops and offering training to women interested in getting into politics. You could call them leadership workshops. I'm still convinced that this has to be done at the same time as we are educating those who presently sit in our parliaments and take up most of the seats as well as those who have the power in the political parties, at the riding level, where the candidates are chosen.

Many women who have answered my questionnaires or my questions during interviews told me they heard absolutely unbelievable things uttered by certain political elites. So there's still certainly something to be done at that level.

There are other obstacles although they are probably not very relevant in Canada's case especially the ones having to do with the length of election warrants. As you know, in the US, certain elected officials can remain in their position almost ad vitam eternam. When you limit the length of the warrant, of course we free up positions and allow new people to come in. I was recently reading that the results of this strategy weren't as conclusive as they were believed to be 10 years ago, but it still remains that it is an obstacle.

In short, there are obstacles having to do with socialization, obstacles having to do with the social roles of the sexes and systemic-type obstacles, because of our electoral system, especially because of its single-constituency characteristic and the dynamics within the political parties as such.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. It was almost like a mini condensed lecture—Political Science 201. But thank you very much.

Mr. White for five minutes.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

Ms. Tremblay, continuing on from where we were, notwithstanding the fact you've written some books and by my calculation received at least $270,000 from taxpayers for your surveys, I don't think you've adequately identified the complexity of the situation.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman....

Some Hon. Members: Oh! oh!

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That is awful!

[English]

The Chair: I'm going to let Mr. White continue. Ms. Tremblay is a university professor. She is used to the to and fro on the campus, and I'm sure she's able to handle tough questions.

We have to keep it from being at all personal, but carry on, Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

I think accountability is entirely appropriate for discussion here. In terms of the complexity of the situation, you mentioned relationships, for example. You used the line “the problem for a women is that there's no woman at home”.

I would like to start by putting something on the record that's important. It relates to the rest of my comments here.

I sold a successful business and my wife and I retired, four years prior to my becoming an MP. My wife said she didn't enjoy being at home and wanted to go out to work, and so she did. For those four years, I cooked and cleaned and did all the housework. Every night my wife came home to a menu on the table. So I'm certainly used to working in the other role as well.

When I became a member of Parliament, my wife began working in my office. She's not paid and hasn't been paid for six years, but she's there every day. She thoroughly enjoys that role. Neither of us has ever felt unloved or unwanted, but we've had a really good relationship. So I think one of the most complex issues that should be discussed is relationships.

We had a witness here the other night who said she couldn't run because her husband never supported her. That is a problem for both genders.

The second issue is the nomination process, and there has been some discussion of that. You gave a fairly sweeping condemnation of the process. I have to put on the record, so you can consider it in your other recommendations, that the Reform nomination process cannot be interfered with by the leader of the party. The constitution of the Reform Party says specifically the leader may not appoint candidates. They have to be selected by the riding association, and the leader may not refuse to sign the nomination papers.

All of the nomination meetings I've been to in the Vancouver area have had at least five people running, and it's a big competition; it's difficult. So the women who achieved the goal of becoming candidates and entered our caucus here in Ottawa got here fair and square and won the fight.

• 1650

The third issue is family commitments. I've heard you say women have the disadvantage of having to stay at home and look after the family. Well, that's not a disadvantage; it should be a joy for women to have the ability to stay home and look after their families. It's a matter of choice. If a woman feels her children are a disadvantage in her life, I think there's another problem with relationships there.

On the urban-rural effect, I wonder if you've studied that. It is a fact that if you look at the women who have been elected to this place, more were elected in urban ridings than in rural ridings. There has to be a good reason for that, but I don't know what the reason is. Maybe you can enlighten me; you may have done some study.

Finally, I believe the electoral system is the single biggest influencing factor. You kind of discounted it there, but if you look at the countries you can use as examples, they tend to be much smaller. Some of them have higher population densities, but they tend to have a proportional element. That definitely produces more women in the representation.

I think this financial tinkering with the system around the edges won't work. I believe the single biggest factor is an overhaul of the electoral system itself.

[Translation]

Ms. Manon Tremblay: Thank you. I've noted eight points.

First of all, I'd like to thank Mr. White for having totalled up the grants I've received. I must admit that I've never done that and I can see that I've received over a quarter of a million dollars for my research. I'm probably one of the most highly subsidized women professors in my area and the reason is probably the excellence of my research.

Second, I'd like to point out to the member that I'm not the one who said that the problem of women in politics was that they didn't have a wife at home. It's a woman member who told me this and I quoted it here because I found it crystallized and summarized the problem quite magnificently. That's the only reason I quoted it here.

Third, I insist it is necessary we not personalize the debate. Your reaction is much like that of my male students and a lot of my female students when I have the pleasure of giving my course “Women and politics”. They say: “Oh, my boyfriend and I or my girlfriend and I have reached a fantastic balance between us.” I can only say bravo. Bravo, if that's the case for you, but statistically, that doesn't seem to be the case. The sharing doesn't seem to be that harmonious, at least based on statistics.

You have pointed out the problem of spousal support. You're right to say that some men entering politics don't have their spouse's support. But once again, my studies have allowed me to demonstrate that a man can enter politics without the support of his spouse. Of course, it will be hard for him but in the case of a woman, it becomes totally hellish. Once again, of course, I'm going by the testimony I have heard. I have never been in politics. I don't engage in politics unless it's at the university level, sometimes, but that's the only place. Otherwise, I don't get involved in politics.

I have read the Reform Party's own rules on nominations just as I've read those of all the other political parties for the research I'm engaged in now with a view to publishing a book which should appear by the middle of next year. In it, you will find an analysis of the nominations for the 1997 elections. If I'm not mistaken—unfortunately, I don't remember which clause this is—the Elections Act authorizes the head of a political party to refuse any candidate chosen during a nomination. That's in the Elections Act; it's not in the party's own rules.

• 1655

Of course, within a party, you can have a rule to that effect but ultimately, the Elections Act authorizes the head of a party to not endorse a nominated candidate. That is found in the Elections Act. That doesn't mean there is no internal rule going against this measure within political parties. Are we agreed?

As I was saying about point 3, the debate must not be personalized. It's a dusty piece of criticism you sometimes hear that some ideas associated with the women's movement are supposedly unfair and are used to belittle women who remain at home. I am absolutely not questioning that role. As for the very many women who find this role gratifying, I can only feel happy for them.

You also stated that more women were elected in rural ridings than in urban ridings. Now, this would justify another study because all the studies to date show that women, on the contrary, are more often elected in urban ridings more particularly because of the cosmopolitan make-up of the urban environment. Ideas going around in an urban environment are more open-minded than in a rural one. I'm not the one who says this. All the studies on political culture state it.

Before, in my answer to one of the questions, more specifically to that of the lady member, it seems to me I insisted on the limits of the proportional system. If I wasn't clear, I'd like to repeat this. The proportional system does not guarantee women will be elected. In my humble opinion, what I take to be the major or primary ingredient is the will of the political parties to increase the women in their ranks. That said, the electoral system can certainly help, on certain conditions.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Bergeron, did you want to ask questions?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, of course.

Ms. Tremblay, thank you very much for having accepted to appear before this committee to share your experience with us and my congratulations for having remained so calm. I will try to take inspiration from your attitude because I would have found it very difficult to remain as calm in the face of such sneaky and inappropriate attacks in the context of a committee meeting.

We call upon witnesses to appear before us to gain inspiration from their experience and their suggestions. I think it's quite inappropriate to act in such an odious and insulting manner as was done a few minutes ago. I apologize to you in the name of the committee for what went on a few moments ago.

A number of propositions were put forth. There seems to be some openness on the government side to take steps to favour the entry of women in politics. I would immediately like to add to what my colleague Harvey was saying a few moments ago. He said that it was to force women to enter politics. I must reiterate that it's not to force women to enter politics, but rather to facilitate, to favour and to encourage women to enter politics.

The objections we're always served are slightly silly or fallacious comparisons, in my opinion, to situations that prevail in other professions. Someone brought up the hockey players or the Canadians team or the kindergarten teachers to illustrate the categories or jobs not traditionally reserved for men or not traditionally reserved for women.

A few days ago, I was telling this committee that, fundamentally, you had to be blind not to recognize that the social and political structures we're living in today were conceived by and for men over previous centuries. They are patriarchal structures.

We can't expect these structures to change by themselves. Ultimately, it's the women elected as heads of State that will proceed with the legislative changes necessary to favour the appearance of men in jobs traditionally reserved for women and the introduction of women in jobs traditionally reserved for men, it being understood that, generally, the jobs traditionally reserved for women are less well paid than the jobs traditionally reserved for men.

• 1700

That's it. I'll get back to the fundamental object of the proposal that is being submitted to us although your presentation today did lead me to think about a certain number of other things. Right now, we're examining the Elections Act, but one day we'll have to see whether other legislation shouldn't be amended. I presume that the presence of women in this House could facilitate amending legislation to allow a certain number of changes favourable to the cause of women, especially the Parliament Act to authorize a special allowance for parliamentarians with young children.

To get back to the fundamental subject of our debate, the proposals we have before us, you were saying that these were minimum measures. I imagine that's what you mean when you talk about giving financial incentives to political parties encouraging women to enter politics. You can be sure that if we were to do such a thing someday, the Reform Party would change its constitution so as to also allow women to enter politics.

We talked about the choice offered the voters. To hear certain witnesses, we should leave it up to the electors to decide which candidate, man or woman, will eventually be their representative in the House of Commons or the National Assembly.

Coming back to a point raised not so long ago by my colleague André Harvey, studies prove that ultimately, the candidate, man or woman, has little to do with the elector's choice. In fact, it's essentially the political party itself, the leader, the ideas or the broad ideals defended by the political party that will determine the choice of the elector, whether man or woman. In consequence, we must ensure that the person carrying the colours of the political party can eliminate a certain number of distortions.

In that context, one of our witnesses asked us why we didn't give a financial incentive to the woman candidate rather than to the political party. Is the answer not that if we want the political parties to choose women as their standard bearers in those ridings they consider to be won in advance, we should be giving the political parties those incentives rather than to the women themselves? I would invite you to elaborate on that.

I'll open a parenthesis in closing, Mr. Chairman. Any progressive country funds research to ensure its future. The kind of comment we heard before according to which researchers get too much in the way of grants, seems totally inappropriate coming from a political party which intends one day to form the government and lead Canada to compete with this modern world we are confronted with. Thank you very much.

Ms. Manon Tremblay: Thank you, sir.

Why not give this amount of money to the women candidates rather than the parties? I see a simple reason: it's that our goal is to improve democracy. To give this money directly to the candidates seems a problem in terms of conflict of interests. Whether we like it or not, the fact is that you are elected in the name of the party and it is up to the parties, according to my logic, to place women.... I withdraw the word “place” because then you'll tell me that I'm talking about parachuting candidates. I simply mean that those ridings that are considered to be a sure thing should be apportioned equally between women and men candidates.

As the logic of our electoral system is based on parties, I think the parties should receive this money, not the candidates.

[English]

The Chair: That's good.

I want to thank our witness very much. We've had the luxury of a relatively focused hour and a half with one witness who is quite expert on the subject area she has spoken on, and we've had an opportunity to exhaust the questions on the issues from several perspectives. It's been very helpful, not just for this exercise but for the record of the proceedings, in case someone else would like to review these later. So I want to thank the witness very much.

• 1705

We can now move to our next witness, if that is the will of colleagues.

Thank you, Madame Tremblay.

The chair will suspend for about thirty seconds while the minister takes his place.

• 1706

• 1708

The Chair: We'll continue with our meeting.

We have now the minister, the honourable government House leader, with us.

I think, Mr. Boudria, you wish to open with a statement.

I just want to point out to colleagues that we'll allow for about 45 minutes. We'll see as we go through it, but the chair would tend to be stricter than normal with the five minutes. We all know what the score is here now. There's no need for long preambles to questions, or there shouldn't be.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We never do that.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Let the record show laughter.

Mr. Minister, I'd invite you to make your opening remarks.

Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm very pleased to be back before the committee. This is my third visit. I don't know if this is a record in terms of ministers speaking on their own bills, but it must be close.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's because we like you.

Mr. Don Boudria: I'm pleased to have done it. And I want to thank members for their patience in dealing with obviously a very elaborate bill. I know you've done lots of work. It's taken you quite a while to do it, understandably, and I thank you for having done that.

[Translation]

You will also allow me to congratulate you for the witness you chose to hear a bit earlier today. A few days ago, I had the pleasure of being introduced to a class taught by Professor Tremblay and I was quite impressed.

Since our last meeting, Mr. Chairman, I have been on a cross- Canada tour of a number of universities and I've also had meetings with several people from the media who made rather interesting comments.

• 1710

[English]

I would like, Mr. Chair, to follow up on some of the issues that were raised before this committee since my last appearance on November 3, and afterward I'd be pleased to respond to questions. I even have the genesis of the amendments that I am offering to the committee, though not all of them. I'm still working on one, which I hope will accommodate a request Mr. Solomon made. We've been able to address many of the comments that were made by the chair and others around the table, in terms of lack of clarity of a particular clause.

I've also been able to address an issue that was brought to my attention by the media, and for that I want to thank particularly Madame Barbara Yaffe from Vancouver, who brought an issue to my attention. I'll discuss it in a minute.

You will all know that many consultations were held prior to the bill being introduced on June 7 and the subsequent reintroduction on June 14. In the consultations I had subsequently, I was able to get further information and further opinion, particularly of the print media, regarding the blackout provision.

We all know that particularly in western Canada, but elsewhere too, people feel very strongly that when they go to vote on election day, the results of the vote in the rest of the country should not be known to them. This has historically been very important.

A private member's bill generated by a former MP from Vancouver made it such that we have uniform, or close to uniform, voting hours right across the country in Canada in order to ensure that previous leaks of that information don't occur to the extent they occurred before. So that was seen as something very important, principally to western Canadians, but I believe to all Canadians too. In other words, when they vote, they should go to the poll pure, as it were, not tainted by the results that have already come in from another part of the country.

We have a provision in the bill for a 48-hour blackout on polls, advertising by parties, advertising by third parties, and advertising by candidates. What I'm going to offer to the committee as an amendment is this. I've discussed this informally with some members around the table over the last couple of days, and I discussed it as well with the Canadian Newspaper Association last night and sought their input. I'd like to offer to the committee that a shorter blackout period of 24 hours instead of 48 would achieve probably all of the same goals, or most of them in any case.

In other words, instead of having a blackout start effectively late Saturday night, it would start late Sunday night. It would permit, particularly in the print media, the release of a new public opinion poll on the Sunday. It would permit advertising on television on the Sunday, the day before the election. It would permit newspaper ads and so on. On Sunday at midnight, of course—that is to say, the day the election is held, since the day starts at midnight—there wouldn't be advertising that day. There would not be any ads by third parties, political parties, candidates, and so on that day, and you couldn't release a new public opinion poll that day.

A new phenomenon in polling is this whole business of exit polling. If it's offensive to have the result of the real poll on the night of the election, before you've even voted, then surely this business of these exit polls must be as offensive or close to it. In the opinion of some, they're a lot worse, because they're not based on scientific data, they're taken from a particular time of the day when a particular age group votes and therefore not necessarily representative of everybody, and so on.

• 1715

The point I'm making is that the release of those exit polls or entrance polls—because if you actually put in the bill that an exit poll is not permitted, then instead of asking the person how they voted when they come out of the poll, you'll ask them how they're going to vote as they come in. Technically, you get around the law. So that would make no sense.

So the only logical way, I think, of doing it is to have the actual ban on the day of the election itself, not the day before, to make it in a way that would be acceptable to a larger number of people.

I think the measure was good in any case, but I think it is as good or close to it with the shortened period. It probably would fulfil largely the same objectives, while not depriving people the opportunity to both advertise at the media outlets and to receive the funding from the advertising, because, of course, newspapers are not all philanthropic in nature. They're usually owned by business people who make revenues from this advertisement. Particularly in an election campaign, this is a source of revenue for them.

So I would be prepared to do that, Mr. Chairman. I would invite, of course, questions afterward on that score, and on all others as well.

[Translation]

I'd now like to say a few words about the issue of child care expenses. Some of the witnesses you have heard, I am thinking particularly of the association of women's groups, suggested that candidates' expenses also include costs related to the care of candidates' dependents such as, for example, the cost of caring for a sick spouse.

As you know, I already noted to committee members that it was my intention to propose that child care costs be included. I'll be suggesting that the list of eligible expenses include the cost of caring for dependents. I think it would be more inclusive and would probably be a better way of going about it; the purpose, of course, is to lighten the financial burden for persons wishing to run as candidates.

Let me emphasize once again that this measure applies both to men and women. The effect, however, would not be the same.

I think that in most cases, those who have dependents are women. It may not be a great incentive, I don't claim it is, but it may be some encouragement for women who wish to run as candidates.

[English]

On the number of copies of the preliminary list, some members of the committee have asked that Elections Canada be required to provide each candidate with one paper and electronic copy of the preliminary list of electors. In addition, a candidate could be provided with up to four additional paper copies upon request. That's only reasonable. There's nothing wrong with that idea, of course. I'd be pleased to accommodate that. The objective here is to make this work better, and I'm ready to put forward the amendments I've just described.

Now, Mr. Solomon has talked about the issue of vouching, and I've been wrestling with that one. I want to find a solution, and I will. If it's not ready in time for the committee to report, then I can introduce it at report stage. But I'm trying to accommodate this request.

We should note that in the context of federal elections, however, Mr. Chairman, an elector doesn't need to present—contrary, for instance, to provincial elections in some provinces—a piece of identification if he or she is already on the voters list.

So we're not talking about...again using the example of Mr. Solomon, where a guy gets off his tractor to go to vote and forgets his ID. If that person is on the voters list, it doesn't make any difference, unless of course the DRO believes that person is committing something fraudulent or wants to double-check. That's already in the act. But generally speaking, you're not required to present ID to vote, so it's not....

In order to actually need vouching or something like that, a person would have to be in the following two situations of jeopardy. First, he or she shows up at the poll and finds their name is not on the voters list. Second, he or she takes out their wallet to find the ID, and doesn't have ID either. So it's only when those two conditions are met that you would actually need this at all.

• 1720

What I'm studying now is the possibility of an amendment that would be perhaps something like this. The DRO, the deputy returning officer.... There's a provision in the rules as we have them now that the deputy returning officer can seek a person to provide identity documents. We're working to see if identity documents or, in lieu thereof, personal knowledge of the person or something like that.... Often, particularly in rural areas, you could have a ridiculous situation where the DRO sits there and says, “Good morning, Mr. Jones. You're coming in to vote. Oh, you're not on the voters list, Mr. Jones. Well of course, rules being what they are, show me your ID so I can let you vote. You forgot your ID? Sorry, Mr. Jones, I know you're Mr. Jones, but I can't let you vote.”

I think that's what you're referring to.

Mr. John Solomon: That was the point exactly.

Mr. Don Boudria: We can create an amendment to fix that. If that's what is intended as the objective, we're going to work on that and achieve fixing that, so we don't have the inappropriate situation that I just described, which can and probably will happen unless we find the appropriate measure. The objective, of course, of the election law is to get as many people as possible to vote, providing they're discharging that right legally and properly. Nothing should be a form of impairment for them to do that.

I have a binder here of the other amendments. I could briefly go through a few of them. Some of them are rather technical—it will take me five or six minutes. It depends on the will of the committee, Mr. Chairman. I'm free to do it either way.

The Chair: Given that they're coming from you, Mr. Minister, it's probably a good idea to run through them quickly.

Mr. Don Boudria: I'll do that very quickly. First of all, I'm going to be proposing an amendment to adjust the candidates' spending limits using the revised list of electors. Since we're now on a permanent list, there is not the threshold—on the 28th day or whatever it was—where the number of people that are registered that day is the number you base your election campaign spending on. You're basing it on the permanent voters list, and sometimes that has names missing. If people forgot a few blocks that weren't added to the list and so on, the amount of spending that equates to that is not available to the candidate.

So I propose to have an amendment using a revised list on the seventh day before the election, providing that revised list increases the amount. Obviously, if it decreases...you can't take the lawn signs out of the lawn and return them to the supplier if you've lost voters. So it would only work if the amount increases. I think it was a loophole, and maybe it should have been there in the beginning. It needs a bit of fixing.

I think we also need to allow members of Parliament to use the list of electors to solicit contributions, recruit members for their political party, and so on. Most people probably think the list provides for that now, because the paper list that we had before did. However, that interpretation is not at all clear, and I think we should put it in the act.

We are going to have an amendment, which I described before, to allow electors in physical danger to provide their former address of residence. I'm thinking here of providing shelters for battered women the availability of the address of the shelter not being identified. This is for protection of the victim, as you'll understand. It's not technically only for shelters for battered women, but the effect is virtually always that.

I want to have an amendment to allow disabled electors to vote at home with the assistance of an elections officer. The disabled voter who votes at home can just mark the X on the ballot—that's fine, and probably not too difficult. However, they have to sign the outer envelope. Many times if they can sign the outer envelope they could probably go to the poll and vote anyway. It's the disability that renders them unable to do that. So we're going to provide that if that condition arises, the election officers can sign as witnesses instead. I think the committee would probably want that.

• 1725

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: One or two officials?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou (Privy Council Office): An election official.

Mr. Don Boudria: An official.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: In addition to a witness chosen by the elector.

Mr. Don Boudria: An official and a witness. This will be indicated in the amendments.

Mr. André Harvey: A witness at the table or a witness from the outside?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: A witness for the elector.

[English]

Mr. Don Boudria: Also, there is the clarification on the child child and dependent care issue.

There are also a few technical amendments. One is to clarify that the ban on releasing an election poll on election day only applies to a new election poll. For instance, if there's a newspaper story on election day that refers to a poll taken three months ago, obviously you don't want to stop that. That's just regular news coverage. So it's for greater clarification. It's understood, but I think it's important to clarify it.

We specify that when we're talking about taking polls on election day, it's not just polls of how people intend to vote. Polls of how they voted are the same. This captures both the entrance poll and the exit poll.

There are also a few others in there to make the language consistent, such as one referring to “election desk” as opposed to “registration office”.

There's one that I think you brought to our attention in your study of the bill, Mr. Chairman, or perhaps it was Mr. White who did that. It was in regard to Canadian citizenship. If a person had citizenship, they could vote on certification. But a person who has citizenship doesn't necessarily have a right to vote. For instance, they could be 17, so they don't necessarily have a right to vote.

So thank you, Mr. White, for bringing that one to our attention. We fixed it, and I hope the amendment satisfies you.

There's a reference to a balance of probability instead of the satisfaction of the returning officer. Apparently it's a more objective term legally.

There's also clarification needed for military voters. It was a portion in the first draft of the bill, but for some reason it was left out of the second one. It's a misprint of sorts, so it has to go back in. It was the Canadian Forces themselves that brought to our attention that they had gone missing between the first and second copies.

We also want to put an amendment in there regarding election signs. If there's election signage, of course, no one can take away and vandalize your signs. However, people who work for the city need protection. If someone puts one of your signs on top of a stop sign, they have to have the authority to be able to remove it for public safety without being charged under the Elections Act. The amendment just clarifies that.

On the third-party limits, again it was the committee that brought to our attention that in the case of a by-election, it wasn't clear whether the $3,000 limit applied to each by-election or to all of them put together. Of course, it's meant to be each by-election. For instance, we just had four by-elections, which would mean $12,000, not $3,000. It was the intent, but maybe it wasn't expressed in the proper way, or at least not clearly enough. I've proposed a clarification amendment for that.

Also, there was one that required the financial report of the trust fund of a political party to be audited. This was in the first draft of the bill, but again it disappeared from the second one for whatever reason. It's going to go back in.

A clarification that the blackout.... No, that one is gone now, because it doesn't.... This is in reference to 48 hours, but that's gone.

There are also a number of small technical amendments regarding the consistency of both languages.

I'm sorry to have taken a few minutes to go through that. Those things will be distributed at the proper time, but I just wanted to go through them briefly so that everyone has an idea of what it was that I was offering.

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

Mr. White, for five minutes—and as I mentioned earlier, we'll be pretty strict on the five minutes.

Mr. Ted White: Fine, thank you.

Mr. Minister, it's nice to have you here for me to ask more questions than I can on the floor. I'm not sure if you've seen the article that Ms. Yaffe wrote about the Elections Act, but she wasn't very flattering. I can certainly get you a copy if you'd like one.

Mr. Don Boudria: Oh, I have it.

Mr. Ted White: Good.

Now, you had better get a pen handy, because I have a few good questions for you.

On the 50-candidate rule, I have had some discussions with you. As you will note from reading the transcripts, all of the various parties that came before us as witnesses agreed that they could live with a figure of 12 candidates. It seemed more logical to them because it related to the House, and most also pointed out that voters have to know who they're voting for. If a candidate in Vancouver is shown as an independent but is actually related to a candidate in Calgary in the same party, the party name should be on the ballot. I'd like you to explain why you won't accept the number 12.

• 1730

The candidate deposit is presently $1,000. A number of witnesses said they felt that was too high. Could you give us some reasons why we shouldn't lower it to something more achievable, like $250 or a figure like that?

Mr. Don Boudria: They said it's too high?

Mr. Ted White: They said $1,000 is too high.

In regard to the child care expenses, the caregiver expenses, I assume that is just for the period of the campaign. Or is that going to be for all time?

On the electronic voting technologies, the Chief Electoral Officer was here again, asking us to place in the bill the ability for him to investigate electronic technologies, new technologies that are coming along. You indicated to me that you would have a discussion with him about that, so I wonder what came of that.

When by-elections are called, what about the idea of, once there's a vacancy, the actual by-election having to occur within six months—not just being announced within six months but actually held within six months?

A lot of the witnesses brought up the issue of fixed election dates, and I'd like your feelings or your comments on that.

The last item is third-party expenses. If we do a little calculation using the Liberal Party as an example, if you run 301 candidates, each with about $60,000 in spending money, and you add on the Liberal Party share of expenses, it comes to about $30 million. So perhaps that's the upper—

Mr. Don Boudria: I'm sorry. I don't understand where you get the $30 million from.

Mr. Ted White: The party itself can spend up to about $12 million, based on its allocation of broadcasting time and so on. The candidates, at $60,000 each...it amounts to about $18 million. So when you add the two together, potentially a party could spend as much as $30 million on the election effort.

Let's make it $20 million. The figure is not as much in dispute as the principle. In third-party cases, you're restricting third parties to $150,000. I'd just like you to give me your thoughts, please, about the relative fairness of this. You've argued about the fairness of third-party spending. It doesn't seem very fair to me that you give third parties $150,000 in spending while the party has almost $30 million.

Mr. Don Boudria: I'll start with the 50-candidate issue. Our parliamentary system is premised upon a principle that a group of candidates will be recognized as a political party if they promote what we generally refer to as the emergence of a coherent political will. That's why two people don't really make a political party—I don't think so. It's one of the reasons why we are appealing the decision. We don't think two works. Two might be a couple, two might be a barroom conversation or even a barroom brawl, but it's not a political party—not two people.

We think the number that is there works. We're not appealing the other provisions of that decision that was taken by Justice Malloy regarding the liquidation of assets and so on. We're leaving them as they are. This is the only one we're appealing. Also, I feel most uncomfortable about changing that number in the middle of an appeal that's before the courts. I think most of us would agree that two isn't the right number. That was Justice Malloy's decision. I haven't found too many parliamentarians who think two candidates is a political party.

That's the indication I gave to this committee in my first meeting as to why I did not want us to change that number while the issue was under appeal. Is 50 the right number? Is 40 the right number? Or should it be 60? Please remember that there are 301 constituencies across the country. If you look at it by electoral region, sometimes defined as four and sometimes defined as five...I'll leave you to use the definition you like. Quebec has 75 members of Parliament in that region. The Ontario region has in excess of 100. If you count five regions, that would give the smallest region, British Columbia, what, 30 or 32 seats? So even if you include a group of candidates as a group from a region, you don't get anywhere near two. That doesn't work.

• 1735

Anyway, even if one used the definition of two, you'd have to assume that if 100% of those candidates—in other words, two out of two—were elected to the House of Commons, they would somehow make a political party once they got to the House. They wouldn't even do that. That's why two doesn't work.

I represent a political party that has had some success over this century in the House of Commons, and we don't elect 100% of our candidates. When we elect 60%, we think we've done pretty good. That constitutes a majority government of 175 or 180 seats or something like that. It's a pretty handsome majority when a political party gets that kind of majority, having elected 60% or 55% of the candidates or whatever that number would equate to. That's why, when using numbers that are very small, in order to have the end result, which is the political party, it would have to be based on assuming that you would elect 100% of your candidates.

Now, in regard to this business of the $1,000 deposit being too high, this was not raised with me anywhere. It was not in the report of the committee before. It was not in the Lortie commission report. There has been no suggestion to that effect. Some people may have raised it before the committee, but I understand as well that some people suggested $1,000 was too low. I would suggest that we leave that one as it is. Also, as you will know, the courts endorsed that amount, even the decision that I don't like too much, being the one Justice—

A voice: The Figueroa decision.

Mr. Don Boudria: The Figueroa decision, made by Justice Malloy, did not question that amount of $1,000, even though that's the decision that said two candidates should be a political party.

On fixed election dates, these things are completely outside of the mandate I have. If we're going to change...we have a fixed election date now, arguably, which is five years from the previous election. That's in our Constitution. What has occurred in our country, as we would all know, is that a convention has developed that people go to the polls every four years or thereabouts; it's not the Constitution but a convention. They don't go to the polls right at the end because if you go to the polls right at the end it looks like you're enjoying power so much that you won't let it go until you've had all of it. That convention has developed in our society, but there is still that fixed five-year period.

On the issue of changing the rules for a by-election, again, that was not part of the report of the committee, and it wasn't even raised at the previous meetings I came to here. At this juncture, I think, that would be something that I really would not be prepared to change, at least for this round.

Why don't I answer the question on the ability to investigate electronic voting? To investigate electronic voting...there is that whole element now on public education and all these things, and we think it covers that, but actually using it for a vote is not provided for in the act.

Need I remind all members of this committee that when the Chief Electoral Officer, even using what's in the act, did something that was slightly outside of the ordinary—and I don't think it was that far out of the ordinary to begin with—such as embarking on a national education program to talk about how democracy works, such as the UN Universal Declaration on the Rights of the Child and having young people vote on something they relate to, the Chief Electoral Officer was criticized on the floor of the House for having used it?

As a matter of fact, somebody even went so far as to say that these results were going to the government. Of course they never did substantiate that, but still, when we put the Chief Electoral Officer in a position like that, I don't think we're making his role much easier.

• 1740

Anyway, at the present time there is no firm proposal of that nature before us, other than the general statement that the Chief Electoral Officer would like to investigate it. Within the public education mandate he has, and otherwise, and within his administrative mandate, I think he probably has the latitude he needs to investigate but not the latitude to actually do it for a real election. There's nothing that has been demonstrated to us on how it would be done. I would suggest that this should be the object of a study by this committee, and when we have one...I'm not saying no to it, but we don't have a firm proposal before us in that regard.

On the third-party expenses, we're all aware of the Libman decision of 1997, in which the Supreme Court, speaking on the issue of third parties in a referendum, at the same time gave us comments about the role of third parties in elections. In the Libman decision of the Supreme Court, the court said, at page 601:

While we recognize their right to participate in the electoral process,

—“their right” meaning the right of third parties—

independent individuals and groups cannot be subject to the same financial rules as candidates or political parties and be allowed the same spending limits. Although what they have to say is important, it is the candidates and political parties that are running for election.

So says the Supreme Court in Libman. The court also says:

Limits on independent spending must therefore be lower than those imposed on candidates or political parties.

So the court was quite clear on that: it's not that limits on third parties “should” be lower or greater or “perhaps should” be lower or greater, but that they “must therefore be lower than those imposed on candidates or political parties”.

So there's no doubt.

The court further says, in regard to the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Somerville two—remember that the previous limit on third-party advertising was $1,000. The second Somerville decision declared that to be unconstitutional. It was never appealed.

The Supreme Court, in Libman, says—and now I'm referring you to page 619, Mr. Chairman:

In Somerville v. Canada (Attorney General), supra, the Alberta Court of Appeal declared these provisions to be unconstitutional. With respect, we have already mentioned that we cannot accept the Alberta Court of Appeal's point of view because we disagree with its conclusion regarding the legitimacy of the objective of the provisions.

Now, the Supreme Court tells us that $1,000 was okay, and if we increase it 150 times it must be at least equally okay. I would suggest that it's probably 150 times more okay—if that's proper English.

Finally, please remember that, as a candidate, I or any one of us around the table has a right to spend about $60,000 in an election campaign, from which we rent our headquarters, our phone lines, pay for the janitor, for toner for the photocopier, for pickets and signs and everything else—and all of this is election expenses.

In the case of third parties, the only thing that is an expense is advertising. Why? Because they're not running candidates. So you obviously can't calculate the expense of their candidate—they don't have one. If they did, they wouldn't be a third party. They would be a candidate. That's why the rules apply only to their advertising and to nothing else.

We're talking about the amount they could spend on election advertising versus the amount political parties could spend. Again, if a political party puts a trailer on its ad saying, “In Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, vote Don Boudria”, that is chargeable against our expenses as a candidate. If they say “Vote Liberal”, that of course is not charged against the candidate in each riding. If they put on a trailer, there's a portion of it that has to be added to our expenses. Again, third parties have nothing like that to worry about. It's only on the total of advertising.

• 1745

Finally, again coming back to the Libman decision, the court said that a number of them can be against a candidate or emit an opinion. They're not limited to one in the riding.

For instance, the people in my riding saying “Vote Don Boudria” would usually be only my election campaign. It's pretty hard to imagine that my opponent would issue press releases and put up signs saying “Don't vote for me, vote for Don Boudria”. Third parties, then, are not limited to one, and therefore a multiplicity of them can seek to give an opinion for or against a candidate.

With regard to the decision on Libman, again, the Supreme Court says:

Limits on...spending must therefore be lower than those imposed on candidates or political parties. Otherwise, owing to their numbers, the impact of such spending on one of the candidates or political parties to the detriment of the others could be disproportionate.

In other words, while there could be 15 guys who say “Vote against Don Boudria”, there usually would be one campaign promoting the candidacy of Don Boudria.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Don Boudria: I know that was a long answer.

The Chair: I hope colleagues accept that as a fairly concise run-through of the issues raised by Mr. White. I think it was useful to have those explanations on the record.

I'll go to Mr. Bergeron, if he has questions, for five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you, Minister, for agreeing to come to see us a third time. You know we always enjoy your company.

As far as the new blackout period for advertising, polls and so forth, you might have been able to avoid a number of questions if you had taken the trouble to consult all committee members around this table; nonetheless, I'd like to ask you a short question.

If the blackout is not for 24 hours, what guarantee do we have that a candidate will be able to respond to an obviously false statement published on Sunday, accusing the candidate or someone else, or an obviously false poll, when the blackout begins the following day?

As for expenses involved in the care of children and dependents, do they also include the child care expenses of a mother or father who normally has such child care expenses outside the election period?

With respect to voting at home, you say that there will be an election official in addition to a witness. When we heard from the former Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec as well as the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario, we were told that it would be appropriate to have a returning officer as well as a clerk to ensure the independence of this process. I'd be interested in hearing your reaction to this proposal.

I should also note that I tend to agree with my friend Ted White, as is often the case, with respect to the requirement to hold a by-election within six months. I'd like to know what you think of this.

Relating to the expenses of third parties in a by-election, you mentioned that when we talk about $3,000, it is not a total of $3,000 for the four by-elections but $3,000 for each of them. Would the total amount of $150,000 for all constituencies apply in a case such as that?

I note that the list of amendments you gave us has nothing about candidates' trusts. Yet you showed a certain openness to the idea of making some amendments to this. I'd like to know what progress has been made on that matter.

I know that you've had the opportunity to discuss with Caroline St-Hilaire her proposal relating to financial incentives to encourage more women to enter politics. You have made no mention of this. I'd like to know whether, assuming you will not be making any proposal, you would agree with that of Ms. St-Hilaire.

Lastly, I'd like to put two short questions. Have you changed your opinion on the nomination of returning officers and the possibility of making some amendments to the funding of political parties?

Mr. Don Boudria: Perhaps you could elaborate on the funding of political parties? What exactly do you mean?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The setting of a ceiling that could be relatively high as well as positive changes to the present provisions relating to the sources of funding.

• 1750

Mr. Don Boudria: Let me start with your first question, that is the blackout period. Even if a poll appears on Sunday, the fact remains that the next day... First of all, there is a requirement to publish information about the poll's methodology. So on the eve of the election, a person may publish a poll as well as the methodology. In fact, there was no methodology. So he must state that the poll was done without any methodology. In such a case, other newspapers, assuming it is a newspaper, but it could also be a television network, would be in a position to denounce this practice the next day. As a matter of fact, the situation occurred during the last elections. An improper poll had been conducted by a newspaper and the next day they were the laughing stock of the other papers pointing out that it made no sense, that it was a mishmash, it wasn't serious etc.

So the possibility exists since on the morning of the next day, it is still fresh in people's memory, they realize that what was done the day before had no value. Nothing will change this. The only thing that changes is that 48 hours is replaced by 24.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But what about a false statement?

Mr. Don Boudria: The same applies, the rules remain in effect.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The candidate cannot make a rebut all.

Mr. Don Boudria: No, but there is no difference from the previous situation. Previously it applied for 48 hours. Let's imagine that on Saturday evening at 11:30, someone says that Eleni Bakopanos is dishonest. It would be an awful thing and of course quite dishonest to make such a statement. Under the former system, it was not possible for the victim of such a falsehood to make a rebut all.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But the victim could make a statement in the newspapers the following day.

Mr. Don Boudria: Yes, a statement is allowed.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But Monday would be too late.

Mr. Don Boudria: No, it is still allowed to make a statement or to issue a press release. All that is still allowed.

As far as the costs of care are concerned, and I'm sorry I didn't answer this question when Mr. White put it to me, they apply during the period of the election campaign and reference is made to additional costs. We have to be careful. The fact of being a candidate cannot justify the subsidy of a person's child care expenses. I think Canadians would say that since they are not entitled to any such provision, why should you? We are not offering advantages to anyone.

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: A national day care program would help.

Mr. Don Boudria: Well, yes, of course, and when the provinces agree with us that it should be done, I'm sure it will happen. With the tremendous influence we have with New Democrat premiers, it'll probably happen quickly.

Mr. John Solomon: You can reinstate all the cuts you made.

Mr. Don Boudria: Oh, oh. I think we're getting sidetracked here.

[Translation]

As for the clause on voting at home, could we perhaps have some clarification? I could perhaps ask Ms. Mondou to elaborate, if I may.

Ms. Mondou.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: I think the question was why there is a witness and not two election officials. It's rather similar to section 155 of the Act allowing an elector requiring assistance to vote at a poll to be assisted by a friend. The same principle is at work here.

Mr. Don Boudria: If someone comes to the poll on election day and is unable to vote by himself, he can be assisted by an election official and a witness. The provision allows for the same procedure when people vote at home. That is all.

If there are any objections to this system, I am willing to hear them.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The former Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec as well as the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario told us that in their provinces, they used a returning officer as well as a clerk. This ensures a certain element of independence to the process, something that is not necessarily the case here. If I'm not mistaken, section 155 is much wider and allows not for the presence of one person but perhaps the presence of more than one person.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: The new version of section 155 allows for only one friend, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Don Boudria: Let me read the provision:

155. (1) If an elector requires assistance to vote, if a friend or relative may accompany the elector [...]

—not both of them—

[...] and assist the elector to mark his or her ballot.

• 1755

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Could this friend or relative provide assistance in a residence, for example?

Mr. Don Boudria: No, not at all. It is set out in subsection 2. The possibility had been discussed. It is to avoid having a person with influence assist in the voting of everyone. Otherwise, there could be corruption. That is why there is this prohibition.

(2) No person shall as a friend assist more than one elector for the purpose of marking a ballot.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Not even a relative?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: One at a time.

Mr. Don Boudria: The prohibition is there.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: For the family there is a limit.

Mr. Don Boudria: Don't forget we're talking about a relative. I don't have 14 mothers, I have only one. The problem is far less likely to occur in the case of a parent than that of a friend. A person may have many friends. For example, someone who would like to influence the vote, let's say in a residence for the disabled or senior citizens or in a group home, could decide that all the residents are his friends and bring them all to vote his way at the same time. It is to avoid this type of corruption that no person is allowed to assist more than one elector.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So the idea of having two election officials does not strike you as being particularly attractive?

Mr. Don Boudria: It could be changed.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I see.

Mr. Don Boudria: I don't see any objection to it.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'll listen to the rest of your answer.

Mr. Don Boudria: As far as candidates' trusts are concerned, we are still working on that. I hope that I can present our proposals at the report stage. I haven't yet finished the work.

As for the returning officers, as I said in the House, the system we have exists in six provinces as well as the Parliament of Canada. I think it is a good one and so did the Lortie Commission.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But it did have a few reservations. I read you a passage where they said that this must be independent from the government and we know for a fact that the present system is not completely independent of the government.

Mr. Don Boudria: Well, I think that the process is a sound one. For example, there are very severe measures to withdraw someone from this function. It is very complicated. The purpose is to avoid having a government attempt, for all sorts of reasons, to change all the returning officers for every new election or something of that type.

As you probably know, when a returning officer is appointed, he or she remains in the position until the next adjustment to the boundaries of the constituency or until he or she retires or dies. These people are appointed permanently, in the same way as judges, to ensure their independence. Of course, they are chosen in quite a different way from judges. It is described as a permanent appointment. In other words, it is impossible to remove them from this position except for a very serious reason. As I said, since I have been the minister responsible, I think that we have removed two of them.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Not even.

Mr. Don Boudria: Technically, they were not dismissed. We approached them and told them—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That they should retire.

Mr. Don Boudria: No, we told them that we intended to take measures because they had not carried out their job properly. There was even a case where an election official had disappeared and something had to be done. As a matter of fact, it wasn't even a member of my party, it was one of yours. No one was able to find him and measures had to be taken. We were finally successful in tracking her down and told her that she no longer lived in the constituency, that that was sufficient and that if she did not hand in her resignation, we would take the appropriate steps. It was with the support of the member of Parliament that we withdrew her mandate.

A similar case took place somewhere else in Canada and the same thing happened. We simply informed the person that he should withdraw. That is two people out of 301. It is untrue, to say, as some have, that the returning officer is changed for every election. The returning officer in my riding was appointed by the Conservatives in 1988.

A Member: Probably a good one.

Mr. Don Boudria: Yes, she's fantastic, even though she was appointed by them. She's done a very good job. When the electoral boundaries were adjusted in 1997—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It doesn't always happen that way.

Mr. Don Boudria: I don't intend to change. Was it in 1997 or 1993? Between 1993 and 1997, for the 1997 elections.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Don Boudria: There was an assessment of the electoral boundaries in my constituency like most other constituencies in the country, with the exception of two or three, I think. I personally had no intention of recommending the dismissal of this person who had done such a good job. She still occupies her position and she will remain there as long as she continues to do such good work. I hope she will keep on for many more years. She has my wishes for good health because we need her.

• 1800

As for a ceiling on donations, that was not recommended either by the Lortie Commission or the parliamentary committee. When you talk about imposing a ceiling on donations, you are thinking only of individual donations. You are not thinking of a ceiling that would apply to funds that a party may receive. You are talking about an individual contribution to a political party during the course of a year.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: There are two things, Minister. First of all there is the source and then there is the ceiling. It could be established, for example, that whatever the source, an individual may not contribute more than a particular amount, and a company could not contribute more than a particular amount to a political party or a candidate.

Mr. Don Boudria: There is no limit of this type, except for the fact that any contribution in excess of $200 must be made public, as you know. The contributions that are made public are subject to public judgment. Anyone may find out whether Mr. Bergeron, Ms. Dalphond-Guiral, Mr. Boudria or Mr. Solomon have received money from such and such a person for the funding of their election campaign. The system is a transparent one. I think it is also accountable, particularly when we take into account what we are attempting to do with trusts. I think that that will improve the system even more so that it is possible to know who exactly has made what donation and to whom.

Now, as for banning contributions that are not from individuals, there are very few advantages in this. Lortie said that it was so easy to get around such a provision as to make it meaningless. He perhaps didn't use those words exactly, but that's more or less what he was trying to say.

We know how things work now. Instead of a company contributing an amount of $1,000, the president contributes $500, the vice- president $300, and the secretary $200, which works out to the same. The only difference is that the system is less, instead of more, transparent. The real source of the money is no longer known. It comes from people with little-known names instead of coming from GM, Ford or some other firm.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Except that it's illegal, Mr. Minister. The people doing such things know that they are committing an illegal act and that they may be charged with committing this illegal act.

Mr. Don Boudria: Lortie also said that party coffers would be quickly emptied if we did that. That's not the main point, but it is another consideration that Lortie brought out.

You are also aware that funds transferred from a riding association to a party, from a party to a riding association, or from the candidate's reimbursement to a riding association are now included in the bill. None of it was previously. Therefore, we are including elements that will increase transparency, and I think that these elements are important.

Let's look at the incentives for recruiting more female candidates. Of course, I have described a few modest measures that I would not describe as major initiatives, but even what Ms. St- Hilaire is calling for in her bill is not a major initiative. She is assuming that, if we tell parties that they'll receive a refund if they nominate enough women in ridings where they win, they will in fact nominate more and women will win more often. That's the principle that would apply.

There was another measure, that I had proposed to your committee, which would be to recruit more candidates. That's another possibility. To date, these measures have not received much support. Not all members of Parliament are in favour of this, far from it. I am continuing to consult, but at this time, the initiative has not received much support. At least two of the political parties around this table have taken a position squarely against these two initiatives. I can live with that, and it doesn't mean that it cannot be done, but it is nevertheless important to note that two of the five parties are opposed to them.

As for the general public, it feels about the same way. There is far from being a consensus in favour of these initiatives. In any event, I'm still raising the issue. I've made speeches all over the place. I'm trying to get whatever support I can. Thank you for offering me yours, if that's what you're doing. We'll see if we can get enough support to set up the project. If so, I will include it at report stage. That may work, but it won't be a big advantage.

• 1805

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey: I too will join the others in thanking the Minister for appearing here. He does live up to his reputation of always being available for the House's activities for more than 30 years.

As far as financing is concerned, I'd like to tell the Minister that there are some interesting new possibilities here. We could not, in this committee, do a complete overhaul of the financing of national political parties because we would need to work for several more months, but some interesting new possibilities have been opened up.

It has been pointed out, a number of times, that Canadians seem prepared to accept that their national government pay a significant share of election campaign financing, because this would safeguard its reputation of honesty and do away with this impression of there being a hidden agenda on the part of the large organizations that underwrite the parties, that is, corporations, banks, unions and so on. I therefore believe that our committee should consider studying this issue in the coming years.

With regard to demonstrating a little more objectivity in appointing returning officers, there could be a more rational and less partisan way of appointing these people. I'm not saying that the people who are appointed do not do their job well, Mr. Minister. I put the question directly to the Chief Electoral Officer. I asked him whether it was an essential element of his recommendations. Unless I'm mistaken, the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, told him that it was an essential element of his recommendations and that he believed that returning officers should be appointed in accordance with the strictest standards that are found in business and in all our activities.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You have understood clearly this time.

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Bergeron, we do our best to understand, but we don't always succeed, do we?

As far as the blackout for opinion surveys is concerned, I think we should scrap this proposal and not worry about it. I will check my facts again, Mr. Minister, but we looked closely at the impact of publishing surveys and it seemed that the impact on voting intentions was negligible. I am reserving the right to reexamine this.

With regard to third-party advertising and activities in election campaigns, you are upholding your position, if I understand correctly, Mr. Minister. You would like to provide financial guidelines, at both the riding and the national campaign levels. You know that we are not in favour of this. We are going to reexamine it. We intend to go back over your testimony this evening and we will attempt to analyze all this.

On the issue of encouraging women to participate in political life, we had a good discussion this afternoon, when we heard the fine presentation by Ms. Manon Tremblay. We had an interesting debate here. If I understand correctly, you are withdrawing your intention to promote...

Mr. Don Boudria: I am still reviewing this issue.

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you, Mr. President. If the Minister wishes to react, he is free to do so.

Mr. Don Boudria: Yes I would. With regard to public funds, of course, the government reimburses political parties for 22.5% of their eligible expenses after the election. Opinion surveys are excluded, but the parties are reimbursed for 22.5% of their other costs in general. Second, candidates are reimbursed for approximately 50% of their expenses. So 50% of the candidate's expenses and 22.5% of the parties' expenses are reimbursed.

All of these expenses should not be borne solely by taxpayers. It might happen that a political party had no support from electors, but was nevertheless able to claim full reimbursement. That is the danger.

• 1810

This is the problem we ran into a few years ago. What was the name of that group that showed up in various places? The Natural Law Party. The members of this party had found a way of extorting money from taxpayers by claiming to be a political party. They took advantage of the generous reimbursement provisions. We have to be careful not to create situations like that. If a political party has so little public support that no one wants to contribute to its cause, it is possible that this party does not deserve to be supported by any one, including taxpayers.

I wouldn't go as far as Mr. Ted White, who told us, if I understood his testimony correctly two days ago—he may even have a bill in the House—that taxpayers should not participate at all in the election reimbursement. I think that there is some middle ground. Is the current formula, namely 50% for the candidates and 22.5% for the parties, a good one? Should we change it? Mr. Chairman, I would encourage you to do some long-term thinking on this, but without delaying passage of the bill. This is a societal choice that we may make at one point.

Mr. André Harvey: I would like to point out to the Minister that an insignificant party will not be able to raise money. The credit system is the best formula. The insignificant party will not be able to raise money.

Mr. Don Boudria: When I talked about public money, I did not even talk about the tax credit that exists as well as the two formulas which I've just described.

As for returning officers, if I am not mistaken, Mr. Warren Bailie, when he appeared before you, said that if he had to hire returning officers using the method that some people have suggested, he would have to double his staff. Right now he has 19 people on staff. He would have to hire 19 additional people. This would mean 19 people for Ontario alone. The ridings are identical federally and provincially. If we need 19 for Ontario alone, we would no doubt need 50 nationally.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Two.

Mr. Don Boudria: Listen, something is not right here. When we need 19 people for one province, two will certainly not be adequate at the national level. This is mathematically impossible. When you need 19 people provincially, you need nearly 50 nationally. Do the calculations yourself. The provincial and federal ridings in Ontario are identical. The ridings often use the same staff. In my opinion, a bureaucracy of this size is not warranted.

As for the third parties, I would invite you to give some thought to the matter. It's up to you to decide whether you are still in favour of third parties or not. I know that when we presented the bill at the beginning, the leader of your party had said, in the House, that he was in favour of it. Then, the official of the party that just appeared before your committee said that he was against it. Of course, you can't be both for and against something. At any rate, I would invite you to give some thought to the matter and to consult the Libman decision. I have some copies of the decision and I can provide you with them, particularly the relevant pages, to help you as you examine this issue. I think that what the Supreme Court had to say about this matter in this decision is quite important.

I don't know if I answered all your questions. I think so.

Mr. André Harvey: What about the incentive?

Mr. Don Boudria: With respect to the incentive for women, as I said earlier, we have not yet come up with a position on this issue. I'm not saying no yet. I'm waiting to see if we can reach a consensus on the matter. If there is no support for this measure, I'm certainly not going to adopt it.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Minister, I know you've had a long day. Most of us here have, and the day is continuing.

Mr. Don Boudria: Yes, I had a meeting with you at 7.15 this morning.

The Chair: That's correct. It now being 6.15 in the evening, I'm just wondering how much more time you have. Mr. Solomon had a question.

Mr. John Solomon: I'd like my fair share of time. I have a number of questions, and I'd like them answered.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Solomon has at least one question.

A voice: We don't have much time.

Mr. John Solomon: Well, the minister can stay and everybody else can go. It doesn't matter to me.

The Chair: Okay.

I'm just wondering if you have a time constraint we should be aware of.

Mr. Don Boudria: No, other than nearing exhaustion, everything else is fine.

The Chair: All right. We'll go to Mr. Solomon then.

Mr. John Solomon: I appreciate the efforts on the rural vouching. It's not affecting thousands of people, but it's important in democracy.

• 1815

I have a number of questions. One is in relation to preventing costly by-elections in the case of a tie. Why did you eliminate the returning officer not voting during an election? It's my view that if the returning officer were to cast a ballot in the case of a tie, that would save us tens of thousands of dollars in by-election costs each time it happened, if it does indeed happen.

Secondly, Mr. Minister, could we not have the methodology of the poll published simultaneously with the poll, rather than the 24-hour limit?

Mr. Don Boudria: That's actually the case, but I'll explain it.

Mr. John Solomon: Okay. Thirdly, I've had a lot of people suggest that we should add occupation to the voters lists. If we're getting name and address, what's wrong with occupation? The bill says only the member of Parliament can use the voters lists for communications purposes, or during a federal election, candidates can use that. So an occupation would be very helpful. I would like to see phone numbers as well, but I understand the problems with phone numbers in terms of privacy, so I won't get into that one.

The fourth issue is numbered companies making contributions. Is there some way you can make that more transparent? For example, if a numbered company makes a contribution, it's important to have the name and address of the president or the chief executive officer of that company, rather than just the numbered company, so that we know who they are.

Additionally, I don't believe the Saskatchewan voting-day poll-closing situation is addressed adequately in the bill, and I'd like to propose an amendment.

Mr. Don Boudria: We still don't have it right?

Mr. John Solomon: We still don't have it right, and I'd like to propose that we add to subclause 128(a) the following:

Except polls in Saskatchewan observing central standard time while other time zones observe daylight savings time, the voting hours on polling day are 7.30 a.m. to 7.30 p.m.

I know there's a clause establishing that the Chief Electoral Officer can make these judgments, but why not just put the darn thing in the act so that people in Saskatchewan know what they're dealing with, instead of having an arbitrary decision that may or may not be made by the Chief Electoral Officer affect the entire province? I'd like you to address that, because we screwed up Saskatchewan once before, and I'm trying to provide you with a very clear direction to make it right. So I would ask you to consider that as well.

I have one more question, dealing with clarification of your presentation. You mentioned blackout polls moving to 24 hours. Please clarify for me whether that means at midnight on Saturday or midnight on Sunday that the ban takes effect.

Mr. Don Boudria: Sunday.

Mr. John Solomon: So it's not 24 hours. Is it 24 hours before election day or before the polls close?

A voice: Before the polls close.

Mr. Michael Peirce (Director of Legal Operations, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office): It's slightly less than 24 hours.

Mr. John Solomon: So then there's really no ban. It's wide open. The only ban we have is a blackout on reporting the actual poll, which is the election results on election day. So if we're going to do that, why don't we just lift the blackout periods, everybody can vote from 8 to 8, and it clarifies the situation?

The final point, if I might, is there's been controversy in the Pacific time zone, in particular the lower mainland, about the 7 to 7 polling hours. The controversy surrounds the fact that if you've ever been to Vancouver and tried to travel in rush hour, even if you get the three hours off, sometimes it's difficult to vote. There have been some suggestions that 7 to 7 should be changed to 7.30 to 7.30. I would ask you to consider that as well.

Mr. Don Boudria: Okay. On the tie, I'm not saying ties are impossible, but they're reasonably close to that.

Mr. John Solomon: It happened in Saskatchewan this fall.

Mr. Don Boudria: That could be, but at the federal level, the last time there was a tie was in 1962. It was the case of Monsieur Martineau and Tom Lefebvre. Martineau was elected by the returning officer's vote, one vote, because he was the incumbent. The situation would have been a lot more difficult had there not been an incumbent. What happened was the incumbent was returned by that vote.

• 1820

I had the numbers last time. I believe there have been six ties since Confederation in Canada. Two of the six were overturned on recount, which means there have in fact been four. In every election, 300 people are denied the right to vote because they're returning officers. Multiply 300 people times the number of elections we've had since Confederation; we've had 30 or so elections since Confederation. Is it normal to stop 9,000 people from voting because there have been two ties?

Mr. John Solomon: Out of how many million? Probably 175 million over those 10 years, or thereabouts, if you're going to use the same numbers. The point is there has to be some neutrality at that level as well until election day.

Mr. Don Boudria: The charter right to vote is there in the Constitution. We don't believe that can stand a charter test now. Of course—

Mr. John Solomon: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Don Boudria: No, but finally, it should be noted that.... You used the example of Saskatchewan. Did the judge not order a new election?

Mr. John Solomon: No, not on that one, not the tie.

Mr. Don Boudria: No?

The case of Maurizio Bevilacqua is the latest quasi-tie we had in the House of Commons. It happened in 1988. A fellow by the name of O'Brien, a Conservative, was declared elected, sat in the House of Commons, and then was declared unelected. He actually gave a speech. A guy who was never a member of Parliament is in Hansard. Check it out.

Mr. O'Brien then began a series of recounts, which lasted about a year and a half. Finally the courts threw the whole thing out and said, “Have a new election.” It took almost two years to get Maurizio Bevilacqua to take his seat in the House of Commons. He could tell you how much money he spent to do that. Let's say it was a quarter of a million dollars in recounts, lawyers, and so on, plus two elections. Is it normal that that amount of money be spent in the democratic process should there be a tie?

Is it not more normal to have a by-election two weeks hence or one week hence or a few days hence? Everybody has their headquarters, everybody has everything there—the telephones are hooked up, everything is already installed. In case it happens once every 30 or 40 years, is that not a more efficient way of doing it? I think it is more reasonable than what is proposed in the event of a tie. Anyway, I suppose it's a matter of opinion.

On the publishing of methodology, I hope it's written the way I think it is. The way it's written—and perhaps Madame Mondou could give me the clause, if she doesn't mind—the methodology is published simultaneously. What the 24 hours means is that for the first 24 hours that you publish a poll, you must release its methodology.

It says:

326.(1) The first person who transmits the result of an election survey—other than a survey that is described in section 327—to the public during an election period...within 24 hours after they are...transmitted to the public must provide the following....

In other words, during the first 24 hours, every time you refer to it, you must publish the methodology. It's not that you publish the methodology 24 hours later, saying, “By the way, you know the poll we did in yesterday's newspaper? It was one of these rogue things. It means nothing.” Of course that would probably be worse than not having any rule at all, if you had it constructed like that. Certainly that's not what is intended.

On occupation, it was raised at the committee, as you know, and there's not much support for putting that part in it. I raised the issue with the people at the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and the test for them is whether it is necessary in order to conduct an election. Frankly, I don't think I could argue that it is. Before you put in any kind of invasion of people's privacy, there's a test of necessity. If it's necessary, it's necessary. But how is this necessary at all? It's pretty hard to prove that whether John Smith is a busboy or a cabinet minister makes much difference in terms of trying to identify him. In the case of Don Boudria, he's been both at one time or another.

• 1825

On the numbered companies, the addresses will now be supplied. Are you aware of that? That's a change we made for the contributions.

Mr. John Solomon: Why can't we have the name and address of the person?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: The name of a company may be the number.

Mr. John Solomon: As you know, numbered companies are usually law offices. As somebody said, 99% of the numbered companies list law offices as their addresses.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: That's their name.

Mr. John Solomon: What about the name of the person who is in charge of that company? That's more transparent than a lawyer's office.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: It's public information.

Mr. Don Boudria: Yes, if you have the numbered company and the address, the officers of it are on record right here in the Library of Parliament.

Mr. John Solomon: Will that be published now? Is that what you're suggesting?

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: No.

Mr. John Solomon: Well, that's the point. Let's make it transparent. We could just research all these things. That's possible. But why?

Mr. Don Boudria: Are you saying then that there should be the name of one officer of the company as well as the name and address?

Mr. John Solomon: The name of the company, yes...I'm sorry, the name—

Mr. Don Boudria: Sometimes they have no name.

Mr. John Solomon: —of the chief executive office or the president. I don't really care which, but there should be some name to the company, as opposed to a lawyer's office that 6,000 companies—

Mr. Don Boudria: Let me study that. I'm not against it per se. If it helps to identify and give more transparency, it sounds....

If you had that for a numbered company, would you have it for a named company?

Mr. John Solomon: Sure.

Mr. Don Boudria: Whether something's called 1234 Canada Inc. or whether it's called ABC Canada Inc., it doesn't change a heck of a lot.

Mr. John Solomon: Or CIBC, yes. It doesn't matter. Sure, make it that way for all of them.

Mr. Don Boudria: So when it's not a person, there has to be an officer identified.

Mr. John Solomon: That would be fine.

Mr. Don Boudria: We'll look at that.

Mr. John Solomon: I'm specifically aiming at the numbered companies, because you know where CIBC is, you know where John Deere is, and you know where all these companies are. You just don't know where 15799332 Inc. is.

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. John Solomon: Right, or who they are.

Mr. Don Boudria: All right.

On standard time, I believe it was worded that way at the request of the Chief Electoral Officer, but I can check it out. One of the reasons it was written that way, though, is that standard time is a provincial issue in Canada, not a federal one. We had the case a few years ago where Newfoundland changed its time. I don't know if you are aware of that. Provinces can do that, and one actually did. The experiment failed and they went back to the original time. But this is to permit the Chief Electoral Officer to adjust things without having to go back to Parliament should that occur.

Mr. John Solomon: That's still in there in clause 129, but I raised this with the Chief Electoral Officer and you still don't have Saskatchewan identified. He says the numbers here are for standard time, which is fine. All I'm saying is that those polls in Saskatchewan observe central standard time, not central time. Could they be given specific hours? I think that solves the issue. The 8.30 times in clause 128 will remain intact with respect to standard time, but when it comes to daylight savings time, which you don't want to.... If that's the case in Saskatchewan, they can have those hours. This covers it all off. I think it should be a Saskatchewan-specific thing.

Mr. Don Boudria: I'm not against it. We'll contact the Chief Electoral Officer to check out that provision in order to ensure that it provides the clarification you seek.

Mr. John Solomon: Well, no, I'm sorry. I'd like to see the amendment if you could, Don.

Mr. Don Boudria: I'm sorry, I can't—

Mr. John Solomon: It has to outline Saskatchewan's situation during the course of daylight savings. I think my wording almost entirely covers it.

Mr. Don Boudria: Well, please provide us with a copy of it and we'll check it out.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you.

Mr. Don Boudria: On the blackout, I'm sorry, but I forgot the question you asked. You had a specific—

Mr. John Solomon: I think you clarified that already.

Mr. Don Boudria: Okay, that's done.

On the question of three hours off, we had four hours at one time. As you know, that was later changed to three.

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: With the staggered hours.

Mr. Don Boudria: As we now have staggered hours, we realized that if we change the time in one part of the country, it has a triggering effect all the way to the other end, including voting possibly very late at night at the other end. It could cause major disruptions.

• 1830

I'll look at it again, but it was negotiated with the provinces when it was established. Please remember, it's not free. If you have uniform time and you change it at one end, obviously the uniformity will cause it to change everywhere else; otherwise it wouldn't be uniform.

Mr. John Solomon: No. It just adds another half hour on B.C. time. That means people in eastern Canada will have to wait exactly half an hour longer to get the results.

Mr. Don Boudria: No, it's the other way around.

Mr. John Solomon: If you're changing the time in Vancouver and going from 7 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. as closing time—

Mr. Don Boudria: It means you either have a blackout period for B.C. for half an hour, or you make all the polls elsewhere in Canada close half an hour later.

Mr. John Solomon: I understand the implications of an amendment. There'd be other amendments subsequent to that with respect to the blackout.

Mr. Don Boudria: That's what I'm saying.

Mr. John Solomon: That wouldn't be a big deal, would it—

Mr. Don Boudria: What time do they close now in Newfoundland?

Mr. John Solomon: —unless you lifted the blackout? I think the blackout should be lifted anyway.

Mr. Don Boudria: It's 9.30 p.m. right now in Newfoundland. If you change it by half an hour, you'll have polls closing at—

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: Eastern time is—

Mr. Don Boudria: Eastern time is 9—

Ms. Isabelle Mondou: It's Quebec.

Mr. Don Boudria: Okay. In Quebec and Ontario it's 9.30 p.m. right now. That would mean the polls would close at 10 p.m., plus you'd have to add to that an hour or an hour and a half to count. For every bit you move it there's a side effect. I think it would be a major disturbance.

By the way, the three hours can be given at either end of the day. That makes a difference, although not everyone knows it causes that. It doesn't mean the employer has to actually give three hours. It means three hours have to be left for the person to vote.

In other words, someone may start working at 11 a.m. and work until 7 p.m. If the three hours are there in the morning, the employer may not have to give him any time off. He's not obliged to do so by law. It doesn't say the employer must give three hours off at the end of the day. It means the person voting must have three hours available to him or her in which they can go to vote. The three hours have to be consecutive. In other words, the employer can't say you have an hour for lunch and then give you one hour at the end of the day and one in the morning. That doesn't work. They have to be consecutive.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you.

The Chair: Okay. On the final issue, subject to whatever the minister may add, Mr. White has a question relating to the polling stations in provincial correctional institutions. Do you want to put that?

Mr. Ted White: Yes. This is a totally non-partisan issue, Mr. Minister. It could be complicated, and you may have the resources to resolve this. I certainly don't, and I don't think any others around the table do. It's around clauses 255 and 256.

We had a witness yesterday, Mr. Gerald Chipeur, who's a lawyer. He made some comments about safety and the intimidating surroundings of a prison. You can see those clauses mention setting up a polling station in the prison and also say, “a Canadian citizen may represent a registered party during the taking of the votes.”

Mr Chipeur's suggestion was that in the interests of safety for everybody concerned, it would be better if prisoners voted by mail only. We've put provisions in the act to quite properly protect women who may be living in shelters and other people who would be subject to dangerous situations. Mr. Chipeur, as a lawyer who works with criminals all the time, said it's terribly intimidating, even for himself, to be in a prison environment. There's a very tiny risk of danger, but he feels it's not right to subject people to that, and we should consider making voting by mail only for prisoners.

I would ask you, respectfully, to look at that. I think it is a serious issue and worthy of consideration.

Mr. Don Boudria: I've been informed that there have been no problems reported to the Chief Electoral Officer. I'd like to check it again. If there have been problems of that nature, I'm prepared to look at the issue, but if there has never been even a complaint about it, it would be perhaps unnecessary to do it. We're certainly willing to check with the Chief Electoral Officer to determine whether that course of action is necessary.

• 1835

Mr. Ted White: As I said in good faith, it's a non-partisan issue.

Mr. Don Boudria: Of course.

Mr. Ted White: It struck me as something we should be concerned about. If the Chief Electoral Officer is satisfied there's no risk and everything works well—

Mr. Don Boudria: He hasn't previously indicated there is one, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at, so we will.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Is there anything you wish to add, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Don Boudria: I just want to take the opportunity to thank again all members of the committee for their hard work on this. It is somewhat painstaking. It's a long bill and there's been hard effort on the part of everybody.

Everyone, from what I'm told, has made suggestions that have been very useful. They've allowed us to improve the bill. Of course, prior to that members also worked very hard in preparing the parliamentary committee report, which is the basis of this bill. Again, everyone did excellent work.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to indicate my appreciation to all the witnesses who testified before your committee. They have helped us make what will hopefully be better legislation, to ensure that the widest number of Canadians possible can participate freely in the democratic franchise. I'm very pleased with everyone's contribution.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

It being 6.37 p.m., we'll adjourn until tomorrow morning when we begin clause-by-clause consideration. Our start time may be slightly after 10 a.m. Your chair may be in the House for routine proceedings at that point. It will be approximately 10.15 a.m., if colleagues are agreed.

Thank you.

We're adjourned.