Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 24th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, and welcome again this morning, ladies and gentlemen. We don't have a lot to do this morning, but I do want to get started on time. We have some other issues that we need to deal with.

To start with standard business, I want to remind members that today's meeting will be held in public as we begin clause-by-clause study of Bill C-16.

Before we begin that, I want to remind members, or at least let you know, that the government response to our thirteenth report that we tabled in June was delivered on Friday. I'm sure most of you have it by now. We'll talk a little bit about that at the end of the meeting. We can defer it until Thursday or we can talk about it at the end. We might want to consider whether we want to send a response.

As well, on Thursday, as members know, we're going to begin discussions--if time permits from today's meeting--on the conflict of interest code. But we can discuss that at the end of the meeting today. I will leave time for that.

Mr. Dewar, please.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to table a motion for this committee and, if I may, read it for the record. The clerk, I believe, has a back-up for some information in reference to the motion. I would like to very quickly read the motion for the record.

I move:

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs prepare a report to the House of Commons before November 10, 2006, recommending changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons based on the June 22, 1992 report of the Special Advisory Committee to the Speaker on unparliamentary language, and the Speaker's authority to deal with breaches of decorum and behaviour.

That's the motion, Chair. The back-up that is being passed around in both official languages is in fact that said report, for people's reference.

As many of us have been concerned as of late about decorum in the House, it's always important to look back at what has been done in recommendations. Since this is the committee that deals with the Standing Orders, I thought it would obviously be the place to not only table it, but for us to deal with it, since there is a lot of concern around not only the most recent events but concerns around decorum in the House in general.

That's the motion, and I thank you for your indulgence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar.

We're tabling the report. I understand that we can talk about this later, and we can move to clause-by-clause on Bill C-16. Thank you.

I want to advise members that as we move through clause-by-clause on Bill C-16, we will do so in the usual manner.

Perhaps I can ask the officials at the end of the table to introduce themselves, please.

[Warren Newman, General Counsel, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Department of Justice]

Thank you.

Warren Newman, general counsel,

administrative law section, Department of Justice.

[Douglas Wolfe, Senior Policy Advisor, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office]

Good morning. Douglas Wolfe, senior policy adviser with the Privy Council Office.

[Dan McDougall, Director of Operations, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office]

Dan McDougall, director of operations with legislation and House planning of the Privy Council Office.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Members, the officials at the end of the table are here to help us with any technical questions we may have. Members, the amendments package was distributed on Monday. Amendments are marked by the party presenting them and are in the order in which they are stipulated by the bill. Indeed, we'll come to each amendment as we go through the bill. That's the order we've decided makes most sense.

We have an agenda in front of us, but before we begin, I'd like to introduce Mr. Wayne Cole, the legislative clerk assigned to this bill. He will also help with the process of walking us through it.

As the first order of business, everybody has Bill C-16 in front of you. I'll simply note for members that there are no amendments to clause 1.

Oh, I'm sorry. Let's deal with the amendments to clause 1, which are the Bloc motions of Monsieur Guimond.

(On clause 1)

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think it is clear from our comments and the questions asked of the various witnesses that the choice of the third Monday in October is a problem for the Bloc québécois. I don’t intend to go on very long. I would simply like to reiterate that in October, there is a holiday that comes around on the same cycle. Since the beginning of time — unless we decide to change it — Quebec and Canada have celebrated Thanksgiving on the second Monday of October. If elections are held on the third Monday of October, advance polling will always be held during Thanksgiving weekend.

We believe that such a situation would not support the exercise of voting rights, neither in terms of a general vote nor of advance polling, even if there is no longer a legal requirement to reveal why we are unable to vote on Election Day and why we vote in advance. Over the years, we have abandoned that idea and people may now vote in advance. In any case, if the vote is cast by mail, they can send it in to the returning officer at any time. Our objective is to support the exercise of voting rights. We believe that that weekend is not a convenient period for advance voting. Consequently, we believe that the timing is not right. The objective of our amendment is to change that. We therefore suggest the fourth Monday in April. From a seasonal point of view, the end of April is as favourable as October. In fact, in October, winter has already arrived in some Western Canada provinces. We believe that the fourth Monday in April is more convenient from a seasonal point of view.

Some opponents to this date could raise a question concerning students. We have done some checks in this regard. Normally, universities end classes in the last days of April. The preceding week, students could vote in their campus constituency or, if required because their classes have already ended, they could choose to vote in their home district. On the fourth Monday of April, students have not massively deserted campuses. We have checked. Contrary to Thanksgiving, Easter is not a fixed-date holiday. It varies; I’ve never understood how that date is set. It may be due to a link to the Roman calendar or it is perhaps part of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Easter sometimes lands in March, sometimes in April. It’s been too long since I served at Easter mass for me to remember the logic that dictates when Easter is in March and when it is in April. We’ve looked forward fifteen years. In that time, advance polling falling on Easter weekend will take place only once, which I admit would present a certain disadvantage.

That happens only once in the next 15 years. That is in 2011, if I recall correctly. An election will be required that year since we must now have fixed-date elections. For all these reasons, I ask the Committee to adopt the amendment that was respectfully submitted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Guimond. We appreciate that.

Mr. Owen has a comment, and then Mr. Reid.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

While I appreciate the argument being made by our colleagues in the Bloc for having a spring date rather than the fall date, I must say that very convincing arguments were made to us, both in written materials as well as by witnesses, that one of the great advantages of a fixed election date is to capture the attention, engagement, and voting—eventually, if not right at that moment—of students. We have this tremendous group of new electors every year who have the opportunity, if the date is properly set, to learn about and be involved in the elections themselves and have mock elections.

From my own experience, Mr. Chair, having a constituency, Vancouver Quadra, that has I think the third largest university in the country, I see this very dramatically in the various elections I've been involved with. When the elections have been at a time when the students were not distracted by exams and were in session, the vitality and I think future promise of our vibrant democracy demonstrated by their enthusiasm have been overwhelming—much greater, I have found, than in members of the general population.

Some of the arguments that were made about being able to properly plan, in a curriculum for a year, mock elections and other information that would encourage students to become interested in these issues and active in elections were very convincing to me. October was named for the reason that students were back, they were settled, but they weren't in the middle of exams, nor were they fully engaged at that time perhaps in their term work.

For the April date, with the greatest respect, I understand the reasons that have been put forward, but I have a real concern. Certainly in British Columbia, university exams begin in the early to middle part of April, which would mean they would be distracted throughout the whole campaign period. I have no doubt they would get around to voting even if they had exams at the time, but it's the real energy they bring to the campaign that moves me to prefer the October date.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Reid, please.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too do not support the amendment, although I recognize the helpful spirit in which it was offered. I have a number of reasons for not supporting it.

One of them is actually very similar to the one raised by Mr. Owen. I was looking back to my own student days and--

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

That was a long time ago.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thanks for that, Jay; it wasn't as long as for you.

In every province it may be different, but in Ontario, where I went to school, here's what happened: exams started at the beginning of April--April is exam month--and end at some point in April. Exactly when they end is very much dependent on the individual set of courses the student is taking, and to some degree it's a lottery whether you have your exams nicely and evenly spread out or all bunched together at the front or the end of the exam period. What many students do, particularly those who come from away, is that as soon as their last exam is over, they're out of town. They're heading back to wherever they're from.

I would argue that unfortunately the last week of April is arguably the worst week you could pick from the point of view of actually having some idea of where students are. There's a very good chance they would be at one riding during the advance polls and a different one during the final polls. Based on the many years I spent as a student, I really think this choice of dates is unfortunate, precisely from a student point of view, .

That's one concern. A second and I think lesser concern is that some snowbirds are not back yet from the south. I'm not sure that's as major a concern. Most snowbirds would be back by the end of April.

My third concern, which I think is very important, is this. Under the proposed date at the end of April, the writ period would overlap with the end of the fiscal year, and this means there'd be a problem. It would not occur if you chose any other time of year for the election to take place. It's taking place in a period when it would be necessary to pay for the government's bills by means of Governor General's warrants, as opposed to the normal budget process, and for that reason I think this date is an unfortunate choice as well.

As a final note, Mr. Chairman, I simply mention that the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, when asked about the concern with the July 1 moving date--not the student concern--did indicate that he felt he'd be able to take care of updating his list in time for the recommended October election date. On this basis, I'm encouraging colleagues to vote against this amendment, again notwithstanding the fact that I recognize it was offered in the very best sense of collegiality.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Madame Jennings is next, please.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you. I must admit that I began considering the amendment proposed by my Bloc québécois colleague with some concern precisely because there is a university in my constituency. I was concerned by the effect this amendment could have on student voter turnout for the elections. But, after some thought, I feel that it is more important to move the date of the fixed elections to protect all Quebecers’ democratic right to vote — including a good number of my own constituents who move every year on July 1 — and that they be affected the least possible. I believe that the vote of a greater number of my constituents would be affected if general elections were held in October. A greater number of them would be affected by elections in October than students affected by elections on the fourth Monday of April. I intend to support the amendment submitted by Mr. Guimond of the Bloc québécois because I believe the effect will be beneficial for most people while it would be negative for only a few.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Ms. Jennings.

Mr. Proulx, it is your turn.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to confirm that I will be voting with the Bloc on this amendment, for the simple reason that although Mr. Kingsley has said he would do the utmost to make sure the lists would be updated in time, it still means that for those of us who work with the lists, starting numerous months before an election date, we would be working with non-updated lists until probably September. To me, that is not acceptable. I will therefore vote with the Bloc's amendment so that the election is not held in October, but rather prior to July 1, the date for the moves, and that would mean in April.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Dewar, a final comment, please.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I have just a couple of quick comments. The reason I liked October, as was presented, was that the crops are in and the ice isn't--well, I guess that depends on how far north you are.

But I also want to support Mr. Owen's comments as someone who was working with young people and students in our school system. The comment that was made by one of our witnesses was that this is all terrific to change the legislation, but more importantly, we need to animate any of the laws we pass, and in doing so, strengthen the democratic process in our country. I think it's really important that we consider the fact that we are trying to hopefully move forward and get into our schools, be it at the secondary or post-secondary level, and to engage young people.

The other thing I want to mention--and I mentioned this in committee before--is that if we look at April, I'm quite concerned. The rationale for our party supporting it, my predecessor Mr. Broadbent bringing it forward in the ethics package, was to take away the cynicism of the electorate in the manipulation of government putting the election date on their agenda and not on the agenda for all Canadians.

One of the concerns that was raised by Mr. Broadbent, and I share his concern, is the manipulation of the public purse. If we look at the date we're setting, I'm very concerned that we'll see the same kind of behaviour we've seen with governments in the past, where just before an election is going to be held, there's money flying out of the back of trains, planes, and automobiles. I see the change to April as being something that would build in the opportunity for governments to manipulate that. They can simply say, “Well, that's the fixed election date; we have to provide a budget.” If you look at October, you then have the government held to fiscal account, because the budget obviously will have been in the spring, we'll have estimates forward, we'll be able to scrutinize the governing party, and they won't be able to say they're promising this, that, and the other thing, or build it into a budget. We'll actually be able to examine the fiscal behaviour of the government in October.

Those are the main reasons I mentioned. In terms of the nature of our country, and looking at farmers' calendars, looking at students' comings and goings, and looking at the fiscal argument, I support October.

My final comment is that if we do have a dilemma, as was mentioned by my colleagues, with regard to Quebec, there is a built-in moving day in Quebec, and I think we should engage the Chief Electoral Officer to fix it and to make sure we have a system that's going to work for them, and not nix the date in October.

Sorry, I have just one other thought. If you do move to April, what about those people who are moving in July? They will have moved constituencies, very often. If there's an election in April, they move in July and they're into a new member's constituency. You could argue that it's better to have it in the fall, after they've moved, so that they are moving and staying put, if you will, with the member that they would have hopefully supported.

Those are my comments. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar.

We'll have a final comment from Monsieur Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I was too focused on the main argument in the defence of my amendment, but I would like to take up on the element introduced by Ms. Jennings and my colleague, Mr. Roux, i.e. the accuracy of the lists.

The Chief Electoral Officer has not convinced us — not at all — that in the case of October elections, we in Quebec would have accurate and precise lists, given the number of residential moves that take place in Quebec around the 1^st of July.

The most compelling proof that he himself foresees a problem — you will remember — is that he asked us, in the report he produced after the elections, to postpone the date from October 15 to November 15. On the contrary, we would ask him to accelerate! Despite all the good will the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec might have to register all changes as quickly as possible, Mr. Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, was unable to convince us of the lists’ accuracy. In fact, that is one of the reasons we wanted to move the whole thing to April, thus giving us the opportunity to use data that include the preceding year’s residential moves.

I conclude by lamenting the fact that, for some strange reason, the Register of Electors official here in Ottawa refuses to speak to us at the very time we need to check on issues of register accuracy. There seems to be a culture of secrecy around this register. I won’t go as far as talking about veto, such as suggested by my colleague from Drummond, but there is a certain lack of cooperation on the part of some persons around the Chief Elections Officer.

We therefore maintain that our amendment should be adopted, which is something that appears to be more and more doubtful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

I think we're ready for the question.

Members, how shall we vote? Just yeas and nays, with hands? Is that acceptable to the committee?

I see agreement.

The amendment before us is that Bill C-16 in clause 1 be amended by replacing lines 12 and 13, on page 1, with the following:

election must be held on the fourth Monday of April in the fourth calendar year following

Does this amendment carry?

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

My interpretation is that since the amendment from the Bloc was defeated, the second motion is not relevant.

We will therefore move to amendment NDP-1.

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.