Evidence of meeting #22 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Mayrand, for being here today.
You mentioned that your report today is divided into technical and policy issues, and you mentioned a number of technical revisions that you might suggest. I'm sure you're disappointed to know that I haven't read this cover to cover, but you said you'd be happy to recommend changes. Are they in fact included in this draft?
11:25 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer of Canada
No, they're not in it. The ones that I identify in my presentation and in the briefing note circulated before the meeting in June point out technical changes that would need to be brought to the legislation itself.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Okay.
Going back to the question of referendum officials, my understanding is that currently only 33% of the officials who are appointed for elections are actually suggested by one of the two parties. Under this act, you wouldn't be able to appoint any beyond that. So how do you perceive that you would address that shortfall?
11:25 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer of Canada
I hope to benefit from the goodwill of political parties to work this out, but that's again a good example of how far apart the two legislative regimes have gone in terms of the operation of an event. For no doubt good reasons, in 1992 the schedule of the Referendum Act specifically pointed out the provisions of the Canada Elections Act that do not apply, provisions of the Canada Elections Act that allow the returning officer to go beyond the parties if there are not enough workers. That was taken away, and that would certainly be a technical amendment recommended from our part.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
You mentioned on page eight of your remarks today that the federal system allows the establishment of any number of committees. Can there in fact be more than one committee per riding?
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
And then in terms of the maximum expense limit, it was 56 cents per elector in 1992, and it's probably up to—
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Seventy-eight. So each committee could in fact spend that maximum within that riding?
11:25 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer of Canada
Yes. So for national committees you could have a multiplicity of the national committees who would also have authority to spend, each of them, to the limit allowed.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer of Canada
There's a limit per committee. How many committees are created is up to those who want to participate. That's why, again, this is really an issue of public policy in terms of updating the Referendum Act because as we all know, things have changed dramatically over the last decade and a half in terms of financing.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Based on those observations, I would certainly concur with my colleague Mr. Lukiwski that it's time for a pretty major re-look and possible recommendations for change.
Thank you.
October 20th, 2009 / 11:25 a.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Mayrand. I know this will disappoint you a great deal, but I don't have any questions to ask you.
Mr. Chairman, I believe it's possible to ask a question that isn't intended for the witnesses. In this case, it's for the parliamentary secretary to the government leader. I would like to know whether the government intends to propose a legislative review. With regard to this matter, that could be the factor triggering the next part of our work. I don't have any objection to us meeting to begin examining the question, but we would have to know where the government stands. The purpose of my comment isn't at all to trap the government. Every time I speak, you think I have hidden intentions and that I'm going to pull out a bazooka.
Mr. Mayrand, in the second paragraph on page 10 of your presentation, you say: “That is why I believe that it would be desirable for Parliament to consider a legislative review.”
Mr. Chairman, if, through you, Mr. Lukiwski is able to tell us whether the Privy Council officials and legal experts have begun to draft a bill containing provisions to that effect, we could determine whether everything here is covered or whether we want to make amendments, make additions. If that's not among the legislative priorities, it might be appropriate for us to examine the act and then suggest amendments to Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you. I'm sure we'll get all the information we can out of Monsieur Mayrand today and from that the committee will make a decision as to what form the study will take.
Mr. Lukiwski, in response to that?
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Yes, just to whether there's a point of order, but just to respond to Michel's questions, to my knowledge, quite frankly, there are no plans right now for any legislative review. However, I believe that if we had a study from this committee giving recommendations to the government as terms of amendments needed to the act, I'm sure that would be very helpful. Again, I'm just giving my opinion that I think that this is something frankly that transcends political boundaries. It affects all of us, and I think that if we had this committee take the lead and do a committee study and report to the government with our recommendations for changes, if we think changes are required, that the government would take that report very seriously.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I would simply like to get some clarification, Mr. Mayrand. Earlier you talked about the regulations and the act. Can the regulations to the Elections Act be amended by Parliament or is that the exclusive responsibility of Elections Canada?
11:30 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer of Canada
The Canada Elections Act has no regulations; everything is provided for in the Canada Elections Act.
11:30 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer of Canada
Rather than review all the provisions of the Canada Elections Act—there are 40 sections in the Referendum Act, whereas there are more than 500 in the Canada Elections Act—the Chief Electoral Officer was asked to adapt the Canada Elections Act to the context of a referendum and to do so by regulation. That's what we did for the Referendum Act.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
All right. At that time, the power to make changes or to amend the act without having to resort to Parliament was given to Elections Canada by means of regulations.
I will side with Mr. Guimond.
Mr. Lukiwski, you say we should do the study, then the presentation. I'd have to take a look at where we've gotten with that. I remember that we conducted one study, for example, on electoral boundaries. We did a major study on that subject. I would have to see whether we did anything after that.
If we take the trouble to conduct a study, it would be good for the government to be in the mood to make a change as well. You shouldn't make a committee work for months and months without a bill emerging at the end of it. It's always better to know that the government wants the same thing, that is to work on this part of the act to adapt it to the situation today.
It would be good to check with the government. Then, having made the check, we could start a study. Perhaps that's putting the cart before the horse, but, on the other hand, it's good to know where the government is headed with this.