Evidence of meeting #29 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was recommendation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Excuse me, but you're way over. We'll see if we can get his answer in with someone else's.
Monsieur Albrecht. I'm sorry that I skipped you going around.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
You're forgiven.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On a different note, I don't believe that any of the witnesses have spoken to this directly, except Mr. Gardner. I want to be sure I understood him in relation to III.6, the right to strike on behalf of Elections Canada.
I just want to confirm that you indicated that you do not agree with the CEO's recommendation. Was that your position?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Okay. You do not agree. So you think Elections Canada officials should be allowed to go on strike even in a minority Parliament when that could destabilize the election process.
November 2nd, 2010 / 12:10 p.m.
General Director, Bloc Québécois
I think that it is up to the employer, so the government, to reach agreements with its employees and that taking away this right is not....
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
I just wanted to confirm that.
Mr. Lavigne, are you prepared to speak to that?
12:10 p.m.
National Director, New Democratic Party
Yes, I am. I believe it was an economic statement back in November of 2008--
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
National Director, New Democratic Party
--and I think we've covered that off pretty well, and I think we've certainly convinced our friends on this side of the committee table that it was not a provision that we were willing to support.
12:10 p.m.
Senior Director, Regulatory Compliance and Administration, Liberal Party of Canada
We believe that this is a decision best left to government and Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
All right.
Mr. Arnold, I'd like to go back to a point you made about the reimbursement of election expenses when the limit is exceeded. Again, I would like to clarify what I think I heard you say. You agree with the dollar for dollar reduction for the first 10% that exceeds the expense limit. Then beyond that...?
12:10 p.m.
Senior Director, Regulatory Compliance and Administration, Liberal Party of Canada
I was just giving examples.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Senior Director, Regulatory Compliance and Administration, Liberal Party of Canada
I think a framework would need to be developed so that you would end up having a graduated repayment. At one point it's dollar for dollar, then it's one dollar for two dollars, then one dollar for three dollars.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Okay. That's where I'm confused. When you say one dollar for two dollars, are you suggesting that the penalty would be more severe the higher you go above the expense, or would it be less severe?
12:10 p.m.
Senior Director, Regulatory Compliance and Administration, Liberal Party of Canada
Correct: it would be more severe.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
It would be more severe. So in fact someone could end up, if they're $5,000 over, as in the example in the recommendation, losing $5,000, but if they were $10,000 over, they could actually lose $15,000 from their reimbursement.
12:10 p.m.
Senior Director, Regulatory Compliance and Administration, Liberal Party of Canada
That is correct.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
You are early on your time. Very good. You've set a new pace.
We'll go to Mr. Christopherson for short questions and answers. We'll try to get to everybody else after that.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thanks, Chair.
On vouching, I know that of course Mr. Lavigne has expressed disagreement on behalf of the NDP. The document from the Conservatives suggests that they don't agree. I didn't catch what the other two positions were on the recommendations around vouching. That is recommendation I.11 on page 31 in the report.
12:10 p.m.
General Director, Bloc Québécois
We agree provided that it is limited to immediate family members and that the term “immediate family” is defined in the legislation.
12:10 p.m.
Senior Director, Regulatory Compliance and Administration, Liberal Party of Canada
We understand the reasons for Elections Canada's recommendation. It becomes very difficult if you start putting limits on determining whether you can do it for a household of four versus a household of eleven versus a household of fifteen. You are, in some cases, going to get households with adults at one address. We didn't want to exclude those people.
There is going to be a burden of proof in terms of establishing residency. We're fine with the recommendation.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
You support it. Okay. Thanks.
Just briefly, what are your thoughts again on Internet voting?