Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2010

[John Arnold]

There will be a committee that would decide something like that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

I was generous, by the way. I just wanted to point that out. You got almost eight minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right.

Madame DeBellefeuille.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. What's the time I have to exceed?

[A voice]

Eight minutes.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Eight minutes? Perfect.

[Voices]

Ha, ha!

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I knew when we started it that it was going to be tough to finish it.

Carry on.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

I would like to draw your attention to recommendation II.15.

Mr. Gardner, you went over the description of the issues rather quickly. The Bloc Québécois recommendation is almost the opposite of the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendation. Could you tell us why you are asking for a full reimbursement of expenses?

There is nothing to say that the situation experienced by the constituency of Saint-Lambert, for example, where the byelection was cancelled because the general election was called, could not happen again in the near future. Please explain what the real issues are.

I also read the Conservative Party's brief and the Conservatives seem to support the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendation.

[Gilbert Gardner]

Take, for example, the by-elections held in Saint-Lambert and Westmount—Ville-Marie. The government called 2 by-elections 30 days before calling a general election. Thirty days later, it called a general election. The government did not fall. It called 2 by-elections, and 30 days later, it superseded them at the very last minute. Advance voting had even taken place. There seems to have been some inconsistency there. I think the government knew full well that it was going to call a general election 30 days before it did so. It could have simply called by-elections with 45 days' notice. That way, taxpayers' money would not have been spent and wasted on an event that was superseded practically the day before the election.

Under those circumstances, why should the candidate or party be penalized for raising 40%, say, of the election spending limit and be reimbursed for just 60% of those expenditures, even though the election was superseded?

I think that Elections Canada's decision to reimburse 100% of the actual expenses incurred, in the case of Saint-Lambert and Westmount—Ville-Marie, levelled the playing field for the nominations in those ridings, as compared with all the others. They had absolutely nothing to do with the government's decision to call a by-election, to supersede that by-election and to call a general election, all within a period of some 30 days.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

I am not sure whether I dreamed it, but I was shocked to read recommendation III.5, on the presence of the media at polling stations. I seem to remember seeing on television the prime minister and other politicians in a polling station. I get the sense that is something that is not allowed under the law but that happens anyways.

Mr. Gardner, you are in favour of having the media present in polling stations. I did not hear the position of the other two parties, but from reading the brief of the Conservative Party, I know that the Conservatives do not support that.

Could you tell us why you see no problem with the CEO allowing the media to be present in polling stations?

[Gilbert Gardner]

In the past, it was more or less left to the discretion of returning officers. The Bloc Québécois, in particular, was penalized during the election in 2006, when all returning officers had been directed not to allow cameras into polling stations.

Cameras were not allowed in the polling station when Bloc Québécois leader Mr. Duceppe cast his vote, but had been allowed in when the Liberal Party's and the Conservative Party's respective leaders cast their ballots.

So, yes, it is rather surprising that the Conservative Party would not support this measure. Presidents and party leaders can even be filmed in all eastern European countries, which generally place more restrictions on freedom of the press and freedom of information. It is also common practice in every country in western Europe. When President Sarkozy cast his ballot, for example, it was seen on television around the entire world.

This is something the Bloc Québécois has repeatedly asked Elections Canada for. We want Elections Canada to allow a practice that is commonplace in just about every country that recognizes freedom of the press.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Arnold, where does the Liberal Party stand on this issue?

[John Arnold]

I do not really have any comment.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Lavigne, your thoughts?

[Brad Lavigne]

The issue of media taking visual images of leaders voting is not a concern to us; it should be applied equally across. But I think that should be restricted to leaders for the purposes of showcasing the actual voting day itself.

I think where we get into trouble is with local media going in and following the incumbent or the challengers into the voting booth. I think that would serve as a deterrent for others in regard to feeling that they have the freedom to vote.

I think we can carve out an exception for leaders. I know that in our work it's all timed, and it's all presented as something that is staged, so I think that would be something that would be welcomed. But as for all media at any time, I think it would be a problem.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chair, since I have a bit of time left, I would like Mr. Gardner to explain his solution for dealing with partisan signs outside polling sites.

You talked about how difficult it is to find space in some urban ridings and even rural ones, where candidates' electoral committees are often located in the same place as the polling station. You also said the 100-metre limit was problematic.

Do you have another suggestion? We know this is going to happen again during the next general election. Do you have any solutions to deal with electoral sites specifically?

[Gilbert Gardner]

Historically—if we disregard the 100-metre rule—the fact that signs cannot be visibly displayed near polling stations applied mostly to the main voting day and advance voting days. Given the introduction of new formats over the years, having to do with special voting, where an elector can vote in person at the office of their returning officer, people want the rule to also apply to the office of the returning officer. That seems a bit much to me. We could perhaps keep the ban in effect on election day and on advance voting days in polling stations.

The 100-metre distance also seems a bit excessive. I challenge anyone, especially in urban areas, to read the name of the candidate or the party from 300 feet away, given how big the signs are.

Right now, the legislation simply talks about visibility. If you want to specify or measure the distance related to that visibility, go ahead, but 100 metres is definitely excessive.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Great. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Very good. Thank you.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.

Thanks very much to all of you for your attendance today.

At the risk of igniting something that I don't want to, I was a little disappointed that the Conservatives didn't send a representative. I understand they responded to the thing and that's great.

But when I read that “it is not possible at this time for me or another appropriate representative of our Party to appear before your committee”, which is a quote from their cover letter, it basically was saying “no, we're not coming”, so I'm just a little disappointed. We've been trying so hard to be non-partisan. It suggests there was some concern that there was some kind of political trap being laid or that something untoward was going to happen should they come here.

But anyway, that's certainly their right, and that's all I have to say about the matter.

I'll pick up on the last question. The signs outside the voting area seem to be getting an awful lot of attention. If I'm understanding it, the resistance is that in an urban area it's impractical. You're going to be denying people the right to put an election sign out on their front lawns, and just because it's a packed urban area and they happen to be too close, you end up denying people their rights.

But I think we all do agree that every one of us...well, most.... I'll put it this way. It's not unusual for a campaign to eyeball what the distance is, be sure that you're safe, and then work like heck to try to catch everybody that you can just outside the safe area. They don't do that because they have nothing else to do; it's done because it can have an impact, and for people who haven't made up their minds, which is, surprisingly, quite a few. On the way to the polling station people are still mulling it over, right up to the time they get in front of the box and mark their ballots.

I just want to tease this out a little bit further. First of all, does everyone agree with the concept? Then secondly, is it just a matter of 100 metres being impractical and that it needs to be smaller? Or does there need to be a whole different approach?

I'll just open it up to all three. Don't all jump at once.

[John Arnold]

For us, the 100 metres was difficult in a shopping mall type of environment where the property is quite large. The entrance could be on the far side of the mall. No one is going to go by this private property location that is 100 metres from the property.

We're not certain exactly what the answer was in terms of dealing with large shopping malls. But certainly when you have a very large property and it's 100 metres around the property, we think that's too extreme.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm sorry. Help me. I have to admit that I'm not quite getting your point.

[John Arnold]

It's 100 metres from the property.