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

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Right. Oh, I see what you're saying. So the built-in starting point in a mall is already out x far. Is that your only concern?

[John Arnold]

Yes. We were prepared to have it within 100 metres of the entrance of the returning officer's office or the....

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I see. Okay.

And thoughts from the others, please?

[Gilbert Gardner]

As I mentioned earlier, I think the ban on signs should apply only to polling day and advance polling days, and not to the various special voting formats, where electors can vote in person at the office of the returning officer. Advertising in the media, on the radio, is not prohibited during the entire polling period at the polling station, so I do not see why this would be any different.

An elector who is on their way to vote at the office of the returning officer can hear a campaign ad on the radio and still cast their vote. We do not limit the ability to transmit advertising. Nor should we limit an individual's ability to post a campaign sign on their property or the ability of a political party to display signs near the offices of returning officers.

However, I think the current practice of restricting visual advertising on polling day, near polling sites, is a long-standing and generally respected tradition, one I do not see as a major problem.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You would leave some discretion with the DRO? Would they do their own interpretation? Would they take a visual look and say that's okay or that's not okay?

[Gilbert Gardner]

Yes, it could be the responsibility of the deputy returning officer or the returning officer. I tend to think it should be the returning officer. Elections Canada could set out relevant guidelines for all returning officers.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Merci.

Mr. Lavigne.

[Brad Lavigne]

I think the point of the Chief Electoral Officer's provision in this report is to clarify where we get to it. I think there's a handful of examples across the country where the idea of 100 metres from the building or the property itself would be a problem.

But I also don't know about whether or not there would be some instances where the entrance to the facility itself is fair. If you live across the street from a community centre and that community centre's entrance is right at the edge of the property, they may restrict the freedom to display that in your own apartment or in your own home.

I think the discretion is good. I mean, among all of the 121 pages within this, I don't think this is our number one issue. But I think that some clarification within the act and some discretion with either the DRO or the returning officer would I think satisfy the clarification need that the Chief Electoral Officer has identified here.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I don't want to make a huge deal of this, but I just want to ask a practical question. The issue around the leadership funding is very complex and it's very detailed. I'm going to ask Mr. Arnold. I don't mean it in any kind of an aggressive way, but you can interpret it as you choose, of course.

It's about the practicality of having such outstanding debts so many years later. A number of elections have gone by. Just in a nutshell, how would you suggest that we change things so that we don't have that situation repeated, because I think you'll agree it's not something we want to continue. So I'm trying to be as fair-minded as I can. Just given that circumstance, what is your suggestion, in a practical way, as to how we approach this?

[John Arnold]

As I mentioned, I think there has been a learning experience that the political industry has gained from these leadership conventions in the Liberal Party--Elections Canada and the other political parties as well. I think it's also the question that the Liberal Party of Canada has recognized that these leadership conventions can't continue in the way they did prior to when they were regulated. As a result of that, we have made internal changes in terms of delegate selection, which we would see at a subsequent leadership convention.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Do you see changes here that would be helpful or changes that aren't here that you would suggest?

[John Arnold]

The thing that really hinders leadership candidates is trying to run a national campaign on $1,000 contributions. You can think of the number of contributors that requires. This is a huge effort. You're a candidate. You know how difficult it is sometimes in your own riding, yet as a leadership candidate, you're doing this across 308.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

We'll go to another round. I'll suggest that it be three minutes long to try to get everybody in today. I ask for your restraint, please.

Madam Jennings, you're up. Thank you for being here today. We've missed you. You've been away.

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

It's my pleasure, although it's only a temporary visit.

Thank you so much for all your presentations.

Given that I only have three minutes, I will ask you about one issue, and that's II.9, extensions of time for filing financial returns. The Chief Electoral Officer is recommending that candidates who fail to file an electoral campaign return by the statutory due date should forfeit up to one half of the nomination deposit, regardless of whether they received an extension.

As someone who's been a candidate in five elections, I have a difficult time accepting that the return.... If I am granted an extension, that means the Chief Electoral Officer has accepted the grounds on which I was unable to meet the deadline, so I don't understand why I should forfeit any part of my nomination deposit.

I'd like to hear your views on that.

[Brad Lavigne]

In my remarks this morning, I highlighted that very fact. We find that to be unfair, particularly when you take a look at the kinds of local campaigns that are having challenges.

They are normally low-resource campaigns. Again, there's the volunteer culture of the local campaign. The idea that they would be penalized financially, particularly when it is not their fault.... Many times it is not due to incompetence of the local individuals in the campaign team; rather, it is challenges with suppliers. Perhaps that supplier has gone out of business and cannot furnish the appropriate invoice. Perhaps the individuals who were responsible have moved on, passed away, or had a sudden illness. It is not the fault of the local campaign.

For the larger riding associations, $500 may seem like a small matter. Getting rid of a lot of the regulation that the Chief Electoral Officer has identified would get rid of a lot of the paperwork that is unnecessary and ineffective. This is ineffective as a deterrent. We completely agree that it should not be pursued.

[Gilbert Gardner]

Yes, it is a bit like dangling a carrot on a stick. You are allowed to seek an extension, yet you are subject to a $500-penalty. If the reasons for the extension request seem reasonable in the eyes of Elections Canada or a court—because a court can also grant an extension—the extension is legally sound. If it is legally sound, I do not see why the person seeking an extension should be penalized. It makes no sense to me. If the extension request is far-fetched or unwarranted, it will be denied. In that case, I would be in favour of imposing some consequences, but if the request is granted, I do not see why a person would be penalized for making a request that has been deemed valid, logical and acceptable.

[John Arnold]

We only commented on the two options that were presented by the Chief Electoral Officer. Certainly it would be very logical that if an extension were granted by the Chief Electoral Officer there would be no penalty within that time period.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

We got to three minutes and 41 seconds. We did pretty well that time.

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I want to focus on recommendation II.1, which has to do with the documents and information that the CEO deems necessary to verify that the party and its chief agent have complied with the requirements of the act with respect to the election expenses return. The Conservatives and the Liberals disagree with this recommendation. That is the position of the older parties. The younger parties, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP—which, granted, is a bit older than the Bloc—do not seem to have anything negative to say about this recommendation.

The CEO says in his report that, unlike candidates and other regulated entities, political parties are not required to provide any documentary evidence to support their returns. In their document, the Conservatives disagree with the recommendation, saying that the documents in question could be misused and that, at the end of the day, the auditor is the best person to carry out the audit function.

I will start with you, Mr. Gardner. Is there a reason why the Liberals—and we will see what Mr. Arnold has to say shortly—and the Conservatives would disagree with having to provide those documents to the CEO? What is the catch?

[Gilbert Gardner]

It is hard to say. I can speculate, but it would be hard since I cannot verify the accuracy of any such guesses.

Obviously, this recommendation would considerably broaden the CEO's inquiry power. The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party pointed to the fact that an external independent audit is conducted, and I must admit there is value in that. To go from that to requiring parties to provide all documents supporting their financial return, if the recommendation ends up being accepted and incorporated into a bill, the CEO's use or interpretation of that ability would need to be defined.

For example, we spent way too many months discussing a publisher's invoice. It was a matter of determining whether the price reflected fair market value. Elections Canada claimed fair market value was the selling price in bookstores, but we said we were buying the whole set. It was purchased from the publisher, and that is the practice of publishers. We had to spend months upon months discussing it before we were able to convince Elections Canada that we had indeed paid fair market value. If the requirement regarding supporting documents is added to the legislation, it should be restricted to prevent things from getting out of hand, as far as Elections Canada goes.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

The recommendation says the CEO could request any necessary documents. In response to that, the Conservatives talk about access to information requests, saying that the CEO should go through the Access to Information Act to obtain information.

Mr. Lavigne, should we adopt that approach? If the CEO wants to know something, should he file an access to information request?

Obviously, we do not agree with what the Conservatives and Liberals are doing.

[Brad Lavigne]

I know that political parties aren't captured under the access to information provisions, but we support the recommendations, and here's why. If the Chief Electoral Officer believes there is some misdoing and there's enough to go to the authorities, to the police, the police will raid a political party's office to gather documentation. The question is, does this provision kind of eliminate that step because the individual, the Chief Electoral Officer, would have access to certain files?

I think political parties need to be accountable on a variety of levels as long as they're going to be enjoying the public subsidy, of which we are a large supporter; we believe public financing keeps big money out of politics. But also, when you look at election expenses and the ability to rebate 50¢ or 60¢ of our expenditures at the local and central levels, I think the taxpayers deserve to know there's a watchdog on them. We have nothing to hide. We would volunteer the information.

But if we're going to give the Chief Electoral Officer teeth to pursue certain things, we shouldn't let it have to get to a criminal level so that the police or the RCMP come to raid our offices. Rather, we could give this officer the authority to look at some. We're not afraid of that in any way and we support the recommendation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

[An hon. member]

Monsieur--