Bill C-16 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (expanded voting opportunities) and to make a consequential amendment to the Referendum Act

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to increase the number of days of advance polling.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Monsieur Mayrand, for appearing here with your officials.

I want to talk briefly on an issue--and I know, as a committee, we'll probably have many questions on many issues--that I know concerns all of us and all parliamentarians, and frankly all candidates across Canada. It relates to voter turnout. I note that, once again, we had a decrease in voter turnout this year to under 60%, which is almost unconscionable.

One of the things I also note is that there has been a relatively steady increase in voter turnout at advance polls over the course of the last few elections. In the last Parliament, the government introduced Bill C-16 on expanded advanced polling days. That was never passed. It was relatively gutted through committee and never passed by Parliament.

I'm wondering if you have an opinion on whether more advanced polling days, increased opportunities for voters to cast ballots prior to election day, could have a positive impact on voter turnout.

[Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada]

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I am accompanied today, as the chair indicated, by Mr. François Bernier, the legal services director at Elections Canada.

I was requested by the chair of this committee to assist members in the study of the review and treatment of election financial returns and the key considerations involved in the review of these returns. In discussions prior to my appearance, the chair requested that I provide a detailed explanation of the aspects of the legislative and administrative framework that relate to political financing under the Canada Elections Act and, more specifically, of the treatment of election expenses.

This will be the subject of the first part of the presentation. I hope it will provide the committee with a better understanding of the operating context in which decisions are made regarding reimbursement of electoral expenses. I will then turn to the subject of particular decisions of interest to the committee and explain how they relate to the legislative and administrative framework.

The mandate of Elections Canada is to administer the Canada Elections Act in a fair, consistent, transparent and impartial manner. As an officer of Parliament, my first duty is to serve Parliament and Canadians. While the committee is reviewing the activities of public office holders, I trust it will understand that in my capacity as Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, I can only speak to electoral matters. I will not comment on ongoing investigations of the Commissioner of Elections Canada, or the specifics of the case currently before the Federal Court. As well, I will not deal with any individual cases.

Mr. Chairman, with your concurrence, I will now proceed with the first part of my presentation. The committee has already received a presentation that extends to a number of pages—42 pages, I believe. So I won't read each of those pages, but I will simply make the main comments on the essential aspects of the presentation.

The presentation will contain four parts: first, the objective itself, as well as a part dealing with the key principles underlying the legislation and the administration of that legislation, the key aspects of the legislation, and, lastly, the aspects of the administration of that legislation. I will also provide a brief conclusion.

I think it's fair to say that the first hundred years of federal democracy in Canada have been focused almost exclusively on the conduct of elections and on progressively expanding the franchise--the right to vote--to all Canadian citizens. In fact, the right to vote became a fundamental right protected by the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982.

This focus continues today, as the agenda of the 39th Parliament attests. For example, Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act, dealt with the appointment of returning officers, who are now the responsibility of the Chief Electoral Officer. It also dealt, under Bill C-31, with the integrity of voting. It also dealt with the issue of proof of residence, under Bill C-18. And it is considering, currently, Bill C-6, which deals with visual ID; Bill C-16, which deals with advanced polling; and Bill C-20, an important piece of legislation that deals with the appointment of senators. This is all to show that there is still a focus on the electoral process and the conduct of elections.

However, over the last 40 years, growing concerns have been expressed with regard to the influence of money in the electoral process. These concerns have led Parliament to incrementally design a regulatory regime to govern the use of money during electoral campaigns. We are now at the point at which Canada is at the forefront among mature democracies in how it regulates the influence of money in election campaigns. This regulatory regime of political financing was initially built in the seventies, and it has since witnessed repeated legislative reform that continues today. Again, this Parliament passed Bill C-2, which deals with contributions and gifts and which banned contributions from corporations and unions. It is also considering another important aspect of the financial regime, under Bill C-29, with regard to loans.

My purpose today will be to deal with a particular and key aspect of our political financing regime, that of election expenses and their treatment by Elections Canada under the Canada Elections Act. More specifically, I will touch on the legislative framework, the administrative framework, and the compliance and enforcement program.

There are certain principles underlying the legislative and administrative framework. First, to maintain public trust, are transparency and fairness. These principles are expressed through various provisions in the act that deal with public disclosure, expense limits, public funding, compliance and enforcement, and, something that is often forgotten, the distinctiveness of political entities. Each has its own regime, with distinct rights and obligations.

Transparency is about disclosure. It's about providing information to electors on candidates, parties, and other entities. It involves, with regard to financial matters, reporting revenues and expenses and the sources of those.

Fairness is the key principle of a healthy democracy. In our democracy, fairness is about allowing political parties' candidates to have an opportunity to present their visions, their policies, and their values to electors. What those are and how they are communicated to electors is the exclusive domain of political parties and candidates. However, legislation seeks to ensure that the competition among political parties and candidates to secure the vote of electors be conducted within certain rules designed to create and maintain a level playing field. One area of legislation, again, over the last 40 years, has been the adoption of rules that will foster this level playing field. These rules deal specifically with how money can be raised and how it can be spent in order for them to present ideas and reach out to electors.

The Canada Elections Act passed it to the CEO to administer these complex rules, with a view to ensuring that key principles are maintained at all times. In doing so, Elections Canada must act fairly and impartially and exercise due diligence at all times. When it finds evidence of non-compliance and possible offences, it must exercise the authorities provided by the legislation in accordance with all the requirements of fairness and due process, within the strict limits of the law. To do otherwise would undermine not only Elections Canada as an institution but also the democratic process itself.

Let me turn now to the key aspect of the legislative framework as it relates to the treatment of election expenses and the role these key principles play in the electoral law.

The relevant aspects of the legislative framework involve key definitions, a brief discussion of duties of official agents, the notion and concept of election expense limits, the concept of transfers among political entities, reporting requirements for those political entities, entitlement to reimbursement, and key differences between parties and candidates. Note that some misunderstand the system and tend to view parties and their candidates as a single entity, yet the law makes clear distinctions and establishes distinct responsibilities, benefits, and obligations for parties and candidates. For the most part, these are treated independently of one another. This is particularly true in disclosure and reporting requirements, which are different for parties and candidates. Access to public funding is different. Spending limits are set differently for candidates and parties. To some extent, rules governing the raising of contributions are different for candidates and parties.

Let's first look at key definitions. Under candidate electoral campaign expenses, there are three key definitions that need to be considered: candidate electoral campaign expenses; candidate election expenses; and candidate personal expenses.

Electoral campaign expenses are expenses reasonably incurred in the election and include election expenses themselves and personal expenses. There are electoral campaign expenses that are neither election expenses nor personal expenses. An example is the audit expense in excess of the subsidy. It is an electoral expense, but it is not an election expense. There is also the rent of an office outside the rent period. For example, when a candidate rents an office before the writ is dropped or carries the office after the polling date, these are electoral campaign expenses, but they are not election expenses.

An election expense includes any cost incurred or non-monetary contribution received to the extent that the property or service for which the cost was incurred or non-money contribution received is used to directly promote or oppose a candidate during an election period. The expression “directly promote” does not refer only to expenses incurred to expressly urge voters to vote for or against a particular candidate. It has a much broader meaning that encompasses all expenses that directly assist in getting a candidate elected. For example, it includes the rental of office space, equipment in that office, the computers, the supplies, and the remuneration of campaign workers during the election period. All such expenses directly promote the candidate and are thus election expenses for the purpose of the act.

The third definition has to do with personal expenses. Personal expenses of a candidate are his or her electoral campaign expenses other than election expenses reasonably incurred in relation to his or her campaign. Personal expenses include travel and living expenses, child care, and similar expenses.

It's important to note that there are three categories of expenses, each with its own definition and standards. Election expenses must generally be disclosed. They are subject to a reimbursement, and they are subject to spending limits. Personal expenses must be disclosed, and they are subject to a reimbursement. Residual expenses that are neither personal nor for an election must be disclosed, but they are not subject to a reimbursement. Again, I mentioned previously the subsidy for audit.

Another key concept in looking at election expenses is the notion of transfer. The act allows specific political entities of the same political affiliation to move resources amongst themselves without being subject to the restriction on the source and amounts of contributions set out in the act. A contribution is the amount of money received that is not repayable; otherwise it would be a loan. It is the amount of money received that is not repayable, or the commercial value of a service or a property, or the use of property or money to the extent that it is provided without charge or at less than commercial value.

Again, this is a new, essential concept--commercial value. How is commercial value defined? It's the lowest amount charged for a property or service by the person who is in the business of providing that good or service. Alternatively, it's what another commercial provider charges for the property or service who is not in that business.

At the end of the electoral campaign, candidates must file an electoral campaign return. That return is an account of all financial transactions for an election. It consists of a form that has 15 pages and is divided into four parts. It's a bit longer than even a tax return, so there's a level of complexity attached to filing those returns.

Let me give you an example of how these concepts can come together. Let's assume that a party pools the purchase of lawn signs for its candidates and offers those lawn signs to candidates. They have the option of accepting the package or turning it down. Let's say one candidate agrees to purchase 1,000 signs for his campaign and that those signs have a value of $10,000; however, the candidate can only afford $2,000. Provided the signs are used during the campaign to promote the candidate, the return will have to show the transaction as follows. First of all, the election expense will be $10,000 for the candidate, because he received those 1,000 signs and used them during the campaign. That's the amount shown as the expense. Within that he will show the paid expense as $2,000. He will show a non-monetary transfer of $8,000, which is the commercial value of the signs that were transferred from the party to the candidate. The amount shown as the expense will be counted against the spending limit and it will be eligible for reimbursement. The amount shown as non-monetary will count against the spending limit, but it will not be reimbursed since nothing was paid for that amount.

This is a very simple example of how those transactions have to be reflected in the return.

To emphasize the critical role of money and the need to rigorously control inflows and outflows and ensure that financial activities are strictly within the constraints of the legislation, the legislation provides or requires that each candidate appoint an official agent. In fact, a candidate cannot officially run as a candidate without having appointed an official agent. This is a must under the legislation.

An official agent is much more than a bookkeeper. In fact, if we can do an analogy, he or she could be seen as a treasurer or a financial comptroller. You have on slide 9 the key duties of an official agent.

Generally, the official agent is responsible for controlling all electoral campaign expenses; that is, for a candidate's campaign, only the official agent or the candidate or someone authorized in writing can incur an electoral campaign expense. So you will understand that to fulfill his or her duties, the official agent must of course be familiar with all the concepts and the definitions I mentioned earlier and must develop a good understanding of the underlying principles of the legislation.

Let me talk briefly about expense limits. The first point to note is that there are separate limits for parties and candidates and that those limits apply to election expenses, whether paid or unpaid, and include the commercial value of non-monetary contributions or transfers.

Elections Canada calculates those limits for each in accordance with a formula set out in the act. I will not go through the specifics of the formula, except to say that, for candidates, that formula takes account of the number of electors, the population density in the riding, and the geography of the riding, and provides an adjustment for inflation.

Spending limits for parties are a little bit simpler to calculate. It's the number of electors in the ridings for which candidates are presented by the party.

For the 39th election—that's slide 13—the average expense limit for candidates per electoral district was a bit over $81,000, and for a registered party that endorsed a candidate in all 308 ridings, the limit was set at a bit over $18 million. What does that mean? One may be tempted to say that in total a party having 308 candidates could spend altogether up to $18 million for the party and up to $24 million, almost $25 million, given the limits of each and every candidate, for a total of $43 million. However, to look at it in this manner would be mistaken, as the law does not consider the political family as one entity but rather, in this case and this example, as 308 distinct, separate entities with their own rights and obligations.

Let me talk briefly about transfers. The Canada Elections Act recognizes the organic link that exists in the family of political entities, allowing them to move funds, goods, and services among themselves without treating those movements of resources as contributions. The provision of resources from one political party to another, which is not specifically provided for under the act, constitutes a contribution and is subject to the eligibility and limits set out in the act.

Transfer of expenses is not permitted, as this would render the distinct limit of parties and candidates meaningless. As you can see, it is absolutely essential to keep all those definitions and concepts as we look through various returns provided at the end of electoral campaigns.

You will find on slide 15 a table showing the transfers, what is allowed and what is not allowed. Clearly, you will see that transfers between parties and candidates are perfectly allowed by the Canada Elections Act. It has some standards, but they can move resources freely between entities.

You will note that for candidates, these movements of resources can start only after they've been officially declared candidates, meaning that their candidacy has been registered with the returning officer. You will also note that transfers to candidates after polling day are allowed only to pay for unpaid claims and for nothing else.

You will find again at slide 16 another way of looking at it. There is a triangle on that slide that shows the relationship between the party, the candidates, and the EDAs, and the respective rights and obligations for each. You will see clearly that the transfer of money, goods, and services among all three entities is allowed. You will also note that the transfer of expenses is not allowed, and you will see that Elections Canada is overseeing, through various programs, how the money flows among entities.

I should point out that for the 39th election, Elections Canada dealt with 15 registered parties that had over 1,200 electoral district associations, and with over 1,600 candidates, each with their respective agents.

On page 17 you will find a table of the transfers reported in Canada through returns for the 39th election. You will see that all parties represented in the House have transferred resources with their affiliated entities. These have taken place between candidates and parties, between candidates and EDAs, and between parties and EDAs.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start off by saying that the Bloc Québécois, like the official opposition, and like—I believe—the NDP, will opposed the motion by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to extend the sitting hours, for a number of reasons.

First, it is important to remember—and this was mentioned by the House leader of the official opposition—that the government and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons have been completely unwilling to negotiate and cooperate. Usually, when Parliament is running smoothly, the leaders meet and agree on some priorities, some items and some ways of getting them done. But since the start of this session, or at least since September, House leaders' meetings on Tuesday afternoons have simply been meetings where we hear about a legislative agenda, which, within hours after we leave the meeting, is completely changed.

That is not how we move forward. Now the government can see that its way of doing things does not produce results. In fact, I think that this is what the government wanted in recent weeks, to prevent Parliament, the House of Commons and the various committees from working efficiently and effectively.

As I was saying, usually such motions are born out of cooperation, and are negotiated in good faith between the government and the opposition parties. But we were simply told that today a motion would be moved to extend the sitting hours, but with no information forthcoming about what the government's priorities would be through the end of this session, until June 20.

This was a very cavalier way to treat the opposition parties. And today, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Conservative government are reaping the consequences of their haughty attitude. As the saying goes, he who sows the wind, reaps the whirlwind. That is exactly what has happened to the Conservatives after many weeks of acting in bad faith and failing to cooperate with the opposition parties.

In this case, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons—and earlier I mentioned his arrogance, which, to me, has reached its peak today with the way the motion was moved—gave us no indication as to his government's priorities from now until the end of the session, despite the fact that he was pointedly questioned about that matter. What we did receive was a grocery list with no order, no priorities. As the leader of the official opposition said earlier, when everything is a priority, it means that nothing is.

That is the current situation: they gave us a list of bills which, in fact, included almost all of the bills on the order paper. Not only were things not prioritized, but in addition, as I mentioned before, it showed a disregard for the opposition parties. There is a price to pay for that today—we do not see why the government needs to extend the sitting hours.

Not only was the grocery list not realistic, but also it showed that the government has absolutely no priorities set. The list includes almost all of the bills, but week after week, despite what was said during the leaders' meetings, the order of business changed. If the order of business changes at the drop of a hat, with no rhyme or reason, it means that the government does not really have priorities.

I am thinking about Bill C-50, a bill to implement the budget, which we waited on for a long time. The government is surprised that we are coming up to the end of the session and that it will be adopted in the coming hours. However, we have to remember that between the budget speech and the introduction of Bill C-50, many weeks passed that could have been spent working on the bill.

As I mentioned, the list presented to us is unrealistic. It shows the arrogance of this government, and furthermore, the order of the bills on the list is constantly changing. We feel this is a clear demonstration of this government's lack of priority.

In light of that, we can reach only one conclusion: if the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform cannot present us with his government's legislative priorities as we near the end of this session, in effect, it means that his government has no legislative priorities. It has no long-term vision. Its management is short sighted, very short sighted indeed. I would even say it is managing from one day to the next. From my perspective, this can mean only one thing: it has no legislative agenda. When we have before us bills dealing with only minor issues, this is what that means.

Proof of this lack of legislative agenda is easy to see, considering the current state of this government's agenda. An abnormally small number of bills for this time of year are currently before the House at the report stage and at third reading. Usually, if the government had planned, if it had been working in good faith and had cooperated with the opposition parties, in these last two weeks remaining before the summer recess, we should have been completing the work on any number of bills.

Overall, as we speak there are just five government bills that are ready to be debated at these stages, in other words, report stage or third reading stage. Among those, we note that Bill C-7, which is now at third reading stage, reached report stage during the first session of the 39th Parliament, in other words in June 2007. It has been brought back to us a year later. And that is a priority? What happened between June 2007 and June 2008 to prevent Bill C-7 from getting through third reading stage? In my opinion, we should indeed finish the work on Bill C-7, but this truly illustrates the government's lack of planning and organization.

As far as Bill C-5 is concerned, it was reported on by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources on December 12, 2007, and voted on at report stage on May 6, 2008. Again, a great deal of time, nearly six months, went by between the tabling of the report and the vote at this stage, which was held on May 6, 2008, while the report was tabled on December 12, 2007.

Finally, Bills C-29 and C-16 were both reported on by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs roughly six months ago.

All these delays of six months to a year force us to conclude that these bills are not legislative priorities to this government.

It would be great to finish the work on these four or five bills, but let us admit that we could have finished it much sooner.

This lack of legislative priority was even more apparent before question period when the House was debating second reading of Bill C-51 on food and drugs. Next on the agenda is second reading of Bill C-53 on auto theft.

If these five bills were a priority, we would finish the work. But no, what we are being presented with are bills that are only at second reading stage. This only delays further the report stage or third reading of the bills I have already mentioned. If we were serious about this, we would finish the work on bills at third reading and then move on to bills that are at second reading.

Furthermore, if its legislative agenda has moved forward at a snail's pace, the government is responsible for that and has only itself to blame, since it paralyzed the work of important committees, including the justice committee and the procedure and House affairs committee, to which several bills had been referred. And then they dare make some sort of bogus Conservative moral claim, saying that we are refusing to extend sitting hours because we do not want to work. For months and months now, opposition members, especially the Bloc Québécois, have been trying to work in committee, but the government, for partisan reasons, in order to avoid talking about the Conservative Party's problems, has been obstructing committee work.

Earlier, the NDP whip spoke about take note debates.

Once again, it is not the opposition that is refusing to work on issues that are important to Canadians and Quebeckers. Rather, it is the government that refuses to allow take note debates, because of partisan obstinacy. In that regard, we clearly see that the argument presented by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform is mere tautology or a false argument. In fact, it was the Conservative Party, the Conservative government, that slowed down the work of the House and obstructed the work of several committees.

Not only is the government incapable of planning, vision, cooperation and good faith, but furthermore, its legislative agenda is very meagre and does not in any way warrant extending the sitting hours. In addition, the Bloc Québécois sees many of the bills that are now at the bottom of the list as problematic, but if we extend the sitting hours, we will end up having to examine them.

Take Bill C-14, for example, which would permit the privatization of certain Canada Post activities. Do they really think that sitting hours will be extended to hasten debate on a bill that threatens jobs and the quality of a public service as essential as that provided by the Canada Post Corporation? That demonstrates just how detrimental the Conservatives' right-wing ideology is, not just to public services but to the economy. Everyone knows very well—there are a large number of very convincing examples globally—that privatizing postal services leads to significant price increases for consumers and a deterioration in service, particularly in rural areas.

I will give another example, that of Bill C-24, which would abolish the long gun registry even though police forces want to keep it. Once again, we have an utter contradiction. Although the government boasts of an agenda that will increase security, they are dismantling a preventtive tool welcomed by all stakeholders. They are indirectly contributing to an increase in the crime rate.

These are two examples of matters that are not in step with the government's message. It is quite clear that we are not interested in extending sitting hours to move more quickly to a debate on Bill C-24.

I must also mention bills concerning democratic reform—or pseudo-reform. In my opinion, they are the best example of the hypocrisy of this government, which introduces bills and then, in the end, makes proposals that run counter to the interests of Quebec in particular.

Take Bill C-20, for example, on the consultation of voters with respect to the pool of candidates from which the Prime Minister should choose senators. Almost all the constitutional experts who appeared before the committee currently studying Bill C-20 said that the bill would do indirectly what cannot be done directly. We know that the basic characteristics of the Senate cannot be changed without the agreement of the provinces or, at the very least, without following the rule of the majority for constitutional amendments, which requires approval by seven provinces representing 50% of the population.

Since the government knows very well that it cannot move forward with its Senate reforms, it introduced a bill that would change the essential characteristics of the Senate, something prohibited by the Constitution, on the basis of some technicalities.

It is interesting to note that even a constitutional expert who told the committee that he did not think the way the government had manipulated the bill was unconstitutional admitted that the bill would indirectly allow the government to do what it could not do directly.

They are playing with the most important democratic institutions.

A country's Constitution—and we want Quebec to have its own Constitution soon—is the fundamental text. We currently have a government, a Prime Minister and a Leader of the Government in the House of Commons who are manipulating this fundamental text— the Canadian Constitution—in favour of reforms that would satisfy their supporters in western Canada.

We do not want to rush this bill through the House by extending the sitting hours. It is the same thing for Bill C-19, which, I remind members, limits a Senator's tenure to eight years.

These two bills, Bill C-19 and Bill C-20, in their previous form, meaning before the session was prorogued in the summer of 2007, were unanimously denounced by the Quebec National Assembly, which asked that they be withdrawn. It is rather ironic that the federal government recognized the Quebec nation and then decided to introduce two bills that were denounced by the Quebec National Assembly.

I must say that the two opposition parties are opposed to Bill C-20, albeit for different reasons. Thus, I do not think it would be in the best interests of the House to rush these bills through, since we are far from reaching a consensus on them.

I have one last example, that is, Bill C-22, which aims to change the make-up of the House of Commons. If passed, it would increase the number of members in Ontario and in western Canada, which would reduce the political weight of the 75 members from Quebec, since their representation in this House would drop from 24.4% to 22.7%. It is not that we are against changing the distribution of seats based on the changing demographics of the various regions of Canada. We would like to ensure, however, that the Quebec nation, which was recognized by the House of Commons, has a voice that is strong enough to be heard.

The way things are going today, it is clear that in 10, 15 or 20 years, Quebec will no longer be able to make its voice heard in this House. We therefore believe we must guarantee the Quebec nation a percentage of the members in this House. We propose that it be 25%. If people want more members in Ontario and in the west, that is not a problem. We will simply have to increase the number of members from Quebec to maintain a proportion of 25%. There are a number of possible solutions to this.

Once again, I would like to point out that we introduced a whole series of bills to formalize the recognition of the Quebec nation, including Bill C-482, sponsored by my colleague from Drummond. That bill sought to apply the Charter of the French Language to federally regulated organizations working in Quebec. That was for organizations working in Quebec, of course. At no time did we seek to control what happens elsewhere in Canada. The bill would have given employees of federally regulated organizations the same rights as all employees in Quebec, that is, the right to work in French.

Unfortunately, the bill was defeated, but we will try again. Once again, the fact that Bill C-482 was defeated does not mean we are about to throw in the towel and let Bills C-22, C-19, and C-20 pass just like that. As I said earlier, we will certainly not make things easy for the government by rushing debate on these bills here.

And now to my fourth point. I started out talking about the government's lack of cooperation, vision and planning, not to mention its bad faith. Next, I talked about its poor excuse for a legislative agenda. Then I talked about the fact that we find certain bills extremely problematic. We will certainly not be giving the government carte blanche to bring those bills back here in a big hurry before the end of the session on June 20. Our fourth reason is the government's hypocrisy, in a general sense.

This has been apparent in many ways, such as the government's attitude to certain bills. I would like to mention some of them, such as Bill C-20. I cannot help but mention Bills C-50 and C-10 as well.

Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill, makes changes to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration's powers, but that is not what the debate is about. Bill C-10, which introduces elements that allow the Conservative government—

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I have one final request to make. I will be brief, because we were asked to be.

You regularly conduct studies on various topics. In relation to Bill C-16, for example, you provided us with some relating to voter turnout among youth. They were extremely interesting. I don't know whether you have any research reports on the experience in Australia, Scotland or other countries. However, if you do have any information that could help us in our own study, I invite you to pass it along to us through the clerk.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

In the case of Bill C-16, you did prepare a costing. I understand that it was easier to do that, because it was simply an extension of your current activities. Do you have any costings for a consultation of this type, as provided for under Bill C-20?

Tackling Violent Crime Legislation

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend brings up a very good point. I can assure my colleague from Ottawa Centre that we are currently looking up all the promises the Prime Minister in particular made about Bill C-16, that he would not use the traditional methodology of bringing his government down at the whim of the government, but that he would abide by the spirit of Bill C-16 and fixed election dates. It is a concept that we have supported.

However, we are ready. If the Conservatives go ahead with this motion and the Senate does not meet their deadline by March 1, we will be ready to tell Canadians that the Prime Minister has misled them once again.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh for his precise analysis of this debate.

I would appreciate it if he would comment on where Bill C-16 fits into all this. Bill C-16 is about fixed election dates. I sat on the committee and the government said that it would never use it. At the committee, we tried to put in caveats around fixed election dates to ensure no government, this government or any other government, could use fixed election dates for its own benefit.

It seems to me the government is breaking that promise and using fixed election dates when it needs to. When the Conservatives do not like something, they will go outside and use the option of bringing down the House on their own.

I would appreciate hearing from my colleague on that.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The report is in regard to its order of reference of Thursday, November 1, 2007, Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (expanded voting opportunities) and to make a consequential amendment to the Referendum Act.

The committee has considered Bill C-16 and reports the bill with amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

There is no debate on a point of order.

At the risk of revealing more in camera discussions, we'll move to the business of the day, please.

Colleagues, the orders of the day are that we begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (expanded voting opportunities) and to make a consequential amendment to the Referendum Act. If colleagues could put their papers up for Bill C-16, you will have in front of you the clause-by-clause notes that are prepared.

Colleagues, there are no suggested amendments to clause 1.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Reid, I apologize for interrupting, but I have to respect members' agendas.

Colleagues, the subcommittee on code of ethics will be meeting on Thursday, 9:30 a.m. to 11 a.m., regarding the disclosure forms. That's just a reminder. That is just before the main committee's meeting at 11 o'clock.

As the committee agreed last week, I will need a list of potential witnesses for Bill C-6 and Bill C-18. If it's at all possible to have any lists in by Thursday at 9 a.m., that would be very helpful for our clerks.

The committee agreed last Thursday to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-16 on Thursday, December 6, which is our next meeting. I'm just being informed that we have all party amendments, so that's fantastic. We will therefore proceed to clause-by-clause of Bill C-16 on Thursday, failing any other motions to go in a different direction.

Ms. Redman, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

I regret that we're going to have to stop there. It wouldn't be fair to go to one more member without a full round, and we don't have time for a full round. I will offer an option to any members who still have questions: if you will please get them to me, I will make sure our witnesses receive them and I will request that the witnesses answer those questions, if there are any, as quickly as possible.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank both of you for coming. Again, those were insightful answers. When committees have to deal with these types of issues, it's always helpful to have the advice of experts so that we can do our jobs better.

We'll excuse the witnesses with the compliments of the committee.

Colleagues, we were to end at 12:30 so that we could do committee business. I want to remind members that we still have a meeting with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That meeting has been moved down the hall. I will instruct you as to where that is. The reason is that this room is booked, so we cannot stay in this room. However, if we could have members back to the table, I want to remind members of a number of things.

We have had a letter back from Mr. Marcel Blanchet. It was distributed to members of the committee during the meeting; that letter is before you.

As well, we will be starting clause-by-clause study of Bill C-16 on Tuesday. In order to ensure that our clerks and analysts have an opportunity to have a look at amendments and get them published as they have to, would it be acceptable to members to request that any amendments to Bill C-16 be in by one o'clock Friday--tomorrow?

I'm hearing an ooh, but not an outright objection. There's an ahh; I've got an ahh.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Ouellet, Mr. Wilkie.

The Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec has provided us with his comments, because he could not be here to meet with us. He is of the same mind as you.

He said that moving election day to Sunday would solve certain problems, including the availability of premises. He pointed out some consequences that can be foreseen if Bill C-16 is enacted: the costs of this new measure, problems with recruiting election personnel for the hours that the advance polls on the day before election day are open, the availability of premises, custody of the ballots and the difficulty for personnel of clearly understanding the differences between the rules that apply the day before and the rules that apply on election day.

The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada also told us about these problems, and I note that you have made the same comments.

My question is this. Have you thought about the question of how to encourage young people to vote?

[Jean Ouellet, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Saskatchewan]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, I am accompanied today by David Wilkie, the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer of Saskatchewan. I am Jean Ouellet, the Chief Electoral Officer of Saskatchewan.

Before I begin my remarks, I would certainly like to thank the members of the committee for inviting us to present the views of the office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Saskatchewan regarding your bill.

It is often considered that high voter turnouts are desirable, as it is generally seen as evidence of legitimacy of those who are elected; alternatively, low turnout is associated with an inaccurate reflection of the will of the people.

The Province of Saskatchewan has just undergone its 26th general election on November 7, 2007. The preliminary calculated turnout stands at slightly over 76%. We can be very envious of that, I think. This represents an increase of approximately 5% from the last general election of November 5, 2003. Many scholars will peer over the results of this particular election--and we had two this morning--to try to find a reason or reasons for this increase, as generally turnouts are falling.

It is not my intention to second-guess the reason or reasons for this success; however, I believe that political entities and the election administrator have a role to play in securing greater participation in electoral events by eligible electors. For example, a close race between political participants will generate greater interest among voters, and political parties will find getting their votes out an easier task to accomplish.

As election administrators, we constantly look at other jurisdictions for ways to make our process more accessible to electors. Rules and laws are easier to change than attitudes. Ease of voting is certainly a factor in the rate of turnout.

Looking at Bill C-16, I believe the proposed legislation will give electors greater opportunity to exercise their franchise. With regard to the proposal for five days of advance polls, the Province of Saskatchewan already has five days of advance polls. Our period of five days is no less than one day before polling day, but no more than seven days before polling day. As a rule, it's generally one day before polling day.

Because the Province of Saskatchewan does not have a fixed day of the week for its election, depending on which day the election is called, one of those advance poll days will be on a Sunday. Sundays are generally when most voters are away from work, although this perspective is changing constantly.

The Province of Saskatchewan's electoral period is a minimum of 28 days and a maximum of 34 days, of which there are all but two days during which electors cannot cast a ballot. Those two days are the day before the start of the advance poll period and the day before election day to permit the returning officer to inform their deputy returning officer of those who have voted.

Having reviewed some of the proposed provisions of the bill from an election administrator's point of view, I would raise a few concerns that have already been echoed by Mr. Mayrand, our Chief Electoral Officer for Canada.

The conduct of the last day of the advance poll on a Sunday before election day would present some difficulties if the voting is to be carried out under a different rule than would be carried out the day following. It is more and more difficult to find workers who will accept the work for a day, let alone two consecutive days of voting. Also, let's not forget that there is a check and balance in the system, and that's the candidate's representative. They will also have two days of advance polls; they will be there for two days, and they're generally volunteers.

There could also be instances where two different sets of deputy returning officers and poll clerks may have to be hired to cover the two voting opportunities. Legislation should make sure that returning officers have all the tools to obtain the polling material from any previous poll team, should it ever be required. For example, I remember in my days when I was an assistant returning officer, where the evening before voting day, one of our DROs had a heart attack; the polling material was locked in the car and there was no way we could get that material. So if you have a ballot box that is locked in a car and you can't access it, your count will be very delayed and incomplete.

As an administrator of elections, I would like to see a provision that allows for greater flexibility for the electoral authority to determine whether a single day of voting for a specific polling place, be it on a Sunday or a Monday, would be adequate to cover all those individuals. For example, persons living in personal care facilities may not need that second day of voting opportunity. Visiting this location on two different days may become redundant.

Similarly, I feel the bill should offer some flexibility for polling places to be established at different locations on each day. Too often we think of urban voters. My province is, in large part, a rural province. Our polling divisions sometimes cover very large tracts of land. If we were to establish voting opportunities in one corner of the polling division one day and in another corner the other day, we'd have a greater chance of reaching those people.

In closing, I come back to the point I made earlier: ease of voting is certainly a factor in rates of turnout.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, let's bring our meeting back to order. We will start with our next set of witnesses.

I want to welcome to the committee Mr. Ouellet and Mr. Wilkie. We appreciate your being here.

Colleagues, we are still discussing Bill C-16 and the issue of an advance polling day.

I'm going to invite our witnesses to take a brief moment to introduce themselves.

If you have an opening statement, you're welcome to do that. If we could keep it to two minutes or three minutes, that would be appreciated. Then we'll start our rounds of questioning.

Perhaps we could start with Monsieur Ouellet, please.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing here.

I must say, Mr. Docherty, that I found your brief very interesting. I have a couple of points, and then I'll just get you to maybe comment on a couple of your observations.

Number one, I think you concur with a number of other witnesses we've had here. While the bill before us, Bill C-16, is not going to be perfect--it's not going to dramatically increase voter turnout--it's probably better than nothing. It's going to, at least, in your opinion, marginally increase, incrementally increase, and I think it's important for all of us to know here that the intent of this bill is to try to increase voter turnout.

If you want to get into an argument, well, it doesn't increase it enough. I'm not sure how relevant that is, but I think most witnesses agree this will have an effect of increasing the voter turnout.

I'd like to concentrate on a couple of your comments, your observations. The first thing is that although you probably, correctly, assume that Elections Canada is maybe loath to do the surveys, I think it also would be very interesting to see a survey of some empirical evidence, in other words, of how many people actually make their voting decisions on voting day. I think for future legislation that might be very interesting to know.

You may want to comment on that, but what I do want to ask you particularly about is your observation that perhaps the permanent voters list may not be the best way to go, and perhaps we should consider going back to the door-to-door enumeration. I guess my observation would be that I don't think the door-to-door enumeration would necessarily improve the permanent voters system, because I can give you an example of what happened back in Saskatchewan, and I know witnesses coming after you will perhaps attest to that.

We found that in certain sections of Regina, when we provincially do door-to-door enumeration, when we got the voters list out and all candidates took a look at it, in many elections we would have actually blocks upon blocks of communities that were not enumerated. I would go to certain areas--maybe 10, 12, or 15 houses in a row--that were not on the voters list, yet we knew there were people there.

So I went to Elections Saskatchewan and said, “Why is that? Are you guys just getting sloppy? Didn't you enumerate?” They said, “No, the problem is these people won't come to the door. Many times we knocked on the doors, and we can see people inside the house, but because of the time of day, they were afraid to come and answer the door.” So I think that's going to be a problem, frankly, in a lot of urban centres, where we have the same fear of one's safety.

Therefore, I think to get more and more people actually on the voters list, we need to have maybe a hybrid between some form of a permanent voters list and maybe special enumerations.

I'd just like to get comments from both of you on what you think might be an answer to getting more and more people registered to vote, because I think that is one of the more serious problems we face.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming to meet with us today, gentlemen.

I am sure you understand that all of the political parties have the same desire, or the same objective — to increase voter participation. However, we are lacking research data for taking the right measures and making sure they are effective.

Mr. Docherty, on page 2 of the French version of your presentation, you seem to be saying that we have to avoid having too many advance polls before election day. You seem rather to favour increasing or extending voting hours.

I have a very specific question to ask you. Instead of adding two advance poll days, as Bill C-16 proposes, if we increase the voting hours on the three advance poll days we have now, and the number of places where people can vote, do you think those two factors would likely produce results in terms of voter turnout?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, let's bring our meeting to order.

We have limited time today. I would like to remind members that at the end of this meeting there are two things that I wish to happen. One is that we need to leave some time for committee business, some of which has carried over from the last meeting and some of which is just standard committee business. As well, colleagues, I want to remind you that Mary Dawson, the Conflict of Interest Code and Ethics Commissioner, has asked to meet with the committee. She will be bringing some of her colleagues, and we will leave time for that at the end. Depending on how the meeting goes, we may suspend to do that informal meeting and then resume the meeting, or perhaps the meeting will have found its natural conclusion and we will conclude the meeting and then meet with Ms. Dawson. We'll see how that goes.

I want to remind members that pursuant to the committee's order of reference of Thursday, November 7, 2007, the committee is here to study Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (expanded voting opportunities) and to make a consequential amendment to the Referendum Act.

Colleagues, again we are dealing with three different bills at the same time, so I just want to refresh your memory that today we are on Bill C-16.

I want to introduce our witnesses, whom I appreciate very much attending without handcuffs or warrants. We do appreciate the fact that you have made, in Mr. Docherty's case, a second attempt to attend the meeting. The dean of arts at Wilfrid Laurier University, colleagues, you might remember, was scheduled for last week, but the weather did not allow for that. So we certainly appreciate your second attempt, and it appears to be quite successful.

Mr. Pammett, we appreciate your being here as well. Mr. Pammett is with the political sciences department at Carleton University, where my son used to attend. So it's an absolute privilege to have you here.

I will allow our witnesses a couple of minutes to introduce themselves to the members of the committee. If you have an opening statement, you're certainly welcome to do that, and then, colleagues, we will open it to the usual round of questions, seven minutes for the first round, and we'll see how we do with that.

Perhaps we can start, Mr. Docherty, with you, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much for the clarification. That's why I'm reading this out, so that we know what we do have to do.

Monsieur Proulx asked for a copy of any response from the Chief Electoral Officer to the minister's requests. Not much later, Madam Redman brought up the suggestion about bringing the Chief Electoral Officer in to discuss Bill C-6.

Would it be a smart idea to bring the Chief Electoral Officer in to deal specifically with Mr. Proulx's request as well as Madam Redman's request, as well as Bill C-18, if he has comments on it? We could have him here one time and deal with all three.

If no one objects to that, we will send the Chief Electoral Officer, then, a letter and give him notice of that.

We are still waiting for a letter from Monsieur Blanchet regarding Bill C-16. We haven't received it yet, so we will follow up on that.

This week, colleagues—I just want to remind members—tomorrow, on Wednesday, November 28, we have the subcommittee on the code of ethics meeting in room 112-N from 3:30 to 5 p.m. for the election of a chair and continuation of the committee's review of the code of ethics commissioner's report.

At five minutes to seven is an informal meet and greet with the Chief Electoral Officer, Monsieur Mayrand, at Elections Canada. All are invited to attend who can.

On Thursday from 11 to 11:45, we have two academics, Jon Pammett and David Docherty.

Scheduled from 11:45 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. is Chief Electoral Officer Jean Ouellet, from Saskatchewan.

Following that, there is also an informal meet and greet with Mary Dawson, who is the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

That brings us to a problem I'm going to ask my clerk to explain to members before we go into consideration of the report; it has to do with the ability to televise future meetings. There was some conversation yesterday at the steering committee about televising and when it would happen and what rooms are available.

We have priority, as this committee takes priority over other committees, and it would be up to the whips to determine whether we take precedence or priority over a televised room.

I'm going to ask Mr. Latimer to explain to committee members the difficulty with televised rooms. Then we'll move right into the report so that members can consider it.

Please, Mr. Latimer.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

I have another question for Mr. Archer.

It seems to me you concluded your presentation by saying that other studies might perhaps be necessary to determine the positive impact of this measure contained in Bill C-16 compared to the relative cost.

Could you clarify your thinking? What would those studies be?

[Ned Franks, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Queen's University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I could have gotten here earlier, but I went to see a former student of mine, Peter Milliken, and had a coffee with him before coming, so my excuses and apology for being late.

I have some comments and I'll simply read them. I hope you have them in French, too; I'm not sure.

The objective of Bill C-16, to increase voter participation by increasing the number of advance polling days, is a useful and in my view uncontroversial reform. The percentage of Canadians taking advantage of advance polling opportunities has risen from 5.4% in the 1997 general election to 10.5% in 2006. The use of advance polling is likely to increase. The only potentially controversial issue I find in the bill is the proposal to have all polling stations open on the last day of advance polling, the Sunday before elections. This risks creating two polling days with equal opportunities for voter participation, one on the formal day of the election, and the second on the previous day. It is for this committee to decide if this is truly the wish and intent of Parliament and advise the House on that.

I estimate that increasing the number of advance polling days from three to five will, at best, improve overall voter participation by 1% or 2%. This is worthwhile. It will add to the cost of elections, but the entire cost of Parliament and its agents, including Elections Canada, is only a fraction of 1% of the overall budget of the Government of Canada and is a small price to pay for democracy. The importance of the democratic processes, representation in Parliament, and public participation through voting and communicating with Parliament and parliamentarians far outweighs their costs.

However, an increase of 1% or 2% will not resolve the problem of voter apathy. In the past 20 years, participation in Canadian general elections has decreased from a respectable 75% or better to the much less satisfactory low sixties. That 40% of electors choose not to participate is cause for concern. Voter apathy has become an issue in many western democracies. Despite much research, it's still not clear what causes this decline or what can be done to reverse it. It's perhaps the most important problem facing our parliamentary system. The decline is not only in voting. Membership in political parties has also declined. Less than 1% of the Canadian electorate now belongs to recognized political parties.

Many explanations have been proposed for the declines in both voter participation and membership in political parties. First, political parties have become increasingly irrelevant. For example, opinion polls put environment and ecological issues high among the concerns of Canadians, while the environmental policies of the traditional parties consist largely of empty rhetoric contradicted by what they do when in power. Second, some identifiable groups have a low level of political participation. These include the young people, and especially the children of immigrants. I suspect that much of this derives from fundamental issues of how these groups view government and what government does to and for or fails to do about matters that affect them. Third, politicians and politics as a whole are in disrepute. Recent opinion polls put politicians at the bottom in terms of public trust. I think of the elderly English lady who told an opinion survey, “I never vote, it only encourages them.”

I believe that the lack of public trust in politicians is in large part a consequence of how politicians behave, including how they behave in Parliament. I began taking university classes to visit Parliament 40 years ago. The current Speaker, Peter Milliken, was in the first of these classes. The current level of debate is as low as I have seen, and the bad manners and incivility in question period the worst. I would not want to take a class to watch question period at present. It would risk destroying their faith in our Parliament and parliamentarians.

There are some bright lights. To mention another former student of mine, Rob Nicholson, the current Minister of Justice, is exemplary in his courtesy and the relevance of his answers. But in general, Parliament and its denizens seem bound and determined to bring both the institution and politicians into disrepute. There is no good reason for Bill C-16 to be treated as a partisan issue. All members have an interest in encouraging voter participation. I hope that this committee can achieve a consensus on this useful reform.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Agnieszka Dobrzynska]

Bill C-16 proposes a number of measures to increase the convenience of voting in Canada. These provisions are: increased advanced polling opportunities, the existence of two consecutive regular polling days rather than only one, and the possibility of voting on a Sunday. The combination of the three measures provided for in Bill C-16 would make Canada's electoral legislation very unique. Only Sweden offers a similar combination of convenience measures to encourage greater voter participation. The case of Italy seems to resemble that of Canada. A period of two consecutive days, Saturday and Sunday, was recently established in Italy for voting. However, advanced polling is not permitted in that country.

In the past, several studies considered whether administrative measures to increase the convenience of voting would have an impact on voter turnout. However, existing empirical research has yielded conflicting results. Certain studies indicate that measures such as increased advanced polling opportunities or the possibility of voting on a holiday can increase voter turnout; others observed no impact.

With regard to the existence of two regular polling days, certain studies report a negative impact, which seems hard to believe. Although these studies are rigorous, all have their limitations. That is why we have conducted a new empirical transnational study including elections held in all democratic countries between 1990 and 2001. Our sample included 151 elections in 61 democratic countries. Our objective was to examine the impact that administrative measures to increase the convenience of voting would have on overall voter turnout.

The findings of our analyses indicate that, in countries in which electoral legislation facilitates voting by allowing advanced polling, voter turnout is approximately four percentage points higher than in countries in which this option is not available. However, the possibility of voting on holidays and the availability of two consecutive regular polling days had no significant statistical impact.

We have three comments to make. First, the three measures we examined had a positive impact on voter turnout; however, the correlations were not that strong. Second, the availability of two consecutive regular polling days was found in only six elections in our sample, which may explain why it is so difficult to identify a significant statistical trend. Lastly, our findings suggest that, although all of these measures could have a positive impact on voter turnout, the real impact is limited.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I have no other hobbies.

(Motion agreed to)

Colleagues, can we move back to the first item? I'm trying to move a little bit quicker so we can get to our witnesses.

On the committee budget, is there a motion to adopt the budget for witnesses' expenses? Moved by Madame Robillard.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

I have some good and bad news. Last Tuesday I mentioned to you that the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec, Monsieur Blanchet, would be willing to appear on Tuesday. Unfortunately, he's called to say he's not available. He has cancelled, unavoidably and with great apology. He is not available at all next week. So there were some options, and I'll just lay them on the floor for the committee.

I spoke to the minister about legislation that's coming up. The minister has a very tight schedule but has offered to come on Tuesday to deal with the next two bills, which are veiled voting and rural voting.

We could move to clause-by-clause on Bill C-16 on Tuesday, but I was concerned about the members not being able to hear those witnesses. I think more witnesses were offered.

Did you get another list of witnesses for Bill C-16?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

All right, we have a quorum to make decisions, so let me briefly go through some of the items that I want to quickly go over, so we can get to our witnesses as quickly as possible. Perhaps if we can deal with these issues, our other witnesses may show up. We've talked about most of the items before and most of them are simply a matter of course.

The committee budget needs to be adopted for witnesses' expenses for Bill C-16. Has that been circulated? We're going to circulate that right now. Clearly, I want some authority to adopt that budget.

While we're circulating that, as I mentioned a few days ago, a few meetings ago, we do have the return of the forms from the conflict of interest code that this committee set a subcommittee up for last year and did a fairly thorough job of reviewing. We now have the forms back and I'm suggesting that we set up a similar subcommittee to look at those forms and report back to the main committee. If members around the table agree that's the way to go, then I would be looking for a motion to create one. I did have the opportunity to talk to Mr. Reid yesterday, as Mr. Reid was the chair of that committee.

Mr. Reid, are you prepared to present a motion to set up a subcommittee to study those forms?

[Doug Cryer, Director, Public Policy, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada]

I am Doug Cryer. I am the director of public policy for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

The EFC is a national organization that has affiliate denominations--40 different denominations--and over 100 different ministry organizations as well as about 40 institutes of higher Christian education.

The EFC encourages active civic engagement and recognizes that we all benefit when Canadian citizens exercise their right and their duty to vote. Providing more voting opportunities might be helpful to increase voter turnout. However, the proposal made in Bill C-16 to set up advance polls on two Sundays before the federal election day will have a significant impact on Christians whose day of worship is Sunday. The question we are asking is, will churches be competing with federal elections on Sundays? Or we could ask why they should intrude on religious observance days at all.

The addition of the advance poll on the Sunday before the election is the most problematic, because rather than it being a typical advance poll with limited voting stations, every polling station will be open just as it would be on an election day. In a recent internal poll that we conducted within the EFC, we asked whether people agreed that there should be an advance poll with all polling stations open on the day before a Monday election. Four hundred and ten people responded out of 1,300, and 84% of them said no, that they were not in favour of this proposal. This response indicates that there could be widespread disapproval of this initiative, and rather than strengthening the voting process, it would run the risk of turning more people away.

Many Christians still count Sundays as their Sabbath day of rest and a day dedicated to family. Some latest statistics, as already mentioned, demonstrated that 32% of Canadians, or 11 million people, attend worship at least monthly. Christians, as an identifiable minority in Canada with already established habits and practices on Sundays, are clearly the most affected by these proposed advanced polls.

The proposed change also means that churches will be in competition with Elections Canada for rental space, a point already made by Mr. McDonald. Churches that host polling stations in their church halls will be affected, unless the polls are moved elsewhere, and in countless growing communities across Canada it is not unusual for a church to rent space in local school gymnasiums or in community halls--the same places where Elections Canada will be vying to rent space for their polling stations. Other activities are often displaced to accommodate polling stations on election days.

Should Christians bear an undue burden in their accommodation of these proposed changes where their regularly established worship arrangements may be disrupted? There are many questions as to how to encourage more people to vote. Ultimately, however, the government should not infringe on the worship practices of a substantial religious community when it is not essential to do so.

I believe you have our three recommendations that we handed out to you regarding this bill.

Thank you.

[Jamey McDonald, Executive Director, Baptist General Conference of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Jamey McDonald, and I apologize at the outset because I do not have a written submission to go before you. I have a written submission in front of me, but the late invitation came to me at the latter part of last week. Je parle français, mais I can't write in French. So I do not have a written presentation. But I will read something to you.

Thank you very much. I consider it a real privilege to be able to speak with you this morning. I am a passionate believer in this grand experiment called Canada. I travel the world in my line of work, and I admire all cultures, but every time I return home to Canada, I thank God for what we have here. It is truly the best country in the world.

I also respect very much what you are trying to do in bringing leadership and governance to this great country. Thank you. It's not easy, is it? As good as Canada is, we can always do better. So thank you for doing your best to bring better to Canada.

I want to address your proposal suggested through Bill C-16, and especially your suggestion to allow advance polls to occur on Sundays before our election dates.

Who am I? Number one, I am the executive director of the Baptist General Conference of Canada. According to the latest census data, Baptists make up about 2% of the Canadian population. That's perhaps 750,000 adults. There are five major Baptist groups in Canada. I speak for one of them. A good number of our present members of Parliament would call a Baptist church their home base. Tommy Douglas was a Baptist minister before stepping into political life.

Historically, Baptists have always heeded to the separation of church and state, asking that though we may influence each other, we shall not dictate to each other. Today is not different. My comments today as a Baptist minister are not designed to dictate to this group. I merely offer observations and opinions.

Second, you need to understand me. I am also a church attender. Recent data suggests that over 30% of Canada still attends church on a regular basis, at least monthly if not weekly. This suggests that close to 11 million Canadians would still identify themselves as churchgoers, and by implication, 70% would not.

This is my point. I realize that the intent of this bill is to encourage more Canadians to participate in their democratic right to vote, but I'm of the opinion that opening polls on a Sunday would not in fact do so and may in fact have a deleterious effect.

I would ask you to consider the wisdom of opening advance polls on Sundays. Why? There are three reasons. First is what I call the irritation factor. Not all Canadians attend church on Sundays, but 30% do, and I wonder if bringing voting to that day would not irritate them, or at least make the government vulnerable to irritating a fairly large segment of our population.

Second is what I call the disenfranchisement factor. Not all Canadians meet in church buildings for their Sunday services. About 5% of our congregations, the ones I am overseeing, use schools, community halls, and public places on a rental basis. In most cases these congregations are new Canadians; they're new to Canada. They're first-generation Canadians, and they struggle to have the financial resources to afford their own church properties. Thus, they rent public facilities. If these public locations are also used for advance polls, my thoughts are that the election will trump their church service, and at least some worshippers will be disenfranchised, even if only for a Sunday or two.

Third, I raise the question of what I call the non-effectiveness factor. At present, eligible Canadians participate in the voting process perhaps at the 50 to 60 percentile, if days are good; if you live in Saskatchewan, it's 70.

We have advance poll dates well publicized. We even have legislation in place that mandates that employers allow their employees a minimum of four hours of available time in order to vote before public polls close. I'm not persuaded that low voter turnout is because of an inability to get to an advance poll or even to an election day station. I wonder if the apathy is deeper rooted.

In conclusion, may I encourage this committee to show wisdom and not alter advance polling to include Sundays around election day. Please keep thinking, but go longer and harder in your thought processes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, let's bring this meeting to order. We do have a number of witnesses to go through today, who have joined us and will be joining us, so I don't want to get too far behind.

First, I want to thank everybody for coming out this morning. As you well know, pursuant to the committee's order of reference of Thursday, November 7, 2007, the committee is here to study Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (expanded voting opportunities) and to make a consequential amendment to the Referendum Act.

Members, I want to remind everybody that we are in a larger room today still. At the request of some members, we are still going to have a larger room as a result of the number of folks who do tend to join us, both staff and observers, as well as the number of witnesses we're going through during our study.

Members, the meeting is still being televised. At the end of this meeting we have some housekeeping duties to go through, so I'm going to reserve about 15 minutes at the end to talk about some things, including the budget of this committee, the fact that the Ethics Commissioner wants to come informally to meet the committee. I want to have some discussions with members about when we should do that, and some other things that we'll talk about at the end of the meeting. One of them will be whether we continue to televise these meetings. It's entirely up to members, and I will bend to the will of the committee.

As we begin, we have three witnesses with us this morning, and I do want to thank them for coming out. It's always a pleasure, and it's actually quite an honour for members of the community to come forward, for parliamentarians to ask questions and get a full and broad visual, I suppose, or a thought process going on the bills at hand.

Colleagues, we have with us Mr. McDonald from the Baptist General Conference of Canada, Mr. Cryer from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and Reverend Roberts from the United Church of Canada.

First, I would like to welcome the witnesses again. I will offer you 10 minutes, about two to three minutes each, to introduce yourselves, and if you have an opening statement, feel free to go forward with that. You don't have to do that, but it's entirely up to you.

Colleagues, I think we'll continue after that with our usual rounds of questioning. I believe we can start with a seven-minute round for the first one. We'll see how things go. We'll have these witnesses with us only for one hour, so you can use your time to get as many questions in and answers as you deem fit.

Perhaps we can start with Mr. McDonald. Please introduce yourself, and perhaps you have an opening statement.

Thank you.

Canada Elections Act

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I should probably correct my hon. colleague, who seems to be confusing two different bills. She quoted my comments in Hansard, and correctly, I might add, but they did not deal with Bill C-31. They were about another bill on expanded voting opportunities. That is a bill through which we want to increase the number of days on which voters can cast ballots in advance polls. We are debating that right now in committee, my committee, which I am missing in order to be here to share my comments with members. It is now called Bill C-16, which used to be called Bill C-55, and is on expanded voter opportunities. It really does not have anything to do with Bill C-31.

However, I would point out one other flaw or misinterpretation the member is trying to foist upon members of this place. She said, quite correctly, that in committee the NDP voted against Bill C-31, but it was not because NDP members identified the flaw of the residential address. NDP members voted against it strictly on the basis that they felt the homeless would be disenfranchised.

I will speak to that, but the NDP voted against Bill C-31 not because, as some of the NDP members have tried to suggest, they discovered before the bill was passed that there was this flaw on residential addresses. Nothing of that sort occurred in conversations in the procedure and House affairs committee. Every single member missed this one gap, this one little glitch that eliminated or disenfranchised rural voters who did not have a residential address. I want to correct the record on that.

Specifically on the question of the homeless, I spoke to that in my main address. We have taken great pains to try to make it as fair and as equitable as possible. Yes, many homeless, perhaps the vast majority of homeless, do not have proper identification. However, if they are members of or frequent attendees at a homeless centre, they can get the attestation, whereby the manager can say, “I verify this person's name and the fact that he or she resides in the centre”. Secondly, they do have the ability to have someone to vouch for their identity.

Finally, I would say, again as I mentioned in my main address, is there any legislation in this place which will ensure that absolutely, without question, 100% of eligible voters will be able to cast a ballot? Probably not. There probably never will be.

However, we have taken great steps to ensure a balance between the ability to ensure voter integrity and the ability of everyone who possibly can vote to do so.

[Marc Mayrand]

It is something that would have to be considered. Currently our understanding of Bill C-16 is that it's the same ballot box for day one and polling day. It's the DROs who take those boxes overnight. We have put forward some suggestions providing some flexibility to ensure the safety and the keeping of those boxes overnight.

Again, if we were to have separate boxes, it might address part of the problem. I'm not sure it would be the full solution. It might also have an impact on counting the results. It might add delays in counting the results if you had two boxes. Anyway, it is something that would need to be probed in much more detail.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Imagine the case where Parliament defeats Bill C-16. In order to improve voting—you do have this power, because this has not been voted on—you increase the number. As our friend Mr. Joe Preston said, there are 35 voting days. There are 35 days.

In order to allow people to vote closer to where they live—not everywhere in Canada but in specific locations—we could add advance polling stations that were closer to them.

I do not think that that would require any big changes and it is in your power to do this.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

This round I'll speak as quickly as I possibly can, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, through you to our guests, thank you so much for coming. It's always great to have our Elections Canada friends here.

I just want to start off with a little bit of a preamble related to what Mr. Godin said and what my friend Marcel just said about who we could get to work. These are all personal choices. If someone would like to top up their EI by working a couple of days for Elections Canada, then I'm sure they'll make that choice. As Mr. Proulx said, it's the same thing with someone who is collecting welfare, or whatever it's called in each province.

Certainly it's a personal choice as to whether they take a job with Elections Canada and whether that will top up their income. In every case that I can think of, it would certainly be a top-up. They may be limited out.

The other thing Mr. Godin mentioned was that we're now taking up another day. You're driving people to the polls on a Sunday. Three provinces in this country now do their voting on Sunday. Certainly what this adds is a day of choice. If, in fact, you do not want to vote on the Sunday, all this has done is add a choice. Am I correct? We're not telling you that you can't go on the Monday. It's there.

We talked a bit about the structure of voting and how hard it might be to get.... In a lot of small villages, in rural ridings like mine, the church is where we vote. I don't know of any voting polling station in my riding--I'd have to look across the country, as I'm sure there are some--where we actually vote in the sanctuary. For the most part, it's in a church hall or in the front area, or something to that effect.

I think the voting on Sunday can be accommodated in a room in a church that isn't the sanctuary, where mass may take place. In fact, I suggest to you that in many of my small villages, going to church that day will then give the opportunity to head downstairs and place a vote.

Again, this is about offering choice. You mentioned in the beginning that one of your strategic objectives at Elections Canada is to increase voter turnout and increase access. Do you believe that C-16 does that?

[Marc Mayrand]

At the moment, there are just over 2,000 churches that are used as voting places. So far, we have not exactly determined how many of them would be available for voting on Sunday. The preliminary information we have from people in the field indicates that we would have to expect that many of these churches would not be available on Sunday.

That said, we will have to look at other options. That is why one of our suggestions today is that the committee consider an amendment that would provide greater flexibility regarding the polling place. We think that in some cases, the two polling days could not be held in the same location. This further complicates the information we need to give voters, and could be a problem.

With respect to the safekeeping of ballot boxes, the bill in its current form is such that day 1 would be an advance polling day. At the moment, the deputy returning officers are responsible for safeguarding the ballot boxes on the advance polling day right up till the time the votes are counted. We raised this issue, because the proposed system would mean that the current number of deputy returning officers, 3,000, would increase to approximately 64,000. And they would be responsible for safeguarding the ballot boxes.

The other difficulty in this regard is the following. It could happen that a DRO would not be available on the following day, but because of the hours of work, we would have a little time to find the individual and recover the material. The fact is that Bill C-16 provides that in some locations, the vote will end at 8:00 p.m. and begin at 7:00 a.m. the following morning. This would leave very little time to recover the material, in the case of an incident. For purely operational reasons, we suggest that the committee consider an amendment that would provide for some flexibility in this regard. This discretion would be exercised in accordance with public instructions given to DROs and returning officers.

[Marc Mayrand]

It is very difficult, because again, there's been no experience at all with this new approach, which is quite innovative. Again, we always have to be careful in comparing things. One thing the committee may want to look into is what happened recently in the Ontario provincial election, where there was a significant increase in numbers of advance polling days, yet at the end of the day there was still a decrease in overall turnout.

Again, it's a different regime there from what's being proposed in Bill C-16. I'm just being cautious as to expectations that can be raised. It would certainly make it more convenient for electors.

[Marc Mayrand]

The third operational issue relates to polling stations. Polling stations will be in the same location for day 1 and for polling day. In rural areas, the only places available for use as polling stations are often schools or places of worship. It is possible that churches are available only on the Monday, while schools are available only on the Sunday.

In fact, some 11% of the approximately 20,000 sites currently used for polling on Mondays are in churches or other places of worship. We believe that, in many cases, schools or churches will not be available for two days in a row, on a Sunday and Monday.

Our fourth operational issue is that there are certain risks associated with leaving uncounted ballots in the care of some 64,000 election workers. It is possible that some people will quit—or worse, disappear—between day 1 and day 0. It would therefore be preferable to consider alternatives in order to give returning officers ways of coping with these inevitable situations.

To address the challenges presented by two consecutive polling days, I would ask that you consider the three following solutions.

Firstly, day 1 advance polling stations could be open for eight hours, as is already the case, but on a staggered schedule from east to west. Thus, polling stations would open at 11:00 a.m. in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and Ontario, at 10:00 a.m. in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, and at 9:00 a.m. in British Columbia. In this way, polling stations in British Columbia would close at 5:00 p.m. instead of 8:00 p.m. on day 1, giving election officers in the western provinces comparable rest time as eastern provinces and thereby reducing the risk that they fail to report in the morning of election day.

Secondly, returning officers should have the discretion to locate a polling station at two different sites in the event that it is not possible for polling to take place at the same site on both day 1 and day 0. Our aim would be to have polling take place in the same location on both days, but in some cases there might be no choice but to use two different sites.

My third proposed solution to the aforementioned challenges is as follows: returning officers in each of the 64,000 polling stations should be given discretion to decide on the best solution for safe-keeping ballot boxes and uncounted ballots, in accordance with instructions from the Chief Electoral Officer. Such instructions would include a range of options for returning officers such as storage in a secure location at the polling station site or the office of the returning officer, or even at the deputy returning officer's home.

The second challenge regards the rules applicable to voting day and the day before voting. The bill states that advance polling rules will apply on day one. On the day after, of course, polling day rules will apply, but it's the same election workers who will have to apply both sets of rules. As a result, they will need to be given additional training so that they can apply different procedures for each of the two polling days they are hired for.

For example, during the advance poll, the poll clerk must complete the register of the names of electors who voted and have it signed by the elector, who identifies himself or herself and provides the required piece of identification before he or she can vote. By comparison, on election day, once the elector has identified himself or herself and provided the required pieces of identification, all the clerk has to do is find the elector's name on the voters list and cross it off. Electors then can vote. This makes the process much quicker, much more fluid, and simpler for both electors and electoral workers.

To address this challenge, I would ask you to consider amending the legislation in such a way that the polling day rules for the conduct of the vote also apply to day one advance polling, except with regard to polling hours. This recommendation would have two effects: one, obviate the need to enter in the register the name and address of electors who have voted and to have electors sign the register; and two, allow bingo cards to be provided to the candidates' representatives every 30 minutes instead of just once at the end of the day, as is the case on the other advance voting days.

Lastly, I would bring to your attention the fact that our reading of the bill is that certain rules applying to polling day will not apply on day one. I'm thinking, for example, of the ban on election advertising and on the first publication of an election survey, as well as the right each employee has to three consecutive hours in which to vote.

The implementation period is another challenge. I'd like to address it, given the significant impact the bill could have on the conduct of elections. As drafted, the bill would come into force three months after royal assent. I have to tell you right off that Elections Canada can't possibly get ready to hold an election according to the new rules in such a short period of time.

The proper implementation of Bill C-16 will require considerable effort to educate voters, update the manuals, train election personnel, and upgrade the 11 computer systems affected by the amendments. Each of these activities require detailed planning, the development and adoption of stringent programs, and painstaking execution. None of these activities can be carried out satisfactorily within the three months set aside by the legislation.

Meanwhile, we still have work to complete to comply with the December 22, 2007, and April 22, 2008, coming-into-force dates for certain provisions of Bill C-31. The overlap with the implementation of Bill C-16 adds to the complexity of the task, particularly when it comes to modifying the computer systems.

Finally, all implementation and communication activities must be carried out while remaining ready at all times for a general election or byelection.

For all these reasons, I would ask you to defer the coming into force of Bill C-16 until January 1, 2009, assuming that the legislation receives royal assent before March 1, 2008. For my part, I pledge to do everything in my power, as was the case for certain key provisions of Bill C-31 last summer, to implement the legislation ahead of schedule if the preparations have been finalized.

Before concluding my remarks, I'd like to point out that the initial implementation costs of this bill will be a bit less than $3.5 million, and adding the two voting days will cost upward of $34 million for each general election. Ninety-four per cent of these costs have to do with the additional advanced voting day the day before the vote. The last general election cost $277 million, including reimbursement to parties and candidates of $54 million. These changes would therefore represent an increase of 14% of the total cost of a general election.

It may therefore be worthwhile to review the impact of these changes on voter turnout for a general election following the bill's coming into force.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, Elections Canada supports the objective underlying this bill, which is to make it easier for electors to exercise their right to vote. I would ask you, however, to consider certain amendments to the bill in order to provide some limited flexibility in the administration of those new rules.

Furthermore, I would ask you to defer the coming into force of the bill so that we can have time to put in place the tools needed to ensure the success of the new provision while ensuring the integrity of the electoral process.

In closing, I would like to provide the committee with some technical documents suggesting wording for the proposed amendments to the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Marc Mayrand]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to appear before the committee today to discuss Bill C-16, the purpose of which is to add two advance polling days to the election calendar.

This bill provides greater flexibility for us to serve electors by giving them more opportunities to exercise their right to vote. In so doing, it facilitates participation and access to the electoral process. Access is, in fact, one of the strategic objectives Elections Canada set itself in the five-year strategy plan that we recently developed.

However, the bill presents a number of operational challenges, which touch on three elements: the fact of having two consecutive polling days in some 64,000 polling stations: differences in rules applicable for the day before election day and for election day itself: and, lastly, the proposed timeframe for implementation.

These challenges are in addition to a series of changes to the electoral process that include Bill C-31, passed last spring, and upcoming changes addressed in different bills recently introduced in Parliament. The adjustments resulting from the successive changes present challenges for electors, political entities and election officials that must be taken into account.

With regard to the first challenge, the bill provides for one last advance voting day the day before polling day. Day 1 in our jargon, and that is how I will refer to it this morning. Day 1 polling would be held in all of the approximately 64,000 polling stations used on polling day. This creates several operational issues for Elections Canada. I would like to focus on four in particular.

The first operational issue is recruiting and retaining election officers; indeed, this was already a major challenge even before the introduction of Bill C-16, owing partly to the fact that returning officers must wait for political parties to supply the names up to the 17^th day prior to election day to hire deputy returning officers and clerks. And on that day, the political parties have usually supplied less than half of the names needed to fill openings. This means that, 17 days before polling day, most of the recruiting has yet to be done, and we need to be ready for the advance voting days, which start one week later. Furthermore, it is sometimes necessary to train up to 800 people in order to fill the 500 to 600 positions in each electoral district.

The second operational issue relates to polling stations and opening hours. Polling stations will be open from noon to 8:00 p.m. in all regions of the country, which effectively means a 10-hour working day, if one includes preparation time prior to opening the polling stations and procedures required following the close of the polling stations. However, in British Columbia, Alberta and the Yukon, polling stations must open again at 7:00 a.m. or 7:30 a.m. the next day for approximately a 14-hour work day, for a total of 24 hours' work over two days. Not only is this a great deal to ask of election workers, but also a short rest period increases the risk that workers who are not rested and ready for election day will fail to report for work on that day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, I call the meeting to order. Thank you all for coming this morning. I appreciate everyone being here. The proceedings are being televised at the request of some committee members.

As agreed by the committee at the last meeting on Tuesday, and pursuant to the committee's order of reference of Thursday, November 7, 2007, the committee is here to continue its study of Bill C-16, which is the new number. This is the former Bill C-55 from the last session. It is an An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (expanded voting opportunities) and to make a consequential amendment to the Referendum Act.

Madam Robillard, do you have a comment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

Is there any further comment on preparation for the study of Bill C-16?

My understanding is that we will have witness lists in by three o'clock today. Our clerk will set up witnesses for Thursday. As well, we will have research available to members that I understand will be sent out tomorrow.

The other thing is that TV is ready, so I guess we'll just start the TV up at any time? All right, we're ready to go. Members, we are on TV in a public meeting.

The other thing I would like members to comment about, given that we're studying Bill C-16 on Thursday, is whether we still want this room. Do we still want that televised? My understanding from Madam Redman is that there is some value to televising committee meetings, but I want some indication from the committee itself on whether we'll be in this room and therefore televised. Are there any objections? Perhaps you can comment to me by the end of this meeting on whether or not we should be televised in this room on Thursday. I'm going to take the position that we will be in this room on Thursday, televised, unless I hear differently from the majority of the committee.

Moving forward, I want to remind colleagues that at the end of the last meeting we were on the subamendment to the main motion. Mr. Epp had the floor and the committee agreed to give Mr. Epp the floor today.

The other members I have on the debate list are Mr. Epp, Madam Redman, and Mr. Reid, and I'll still watch for names to be put up. We are ready to move forward.

Do members have copies of the main motion and the subamendment to the main motion in front of them? Okay, I think we're good on that.

Mr. Epp, please, you have the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Are there any other comments on Bill C-16?

I'm hearing that we will submit our witness lists by three o'clock today. The clerk will make every attempt to set up witnesses for Thursday's meeting. You will be informed of who is going to be here. I suspect that with the number of witnesses coming forward we'll have a full meeting. So that's the nature of the meeting for Thursday.

Mr. Reid, did you have a comment?

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

The Bloc Québécois would have one more name to add to the list. Therefore, we won't have everything wrapped up by 3 p.m. this afternoon. I propose Marcel Blanchet, Quebec's Chief Electoral Officer.

As for the suggestion of our colleague Karen Redman that we invite chief electoral officers who have already experimented with Sunday voting, since Quebec has tried it, I agree with my colleague's proposal. I would add to the list the former Chief Electoral Officer for Quebec, Mr. Pierre F. Côté, a prominent expert in this field in Canada. He has testified before the committee in the past and his expertise is very relevant.

That completes the Bloc Québécois' list of witnesses on Bill C-16.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay. I just want to get a bit of a note from my support team here. Is it possible to get the witnesses in for Thursday and research done for Thursday?

What I'm hearing is that it depends on the witnesses' availability, which is always the truth, but I imagine we'll have a number of witnesses on the list who we can probably get here by Thursday, if we can have the witness list by.... What if I said three o'clock today for witness lists for Bill C-16?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Are there any other comments?

I'll try to summarize what I'm hearing. Colleagues are ready to submit witnesses for Bill C-16. Most folks have in fact done their due diligence on witness lists, so we can probably move on that.

I'm also understanding that we don't just do Bill C-16, but that we work in conjunction with other matters before the committee.

Would it be possible to have the witness lists in so that we can have witnesses scheduled for Thursday?

Mr. Reid, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Madam Redmond, I heard, too, that you might have suggested that we bring witnesses and perhaps study—did you say this?—Bill C-6 and Bill C-16 at the same time because the witnesses are common to the two. No? I misunderstood.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I believe the committee has indicated to me that they want to briefly begin studying Bill C-16 and how we are going to go about doing that. The suggestion has been that we bring in witnesses, which of course is the way we should do that. We can start discussing the bill as well today, Mr. Lukiwski, but right now we're writing down names of potential witnesses.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Quickly on a point of clarification, Chair, am I to understand that right now we're submitting potential witnesses for Bill C-16? Is that what we're doing?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Madam Redman is absolutely correct to remind members that Bill C-16 is in front of us today.

We have Bill C-6, which received first reading October 26, 2007. That is the act to amend the Canada Elections Act regarding visual identification of voters. Bill C-16 is expanded voter opportunities, which is before us today, and our clerk is definitely writing down witness suggestions for the bill. I suspect this is the way the committee wants to proceed, with just a brief discussion about how we're going to go about studying Bill C-16.

I wasn't sure whose hand was up first over there. I'm going to go with Mr. Lukiwski, then Mr. Reid, please.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (expanded voting opportunities) and to make a consequential amendment to the Referendum Act.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special order made previously, I would like to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-55 was at the time of prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)