Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 14 - Evidence of April 13, 2000
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 13, 2000
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-2, respecting the election of members to the House of Commons, repealing other acts relating to elections and making consequential amendments to other acts, met this day at 10:45 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We have before us this morning Mr. Aaron Freeman, who is a board member from Democracy Watch. Mr. Freeman has been in correspondence with some of us recently.
The floor is yours, Mr. Freeman. Please proceed.
Mr. Aaron Freeman, Board Member, Democracy Watch: I should like to thank you for the opportunity to speak on this piece of legislation that really forms the cornerstone of the democratic process in Canada. It has long been recognized in Canada that knowing who finances the political process is essential and has what the Barbeau committee in the 1960s referred to as a cleansing effect on politics.
Bill C-2 represents the first time in more than 15 years that Parliament has made amendments to the party financing system in any kind of meaningful way. Citizens groups, in the process of Bill C-2, played by the rules. We organized ourselves around a series of sensible, easy to implement recommendations that would close the loopholes and make the system of political fundraising cleaner and more democratic. Those recommendations were based on the government's own Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing chaired by Pierre Lortie, a series of annual reports from Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, and a survey of every other jurisdiction in North America.
We have the support of 47 organizations from every region in Canada, from major national organizations down to smaller community organizations. They include health groups, community economic development groups, environmental groups, youth groups, consumer groups -- all organizations that recognize that as long as wealthy special interests can gain preferential access to the political system using money, the people who care about health care, about consumer rights, about the environment and so on are going to face a struggle that is that much harder to wage. It is going to be that much harder to have their voices heard above those of moneyed interests.
We put forward our recommendations before the bill was introduced, during the consultations in the House and now here in the Senate. These concerns have to date been, for the most part, ignored. Under Bill C-2 the well-known loopholes in Canada's electoral finance system are still there. With no legal obligation to inform the public, donors can still hide their donations by donating to riding associations, by donating to MPs between elections, or, as we recently learned from the Canadian Alliance, to leadership campaigns. The public would still not receive information about what is disclosed until up to 18 months after the donation is made. There would still be no limit whatsoever on how much donors can give to politicians to try to influence the political process.
All of those loopholes remain despite the fact that they have been closed in other jurisdictions. Quebec and Ontario place limits on donations. Quebec has banned contributions from corporations and unions. In the United States, all donations to presidential candidates are disclosed on a monthly basis, right up to the election. In the four years that I have been examining this issue, not one person in Elections Canada, in the political process, or in the fundraising in the party realm has been able to give me any kind of technical reason why we cannot have at least quarterly reporting of donations here in Canada.
Either when drafting Bill C-2 or through the amendment process, Parliament could have considered raising its accountability standard closer to that of Mexico, which has just implemented a full system of public financing. About 70 per cent of the formula is based on the percentage of popular vote the party received and 30 per cent is divided equally among the parties, which allows smaller and newer parties a chance to participate meaningfully.
This morning, Democracy Watch released information about an industry lobbyist who chairs the fundraising activities of the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions. At the same time, this man lobbies the federal government on behalf of financial institutions, including the Department of Finance. It is that sort of conflicts that the loopholes invite and exacerbate.
To be sure, some of our recommendations have been promoted by a few parliamentarians. In November, Don Boudria was asked by a journalist about quarterly disclosure of political donations. He said he was open to the idea, but he failed to translate that into an amendment of the bill. In the end, the House of Commons chose to leave the status quo in place -- that is, to keep the loopholes that allow wealthy interests preferred access to the political process. They did so, despite the interventions of citizens groups. For the first time ever with election legislation, they did so without the consent of opposition parties. Everyone but the Liberals has been playing by the rules, and we have generally been ignored.
Here, in the Senate, some senators have expressed concerns about transparency in Canada's political finance system. Speaking in the Senate, Senator Oliver said "transparency with regard to those who donate money to influence the political process is a necessity. Secrecy in this area does nothing but undermine public confidence." Senator Di Nino has also made good arguments in favour of public financing. However, all indications are that other senators have not joined in to defend these concerns -- at least not where it counts, which is in the bill. Senator Dan Hays, who was quoted in Macleans magazine three weeks ago, said "My own preference, speaking here as a political activist, not as a parliamentarian, would be for greater disclosure at the riding level." It is unclear to me why Dan Hays the political activist would be willing to push for disclosure while Dan Hays the parliamentarian would feel that hiding political donations is acceptable.
Here, at the tail end of the process, at the stage of sober second thought, I would like to make an offer to the senators on this committee and in the broader Senate. If we can give you concrete, irrefutable proof that the loopholes in Canada's disclosure system not only exist but are being exploited to hide political donations to political parties or candidates, will you amend Bill C-2 to close those loopholes and send it back to the House for approval? I would greatly appreciate an answer to that question from the honourable senators in this room today, and I look forward to any questions that you might have.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you for your presentation. We all received a letter from you, and there has been some debate as to whether we can comply. I replied to your letter and requested further information from you. However, I have not received it. I requested a letter from you explaining your definition of "finances." What is the definition that you were using? It is important to me.
Mr. Freeman: The definition of "finances," as in fundraising?
Senator Andreychuk: Yes. What is your definition of the word "fundraising," and on what basis do you use it?
Mr. Freeman: "Fundraising" would be assisting in organizing any effort that is intended to direct funds to a political party or candidate. I am not sure if I can be clearer than that.
Senator Andreychuk: In your submission today, you talked about abuses and loopholes. In the 1960s and 1970s I was involved in encouraging those elements of our society who have difficulty becoming candidates and I was often asked to donate $10 or $20 to make sure that there were more women and more people from visible minorities. Do you intend to attract those kinds of donations? I simply would never keep records of that.
Mr. Freeman: No. I agree with the threshold concept contained in the Canada Elections Act. Below a certain threshold, which is currently $100, those donations do not need to be disclosed.
My goal here is not to create another level of bureaucracy, especially not for the constituency level, which is based on voluntary labour most of the time. We are concerned about the loopholes that allow people to donate without disclosing whatsoever. We have not taken a position on those donations that are below $100 except to say that when the donation is disclosed, it must be a cumulative donation, which presently is not explicit in the act. In theory, right now you could write 100 cheques for $99 and that wouldn't be caught by the disclosure regime. That is a small loophole that we would like to see closed. I would certainly support efforts to encourage people who are under-represented in public office to run for office.
Senator Andreychuk: In your initial statement, you indicated that part of the difficulty is that wealth is so concentrated, which could have an inordinate influence on our democratic system. I am inclined to agree with you. What do you say, however, about the fact that there are some credible environmental issues, public issues and social issues that wealthy individuals contribute to sometimes? By so doing, the organization representing one particular philosophy captures the subject matter. I am thinking back to issues like the seal hunt. Most of us may have thought originally that there was a humane approach to seals and animal rights. However, it was only after an international spotlight had been placed on it that we began to reflect on what it was doing to our aboriginal peoples and their economic base. Huge finances seemed to be flowing to what were allegedly NGOs, and they influenced the democratic process. Are you advocating some sort of restraints on NGOs who also become issue oriented?
Mr. Freeman: As our submission outlines, we are in favour of third-party spending, which may surprise some of the senators on the committee and may surprise some of the previous guests that you have had here. I think there is a difference between talking about organizations like environmental groups and other NGOs and talking about the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada makes laws; the International Fund for Animal Welfare does not. I am not trying to minimize the role that the NGOs play in a democratic process, which is a legitimate role. However, the political process, namely the government, is overseen and financed by taxpayers. When it all comes down to it, they make the laws.
Senator Andreychuk: I am a strong advocate of NGOs, but NGOs become issue oriented to impact the political process; they also gain from the government. They get a tax advantage because of their non-charitable status.If I were to carry your philosophy through, would we not have to take into account all of those other aspects of support that come from the government to those groups?
Mr. Freeman: I will speak only for Democracy Watch and myself. I also had a coalition called the Money in Politics Coalition, which consisted of 47 organizations, and this goes beyond the recommendations of those groups. In terms of my own view on NGOs, and I can speak for Democracy Watch in this regard also, we think that NGOs should be very open about who is financing them.
Democracy Watch receives financing from individuals across the country. Our average donation is $45. We have a couple of donations, I believe, of over $1,000; one of those is from Mr. Dan Ackroyd, who is on our board of advisers. Generally, we do not receive money from corporations. We do receive money from one foundation, the Trillium Foundation, for some of the project work that we do. I would support that level of disclosure with NGOs.
Senator Andreychuk: Are you then satisfied with the third-party recommendations here, or do you have suggestions for a different approach?
Mr. Freeman: In terms of philosophy, we agree with the Supreme Court of Canada that electoral fairness must be balanced with the concept of freedom of expression. I would go even further than that, and say that the ability to spend money does not equal expression. That gives a very solid argument in favour of third-party spending.
We had a very lively debate on third-party spending in the House hearings on this bill. Democracy Watch has a slightly different model in the sense that we think that the ability to spend in an election should be linked to the popular support that an organization has. One of the problems with third-party spending limits as they are currently devised is that you cannot pool funds. We think that that is undemocratic. You cannot pool your limit. Government responded to that by increasing the limit up to $150,000. Democracy Watch thinks that a better route to go would have been to say that an organization can spend to support or oppose a candidate or view in an election, but they have to demonstrate in some fashion that they have support for that view. The organization is just a pooling mechanism.
The way it would work on the ground is that the organization, for example the International Fund for Animal Welfare, would send out in their newsletter a question on their return box. It would ask what the contributor supports -- yes, I support spending money to fight the seal hunt, or to throw this candidate out of office, or to elect that candidate, or some such thing. The donor to the organization checks the box and sends it back. IFAW can then spend a portion of the limit, say 4 per cent of the limit or some such thing. The calculation would be done in the submission. The organization can spend a portion of that limit on behalf of that member. If IFAW can get the support of 10,000 members, they can each spend, let us say $100. IFAW can spend whatever that adds up to. My math is very poor.
That is the model that we would advocate. It would work the same way, with corporations, shareholders, unions and so on. We think it is a bit more of a democratic way to go.
The Chairman: Are there any further questions of the witness?
I would just ask you, Mr. Freeman, what is your method of approach? Do you approach government as you are today and as you did in the other place to suggest changes to legislation? Does your organization get involved in elections? If so, how?
Mr. Freeman: We are strictly non-partisan. We are probably the most non-partisan NGO in Ottawa. We do work with government on various pieces of legislation. We appear frequently before Senate and House committees on various issues.
Democracy Watch has appeared recently on banking issues in front of hearings in both the House and the Senate. We appeared on amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act in 1994. We work with government departments and with ministers. We have a relationship with the Department of Finance on banking issues and financial institution matters. We have worked frequently with people at Elections Canada on these issues.
We are an NGO. We are an advocacy group. It is our job sometimes to criticize government. It is also our job to provide ideas and conceptual support, let us say, for legislative proposals that we are suggesting.
The Chairman: Thus, your approach to government is on the governmental level rather than on the electoral level? I am asking that because we have had several representatives before us who approached this Elections Act very much on the electoral level. Many of us around the table had a great deal of problems with some of them because they were rather "anti" groups, targeting specific ridings rather than getting in the running themselves or, as you approach it, trying to do it on the government level.
Mr. Freeman: Yes. Do you mean partisan? Is that what you are saying?
The Chairman: No, they were more anti-partisan than partisan.
Mr. Freeman: We have never endorsed a party. We have never parachuted into a riding and tried to dethrone an MP.
The Chairman: "Dethrone" is probably not the right term to use.
Mr. Freeman: Sorry. Our approach, even during the election, is to focus on our ideas and to focus on the changes that we would make to the relevant piece of legislation.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Freeman, I have received, as I think many of my colleagues have, a letter from your organization asking me to disclose my interest in fundraising for the Liberal Party of Canada. I have no problem being on the record publicly, and not writing to you on a formal sheet of paper, to tell you that I have fundraising activities. I feel that it is totally legal and it is totally ethical. It does not put me in a situation of conflict of interest in my capacity as a legislator. It is public; people can judge if my activities jeopardize the role that I have as a legislator.
I can tell you that I contribute each year to the Liberal Party of Canada. I have done so for the last 32 years or so. I have been the chair of the policy committee of the Liberal Party of Canada (Quebec) for 15 years. I have been re-elected to that position eight times in a row. Each year, I am part of the organizing committee that puts together the fundraising dinner of the Liberal Party. When elections come, I contribute personally to some of the candidates I happen to know more and have more of a direct interest in, for instance in the riding from which I have been a member of Parliament for 14 years.
I do not think a letter is necessary to lead people to think that I am a contributor to the party. That is public; it is registered, as you know, in the records that the Chief Electoral Officer has to publish according to the legislation. My name is printed in the program of the fundraising dinner each year. It is printed in the back. It is public. The journalists are in attendance and so forth.
None of that puts me in a situation of conflict of interest. Even if I gave more than $50,000 a year, which is the highest contribution that the party receives from corporations in Canada, it would not put me in a more privileged information position than any other Canadian citizen, because it is public. Anyone has the capacity to put into question my independence of mind or the bias I might have. People are judged.
To put it in democratic terms, section 1 of the Charter says very clearly that things that are unreasonable in a free and democratic society should be banned. I do not think that for a member of the Senate or the Parliament of Canada to contribute to the party under the label of which he or she sits in a legislature puts that senator or M.P. in any way or form in a privileged position. No one in Canada would believe that, in order to be involved in public activities, you must refrain from contributing to a party. To cast a cloud of doubt on people who are active politically does not serve democracy at all. On the contrary, it brings disrepute to democracy.
I support groups of any kind and under any stripes in Canada -- that is, third parties -- being part of the debate and coming to testify here. It is part of the legislative process to be open and fair and hear all the opinions, whether or not they are extreme, so that they may have their fair day in court. That is how we like to see our country being governed. If a group or an individual feels that the system is not sound, he or she can go to court on the basis of the Charter of Rights. That is the way we function in Canada.
Your letter asked me to make a disclosure as if it were not public. I am sorry, but the position I hold in the party is public. The mandate that I received from the party is public. I am voted in that position every two years. Each year, I make contributions to the party and that information is disclosed. There is nothing hidden. There is no secret there. I was offended by the tone of your letter. There was an underlying meaning that, because I do so, I do not have the capacity to legislate on Bill C-2. I do not buy that.
I am happy that you are here this morning. You have put forward your views; I have put forward mine. I want to speak for myself on this. I did not yet answer your letter, but if I had answered it in writing, that is what I would have told you. It is much better to bring the process into greater light than to try to cast a doubt on the reputations of those who are active in the system. It is not that easy for any one of us. It is not a bed of roses, believe me. If you want to be fair -- because democracy is about fairness -- we must recognize that.
Mr. Freeman: Thank you, Senator Joyal. I regret that you took the letter that we sent to members of the committee so personally.
I will get to the points that you raised, but before I answer your question, I wish to ask you something. Would you feel the same way if some of those roles that public office holders play and the donations made to a political party -- and our letter did not focus on that -- were not public?
Senator Joyal: I told to you quite clearly that I support total disclosure over $100. Below that amount, it is more or less like a dime -- that is, it is a small drop in the bucket. To me, disclosure is the key essential element to democracy.
Mr. Freeman: We agree.
Senator Joyal: You agree, and I agree with you on that. I share that view and that basic principle. Any kind of public system starts with disclosure. However, above and beyond that, I do not see why, because I made a contribution to the Liberal Party, even if it were the extreme amount of $1 million dollars a year, which would be more than any contribution given in Canada, I would be in a privileged position. When I give my views here, my colleagues will listen to them and they will decide if they are right or wrong. They will then vote, and that is it. They are free to think whatever they want to think. I cannot buy their vote, even though I make a donation to the party.
The Chairman: I wish interject here regarding the letter that I sent to you, Mr. Freeman. Under the Rules of the Senate of Canada, rule 65(4) states:
A Senator is not entitled to vote on any question in which the Senator has pecuniary interest not available to the general public. The vote of any Senator so interested shall be disallowed.
I can assure you that all senators take that very seriously.
Mr. Freeman: To respond to Senator Joyal's question, the fact of the matter is that political donations -- and, again, my letter did not touch on political donations; it focused exclusively on the fundraising role -- and the fundraising role are not always a matter of the public record. We have loopholes in the disclosure regime that allow donors to hide donations. Those loopholes are used. As we pointed out this morning, the chief fundraiser for the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions, who is a former M.P., is a lobbyist who lobbies the Department of Finance. We think that raises a serious concern in terms of ethics. We stumbled across that. Those things are not a matter of the public record. That is why we want it put on the table.
We sent you that letter because what we have here is a piece of legislation that governs the rules for party fundraising. We think that, if a senator or public office holder is reviewing this legislation and making law in this area, it is reasonable for the public to know whether that senator has a role to play in party fundraising. We are not trying to cast aspersions on party fundraising, but we think it is relevant and it is not always a matter of the public record. Yours is, and I think that is great. However, it is not systemically a matter of the public record, and neither are political donations.
The Chairman: We will try to end this line of questioning fairly shortly.
Senator Joyal: The point I want to put forward is that there is no perfect system. As much as we can improve our system -- and I agree with that -- the other system that limits the contributions of citizens is not perfect, either. I can tell you how it works, too, behind the scenes. I have seen it myself. For example, the president of a company phones his officers and says to them, "Here is $500 or $2,000 that you can contribute to party X, Y or Z." There is always a way for people to bypass the system. We know it and you know it, too. I am quite sure about it. The only point I am pursuing here is that members of Parliament and members of the Senate are under strict rules of ethics. Those rules might be improved. They might be amended or made tougher, the punishment might be increased, and so on, but when we are sworn in, we take it upon ourselves to disclose our conflict of interest positions.
When you sit under a political label, you have some kind of moral responsibility to support the party under which and within which you work. You do that either by accepting some public responsibility in the party structure, by giving a contribution or by attending some function. There are different ways to do it. I do not see why any senator or member of Parliament would hide the fact that he or she is contributing financially to a party. That is why, as much as you are right in saying that some of the categories of people around government should be more regulated, I do not think that the regulations as they apply to the legislators at this point of time are wrong or are so full of loopholes that this is the major objective we should target.
Mr. Freeman: If I can offer you concrete, irrefutable proof that the loopholes exist and are being exploited, will you amend the law?
Senator Joyal: Show me what you have in mind and we will discuss it. I do not like to tell people, "Here is a gun on the table. Put it to your head and pull the trigger to see if there is a bullet in it." That is not the way we function. Put your case before us and we will judge it.
The Chairman: I would remind Mr. Freeman that we are speaking here of general donations and of a bill that we are trying to look at intelligently with respect to general donations and closing loopholes. I remind you to keep your remarks to that field.
Mr. Freeman: In this letter, we requested disclosure of remuneration for fundraising roles. Do you receive any remuneration for the fundraising?
The Chairman: Mr. Freeman, I have just asked you to confine your remarks to the bill that is before us.
Mr. Freeman: If that is the case, I will make a general statement.
Senator Joyal: I can answer: No.
Mr. Freeman: That is all we were requesting.
I agree with your comment that we will never have a perfect system in Canada or anywhere else, for that matter. That, to my mind, is no reason to leave open the loopholes that we know exist. We should be aiming for a perfect system with the understanding that we probably will not get it, but we need amendments and legislation that take us in a direction that is more democratic, not less, that is more comprehensive in terms of disclosure, not less. This bill fails to do that on any level. We have loopholes. We know they exist. They are very well identified. The legislation ignores them.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we do have the officials from the Privy Council Office back again today to answer senators' questions.
Senator Fraser: As an observation, Mr. Freeman, if you have evidence that is pertinent to our study of this bill, it is your duty to present that evidence without taking it upon yourself to impose preconditions.
My question relates to third-party spending limits. I am a little puzzled. You recommend that third parties should be able to spend as much as official parties and candidates may spend. The Supreme Court said very clearly in the Libman case that that should not be allowed. It said very clearly that third parties should not be able to spend as much because it is the parties and the official candidates who, in the end, are the ones seeking election, in other words, the ones among whom the voters must choose. Presumably they were figuring that all spending has to be directed to that end, not toward confusing the issue. How do you reconcile your position with the Supreme Court decision?
Mr. Freeman: I agree with the Supreme Court decision. There is another reason, incidentally, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, why the limit for third parties should be lower than that for parties and candidates. There are many, many third parties, whereas there are very few official candidates and parties.
We do not specify the limit. There are some guidelines used. The Supreme Court explicitly approves of the Lortie commission's recommendation, which is $1,000. In Quebec, the limit is $3,000. In Ontario, the limit is higher and there are some loopholes in that system as well.
Senator Fraser: I am reading page 16 of the document we received from you. You state:
... each third party's spending would be limited to an amount consistent with the limit on what official parties and candidates may spend.... However, third parties would not be allowed to spend above what a candidate can spend if they are focusing their efforts in that particular candidate's riding.
Mr. Freeman: That is a bit unclear, because we support using the expense limit of candidates and parties as a benchmark, but you must take into consideration that there are numerous third parties in a riding or nationally. I agree with you that that is a little unclear.
Senator Fraser: Essentially, do you support the Supreme Court position?
Mr. Freeman: Yes, we do.
Senator Pearson: One of the reasons we will never have a perfect system is that none of us is perfect, neither the voters nor the politicians. Everything we try to do is managed among our imperfections. There is no way to be perfect. That is not what democracy is about. Many voters vote for candidates because they hope those candidates will do something for them. What else? That is democracy. You try to elect a government hoping it will do certain things for you. One should never even talk about perfection because it is an idea, like utopia, that always turns out to be of more harm than good.
I have a question on disclosures. I agree with transparency, but this kind of question would arise when I lived in the Soviet Union. There must be someone at the other end of the information to receive it. Everyone would tell me to be very careful of what I said because all is recorded. I kept wondering who, at the other end, could possibly figure out what my husband was saying when I was not able to figure it out.
How much energy is anyone able to put into analyzing all the stuff that results from disclosure? Do you have a body of people who are analyzing all the information that comes from Revenue Canada and so on?
Mr. Freeman: No, you are looking at that person. The principle of disclosure is what is important. If the disclosure is there, the journalists in this room, whom I have seen in the halls of Elections Canada looking at some of those binders, can find the information. If the disclosure is there, you have to assume that people will analyze and examine the data.
I can only repeat that we will not achieve perfection. Perfection was not raised at this microphone. You need a system that aims to be more democratic and more transparent. We do not yet have that system. There are donations and a whole range of choices to hide the donations. The only disincentive factor is the tax credit. Frankly, that does not work.
The Lortie commission found that one in five corporations that are eligible for the tax credit actually claims the tax credit. They do not think that is something they are even claiming. There has been some suggestion that some claim the donation as a business expense. That is not legal under the Income Tax Act. Does that answer your question?
Senator Pearson: Yes, the principle of disclosure is important and I agree with that. We must look at things from a practical point of view. If the only outcome from disclosure is the ability of people to point fingers at others, that may not be useful either. One should disclose their giving because one thinks it is the honourable thing to do. Most people do.
Mr. Freeman: I would differ slightly. One should be required to disclose because it is the honourable thing to do.
Senator Pearson: I agree, and it is the legal thing to do.
Mr. Freeman: Yes. It must be the legal thing to do.
Senator Pearson: Your last recommendation is actually quite attractive to me. Citizens should have the right to complain at any time to Elections Canada about false advertising by anyone. In this case, you are not making any discrimination, I am glad to see, against third parties, political parties, governments or whomever.
This reminds me of the problems with the Human Rights Commission. A bureaucracy beyond belief may result. You can complain, but for Elections Canada to be empowered they would have to follow a complete process, would they not? If somebody claims that an election piece is false, would they not be required to prove that the piece is false?
Mr. Freeman: There is currently the possibility to do it either through the competition laws in Canada, false advertising, or through the Commissioner of Canada Elections, who has to rule on other elements of the Canada Elections Act. I do not think this would create a huge level of bureaucracy.
Senator Pearson: I quite like the idea, but that is not the point. I just wondered about the implications of it.
Mr. Freeman: I wanted to touch just briefly on what you mentioned about disclosure, just to give you a sense. In the United States, they have a disclosure system where donors disclose their full names. In Canada, sometimes we only get the first initial and the last name, so, in the filings, you might see five D. Smiths. You do not know if that is the same person or different people. Also, in the United Stated you have to disclose whether it is a cumulative donation. You must disclose a large list of unique identifiers, including address, employer, subsidiary, if it is a corporation, and a whole range of identifiers that make the disclosure quite clear.
The other way you could ensure disclosure would be to ensure it at both ends, where the donor discloses and also the party discloses. That creates an airtight system for disclosure because neither side is going to fail to disclose since they know that the other side is going to disclose. That is one way you could have that. You would probably want that at the party level, at the national level. I would argue that you would want that at the riding level, as well.
The Chairman: Mr. Freeman, we are beginning to run over time here. I have one other questioner on the list.
Senator Mahovlich: You say that you are looking for a better, more democratic system. One example was that you want to make it illegal for the opposition leader or the Prime Minister to use his residence as a fundraiser. That to me is undemocratic, because Joe White in Toronto can do it, but the Prime Minister and the opposition leader cannot. Is that not undemocratic? Those people are human beings. Each should be allowed to use his residence. It is the public that elected them.
Mr. Freeman: It is the public that owns the official residences.
Senator Mahovlich: When they are in service, that is their home, just like Joe White in Toronto has a home. Those people live in their residence; that is their home.
Mr. Freeman: This suggestion is based on concerns that have been raised both here and in the United States. There is issue about using the White House for party fundraisers. That is why the Lincoln bedroom scandal was a scandal: it is illegal for the president to use the White House, including the residential part of the White House, for partisan purposes.
We think that that is a good standard. We think that the reason they live in those homes, which are nicer than the average home, is that they are subsidized by the taxpayers. If the Prime Minister were to use his home in Shawinigan to raise funds, that would be fine. The official residences are not public property, but there is enough of a public interest in that property that we do not think that they should be used for private fundraising purposes.
Senator Mahovlich: I think that they are entitled; that is their residence. They moved to Ottawa, they spend more time here, and it is their official residence.
Mr. Freeman: Is there a shortage of venues in Ottawa to hold party fundraisers?
Senator Mahovlich: If they do not hold it there, they will probably get another home.
Mr. Freeman: The problem with 24 Sussex Drive is that there is a status attached to it. One of the most popular fundraisers was to get those matches that say "24 Sussex Drive." There is a status to 24 Sussex Drive and to Stornoway that is not the product of the Prime Minister or the opposition simply living there. We do not think that public office holders should use the status of the head of state's residence for private fundraising purposes.
We do not think that that is a huge restriction on the person's freedom. Again, they can choose any number of other venues. The Liberals hold a huge fundraiser called the Maple Leaf Dinner at the Congress Centre every year. There are many possibilities. I can give you other examples.
The Chairman: I think have you made your point, Mr. Freeman. We are running a little short on time. We do have the officials from the Privy Council Office with us. I will leave you with one very short question and I hope for a short answer: Do you think that this present bill before us is better than the last?
Mr. Freeman: Do you mean better than the Canada Elections Act as it existed before the bill?
The Chairman: As it currently exists.
Mr. Freeman: That is a hard question to answer. I will try to make it brief. We have not looked legislatively at the party fundraising system in more than 15 years, although a royal commission has reported and we have had a very long series of annual reports from the Chief Electoral Officer. We know what the loopholes are. They have been very well identified. For this bill to look at party fundraising without doing anything significant about those loopholes is a real disappointment.
The Chairman: In short, then, is your answer that you think this bill does something, but not enough?
Mr. Freeman: It is very difficult for me to identify positive things in this bill, given how well identified the problems are with this system.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for appearing before us.
We are next going to call Michael Peirce and Isabelle Mondou back to the table, not for the purposes of making a further presentation but to answer senators' questions, if we have any. Are there any senators who wish to ask questions of the Privy Council?
Senator Beaudoin: As far as I am concerned, I have already asked my questions. I am always a bit scandalized by the fact that, although it is a good act, our Elections Act restricts voting. Not everyone has the right to vote. I may understand that the Chief Electoral Officer cannot vote because of impartiality. But for some others, there is a question. I remember the first time I raised the matter with respect to judges. People said that judges never vote because they are the third power of the state. They are the third power of the state -- that is true, obviously -- and they are very strong. But now they vote more and more. Prisoners and some people with some handicaps also cannot vote. However, we are moving in the right direction, so I am satisfied, generally speaking. But I still think that when you lose liberty, you certainly do not have to lose everything else.
The Chairman: Are there any further questions?
Senator Pearson: You heard questions yesterday on disfranchisement as a penalty. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Michael Peirce, Counsel, Director, Legal Operations, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office: We spoke briefly about that before. It is a matter that is currently before the courts, with leave having been sought to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Senator Beaudoin: Is it in the Supreme Court?
Mr. Peirce: Yes, it is.
Senator Beaudoin: Which case is this?
Mr. Peirce: It is the Sauvé case.
Senator Beaudoin: I am glad it is before the Supreme Court now.
Mr. Peirce: He sought leave to appeal. I have not heard if leave has been granted. It is a process that normally takes about five months. We do not know for sure if the Supreme Court will hear the case.
Senator Beaudoin: We do not know that they will hear. They did not rule yet on it?
Mr. Peirce: That is correct, on the leave application.
Senator Beaudoin: On the leave to appeal.
The Chairman: Are there any further questions?
Senator Joyal: Assuming that the court will hear the Sauvé case, I would say that those two cases, Sauvé and Figueroa, are the most important cases before the court at this time.
Mr. Peirce: That is correct.
Senator Joyal: In your mind, which essential aspect of those two cases could warrant further amendments to the legislation?
Mr. Peirce: If the Court of Appeal of Ontario were to rule adversely in the Figueroa case regarding the threshold for becoming a registered party, an amendment would likely be necessary. The threshold for becoming a party is currently the nomination of 50 candidates. The Ontario General Division ruled that two candidates was the appropriate threshold. If the Ontario Court of Appeal were either to uphold that finding or strike down the number 50 without reading in a replacement number, that would be the most profound aspect that could warrant an amendment to the legislation.
Senator Joyal: In other words, it would concentrate on the threshold for a party to be registered, according to the electoral act, and the benefits that are attached to the formal status of a party.
Mr. Peirce: That is right.
Senator Joyal: In respect of the Sauvé case, what do you think?
Mr. Peirce: It would be the single provision of whether somebody who has been incarcerated for more than two years has the right to vote. If the Supreme Court accepted to hear the case and overturned the Federal Court of Appeal decision that upheld the provision -- clause 4 -- an amendment might be necessary. It would depend on how the court ruled. The court could rule that clause 4 was unconstitutional because of the way that it is structured. It could also leave the door open, or give some direction as to whether any limits on inmate voting were appropriate. Thus, a response would have to be tailored specifically according to the decision of the court. There are many options that could result.
Senator Joyal: In your opinion, are there any other cases pending at the lower level in the Canadian courts that would involve the electoral act and that might raise the issue of amendments or further amendments?
Mr. Peirce: There is a case that would not affect Bill C-2 but is a challenge to the electoral boundaries in New Brunswick. The Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes has brought a challenge to that boundary system, but that would not be under Bill C-2. That is under the Electoral Boundaries Act.
Senator Joyal: Are there any other bills that would deal with the Canadian election system generally?
Mr. Peirce: I do not believe so, currently.
Senator Beaudoin: We were talking the other day about the Lortie commission.
[Translation]
Senator Beaudoin: We were talking recently of the Lortie Commission and I believe that they did good work. In Canada, there is a great deal of variation among the ridings as far as distribution is concerned.
[English]
In the United States, it is one person, one vote. In Canada, we have a Supreme Court decision that demonstrates that we are much more generous. We are talking about 15 per cent, and the Lortie commission talked I think about 25 per cent. I am told that in some districts it is more than that. Will something be done regarding that? I know that Canada is a large country, making it more difficult.
The Chairman: There are constitutional considerations on this one, too.
Senator Beaudoin: We are far removed from the one person-one vote system in Canada. Some years ago, I read very carefully the decision of the Supreme Court on this. I found that it was a generous decision on the matter of disparity between one district or constituency and another, because of our geography. But every country has geography. The United States is a huge country, although smaller than Canada. They are much closer than we are to one person, one vote.
This was discussed in the United States Senate. They have 100 elected Senators, two per state. They had a constitutional amendment in 1913. I am impressed with the methods of the Supreme Court in the United States.
Are we heading in the right direction in this respect, or are we heading nowhere?
Mr. Peirce: There are two things that may affect future distribution. One is the Société des Acadiens case. Depending on how the court comes out and what direction we get from the court, that may give us some basis for considering redrawing boundaries. Also, of course, there will be another census, I believe in 2001, and we will have redistribution following that.
In terms of the American experience, it is, if I may say, a quagmire. They have terrible problems. For example, there has been an inordinate number of Supreme Court decisions in respect of race-based gerrymandering, whereby boundaries had to be redrawn. As a result, there is, in North Carolina, a riding that is 10 miles wide and 200 miles long. That is roughly the description of a highway, in essence.
I am not certain that one person, one vote has led to a more sensible system. I think there are major problems there. As well, when we look at the distribution in Canada, the difference between rural and urban ridings, and particularly in the far North, we would have grave difficulties trying to draw boundaries that satisfied exactly one person, one vote and the idea of effective representation.
Senator Beaudoin: In the North, I have no problem. Canada's North is vast, and the situation is difficult. But even in cities, we have much more than 10 per cent variation or discrepancy and I believe even more than 25 per cent. I wonder if we should not do something about that.
The Chairman: Not in this bill.
Senator Joyal: On the subject of the American system, are you leading any kind of study on the way that the Canadian and the American system can be compared? What kind of lessons or teaching can be drawn from that system? Are there items that we could include or not include in our system? In my opinion, if there is a system that we should not be adopting, it is the American system. It is the worst system in the world. The end results of their system are completely in the hands of big money. I will not advertise here the study I am leading on the Senate. Women and minorities are totally barred from it. There is a low voter turnout -- never more than 50 per cent. No candidate with only small money can even start running. If you do not have at least $5 million as a starting point, do not even think about putting your name on the ballot.
In theory, one person, one vote sounds good, but in practice, when you look at the results on a trend basis, you find that the end result of it does not serve the purpose of democracy. As somebody said, the Soviet Union's constitution was the best in the world on paper but the worst one when it was applied. The American system is the best one in principle, but looking at the results of a system of one person, one vote you can conclude that the Canadian system is much more democratic. At least our system has some built-in provisions to prevent systemic discrimination. We are trying to improve that with respect to minority groups and the participation of women and so forth, while the American system is totally immune to that. As you know, there are always discussions at the White House to amend the financing, but that is another subject.
Mr. Peirce: We are investigating that. In fact, a colleague of mine here, Mr. Stéphane Perrault from the Department of Justice, has been reviewing the U.S. Supreme Court cases and looking at the issues generally in the United States.
Senator Joyal: Is it possible to hear from him today?
Mr. Peirce: I do not know if he is far enough along in his research to present a report.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Perrault, Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, Human Rights Section: Unfortunately, I cannot really go into that because it concerns research in the work I am doing on the Société des Acadiens case, largely on the issue of electoral boundaries and ethnic ratios in that regard.
One of the difficulties in the United States, and Mr. Pierce mentioned this, given the strict requirement for numerical equality, is that in order to accommodate representation of various groups, and in this case we are talking about Blacks and Hispanics, the constituencies have absolutely incredible shapes. If there was a little more flexibility regarding the numbers, it would be possible to take into account both numbers and other factors. It is this lack of flexibility on numbers in the United States that is one of the main difficulties when it comes to taking into account other factors like ethnicity, language, etc. I will stop there, because this issue is currently before the courts. I cannot talk about the government's position.
Senator Beaudoin: Can you give us a specific case? I find this discussion fascinating, because what you are telling me is that this is an excellent system on paper, but in practice it is far from being as good as we might think. I am quite prepared to hear that. If it is a fact, it is a fact, and I accept the facts, but let us take the example of California, where some people speak Spanish and others English. Do they fiddle with the constituencies? Do they make boundaries? What do they do?
Mr. Perrault: The aim is entirely legitimate, and I am not opposed to accommodating racial representation, which is a serious problem in the United States. It must be taken into account to ensure that these groups can have a majority in a given constituency.
However, that can be done only under a strict numerical equality requirement with a one-percent variability which is quite different from the numbers you were mentioning earlier. And when they try to put both factors together, they have to find groups from the different populations wherever they are, and that means that constituencies can sometimes be one mile wide and a hundred miles long.
[English]
The Chairman: If there are no further questions, I wish to thank the witnesses for attending today.
We have some senators who have not been on this committee for a while. Therefore, I will explain what has been the normal course of action in this committee since before I came here. The last four chairs of this Legal Committee, which is the master of its own procedure, have always, when there was no controversy over either a bill or any clauses of a bill, moved that we dispense with clause-by-clause consideration and then proceeded to pass the bill in its entirety, quite correctly. That is not a method of procedure that I propose to change. When there is controversy over a bill or over some clauses of a bill, we have always grouped the non-controversial clauses and voted on them en masse. I do not propose to take you through all 577-some clauses of this bill.
Senator Andreychuk: As a note of information, you have been the chair since I have been on this committee. You have always insisted -- and I very much appreciate it -- that we hear from all the witnesses and then have an appropriate time to deliberate before we proceed to clause-by-clause study. Two things are happening. We are doing clause-by-clause consideration of the bill today. Senator Nolin has already served notice that doing so does not allow for the due deliberation to bring in amendments here. We could do the bill in its totality because we are accepting the fact that we are forced to amend it at third reading.
The Chairman: I was going to throw it open to the table to see if there are any controversial clauses in this bill. Senator Joyal has already brought to my attention that he would prefer us to group the clauses up to clause 18.1 and then deal with the rest of them. Senator Nolin has also told me that he will bring in his amendment at the proper time at third reading.
Senator Andreychuk: For amendment?
Senator Beaudoin: That is right.
Senator Andreychuk: That is all I wanted to say. It is hard to say what the amendments will be until we have had the due deliberation to bring them in. I was wondering why we were going to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill today.
The Chairman: We are doing it in this fashion because we had scheduled clause-by-clause consideration for today. We postponed it to allow Mr. Freeman, who at the last minute was not able to come here last night, to appear before the committee. To accommodate one of our witnesses is the only reason.
Senator Beaudoin: We had only one witness, because the others were officials of the government. If I understand correctly, we will regroup because of Senator Joyal's proposal?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Beaudoin: All right.
The Chairman: We will then proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-2.
Do I have agreement from the committee to group the clauses on which no amendments are anticipated?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Andreychuk: Yes, with the proviso that I put on the table involving Senator Nolin. From our side, we have said that we are looking at some areas, and perhaps amendments will be forthcoming. I do not know exactly what I will do on all the amendments. If we let this bill go through today, I do not want to be accused later, at third reading, by someone saying, "You went through it at committee. You voted in favour of it."
Senator Beaudoin: The amendment that Senator Nolin will bring is on one article.
Senator Cools: The committee still must pronounce on each clause of the bill. The committee may choose to pronounce on clauses 1 to 10, but the committee must give a judgment on every single clause of the bill. If Senator Andreychuk is concerned that it might seem that she voted for clauses on which she may have had some concern, perhaps the proper way to proceed is to choose a number of clauses and to move so that she can express an opinion on at least some of those clauses.
The Chairman: I will call for all those in favour, all those opposed and abstentions. Senator Andreychuk may abstain or say on division at that time.
All those in favour of grouping the clauses on which there are no amendments anticipated?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: All opposed? I see none. Abstentions?
Senator Andreychuk: On division.
The Chairman: It is agreed, on division.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Moore that the committee do now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-2, respecting the election of members to the House of Commons, repealing other Acts relating to elections and making consequential amendments to other acts.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? All those in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: All those opposed?
Senator Andreychuk: On division.
The Chairman: I declare the motion carried, on division.
Shall the title stand postponed? All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: All those opposed? Abstentions? We are all agreed on that. I declare the motion carried.
Shall clause 1 stand postponed? All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed? Abstentions? I declare the motion carried.
Shall clauses 2 to 18 inclusive carry? All those in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Beaudoin: I agree.
Senator Andreychuk: On division.
The Chairman: Opposed? Abstentions? I declare the motion carried, on division.
Shall clause 18.1 carry?
Senator Joyal: You will recall that when we heard the testimony from the minister, I raised my concern about clause 18.1 as written on the basis that the Senate was excluded from the authorization to lead a test on electronic voting. I openly expressed my intention to establish the status of the Senate in relation to that provision. I have prepared amendments to that effect that would amend clause 18.1 of the bill, at page 13, line 2, by amending the proposed section in the following way: that is, by deleting the word "committee", singular, and substituting "committees", plural; by adding after the word "Commons" the words "and the Senate"; and, finally, by substituting at line 13, "consider", singular, by "considers", plural.
[Translation]
I would have suggested amending clause 18.1 of the bill on page 13, line 12, by replacing the word "committee" in the singular by the word "committees" in the plural, and in line 13, by adding, after the word "commons", "and Senate".
[English]
As you know, the minister has been attentive to the position taken by myself and shared by some other colleagues around the table. The minister wrote to me a letter dated April 10, just three days ago, and I had an opportunity to answer him yesterday on April 12. With your permission, Madam Chair, I will read to you the letter that I sent to the minister regarding this clause of the bill. I offered a solution to the problem of the status of the Senate on the same basis that this committee solved a similar problem in relation to Bill C-3, the DNA bill.
You will remember this committee was of the opinion that the bill should be amended but we did not want to delay the implementation of the bill. The Solicitor General sent to the committee a formal letter regarding Bill C-3 pledging that, at the next opportunity to introduce amendments, he would consider and give effect to our request to re-establish the status of the Senate. That is essentially what I state in my letter.
The Chairman: Do we have the permission of the senators to enter this letter into the oral testimony?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Joyal: Thank you, Madam Chair.The minister is French-speaking, so I will read the letter in French:
[Translation]
Mr. Minister.
The mail brought us your letter dated April 10, and I am grateful to you for sending me your thoughts on clause 18.1 of Bill C-2, which authorizes the testing of an electronic voting process without the consent of the Senate, whereas the House of Commons is given a formally recognized prior right of approval.
You talk about the impact of the clause and mention the Senate's role with respect to the Canada Elections Act, concluding that the Senate would not have an immediate interest in debating the testing of such an important change in our country's voting system.
I would like to express a different opinion and suggest a specific approach that would not delay implementation of Bill C-2.
The voting system is an essential element of any electoral process. In fact, it is at the very heart of the democratic exercise of the right to vote.
Everything to do with voting has an immediate effect on electoral participation, the validity of the vote and even the very exercise of the right to vote.
In keeping with the general thrust of the legislation, which is to extend the right to vote as far as possible to all Canadian citizens, the voting system and everything relating to the way in which electors express their choices are vitally important and can even have a negative effect on the way in which this right is effectively exercised.
It seems to me entirely appropriate in our system that the members of the House of Commons would have an interest, and would want to give their approval, regarding an experiment that would radically change the voting system in this country.
For exactly the same reasons, the Senate, in my opinion, has an interest in being informed about such a project, reviewing the main aspects and assessing how it can influence the exercise of the democratic right of all citizens to express themselves on the choice of their representatives.
It is misleading to state or give the impression that the Senate has little interest at this stage, since it is not elected and since, in any case, it can always review this when the Elections Act is amended as a consequence. I would prefer a preventive approach rather than have to amend the system after it has been passed in the House of Commons. The situation we are facing right now is a good example of this.
I would remind you that the Senate has a vital interest in how elections are held in Canada. In 1994 and 1995, the Senate refused to adopt Bills C-18 and C-19, in effect maintaining the 1981 electoral boundaries for the next election.
Is there an issue in which the members of Parliament themselves have a greater interest for their re-election than the issue of riding boundaries? Changing the boundaries can often make the difference between re-election and defeat. However, the Senate intervened because citizens have a democratic right to choose their representatives fairly and in keeping with the spirit of the legislation.
Our Constitution is clear: cases in which the Senate has different powers from those of the House of Commons are very limited: money bills cannot be initiated or increased by the Senate; constitutional amendments are subject to a six-month suspensive veto and a second vote in the House of Commons. There are no other exceptions.
If the Canadian government wants to change this, it needs to use the amending formula, and an ordinary citizen could assert the unconstitutionality of legislation that excluded the Senate from its adoption process or that would have the effect of the Senate excluding itself, contrary to the right of the provinces under section 42(b) of the Constitution.
It is ill-advised, in my view, to exclude the Senate in this way, and I do not hold you to blame, Mr. Minister, since clause 18.1 was added as an amendment from the House of Commons; however, the equal role of the Senate should be expressed in section 18.1 of the Canada Elections Act.
I do understand the six-month delay in implementing the new provisions of the Act and the importance of having them in place for the next general election.
I would therefore make the following proposal to you: since certain cases (including Figueroa v. Attorney General of Canada) are currently before the Canadian courts and could possibly lead to the legislation being amended, I would invite you to write an official letter to the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee stating that when Parliament is again called on to consider proposed amendments, the role of the Senate will be restored in section 18.1.
Your colleague, the Solicitor General, made a similar commitment on December 1, 1998, when our committee was considering Bill C-3 and the Senate had been excluded in similar conditions.
In that way, our objective of recognizing an equal role for the Senate would be achieved and the bill would be passed in a timely manner.
Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your interest in this matter. Yours truly.
It is signed, Serge Joyal.
[English]
You will understand, Madam Chair, that since the minister received that letter late last night or this morning, it would be proper to give him an opportunity to respond to my proposal to re-establish the status of the Senate without preventing the implementation of the bill beyond the delay of six months. That time period is already included in the bill under present consideration.
We will have an opportunity at third reading to assess whether the minister has judged appropriately not to commit himself. The Senate can then deliberate on the opportunity to amend clause 18.1.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Joyal. I note that you are not moving an amendment at this time, then.
Senator Cools: Is Senator Joyal saying that Minister Boudria could reinstate the Senate's status in the bill?
The Chairman: He is referring to the next batch of amendments.
Senator Cools: I understand from Senator Joyal that he is expecting some action on this bill.
Senator Joyal: I am suggesting the exact same approach that we followed with Bill C-3 about a year ago. Some senators were of the opinion that that bill should be amended, but we understood there was some urgency to establish the DNA databank. We did not want to delay that work. The minister at that time was the Solicitor General, Mr. Lawrence MacAulay, who sent us a formal letter. The minister made the commitment that, the next time he introduced amendments to the bill, that very section on the status of the Senate would be dealt with. The minister honoured his word; in the following year he came back to us with amendments to Bill S-10. We dealt with Bill S-10, and it was properly dealt with.
Honourable senators, that is the approach that I am suggesting for this bill. I agree with the spirit of the legislation. There is no doubt about it, there are many provisions that are an improvement to the present system and it should be on time for the next election. Therefore, I propose that the minister take the same avenue that we had in this committee a year and a half ago.
Senator Beaudoin: I agree with everything Senator Joyal has said. What do we do now? Do we have clause-by-clause consideration for clause 18?
The Chairman: Yes. I intend to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration first on clause 18.1, which is the clause that Senator Joyal is concerned about, and then to group the rest of the clauses. That gives both the minister and Senator Joyal the two-week break that we are approaching to think of the next steps.
Senator Cools: Therefore, we are contemplating the minister responding in respect of this bill.
Senator Beaudoin: Speaking for myself, I am ready to say yes to that amendment. I am convinced by the argument.
Senator Cools: There is no amendment before us, is there?
The Chairman: There is no amendment before us.
Senator Beaudoin: There is an idea.
Senator Joyal: An intention.
The Chairman: However, there is no amendment before us.
Senator Andreychuk: I will just be saying "on division" for all of the bill, and if the minister does not come through with the letter everyone has the right to introduce amendments on third reading.
The Chairman: Absolutely.
Senator Beaudoin: There would be one on our side.
The Chairman: At least one on your side.
Senator Beaudoin: Only on one article.
The Chairman: That one person's amendment is only on one article.
In that case, we will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration. Shall clause 18.1 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chairman: I declare the motion carried on division.
Senator Cools: That is very dangerous. More senators said "on division" than said "carried." That is very dangerous. You must be very clear. Maybe you can ask again so that we can say "agreed." There were no voices saying "agreed."
The Chairman: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: All those on division?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chairman: I declare the motion carried on division.
Shall clauses 19 to 577 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chairman: Carried on division.
Are there any new clauses? No new clauses.
Shall Schedule 1 carry? All those in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed? On division?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
Senator Andreychuk: Consistency.
The Chairman: I declare the motion carried on division.
Shall Schedule 2 carry? All those in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chairman: I declare the motion carried on division.
Shall Schedule 3 carry? All those in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chairman: I declare the motion carried on division.
Are there any new schedules? No new schedules.
Shall clause 1 carry? All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed? That is a different title.
I declare the motion carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed? Abstentions?
I declare the motion carried.
Shall the bill carry? All those in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chairman: I declare the motion carried on division.
Shall I report the bill to the Senate without amendment?
Senator Cools: Honourable senators, I move that Senator Milne report the bill this afternoon without amendment.
The Chairman: All those in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: On division?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chairman: I declare the motion carried on division.
Honourable senators, I will report the bill this afternoon without amendment. Thank you very much for your patience. I declare this meeting now adjourned.
The committee adjourned.