HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 13, 2003

»

1745

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.))

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.)

»

1750

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Rick Borotsik

»

1755

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

¼

1800

The Chair

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Dick Proctor

¼

1805

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Stan Keyes

¼

1810

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.)

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

¼

1815

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

¼

1820

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Michel Guimond

¼

1825

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)

¼

1830

¼

1835

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Joseph Volpe

¼

1840

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Volpe

¼

1845

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

¼

1850

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Volpe

¼

1855

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)

½

1900

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

½

1905

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

½

1910

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.)

½

1915

½

1920

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. John Bryden

½

1925

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

The Honourable Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)

½

1930

The Chair

Hon. Charles Caccia

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

Hon. Charles Caccia

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

½

1935

Hon. Charles Caccia

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Hon. Charles Caccia

Mr. Ted White

Hon. Charles Caccia

½

1940

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 041

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 13, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

»  (1745)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, if we could begin, this is a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The order of the day is Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing).

    This is in fact a round table meeting, members of our committee meeting with any members of Parliament who wish to be here during the evening. A number of MPs have indicated to us they want to be here, and a number of those have indicated they want to speak.

    The way I see this, colleagues, is that the people who speak are not witnesses; this is a discussion we're going to have. I will ask them to speak, I assume they'll speak relatively briefly, but I will not then feel particularly obliged to go to members of the committee for them to ask questions. Any member who is here can ask questions, and I'm hoping there's going to be some sort of interplay of opinion along those lines as distinct from having a witness speak and then the members of the committee asking questions in a formal way.

    One member asked to speak early, Stan Keyes, and you have a brief presentation for us.

    Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Yes, thank you.

    While my presentation isn't entirely formal, I did sit down and put my thoughts to paper, Mr. Chairman, so I wouldn't wander too far off course. It comes to about five minutes.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before this committee on Bill C-24.

    As you mentioned, my name is Stan Keyes. I'm the member of Parliament from Hamilton West and I'm the elected chair of the National Liberal Caucus. My duties as chair include representing my colleagues in the House and Senate on the Executive Committee of the Liberal Party of Canada.

    To prevent any duplication of the issues, I'm prepared to give way to my colleague Jacques Saada, the MP for Brossard-La Prairie, who is on your committee. Also, as chair of the national Liberal caucus committee on Bill C-24, he'll summarize and present the views of our caucus. I would like to augment his report with the views I've collected from my Liberal colleagues and with the overwhelming consensus view of the Liberal Party of Canada.

    For the record, Mr. Chairman, the Liberal Party of Canada adopted a resolution at its meeting of April 26--that was in Toronto, as you recall--and it said at the very beginning that the Liberal Party of Canada affirms its support for the stated objectives of Bill C-24, the advancement of transparency and an increase in public confidence in the public process. Mr. Chairman, in a room of fifty-plus representatives from across the country at that executive meeting, that resolution carried almost unanimously. The president of the party, Mr. Stephen LeDrew, wholeheartedly endorsed that resolution.

    My concerns and the concerns of the Liberal Party include the following. We've been told that the bill is revenue-neutral. That is, what the parties do not receive in corporate or union funds will be replaced by taxpayers' funds. How is this committee, Mr. Chairman, to conclude that $1.50 per voter will establish revenue neutrality? Has this committee received the precise figures used for it to feel secure enough to support $1.50? Should it be more than $1.50? Can it be less than $1.50?

    I can appreciate that maybe the Liberals don't want to share with the Tories or other parties, the Alliance or the Bloc, the precise numbers because of some confidentiality. But still, as a caucus of Liberals for which I can speak, have they come together and seen the figures that were used to establish the $1.50 figure?

    Has there been a cost analysis done on Bill C-24? Can anyone tell me who did that cost analysis? Do the figures reflect the new structure that might be needed to sustain party financing at the current levels? With corporate funding limited to $1,000 per company per year, there will certainly be a need to construct new mechanisms to appeal to individuals who can donate up to $10,000 per person per year.

    And while we're on the subject, can someone explain to me the logic behind legislating an end to the perceived influence of a corporate constituent donating money--and corporations are real people too--but allowing individuals to contribute up to $10,000? I don't understand that logic, but I digress.

    Can the members of the committee feel comfortable voting for a bill where the numbers were based, in the opinion of the Liberal Party of Canada, on revenue generation that did not sustain the party in the years 1997-2000 in the first place? Without a proper and full analysis of the figures, revenue-neutral could be a revenue disaster.

    Can anyone tell me the impact this legislation will have on future leadership campaigns? Leadership candidates cannot issue tax receipts for money collected from individuals or corporations, but will this bill restrict the collection of those funds in the future?

    Another matter is, proposed subsection 404.1(2) in the bill deals with the definition of a corporation and prevents affiliates of that organization from making a donation. Affiliates, which have a legal existence on their own but happen to have overlapping share ownership, cannot contribute. So let's say you have five affiliated companies. Which one is entitled to give a donation? Is the first one to get there? And then does company number three know of the donation company number one gave, the first company that got there? How is that calculated, Mr. Chairman?

»  (1750)  

    The Liberal Party of Canada believes that caps on political contributions of $10,000 for both corporations and individuals would best serve the public interest and the stated goals of this legislation.

    In conclusion, Mr. Chair, if we believe that the parties most affected by Bill C-24 are the registered political parties, why hasn't this committee invited the elected presidents of all the political parties to appear as witnesses?

    Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks, and I'm at your pleasure.

    The Chair: Colleagues, you understand, I'm going to just look around and not keep any particular party order or whatever.

    Rick Borotsik.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, first of all, to Mr. Keyes for his presentation.

    There have been some requests from the political parties, Mr. Keyes, and I know the chairman has written to all the party presidents asking for written submissions. I agree with you, we should have the parties here to present, particularly the major parties.

    I have had the opportunity of sitting down with our council and going through this. There are two issues that are of major concern to us, and one is the requirement for nominations. Under this legislation every nominee in a nomination contest must file and disclose all the donations they receive. We're looking at the idea there should be some sort of limit to that. If, for example, there's a nomination run costing $1,000 or $3,000, should they be required to have a legal agent? Should they be required to fund that? I'd like to hear your opinion on that.

    The second part is, my legal counsel tells me that even with the $1,000 corporation cap, that corporation can only donate to associations, candidates, and leadership candidates, but not parties. So when you were talking about those corporations, that is not a party donation, that is simply to the associations. Do you have any comments on that?

    Mr. Stan Keyes: Thank you for the questions, Rick.

    On the first issue you mentioned, I believe the committee is considering an amendment where there is a limit of 50% for nomination meetings, 50% of what you would raise during an election campaign, and that--

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm not talking about limits on that, I'm talking about, if you're running in a nomination and you're spending money, there's a requirement then for you to file and disclose all your contributions, plus you have to then file a financial statement, if you will.

    Now, in a nomination contest there are some people who maybe spend $50, $100, or $1,000, depending on the riding and the constituency. Under this legislation they would be required to file and table a financial statement. Do you feel there should be some sort of limit for the spending, and not just for the spending but for the filing of documents?

»  (1755)  

    Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I can't speak for the national caucus or the caucus chair on that issue because it hasn't been broached with them. But I want to be clear that I believe that if the objectives of this bill are to ensure transparency and accountability at all stages of this process, then there should be an accounting in nominations. In fact--as this committee will probably amend--the 50% limit should be reduced to 25% so there is an upper limit of how much money can be spent in the process of a nomination meeting.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm told that there are no corporate donations to parties; that's it; it isn't allowed under this legislation. It's only to constituency associations and--

    Mr. Stan Keyes: No. The interpretation I have, Mr. Chairman, is that federal parties--the federal Liberal Party of Canada, for example--can receive moneys, but it's the PTAs, provincial and territorial associations across the country, that will not be permitted to collect any corporate or union money. In fact, they will not be allowed to give a tax receipt either because they will not be allowed to collect the money in the first place.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: It's not true. Under this legislation you cannot have a corporate donation to a party. You can to a candidate, you can to an association, you can to a nominee, and you can to a leadership candidate, but not to a party. You cannot have a corporate donation to a party.

    Mr. Stan Keyes: I stand to be corrected, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Let's leave it, though.

    This question is to Stan. Joe Jordan.

    Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Through you to Mr. Keyes, I think Mr. Borotsik's interpretation is correct on that, but we'll have to go through it.

    I have two things, Stan. One is something I completely agree with you on and one I have issue with.

    In terms of the financial impact on existing parties, I think that information is critical; I really do. You've said it well, and I think we need to, either in front of the curtain or as a party.... If you have any analysis on that, then at least the Liberal colleagues on the committee would like to see that, because we're getting mixed messages. That's something we should be able to clear up so it doesn't get in the way.

    On the issue of corporations, I guess the rationale--and we've gone through hearings already to a certain point on this--for the differentiation between the corporate and the individual.... I wasn't exactly sure what you meant when you said that corporations are human too. I study artificial intelligence at university, and I don't think we're quite there yet. People vote but companies don't, I guess, is the thinking of it.

    It's an extremely complicated situation because it depends on the corporate structure; it's a situation like the United Church versus the Catholic Church, for example. Companies organize in a certain way. Because of that organization, done completely for reasons that have nothing to do with this bill, they might be able to give a total of $300,000 in donations because they're individual entities under corporate law versus a centralized organization that will have $1,000 to spread around the country. These things have to be discussed, talked through, and worked through.

    I don't have a problem with having a different level between corporate and individual; I think the distinctions are there. But I think you're right on with the unintended consequences and how this plays out, given the structure of companies and corporations in this country. Especially with things like overlapping shares, what's the percentage that would make that the same company? That stuff has to be nailed down before we can make intelligent decisions on this.

    The Chair: Stan Keyes.

    Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chair, I completely agree with my colleague. I have the assurance now from the House leader that he will make those numbers available to our committee members. Then we as a Liberal group on the committee can at least see the numbers, see the justification for the $1.50, and see if this plan is indeed revenue-neutral. I'm interested in those numbers myself.

    Beyond that, on your other statement about corporations versus individuals, I have to take myself back to the entire premise of the bill. There's where I have great difficulty. I as a member of Parliament and, I dare say, every member of Parliament sitting around this table, every one of us, are not susceptible in any way to a donation from a corporation or an individual. I don't plan to have a vote or a say influenced or be influenced myself in any way by a donation from a corporation or an individual.

    That premise having been stated, my difficulty is this. Suppose a corporation--a nameless and, as you would suggest, faceless organization--comes forward and says, here's $5,000, Stan, you're doing a great job. Then I say, thank you very much. For that they know they are not going to get any special or any different treatment other than what I think is best for my constituency or my government.

    Yet at the same time it says it's okay for an individual to give me $10,000. So suppose one of my best friends, who happens to have a lot of money, comes to me and says, here's ten grand, and I say, thank you. Is it possible I'm not going to be as influenced by him or her as I am by a corporation?

    I think this is a flawed concept, Mr. Chairman.

¼  (1800)  

    The Chair: Ted White. This is questioning of Stan.

    Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Thanks, Peter.

    In your opening remarks, Stan, you made the comment that you were representing views collected from your colleagues. I'd just like to have a feeling as to what extent your colleagues share those concerns.

    You raise some very legitimate and interesting questions, one of which has cost analysis being done. In effect, we've heard estimates of the cost from both the minister and the chief electoral officer. Whether they're accurate or not, we don't know, but we have had some.

    Can you just give the committee an idea, to what extent do these concerns involve your colleagues? Is half the caucus concerned, is it 10%, or did only a few people come to talk with you? Who exactly are you representing?

    Mr. Stan Keyes: Well, Mr. Chairman, unlike the Alliance party, we don't have votes in caucus, so there's no way of clearly determining how many members of the National Liberal Caucus agree or disagree with some of the points I'm making. But for the most part, especially when it comes to wanting to know exactly how the $1.50 was arrived at, for example, I can comfortably say there is a consensus in our caucus. I can only speak in terms of consensus rather than in actual numbers or votes.

    Mr. Ted White: Obviously, you could ask these questions directly to Don Boudria. I just wondered if you'd done that and if you'd received any response, because I can certainly pose them if other committee members don't when the minister is here on Thursday.

    Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, in fact I've had a confirmation from Don Boudria, our Liberal House leader, that he will make the figures he is aware of available to our caucus. They are to a great degree confidential with respect to what our party does, as yours would be to what your party does, and for that reason he will bring those numbers to our caucus colleagues. He will discuss with us how the $1.50 was arrived at so members on the Liberal side of this committee can feel comfortable or whatever on whether or not $1.50 is appropriate.

    I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that members of the Alliance and the other parties would also avail themselves of the figures from their parties to assure themselves that $1.50 would in fact be enough, given the lack of corporate and individual opportunity, in order to satisfy the needs of the workings of their political parties.

    The Chair: If I could--I don't want to interrupt you--if we go according to plan this week, the minister appears here Thursday. In general terms, all of this can be addressed to the minister when he comes.

    Mr. Stan Keyes: Barring of course, Mr. Chairman, that some of those figures may be confidential to the Liberal Party.

    The Chair: Yes, I understand that point, but I said, in the general case. The minister will be here, so we'll be able to get as much as we can.

    Dick Proctor.

    Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Keyes, when you said that corporations are people too, I take it that wasn't a legal definition. What you meant was that corporations are made up of individuals.

    Mr. Stan Keyes: That's correct.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: This question concerns the proposition you advance that the figure of $1,000 for trade unions, corporations, and associations should move to $10,000. If that is not recommended or passed, if this bill keeps it at $1,000, do you have a view about whether or not it's worth the candle, whether it's worth it to have a $1,000 limit for an organization?

    Joe used corporations; let me use trade unions. The Canadian Union of Public Employees is one of the most decentralized trade unions in the country. You could easily have a local in Surrey, British Columbia, that gives $1,000 to candidate x, so somebody else in Toronto, Regina, or Moose Jaw who unknowingly does the same runs afoul of this act. It's the law of unintended consequences.

    I can see lots of problems, and that leads me to believe that we'd be better off, because the amounts are so picayune, not to have this at all. It'll be far more time-consuming and there'll be far more involved in policing this than it's worth for what the political parties are going to get at the end of the day.

    Could we have your thoughts.

¼  (1805)  

    Mr. Stan Keyes: I have two comments, Mr. Chair, if I might. One is, I'm going to leave it to the discretion of my learned colleagues on the committee to determine, after seeing the facts and the figures that will come to them, whether or not the $1.50 is enough and whether or not $1,000 for corporations or $10,000 for individuals is enough, is too high, or is too low.

    But I can't seriously believe we can make a decision like that as members of Parliament, as individuals who belong to a party, without those figures or without some kind of cost analysis. It's not fair to us as individuals and it's not fair to us collectively as members of Parliament, who have to pass a bill in the House of Commons.

    On the other matter, Mr. Chairman, it's quite easy sometimes for a political party like the NDP or the Bloc to say, we really don't need this corporate and individual stuff; let's just let that go and we'll take the government money. But consider that in the Bloc's case they will be taking a taxpayer-funded contribution in order to run their campaign in only 75 ridings, whereas a national party like ours has to run with the same kind of money in 301 ridings across this country. It makes for a very different scenario, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Well, just for the record, let me point out that the New Democratic Party does run in 301 ridings and--

    Mr. Stan Keyes: No, I said the Bloc.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Well, I think the record will show you said “the NDP or the Bloc”.

    Mr. Stan Keyes: No, I said “the Bloc”. I hadn't concluded my remarks on the NDP, but if you'd like me to, I will.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: I can't believe that within the first 15 minutes after this bill was drafted all the political parties didn't look at it and say, what does $1.50 mean in relation to what we are going to lose? I know that in the case of the New Democratic Party it's roughly a wash; it's a little bit more but not very much more. I can tell you that the Canadian Alliance sat at the briefing, and one of their members leaned over to me and said, this means $5 million a year to us plus the other $5 million we raise, so it's $10 million. I can't believe the Liberal party didn't have that before the bill was tabled.

    The Chair: Carolyn.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): To a certain extent I support what Stan has said about not knowing what it's actually costing the taxpayers, because my friend Ted White pointed out to me that if Mr. and Mrs. Scott in my riding give $200, they get a $150 tax rebate. If I spend that $200 in an election, I get a $100 rebate back into my coffers, so I'm actually getting $350 from the taxpayers on a $200 donation. I'd like to know how they come up with all the numbers.

    The other thing I'm concerned about, though, is the corporations. I don't know--and I've asked the staff if there's any way of discovering--what the tax breaks are to corporations when they write it off as a business expense, because I think that's another pile of tax dollars. I don't think whoever is in charge of the bill has done a really good job of explaining it to us, but the taxpayers are already paying a huge amount of money, probably more than $1.50 a person. If you look at the business deductions...and I don't know how you'd track that down.

    I'm just reinforcing what you've said there with a tip in the other direction. I agree with you that $10,000 is ridiculous, and I think they both should be at $5,000. I'm curious as to what your reaction would be if both were set at $5,000 with a maximum of $250 per riding association or candidate so it forced big rich guys and corporations to dole it out to 10 or 15 candidates instead of handing it to you. Do you have any reaction to that?

    Mr. Stan Keyes: My first reaction, Mr. Chairman, would be this. Carolyn, you addressed the issue of the tax receipt for corporations as a business expense, and I'm pretty certain that this legislation precludes the corporations from doing that. You can't have an executive give a donation in the name of the company and then go back and claim it as a business expense. I think--

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I was telling you what's going on right now, before the rules are changed.

    Mr. Stan Keyes: I don't think they could even do it now and get away with it. The corporation would be watching that kind of thing very closely because they'd be answerable to the revenue agency for that kind of situation.

    But if we're trying to ensure transparency and accountability, the last thing we want to do is to have corporations become newly creative in the ways they donate their money to us. There are many different opportunities now according to what I've read in this legislation, and some of the corporations I've talked to say, well, all we'll have to do is this or that. I don't even know if that's legal or whether it will be addressed, not necessarily in the bill but in the regulations that follow.

    Maybe I missed out in asking the committee this, but is the committee also prepared to look not just at the bill itself but at the regulations that will accompany it? There too it will be important to look specifically at how the implications of the bill will work through the regulations and how those regulations are going to impact on the contributions to a political party as well.

¼  (1810)  

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I especially wanted your reaction to my second question, which is about making them break it down into a max of $250 or $500 per candidate.

    Mr. Stan Keyes: We haven't run this through caucus, Carolyn, as you know. I think Jacques Saada will be making a presentation on behalf of the caucus.

    I'm not sure, Jacques, did that come forward as a consensus view or not?

    Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): No, not the figure.

    Mr. Stan Keyes: Not the figure, but there was some discussion on breaking it down per riding rather than having an overall, one-shot $1,000, $5,000, or $10,000 concept.

    The Chair: Mr. Regan.

    Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, as a point of information, the bill does not provide for regulations; there will be no regulations associated with this bill.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, as the caucus chair has just said, there have been numerous discussions in our caucus on Bill C-24.

    I will not go into detail on the figures that were discussed, but I will focus on the principles where there seems to be a broad consensus within our party. The first consensus is on corporate donations made solely at the local level; these could be subject to what I would call a dual ceiling. The maximum contribution at the riding level could be kept at $1,000, but there could be an overall corporate ceiling that would be higher, say $5,000.

    This would allow for a better balance between corporate donations to rural ridings and those to urban ridings, where there are far more head offices, and between the ridings where there are ministers and those without, and orphan ridings, etc.

    There also seems to be a broad consensus on the following principle. Let's say that one year there is a nomination race, a by-election and a general election that follows a few weeks or a few months later. If you use up the $1,000 for the nomination in the riding, you no longer have any money for the other activities, that are equally important, and associated with the general election or by-election. So people would like to see a ceiling that applies to a political activity, namely an election or nomination, rather than an annual limit.

    We think it is a little absurd to indiscriminately impose a ceiling of $10,000...

[English]

    The Chair: Jacques, is this a question for Stan, or what is it?

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: It is the continuation of Mr. Keyes' presentation on the position of the Liberal caucus. If you are not interested in it, I will keep it for myself; it doesn't really matter.

[English]

    The Chair: If you want to be a presenter, although you're a member of the committee, I think you should present later on in the evening because the committee arranged this thing so our colleagues who are not on the committee could get their 10¢ worth in.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I can certainly stop if you wish, but I would like to point out one thing. The chair came here to make a presentation and he stipulated in his presentation that he would broach just some of the problems because I would be presenting the other part of it. By the way, my caucus has given me the mandate to chair a special committee on this subject and I am therefore not wearing the same hat when I do that as when I am a member of this committee.

[English]

    The Chair: I must have missed that. I got Stan's name, I knew early on that he wanted to speak early, so I put him on, Jacques.

    I seriously think that it's inappropriate. We have members of other parties who want to present here.

¼  (1815)  

    Mr. Jacques Saada: The order of presentation is up to you. I'm not going to create a problem with it, but I just thought it was what had been announced in the first place.

    The Chair: I regret it, but I must have missed that.

    Now Stan is not here.

    Michel.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Chairman, my question is for Mr. Keyes. If we have to wait much longer for him to return, in order to not hold up my colleagues, I would like to hear Ms. Meredith make her presentation, and then we could take a break so that I can finish my question for Mr. Keyes.

[English]

    The Chair: That is my intention; merci.

    Val Meredith.

    Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): I will keep my comments very short; I wasn't really planning on making a presentation.

    I think my concern with this new piece of legislation is that it seems to be rather undemocratic, and there are a couple of issues. One, it recognizes the strength of a party today, and we have seen in Canadian history a number of times when there were major swings in support by the electorate, for example, in 1993 with the Tories and in 1988, I believe, when the Liberals ended up with 40 seats. I think there would be a problem if this bill was brought into the House when the Liberals were sitting there with 40 members of Parliament.

    It strikes me as being undemocratic if it's based on the strength of a party. If all the parties got the same amount of money right across the board, then that would be something different.

    The other thing you have to deal with is the fact you have smaller populations in some of the ridings. My understanding of this bill is, it's based on $1.50 per person or per capita or per voter you represent. You have Atlantic Canadian provinces that are going to be running elections with a lot less money than somebody in my situation, where I have a larger population. Somehow you're going to have to come to grips with the fact that you're going to have some constituency associations that may not have enough money to put signs on the lawns and others that have more than enough. I think that discrepancy is going to present a problem down the road.

    The other thing I'm concerned about is, most of us--and I can only speak for myself--operate with volunteers. When you have a massive reporting mechanism, you're asking volunteers to do something they may not be prepared to do or may not have the experience or expertise to do.

    To have to hire auditors to audit accounts and answer to the government is an expense we all are aware of. I believe we're allowed $1,600 to audit our election returns. I don't know about your constituencies, but in mine that doesn't cover the cost. The balance of it is thrown in as a donation or as a volunteer aspect. So the cost of having accounting processes in our constituencies might be a lot more than the value of this exercise.

    As a political party we don't depend on and we don't get a lot of corporate donations, so the fact that you're restricting them doesn't really bother me. What does bother me is--and I think Stan mentioned this--all of a sudden something that's transparent becomes non-transparent. You can have a corporation that can't donate more than $1,000 but you might have 10 board members who can donate $10,000. Instead of it being where this corporation has a vested interest and wants to donate to a candidate or a party, all of a sudden it's 10 individuals not necessarily associated with that corporation who are financing it.

    Now, that's not very transparent. If we're accused of being biased towards those people who are financing our election, it seems to me that 10 people from one corporation funding a constituency association is going to make for a whole lot more pressure than one corporation as an entity.

    I would like to have that recorded as the comments I have to make and leave it at that.

    The Chair: Are there any questions or comments for Val? Dick Proctor.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: I see the point you're raising about there being 10 lawyers in a law firm and each giving $10,000. Do you think that could be dealt with by a further provision such as, where you have John Smith at 222 Main Street, then you also have a box for “employed by” so there's no confusion about which John Smith we're talking about? In other words, there'd be a more precise definition of who was actually contributing, and then if you have 10 names of people who are all employed at the same firm, that will become pretty evident.

¼  (1820)  

    Ms. Val Meredith: What is more evident is the fact that if the donation came from the company headquarters or as a company cheque, it would be very clear what entity is in fact financing it.

    This way, it's under the table and it's not as transparent, I would suggest. You may see that John Smith works at the same office as Joe Blow, but in a reporting mechanism they're going to be in alphabetical order, and you're not going to make that connection unless somebody takes the time to look at all the individuals and put it together. This is as opposed to, here's the corporate donation, it's up front, and it's clear where it's coming from.

    I just think it's another way of getting around it, and it's going to be used.

    The Chair: Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to go back to two things that Mr. Keyes mentioned earlier.

    First of all, in your personal candidate's report for the November 2000 election, did you accept corporate donations? If so, what was the maximum amount?

[English]

    Mr. Stan Keyes: I don't know off the top of my head, but I can make those figures available to you, Michel.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Earlier on, you spoke so well that I would have made you a saint immediately. You spoke so innocently that I could hardly believe it was you talking. It is all very nice to talk about transparency, but I will check your report to Elections Canada. I am sure you said that a backbencher like yourself could not get corporate donations, could not influence companies, that the money goes straight to the party.

    You can't just say whatever you want. We may be at a round table, but don't try to take us for fools. You may have received corporate donations as parliamentary secretary or chairman of the Transport Committee. You may have received corporate donations, especially from transportation companies. That is the first thing I wanted to say about your introductory remarks, which nearly sounded like a sermon.

    Secondly, you say you can't believe—I am trying to translate your comments as best I can because I listened to you in English—that the Bloc, which fields only 75 candidates, would be treated in the same way as your party, a party that fields candidates... And that is the point on which Mr. Proctor rightly made a correction, because you had indeed included the NDP in that. So, you seemed surprised that the Bloc, which fields only 75 candidates, can get the same financing. But the current legislation applies to every recognized party, and to be a recognized party, you must have 50 officially recognized candidates in the general election. So there is nothing illegal in the Bloc qualifying, even if it fields candidates only in Quebec. The $1.50 contributions are paid based on the number of votes garnered. A party that fields candidates in the 301 ridings may have a better chance of getting more money because it has more chances of getting votes, but of course if the Bloc fields candidates in 75 ridings, it should also be entitled to funding based on the number of votes, which is over a million throughout Quebec. Of course it should be allowed to qualify, unless you agree with Paul Martin, who said that it makes no sense for a party... Unless you wanted to qualify the party and say that it is a party that does not follow the rules for maintaining Canada as it currently is and that there should be discrimination based on party policy; unless that was your underlying message, it would be perfectly logical for the Bloc to have the right to qualify.

¼  (1825)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Michel.

    Stan Keyes.

    Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, this is on two points, the last being my first point.

    I don't know who's pulling the wool over whose eyes. Mr. Guimond is a friend. We've known each other a long time, we've worked on the transport committee for many years, and I respect his opinion. But when it comes to just the pure facts on money, the Bloc Québécois runs 75 candidates in only one province--and he's absolutely right; there's nothing illegal in that. If they want to run in one province, good luck to them; they can.

    But it's pretty clear that under these rules that are being presented, the Bloc Québécois will, leading up to a federal election, now come into the possession of money to the degree of two, three, or maybe even four times what they could ever have collected before. They're probably very enthusiastic and very happy about what's going to happen with this legislation.

    That aside, Mr. Guimond also made reference to donations to me from corporations. I'm quite certain there have been donations to me from corporations. It's all public knowledge and it can all be found on the Elections Canada website, so I invite him to look at the Elections Canada website; there will be a list of who contributed to Stan Keyes and his campaign.

    But if Mr. Guimond is alleging for one second that because I received corporate donations it somehow influenced any decision I made as chair of the transport committee or as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Chairman, then I invite Mr. Guimond to make those comments outside this room, outside the protection of this committee, and he'd better have deep pockets.

    The Chair: Joe Volpe.

    Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Thank you.

    Mr. Chairman, I too have some reservations. I think the exchanges we've had over the course of the last hour ought to be an indication to whoever is watching the proceedings that the legislation raises more questions than it addresses and that those of us who are going to be most affected by it aren't really sure about what the intentions of the drafters of the legislation might have been. Worse, there's already some confusion about the interpretation and, even worse still, about whether some of the unintended consequences of those interpretations are actually detrimental to the overall objective of the legislation.

    Before I begin, in an attempt to clarify the issue I just want to make reference to one of the questions raised by a colleague opposite, to wit, why can't you have corporate donations to the party when you can have them from an individual? If it is the intention of this legislation to limit, if not eliminate, the influence of corporations in a political environment, it seems to me that the place you would want to eliminate that would be at the local level rather than at the national level simply because there are very few corporations that can influence a party.

    If there are any around the table here who have any different experience, please tell me, but a party is a bureaucratic organization, and the legislative branch of that bureaucratic organization develops its policies quite separately from the party. It may be different in a couple of the other parties that have an ideological base, but in the past those parties that have formed the governments in this country have relied on the national bureaucracy plus the legislative branch in order to initiate policies that have been implemented as legislation. They have typically not gone to the ideological bases or the policy platforms of their parties. The parties have very little influence in terms of the legislation that comes forward from the national bureaucracy of the country.

    I'm going to try to limit my concerns to two or three if I can, Mr. Chairman, because I want to frame them properly. The concerns I have are so far-reaching that I'm going to speak in two or three generalities.

    I think this committee, as it hears evidence, it will be impressed with one thing primarily. That is, the sum total of the changes that are envisaged in this bill are such that we are going to overturn the political culture of the country without having thoroughly studied what the consequences or outcomes might be for each and every one of the individual clauses of this bill, nor what they will accomplish collectively.

    I'm just going to put a few out for you. First of all, today under the current legislation, as one of the members of the committee has pointed out, we already do fund political activity--not political parties but political activity--through the Income Tax Act, Elections Canada, and related legislation. Madam Parrish is absolutely correct. When someone makes a contribution, there is a political tax credit that is associated with that contribution, to a limit, and many people make a greater contribution than that, beyond the $550 or $600 tax credit. They will make those contributions.

    Those corporations, as you all know, will buy more tables at fundraisers because they're not necessarily interested in the political tax credit, they're interested in sustaining the process. Probably what they do is, they charge to their promotion budget whatever contributions they do make--probably. I don't know because I'm not privy to what their interests might be. But the relationship under the current system is one that sustains the democratic involvement of individual citizens.

¼  (1830)  

    What the legislation currently says is, if the chairman wants to run as a nominated candidate, provided the chairman can show there is sufficient support for him at the local level by gaining the vote of his peers and his constituents, then he's entitled to a certain rebate from the Government of Canada through Elections Canada. That's what it says. That also provides an opportunity for parties to receive some money; they're part of that entire process.

    Under the one envisaged by Bill C-24, we talk only about the party. In our case, the Liberal Party is a federation of provincial and territorial organizations, which are in turn federations of local party organizations, constituency organizations. This bill will change that considerably.

    I notice, as I look around the table, almost every single member who has come here to make comment is from the Liberal Party, and more importantly in terms of this particular example, they're from Ontario, where what I've just said is exactly what the situation might be. I know it's different in some of the other provinces, but this legislation doesn't address those differences.

    Why doesn't it address those differences? I think the legislation says that party activities are internal to the party organization. They're going to have to work out the relationships between the constituency and the provincial/territorial organization and between the provincial/territorial organization and the central party. That's what the legislation essentially says.

    Now, I can't imagine a more crucial relationship to the health of the political system than the one that takes all three levels into consideration. I can't think of a more fundamental issue than one that says, we will alter the way the individual citizen expresses his or her own political views through the local candidate, because all the financing is going to go through the national party.

    But the national party is going to be composed of apparatchiks who will be beyond the accountability to which all local members are held at every election. They will be accountable to their membership in their biannual meetings, but the funding isn't going to be a part of that accountability. I don't think there's going to be the kind of scrutiny we would expect.

    Mr. Chairman, I asked myself, what is it that generated this bill? What were the issues? What was wrong with the system that needed to be fixed, and why don't we use the appropriate measures to address whatever it is that's wrong?

    I'm not going to take umbrage at anybody else's views. Here I'm going to be speaking as a citizen as much as a political individual--and I'm sorry Monsieur Guimond is not here. What this bill will do is, it will in fact create a funding formula that will sustain partisan activity even though a party could conceivably have no political representation in the House of Commons.

    Now, one might say, there's nothing wrong with that because we do that. Under Elections Canada rules today, if you run members everywhere and you don't get any elected, as long as you can get 15% support in your riding--there's a threshold for you--Elections Canada will defray your costs to the tune of 50% of whatever it is you bear.

    You have to raise the rest yourself. You have to prove you have support in a democratic environment in order for you to be considered a serious candidate. That's what we do under our legislation. It's not Joe Volpe's view, that's the view we have embodied in the legislation under which Elections Canada governs.

    Under this legislation we'll remove that. We'll say in effect that it doesn't matter what kind of support each individual nominated candidate might have around the country. What we'll do is say, we're going to tally up the totals those parties got and we're going to give them a number; let's pick one out of the hat: $1.50 per vote.

¼  (1835)  

    Great concept. I don't know why it's not $2.50, I don't why it's not $3.50 or $5 or 5¢. Nobody can justify that to the public because nobody has given a good rationale for it.

    Now that Mr. Guimond is back, I'll say this. I don't know how much appetite for this there would be with the Canadian public if they knew that we could potentially see the elimination in the House of a group of parliamentarians dedicated to separating from the country and that we would then fund--fund--that movement, notwithstanding their absence in the House, to the tune of whatever the formula gave them. Today it would give them about $2 million, maybe more, per annum.

    I'm not sure we've thought that one through, Mr. Chairman.

    Let me close by saying that I think that this legislation needs to have some really thorough analysis because it's going to be imposed on those who are going to stay here by those who are not going to be here when the legislation is implemented.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Are there any short comments or questions for Joe specifically? Dick Proctor.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Joe, I guess bad news follows, because you talked about the 15% threshold. Actually, this bill will reduce that 15% to 10%. If you get 10% of the vote in the riding, then you're going to be entitled to some money back.

    But surely you have to concede something about the argument you advanced at the end, that the state would pay handsomely for parties that weren't even represented in the House, perhaps to the tune of $2 million per annum. There are some basic thresholds. You have to get 2% of the popular vote and you have to field a number of candidates. If you don't elect anybody to the House of Commons, then you haven't received very many votes across the country, and therefore that $2 million is going to plummet dramatically.

    I'm not at all persuaded by the arguments you've advanced on that point. I just don't see the point you're trying to advance.

    Mr. Joseph Volpe: I think, Mr. Chair, my good colleague has to listen only to his observations in response to my comments. With the specific example I gave it doesn't matter if the threshold is 2% of the national vote. Last election they got 11%, and next time they'll probably get something similar, so even if they go down to 9%, 7%, or 5%, they're still going to get funding.

    You tell me that under the bill the threshold will now be 10%. I said earlier in my comments that in our collective wisdom the legislation we've decided to operate under says that serious candidates are those who get 15%. Please give me the rationale for why a serious candidate is now one who can only get 10% of the popular vote.

¼  (1840)  

    The Chair: Mr. Guimond--and be quite brief, Michel, if you would.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I will try.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Volpe, do you think of yourself as a democrat?

    Mr. Joseph Volpe: Yes, of course. I have a definition of it, but it may not be the same as yours.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: You answered my first question.

    I would just like to make a short comment. The comments that you made about the Bloc, without necessarily naming it, remind me of what happened in 1993, when the Bloc Québécois elected 54 members of Parliament in accordance with parliamentary democracy. It was the party with the second highest number of members of Parliament in the House, and the Alliance Party of Canada—and your views are probably much closer to those of the Canadian Alliance; we know your right-wing opinions—tried to insist, despite the fact that it was the third recognized party, that it should form the official opposition because the second party with the highest number of seats was a separatist party that wanted to break up the country. Speaker Parent based his decision on the British parliamentary tradition and ruled that a party's allegiance was not a factor and that the rules are such that the party with the second highest number of seats forms the official opposition, whether you like the party or not.

    I would like to make the same comment about the presence of the Bloc Québécois. If you say you are a democrat, I would tell you that I was elected democratically just as you were. I consider myself as legitimate as you. The people who sent me here voted for me knowing full well that I was a sovereignist. So the members from the Bloc Québécois have no need to be embarrassed about being here. If a bill provides for financing based on the number of votes obtained in an election, we might be able to benefit from that. You do not have to qualify your statement by saying that one party is too left-wing so it is not entitled to financing, or that another party is too sovereignist or that another is too monarchist. That is undemocratic language.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: Joe Volpe, briefly.

    Mr. Joseph Volpe: Obviously, we have a different definition of democracy. I know that Mr. Guimond knows about many examples in Europe where a cut-off is 5% of the popular vote. Otherwise, you get no representation in the parliaments of the various countries. I'm sure those people think of themselves as democrats just as all of us think of ourselves as democrats.

    You know, Mr. Chairman, of course it's right that if you get elected, you have the legitimacy of the public. There is nobody in this room who has the right to make any laws or participate in the making of laws except by virtue of the public will. That's what we're talking about.

    Former Speaker Parent said it very accurately, that he was only talking about the representation that was in this House. But we're talking about people who might not be in this House, where we would encourage, by financing, an ideological movement with activities running current to the activities of this place when it obviously does not have representation in the House.

    There's room for opposition in the House of Commons. Heaven knows we have plenty of it, some of it even within our own party, and there's nothing wrong with that. But the legislation doesn't talk about how you organize yourself in the House, it talks about how you finance political movements after an election, not what you do when you're in here. I think that's a very fine and important distinction to make.

    We want to respect the will of the people, even as we have accommodated people who, as Monsieur Guimond says, veulent briser le pays. We have said, of course the people speak through them; they have a legitimate voice in the House. But once they're not here, why would any Canadian finance the continuation of a movement for which there is obviously no appetite?

¼  (1845)  

    The Chair: Colleagues and people watching should know that the committee invited, I believe, 13 registered parties here. One or two declined but most of them came, so there are parties outside the House of Commons already.

    Judy Sgro.

    Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I'll start by saying that I don't have a lot of problems with the basic principles and objectives we see here in Bill C-24: disclosure, accountability, and putting limits on donations and spending. I have no issue with any of that, nor with the inclusion of a cap on nomination spending; it's long overdue.

    What I see wrong with this legislation and find most troubling is the broadening of the existing role of public financing in the system, substantially reducing individual or corporate freedom of choice in financial support for a particular party or candidate.

    Also, we talk about being a democratic society and all of us being elected officials, yet we're going to turn around and deal with legislation without having full consultation. We haven't travelled anywhere, and we haven't asked anybody what their thoughts are other than what we're doing in the House amongst ourselves. I think that's a major disservice to the Canadian public.

    If we are telling the Canadian public that we now want to have a public financing system at this level of government, we owe it to the public to ask them whether that's what they want. Since when do we introduce legislation that clearly says, this is what we want and we don't give a darn what you think as Canadian taxpayers? I think it's an amazing affront. My issues are more with process than with anything else in this bill. I think it's wrong, what we're doing.

    With all of the other legislation I've been involved with since I've been a member of Parliament, which is for almost four years, if anything we consult to death. We go around the country and we're constantly consulting and then revising and consulting. On this legislation there's been a little consultation with MPs, and all of a sudden this is the legislation; you have no choice; vote for it or else pay the consequences.

    I think it's an affront to absolutely everybody who is a taxpayer in Canada. If we could only get their attention enough, I think you'd find that they would be in an uprising on this issue. They want a choice. They don't want to be told what parties they're going to finance. They want a choice, to be able to do what they consider to be their democratic right, which is voice their concern on a piece of legislation.

    In the end they may come back to us, and we may come back to a meeting chaired by you, Mr. Adams, that says, Canadians support this legislation; they think we should have the following cap, and it should be done in the following ways. We would have done our job and we would have consulted with Canadians over and above what little consultation we've had with the corporations or with the members of our own parties, the people who are actually out there selling tickets and helping us to raise money.

    On the maximum cap of $1,000 on corporate donations, do you want my comments on that over and above process, which I'd rather not give you because I'm arguing process? The $1,000 is ridiculous; I think it should be $10,000 across the board. I frankly think the $10,000 cap on individual donations is ridiculous, because if somebody gave me $10,000, you know what? I'd have to say, what is it you want from me? No one gives us $10,000 now.

    If someone spends $1,500 or $2,000 for a table at a fundraiser, they're doing that as a business, and it's good corporate business because they believe in the democratic process. But if an individual gave me anything more than $250, frankly, it would be no thanks. For us to be playing a game here with this $10,000 cap on individual donations is, I think, an affront to all of us again.

    We need the changes but it needs to be a process. We need to go out to the Canadian public like we do with other pieces of legislation. We need to ask what their comments are, whether they support it, and what changes they would like to see. Then we need to do what we always do, which is have a healthy debate in this committee and then deal with that. Trying to do this the way we are doing it is a complete affront and is certainly not something I will be able to support.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Now it's questions or comments for Judy. Stan Keyes.

    Mr. Stan Keyes: Judy, I was interested in hearing what you had to say, but I'm also interested in the nuance we see coming. At each meeting that passes by, Mr. Chairman, we see a new nuance.

    For example, a corporation cannot give to the federal party and cannot give to provincial or territorial associations, which in fact are completely void in this bill, and can only give to a riding association. Individuals, on the other hand, can give up to $10,000 to either the riding association or the federal party. Again, there's a difference in consideration between a corporation and an individual. A corporation is limited to $1,000 but individuals can give up to $10,000.

    Then the other nuance that concerns me, Judy--and I'd like your opinion on it--is that while a corporation--a bank, for example--can give $1,000, their branches cannot participate because they are affiliated with the main corporation. Likewise, many other companies in Canada that have affiliates--if it's Bell Canada, Bell Cellular can't, for example--can't donate because the parent company may have donated $1,000 in that one-year period.

    Yet on the other hand, if you are an insurance company, each and every one of your brokers who are affiliated with that insurance company can give $1,000 aside from the $10,000 because they are not technically or logistically part of the corporation. Co-operators insurance, for example, can ask every one of its agents across the country, please give $1,000 each as a corporate donation to the candidates of your choosing or to these particular candidates.

¼  (1850)  

    The Chair: Let's have Judy's response, then.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Those are the kinds of issues you need to be consulting Canadian taxpayers on. One is, if we're going to start managing the system, we have to make sure we have enough money to run the elections in Canada. Second, do Canadian taxpayers want to pay the full funding of elections? And then third, we have to look at just how we get a balance.

    It seems that every time you set a rule...well, somebody told me that a lawyer's job is to figure out a way around a rule. And the more rules we put in place, if we want transparency and accountability, the more we need to make sure we're doing the job right and that we have the right things in place to get them.

    The Chair: Ted White.

    Mr. Ted White: Thanks, Peter.

    Judy, neither you nor Joe mentioned the administrative aspect associated with riding associations. I'd just like to ask you a question about that, whether you've read that part of the bill and whether you're familiar with the amount of administration that's going to be required now at the riding association level. I think that relates a little to the point you were making, that there really hasn't been much consultation. Certainly, I don't think my riding association has the faintest idea of what they're in for yet. Do you have any comments on that at all?

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Given the fact that our riding associations are all looked after by volunteers, if we have to get too technical on a lot of these things, I think we're even going to discourage them from doing the jobs they're currently doing. The least we can do is go to them and ask them what they think about all these changes that are going to significantly affect them and how they do their volunteer work for us.

    The Chair: Joe Volpe; briefly, Joe, if you would. I say it to you particularly because you've spoken a fair time.

    Mr. Joseph Volpe: And I appreciate the time you've accorded me, Mr. Chairman, because it's reflective of the fact that you respect that this is a very complex problem and that we're trying to raise issues for committee members even when they're not here. I know that they're going to read the record.

    One of the things Madam Sgro raised was the way the financing might take place, and I'm going to ask her for her comment because she's indicated that perhaps what we have to do is delve further by engaging the public in this. Madam Sgro has been involved at the municipal level, where financing has undergone a series of changes, at least in Ontario.

    There are those who would suggest that what will happen is, you'll see the emergence of political action committees virtually everywhere, and corporations that want to get around a problem may turn around and go to their promotional budget, not necessarily their political donations budget. Quite conceivably, a corporation might turn around and pay for a banquet, where you might invite 500 of your best supporters, and they'll pay for all the expenses. It's a promotional item; it's no big deal, except that what you're entitled to do is anything you want with those 500 tickets.

    You might even ask people if they'd like to make a donation to your campaign at $100 apiece. You have no expenses on them. The corporation has effectively made a contribution but it hasn't; it's come out of a promotional budget.

    I just wonder whether you think that's something that could happen and whether it's something the committee ought to look at seriously, if in fact it hasn't already.

¼  (1855)  

    Ms. Judy Sgro: If our intent here is for disclosure, accountability, and putting on limits, let's be straightforward: for every rule, there'll be a way around it.

    Let's take our time and do this legislation right so we give the appearance of the transparency and the accountability Canadian taxpayers want and deserve, frankly, rather than having to figure out ways--and we know that--around everything you try to do. Let's try to do this right, and that takes some time.

    The Chair: The last question for Judy is from Dick Proctor.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Judy, you talked about your concern about inadequate consultation, and the question I have for you is, who do you think we should have heard from we haven't heard from? I would just point out, because you're not on the committee, that we have heard from the political parties and we have heard from a couple of former party leaders. We've heard from political scientists and from academics who work in this field. We've heard from trade unions and we've heard from some businesses and business organizations.

    I would defer to the clerk or the chair of the committee, but I think a lot of them said thanks but no thanks; basically, they weren't all that interested in coming before the committee.

    Yes, there are some time constraints, but we deal with time constraints around here all the time. As a full participant in this committee, I think we've heard from a number of key parties that would be involved, capital P and small p.

    So who should we be talking to who we haven't?

    Ms. Judy Sgro: I think we should be talking to the people who are going to pay the bill. We are changing the system of how we fund political parties in Canada, and I believe Canadian taxpayers need to be engaged.

    If you ask why they wouldn't have any interest right now, well, we can be dealing with all kinds of legislation, Mr. Proctor, as you know, and Canadians often don't get engaged until it actually starts to affect them. With something like this it's even harder to get them interested until they realize they are going to be paying fully for all of this that's going on. We owe them the right to consult with them, and then we'll come back here and make a decision.

    The Chair: Again, just for the record, we've approached or heard from around seventy people and organizations. That's just so people do know here. It's been going on for some time.

    Judi Longfield.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): First, I want to say that I want to strongly associate myself with the comments of Judy Sgro. Almost everything she said I had jotted down and wanted to comment on, so I won't repeat those except to say that I want to tell you that I agree very strongly with the objectives, namely the transparency, the openness, the fairness, and the imposing of reasonable limits. But I think this could have been done in other ways, and I don't think we needed to do what we've done under Bill C-24 to achieve those.

    One of the things that sort of surprised me was that while we talk about disclosure, it's after the fact. We could go a long way in openness if the bill stated very strongly that contributions had to be disclosed at the moment of contribution; then you wouldn't have to worry quite so much about undue influence.

    Quite frankly, I'd be happy to post all my contributions in the polling station on the day people go and vote. If they feel that somehow I've been unduly influenced by a $5,000 contribution from a company--and I don't get any $5,000 contributions, but if that were the case--then they can make that decision there and not find out after the fact that someone had given me $10,000. It doesn't do much good after the fact, so I think the bill is very weak in that.

    I agree with the comments that have been made about how foolish it is to have a $10,000 individual contribution and only $1,000 at the union or the corporation level. Quite frankly, I think that tends to hide the openness.

    General Motors is in my neighbouring riding. If, for example, General Motors were a contributor--and it isn't, but if it were--people could very quickly determine that General Motors was giving me money. Now, Michael Grimaldi, who is the president of General Motors, could give me money, yet a large number of the residents in my area wouldn't associate him with General Motors. I just think we're probably not achieving the level of transparency and openness we say we are.

    Mr. Chair, I'm extremely concerned about the implementation date, which is January 1, 2004, or six months after it is assented to. So it could come into force in the middle of a year, and what happens if it comes into force on February 1, 2004? If that's the case, does it mean that I can run out and have unlimited contributions up until February? I just think we're going at this far too quickly and we don't understand the implications.

    On top of that, the fact is that we are now into redistribution, and riding associations are beginning to try to reorganize themselves. Again, it's a situation where we know we're already in flux. Suppose there was an election called during the period of time riding associations were reorganizing. Political parties begin that process very early in the year and there's a long transition. I think the timing, when you put it in the context of what's also happening under redistribution, is very problematic.

    Next, I'm very concerned that this bill does not seem to close the loopholes on trust funds, and I would like to see some amendments there.

    On individuals and unions, I believe there should be a cap for any given individual or any given riding association. Allowing $10,000 for an individual may not be so bad, but if the individual was only able to contribute to any given candidate or party--I'm not going to come up with a number, but maybe it's $1,000--the influence would be greatly decreased, I would suggest.

    I also understand that there's going to be an amendment with respect to expenses for nomination meetings. I think 50% is exorbitant and I would support something in the neighbourhood of 25%, but I'll leave it to the committee.

    Val Meredith mentioned the assessment at the yearly funding, the funding formula, the $1.50 per vote that would continue between elections. I think this is extremely undemocratic; it's a snapshot, a one-day reflection of a party's popularity. We know and we've seen, Mr. Chair, that parties will ebb and flow. Frequently between elections there's a great increase in their popularity and their support, while for others there's a decrease. Yet the funding is going to be based solely on that one day, that one single day when voters cast their ballot, so I find that very problematic.

    I'm a little concerned about the provisions that would occur after a merger. At one time I would have said that it could never happen, but there is that possibility there could be a merger. If I were a Progressive Conservative voter and my $1.50 was going to support the Progressive Conservative Party, I might not be quite so happy if it went to the Alliance. Conversely, if I were an Alliance supporter, I might not be quite so happy to have my money then pooled into a new party that might not be the party of my choice. Again, that would be based on a single vote on a single day.

    Some of the members were talking about the threshold. I think lowering the threshold below 15% is wrong. I think 15% in any given riding for a candidate rebate is an appropriate amount of support.

    I could go on and on, Mr. Chair. I find that again, while I support the objectives of the bill, I do not think this bill is meeting those objectives. I would find it very difficult to support the legislation without there being significant amendment.

½  (1900)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Judi.

    Now it's questions and comments for Judi. Ted White.

    Mr. Ted White: Thanks, Peter.

    Judi, it's obvious you've studied the bill and you have a fair idea of what's in it. It's clear the previous Judy and the other people who've made interventions so far have taken the time to get familiar with the content of the bill. However, I'm disappointed at the low numbers of people who have turned out tonight from amongst our colleagues to talk about this very important issue.

    I'd just like to ask you, how widespread do you think is good knowledge of this bill? Do you think that amongst your colleagues they really understand the consequences? I'm not sure most of my colleagues in my own caucus understand what is really in this bill. Do you think there's a good knowledge amongst the people you're mixing with?

½  (1905)  

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: I've met with a number of colleagues on a number of occasions, but you make a good point. I've often been disappointed with the number who turn out. I think it's fair to say that there is a fair amount of concern about what they see in this legislation.

    I can certainly tell you that members of my constituency have very little knowledge of this bill. I think the more they get to know the contents of it, the more distressed they're going to be.

    I can't tell you if it's 20%, 50%, or 60%, but it's not as good as it should be. That's often the case when bills are being studied by one specific committee. You tend to trust your colleagues who have been empowered to sit on that committee to get you the information and to express your concerns.

    The Chair: If I could, I'll just comment on that, Judi. There is a slight difference here in that normally all five whips are on this committee. I would like to think that the flow to the parties is actually a little bit faster, let's say, in this case than in a normal committee.

    Dick Proctor.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks.

    I just have two or three brief questions, Judi.

    You're concerned about disclosure after the fact and timely reporting. You said you'd be in favour of having to submit a report on the money you raised before election day. I think that's a very good idea. I know that in our party we do it; the leadership candidates have to report the night before or a couple of days before the vote who their sources of funding are and how much they've given.

    It wouldn't be difficult to achieve that, I think, with everything being done electronically now. You could basically push a button and get the results you want, so I think that's an interesting suggestion.

    When he was before the committee last week, Mel Hurtig, the former National Party leader, said that he had a real conundrum, and I sense that you have a conundrum. You've indicated tonight that there are parts of this bill you endorse wholeheartedly, such as the transparency, and you listed a number of other things. So did Hurtig, but he also felt the bill needed improving, as you obviously feel it does.

    The question I have for you is, do you think we would be better served to delay this bill and get it right rather than to rush it forward?

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Absolutely.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Then in the context we're living in, we know the current Prime Minister will be gone in six months and we also know that the very likely successor to that individual is saying, what's the rush on election financing? Why should we rush through it now?

    Mr. Hurtig also said he joined the Liberal Party in 1968 because someone named Pierre Trudeau was going to bring in changes to the election financing act and prohibit contributions from trade unions and corporate donations, but he left the party--your party--in 1973 because it hadn't happened.

    Now we've fast-forwarded another 30 years, and we're still waiting. If we don't pass it now, I fear we'll wait another 30 years. So to answer Mr. Hurtig's conundrum, I think the timing trumps getting a perfect bill before us.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Well, that's where you and I disagree. I'm not saying we should delay this indefinitely, I'm just saying I don't understand the rush to have it in place by January 1, 2004.

    Admittedly, every party has something they're very concerned about. I would suggest to whoever is the new leader that this be his or her top priority, to fix election finances, to do it. I find it very difficult to support a flawed piece of legislation.

    The Chair: Yes, Dick.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: I agree with you on trust funds. I think we need to be clearer on that. You said, I'd love to see amendments. I don't know if you have any ideas, but I'd love to see amendments too.

    You were also concerned about the $1.50 per vote per year based on the last general election, given the reality that parties become more or less favoured as time goes on and there are blips. One of the alternatives that has been suggested by a couple of different witnesses who appeared before us is that we have polls between election campaigns, a rolling poll where we take a series of polls, and do it that way. Do you think that's more advantageous than leaving it at $1.50 from the last election?

½  (1910)  

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: I think the cost of doing the polls is still digging into people's pockets. As Judy mentioned, I'm not totally convinced I like that particular aspect of the public financing of it. I think that between elections it's incumbent upon parties to be able to go out and to raise funds based on their popularity or their ability to attract contributions, and I don't think it should be a given.

    The Chair: We'll have a brief, second interjection from Ted White.

    Mr. Ted White: Thanks.

    I just wanted to shed some light on why there's a rush. I realize and everyone realizes there are political reasons for it, but late last summer I brought to the attention of Don Boudria a problem in the Elections Act, Bill C-2, which we passed a couple of years ago. During the boundary redistribution process, all the riding associations will, as they transfer their assets, have to account for every single dollar's worth of assets by reporting them as having come from a donor. Most of us in our riding associations don't have the ability to do that. We have no idea where $100 worth of our fax machine came from in the first place.

    I pointed that out to Don, he considered it, and late last year he came to me and said I was right and they'd introduce an amendment to the Elections Act before the boundary redistribution took place. Those amendments are in this bill. If they don't get passed before we do the boundary redistribution, we'll have a big problem with the transfer of assets between riding associations.

    So if this bill is delayed, we are going to have deal with that issue as a separate piece of legislation or we're going to have to deal with it some other way. Otherwise, we really have a mess--a big mess. Maybe that sheds a bit of light on why January 1, 2004, was chosen as the date.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: I would support an amendment to fix that particular anomaly, but I don't think we need to do it in a bill as far-reaching as this, with problems we're going to have to correct in the very near future. That's my comment.

    The Chair: John Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I just have to disagree a little bit with the previous speakers insofar as I think this legislation should go ahead. I do agree it's flawed, but I think the flaws can be easily addressed through amendments.

    The flaw I most focus on, which has been commented on already, including by the previous speaker, is the flaw dealing with the $10,000 donation to candidates or riding associations. I think proposed section 405 really needs amendment.

    By way of context, I think where the drafters of the bill have made an error is that they're trying to correct a negative public perception with respect to the influence money might buy with respect to politicians and politics. What they have done is, they have actually reversed the equation as the public sees it. They've limited corporate donations to the party headquarters and have in effect increased the opportunities for the individuals and their riding associations.

    This is quite wrong, because I don't think the public believes the headquarters of the federal Liberal agency, if you will, or the headquarters of the Canadian Alliance or the NDP are corrupt or easily influenced because they get a donation of $25,000 or whatever from a corporation.

    What they do fear and what they do see is individual MPs wandering around their ridings and being cozy with people who obviously have a lot of money. The perception, particularly as we see from the experience in the United States with congressmen, is that at the local level individual members of Parliament and those who would like to be politicians may be experiencing undo influence. Money may be talking.

    In my case in my riding, I have never in my nine and a half years received a corporate donation either as a candidate or through my riding association. I've never received a donation, so far as I can remember, of more than $600, and only one union has ever donated to my riding association. So I don't have the problem, shall we say.

    However, I am equally aware that there are other members of Parliament who have associations into which large sums of money are flowing. Because of the lack of transparency with riding associations, the perception is out there that individual members of Parliament may be subject to undue influence.

    I would submit to you, with this $10,000 ceiling we have in proposed section 405, I would not have to do any fundraising whatsoever because a single individual could contribute $10,000 each year to my riding association and $10,000 to my campaign. With a campaign ceiling of some $65,000, I could run an election and come out with a surplus of about $20,000.

    In fact, the cost of my last three elections has averaged $30,000, so this particular individual could totally finance me for $5,000 a year. With $10,000 a year to the riding association and $10,000 to the campaign, you would have a surplus at the end of the campaign of some $20,000. So it doesn't solve the problem; it doesn't solve the problem of a single or one or two individuals having undue influence.

    It's true that with the transparency rules it will help a lot in the sense that we'll be able to see if riding associations have received $10,000 from twenty or thirty individuals, and then the public will have reason to question that. The transparency provisions in the act do help the problem.

    My real difficulty with the $10,000 ceiling is that it absolutely destroys grassroots fundraising incentives. Right now all of my money--all of my money--comes from things like small spaghetti suppers and auctions, small grassroots activities in which I engage not only the members of my riding association but the community.

    I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is a vital and important part of the political process between elections, not to mention during elections, because this is where the political parties create a profile in the community, by having these fundraising events.

½  (1915)  

    I would address the problem of negative impressions of politicians in their ridings by putting a ceiling, just a flat ceiling, on contributions to riding associations and to individual candidates during elections. Make it $500. If there's any member of Parliament or politician in this country who can't raise enough to fight an election with a ceiling of $500 on donations, then I really think he needs to take political therapy, because he certainly doesn't belong in the business of soliciting support from the public.

    Again, I come back to the danger, which is that we mustn't have a situation where individuals or corporations can give enough money to individual candidates through their riding associations or individually that the candidates don't have to work on their own public images in their own ridings.

    Expect an amendment to proposed section 405, because you are certainly going to get one. I will do it in due course, I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, at either committee or report stage

    Second, following that same line of thought, if you solve the negative perception problem at the riding association-individual politician level, then you should be free to increase the level of donations coming from corporations or unions, if you will, to party headquarters. I would suggest that a ceiling on corporation donations is a good idea, I go along with that, but I don't think a ceiling of $1,000 for a donation to the federal Liberal agency is reasonable.

    Set a ceiling, if you will, of $25,000, $30,000, or whatever you like as long as the money goes to the central party headquarters of whatever party we're dealing with. Then, Mr. Chairman, you will have more opportunity for corporations and unions to engage in the political process, because under law they're individuals too, and not have this need to create revenues by this one dollar, one vote procedure.

    If we can find a way around that, I think we should take it as long as in the end the message we send out to Canadians, to all voters who are looking at all candidates and at all political parties, is that there is transparency at the local level and that individual MPs aren't reliant on one or two well-heeled donors. Let them get out in the grassroots and earn the money themselves, because fundraising at the grassroots is exactly the same process as getting votes, and that's the way it should be done.

    Thank you.

½  (1920)  

    The Chair: Thank you, John.

    Now it's questions or comments for John.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: This is more along the lines of a point of order, Mr. Chairman, or of a question for you; I am not sure how to proceed.

    I realize we are hearing a lot of witnesses who are not usually members of the committee, and that is extremely helpful.

    However, we are not given the opportunity to have a similar meeting with just committee members. We never have time to discuss this amongst ourselves, as a committee, because we spend all our time questioning witnesses.

    Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that after this evening's meeting and in the relatively near future, we do discuss this among committee members, because it would be as useful as it is to sit down with our colleagues who are not members of the committee.

[English]

    The Chair: First of all, I've noted that, and when the entire committee is here, it will be something we certainly should consider.

    Also, colleagues, I would like to apologize to Jacques Saada because earlier on he had an arrangement with Stan Keyes; they were essentially going to make a dual presentation. I missed that, but as Jacques has said, perhaps there's another way to deal with it. So it's duly noted.

    I have Ted White for John Bryden.

    Mr. Ted White: Thank you Peter.

    John, I'd just like to pick up on the grassroots fundraising aspect a bit more, because you heard me ask the question of the two Judy's about the amount of administration that's going to have to be done by riding associations.

    Like you, I raise all of my money basically from a lot of small donations, $100 here, $200 there, and lots of pass-the-hat type events, similar to the way you described your operations.

    Now, under this bill, for anything more than $10 that goes in the hat at your fundraiser, you have to write a receipt, keep books on it, and submit reports. I'm just wondering if you've read that part of the bill and if you recognize how much paperwork there's going to be to provide this transparency you're talking about. It doesn't just apply to those people we're trying to find who get $5,000 from a corporation, it's going to apply to you with that $10 note or the $15 you pick up in a hat passed around at your meeting.

    I assume you run your riding association with volunteers the way I do, and I'm not sure I'm going to be able to get a volunteer to be able to handle that--or willing to handle that, put it that way. People are going to say, what? I have enough to do without filling out all sorts of books to report $15 given by different people when somebody passed the hat.

    Mr. John Bryden: Well, I'm not as bothered by that. Right now I'm proud to say that my riding association keeps absolutely exquisite books. We keep track of everything, yet the actual sums coming in are very trivial for the most part.

    Now, I don't know; I haven't looked at the particular section that concerns you. There obviously ought to be a lower-end threshold, perhaps a $20 donation, but in the end I don't have much difficulty keeping track of the money that comes in. Even when we sell tickets to, say, a spaghetti supper--and my spaghetti suppers are $10 a shot, it's a heck of a deal in the community, but--keeping track of the names of the people who are buying those tickets is not difficult, so I don't have a lot of problems with the bookkeeping side of this.

    The Chair: Dick Proctor for John Bryden.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks for your presentation tonight, John.

    I have a couple of questions. On the $10,000 I thought you made an excellent point, that three or four people could basically fund the election campaign, and that's not what we want to happen. Are you saying we should reduce that $10,000 significantly?

    Mr. John Bryden: Yes, absolutely. I'd make the ceiling for a donation to a riding association or candidate about $600 whether it comes from a corporation or an individual.

    I'm sympathetic to keeping the corporations out at the riding association-candidate level as well because I think the place of the unions and corporations is really with the party central. I would be happy to see it restricted to individuals, and I would put the ceiling at about $600.

    I think $10,000 is just so extravagant, and what's going to happen is, people are just going to sit on their heels and be nice to one or two wealthy old donors--you'll notice the pun there--and it's just unacceptable. I would have a lot of trouble with this, and I think an amendment is very necessary.

½  (1925)  

    The Chair: I'm sorry, I missed the pun. Could you just explain that to us.

    Mr. John Bryden: It's with “sit on their heels” and “well-heeled”.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Charles Caccia.

    The Honourable Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Thank you for this opportunity.

    I fully agree with what John Bryden just said about the ceiling on donations at the riding level. I look forward to seconding his motion if you will allow me to do so.

    Mr. Chairman, my credentials are simply this: 10 elections and four leadership conventions. When the first bill was introduced in the seventies, one of the many exciting bills in the decade, I remember the same type of preoccupations and the same type of resistance as was put up in the same decade when the idea of televising the House of Commons and some committee hearings was put forward. There is always a natural resistance to change, as we all know, and particularly in this very delicate field.

    To me, in essence Bill C-24 represents a highly welcome development, a measure that is needed and needed urgently. It's one I'm sure has been described by others and measured, and it will go a considerable way towards restoring confidence in the electoral system we have in Canada. This is in itself already an extremely sophisticated and advanced system, but we need the type of measures that are incorporated in Bill C-24.

    I remember receiving a substantial donation in the 1997 election--quite unusual for us in Davenport--of $2,000 from a corporation that had activities in, let's say, the chemical field. I had to return this donation for two reasons: one, because of the size, because we have always had ceilings in every campaign as to the maximum acceptable donation; and second, because at that time we were in committee still examining a controversial piece of legislation called CEPA, as you have already guessed.

    In order to influence or in hopes of influencing the outcome of legislation, a well-informed public engages in a natural type of activity. I'm sure they don't succeed, but definitely there is that effort. Therefore, I'm sure the system needs to be designed in such a manner as to reduce to a minimum the chances of any successful intervention in the democratic process by way of donations.

    So the setting of limits to expenditures is desirable, and I hope Bill C-24 will achieve that. We are far too extravagant in our elections.

    Like John, we in Davenport have gradually managed to actually reduce the level of expenditures; we are now at $28,000. We carry out virtually no publicity, and we put up signs only in the last two weeks, when it is absolutely made necessary by other candidates and by supporters who feel we are somehow not showing the flag, so to speak.

    But we could do very well without putting up signs. I think it would be a tremendous step forward environmentally if we could before every election have an agreement amongst parties on not using signs, particularly in the urban setting. Maybe in the rural setting this would be difficult.

    I agree with Mr. Bryden on what he said about small donations. We have had, as I said, a ceiling at every election. The donations come in small sums, and it therefore allows participation and involvement for a larger number of contributors.

    I would also suggest, but I doubt that it can be put in legal terms, that the people who are in charge of fundraising should be the same political people who are in charge of spending the money during an election at the party level, at the national level. That would be a very healthy kind of step by itself, but I don't know whether it can be formulated in legal form. If they were the same people, I'm sure they would be much more careful, and the deficits, if any, would be much lower.

½  (1930)  

    To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I will say that as with other bills, this cannot be perfect and it will have some flaws. But they will be found, and in the next four or five years the provisions will of course be modified and improved. But let us not look for perfection and so delay the process, because this is a highly desirable measure, one I fully support and, I'm sure, the vast majority of Canadians would support.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    A point that's been made a number of times this evening, Charles, concerns the sort of full costing and the implementation of the costing for the different types of parties we have here, fairly regional parties, national parties, large parties, and so on. Have you heard of anybody who has been doing these sorts of calculations to get some idea of what the real costs and then effects of the costs are going to be on the different types of party?

    Hon. Charles Caccia: I've heard only through newspaper clippings that the measure would tend to favour the smaller parties, if that's what you're trying to establish. I don't see anything wrong with that. We need to enhance a democracy's choices. If this bill has the effect of strengthening smaller parties too much, of course the governing power will see to it by way of an amendment that the effect is reduced at the next opportunity. If, however, the effect is one nobody necessarily objects to, then obviously it will remain as such.

    I think that there is a point where costing will have to wait, and the proof of the pudding will be in the application of the bill at the next election to see how it works out in reality.

    The Chair: I asked you in part because Elections Canada is following the transcripts of our meeting very closely, and it's my hope that either they've already done it or they are going to do it.

    John Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden: I just have a quick question, Charles. What's your feeling about trust funds politicians may be maintaining? They usually receive the money from business interests and have a say in dispensing that money, and this financing seems to exist outside the actual riding association. Is this something that should be addressed more explicitly in the bill?

    Hon. Charles Caccia: Maybe, but I wouldn't tamper too much with the bill at this stage. I would rather recommend that it be moved forward with those amendments that seem to be absolutely necessary without our really searching for refinements.

    It's very difficult to gauge in advance how a piece of legislation will work out there in reality. Therefore, leave it as it stands now except for the measure you recommended earlier, which I fully support.

    The Chair: Dick Proctor.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: First of all, thanks for your presentation.

    I don't think you mentioned it, Charles, but I did want to ask about the $1.50 per vote per year, because you did talk about ceilings and expressed some concern. Certainly, there has been concern raised by some of your Liberal colleagues earlier this evening around that. Do you think the $1.50 is about right--I'm assuming you wouldn't think it should go any higher--or do you think it should be a little less? Do you have a view on that?

½  (1935)  

    Hon. Charles Caccia: No, it should certainly not be less. Mr. Chairman, I believe that eventually, like other sophisticated democracies in the western world, we will move gradually to full public financing of elections. That is the way to go.

    It may well be that it should be $1.75 or $2, but I'm not in a position to do that kind of costing. I think that as a minimum what is being proposed is sound, keeping in mind that we have to move in that general direction.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ted White.

    Mr. Ted White: Yes, thank you, Peter.

    Charles, you started your presentation by making a comment something to the effect that this will help restore confidence in the political system, and you ended up by saying you were sure Canadians would support this bill.

    Now, I come an upper middle-class business-oriented riding in an urban centre. I can tell you that every single communication I've had from my constituents on this bill is opposed to it. They're outraged that taxpayers are dipping into their pockets gain. They think it should be voluntary whether they give money to political parties, and they are really upset that we are taking money off them without their permission.

    I'd just be intrigued to understand how you've reached the conclusion that this is going to restore confidence when I'm getting exactly the opposite message from my riding and how you feel that Canadians will support it when I don't get that message from my riding either.

    Hon. Charles Caccia: To those who have written you, I would in reply indicate that we are already in a regime that provides for a partial subsidy. There is already a refund that goes back to every candidate who meets the formula of having received at least 15% of the votes. Therefore, we have already crossed that river, and it's now a question of how far we want to go.

    You have received it yourself in more than one election. Unless you decided to return it to the Government of Canada, you and your colleagues have benefited already, so I don't think you would be on solid ground by joining the criticism coming from those who have written you. You may remain neutral if you like, but that system is already in place and we are just progressing further. That's how I see it, at least.

    Second, nobody is preventing voluntary contributions, of course; those are always welcome. But the fact is that sometimes getting voluntary contributions has been a problem, particularly for a person running for the first time or in the case of women entering politics. Therefore, there has to be some form of compensation, particularly for those who run for the first time, in order for them not to go into a steep deficit position.

    It may well be that you receive more letters of that kind than we do, but it is then up to you as a believer in the democratic process to decide whether you want to defend this bill or listen to the crowd. I would be inclined to reply along the lines suggested by some members from western Canada in another party, as I'm sure they are doing these days.

    Mr. Ted White: If I was to reply in the manner you've suggested, I would make them even madder than they are now. Most of the public don't realize how much they're already subsidizing parties, and when they find out, they are not amused.

    I still disagree with your belief that there's support from Canadians for this bill. I think it's being rushed through this place because there isn't public support. If we went out there and really publicized this, we would have the wrath of the public down on our heads.

    Hon. Charles Caccia: Yes, but this was also the case when we introduced official bilingualism. This was the case when we introduced the metric system. This was the case when we took many other measures that were resented. When the vote took place on capital punishment, I received irate letters from my constituents and threats too.

    There is a point where an MP has to decide what in his or her judgment is the best course of action and then take the consequences rather than following the trend. You either lead or you follow.

½  (1940)  

    The Chair: Charles, I want to thank you.

    Colleagues, on behalf of the committee, I want to thank all the MPs. By my count there were 20 to 25 of us here at various times this evening. Some participated in the discussion and some simply listened. So Charles, we thank you and all the others.

    The committee is certainly going to take this information and these suggestions into account.

    For the members of the committee and for people watching this, we continue tomorrow at 5:30, again in this room. Our witnesses will be from Elections Ontario, from the Parti Québécois on the political dimension of their experience with this type of legislation--which will be very interesting--and also from the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec.

    Then our next meeting is 11 o'clock, our regular time on Thursday, when our principal witness--there may well be another--will be the minister, Don Boudria. He will no doubt know what's happened this evening and will be addressing some of the points that have been raised today.

    So I thank you all for that.

    Yes?

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Do we have any answer from the one in Manitoba?

    The Chair: No. As you know, colleagues, there's an election in Manitoba. All the people who are best informed about this are simply not available. We have one contact, and when I hinted there might be another witness on Thursday with the minister, I was thinking of this contact in Manitoba. If he does not come, we have already drafted a letter that will go to him, listing questions that have been raised in our committee and asking for a written exposé.

    That's the best I can answer you, Geoff, but the staff have really tried to get somebody from Manitoba. You can well imagine how in the middle of an election all their people are tied up.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Well, I assumed we could at least have a video conference or something, but I know what an election is like. Our committee would not be their top priority.

    The Chair: And we've suggested a video conference also.

    Let me put it this way. I'm sure if somebody went out there, they could persuade them to do it, but they're not keen; they simply are not. So we're trying to get the information in the best way possible.

    Colleagues, the meeting is adjourned until 5:30 tomorrow in this room.