HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, May 7, 2003

»

1740

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

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

The Chair

»

1745

Mr. Mel Hurtig (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Mel Hurtig

»

1750

»

1755

¼

1800

The Chair

Mr. Mel Hurtig

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Mel Hurtig

The Chair

Mr. Mel Hurtig

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Mel Hurtig

¼

1805

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Mel Hurtig

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.)

Mr. Mel Hurtig

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Mel Hurtig

¼

1810

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Mel Hurtig

The Chair

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

Mr. Mel Hurtig

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Mel Hurtig

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Mel Hurtig

¼

1815

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Mel Hurtig

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.))

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

¼

1820

Mr. Mel Hurtig

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Mel Hurtig

¼

1825

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Mel Hurtig

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Mel Hurtig

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Mel Hurtig

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Mel Hurtig

The Chair

¼

1830

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

Mr. Mel Hurtig

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Mel Hurtig

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Mel Hurtig

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Mel Hurtig

The Chair

¼

1835

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Mel Hurtig

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Mel Hurtig

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Mel Hurtig

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

¼

1840

Mr. Mel Hurtig

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.)

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Mel Hurtig

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Mel Hurtig

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Mel Hurtig

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Mel Hurtig

¼

1845

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Mel Hurtig

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Mel Hurtig

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Mel Hurtig

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Mel Hurtig

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Mel Hurtig

¼

1850

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Mel Hurtig

The Chair

Mr. Mel Hurtig

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

¼

1855

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

½

1900

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

½

1905

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

½

1910

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 039

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, May 7, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

»  (1740)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, I'd like to begin.

    If our witness would give us a moment or two, I have a point of order from Ted White. Ted.

    Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I just wanted to correct some information from yesterday during an exchange between myself and Associate Professor Robert MacDermid. Some figures were used for corporate donations to the Canadian Alliance, and I just wanted to set the record straight. On the Elections Canada website for 2001 the corporate donation percentage was 18.25% to the party and in the year 2000 it was 34.38%, which was mainly due to small corporations giving this sort of $1,000 cheque.

    I just wanted to put that on the record because I think there could have been a misunderstanding from the exchange that took place yesterday.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Now, I've discussed it with the various parties, and I understand there are no objections to the reports concerning the changes in riding boundaries. I would ask, would someone move that the draft report concerning the riding boundaries in Manitoba be adopted as the committee's report to the House and that the chair present the report to the House.

    (Motion agreed to)

     The Chair: Could I ask with respect to New Brunswick that the draft report concerning the riding boundaries in New Brunswick be adopted as the committee's report to the House and that the chair present the report to the House.

    (Motion agreed to)

     The Chair: I have another motion, one for the adoption of the committee's budget. You understand we've been bringing in witnesses, we've been having these gourmet meals—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

     The Chair: —or rather, gourmet sandwiches. It's proposed that for April-May we need about $30,000. As you know, we have to apply to the liaison committee for that. I would like somebody to move that the proposed budget in the amount of $30,000 for April and May, 2003, be adopted and that the chair present the said report to the budget subcommittee of the liaison committee.

    Joe Jordan.

    Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Do you have to go and itemize it for them?

    The Chair: Yes, we do. It has to be fully detailed.

    (Motion agreed to)

     The Chair: I thank you very much for that.

    Colleagues, I have to advise you that three of us are involved in late shows tonight, so at certain points--and I would repeat this to our witness, who understands the sort of environment we work in--if members do come and go, Mel, I hope you'll understand, because the House of Commons is continuing.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): We also have one other point of business, the request from Bruck Easton. Will we be dealing with that after the witness?

    The Chair: Yes. I do think there may be some discussion on that, and we should deal with it afterwards.

    Colleagues, we have a single witness today, someone who is a very distinguished Canadian, and I know we're all pleased he has agreed to be with us. This is Mel Hurtig, who is, as you know, an officer of the Order of Canada, a long-time officer of the Order of Canada, and who has six honourary degrees from some of the most distinguished universities in Canada.

    Among many other things, he received the Lester B. Pearson Man of the Year Peace Award, he received the Speaker of the Year award, and he received the Royal Society of Canada Centenary Medal. These are all remarkable achievements, among many others.

    I know him best because of his role in the publishing industry with the various awards he received there. He was Canadian Book Publisher of the Year twice. One of his extraordinary achievements was, as you know, The Canadian Encyclopedia, followed by The Junior Encyclopedia of Canada, and they were particularly fine achievements because in my childhood I was one of his authors.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

     The Chair: We also know him very well, being in the business we're in, as the honourary chair of the Council of Canadians, and he was that for five years. He has many other achievements.

    He is an author of note, and I suspect that his presentation today will relate to his most recent book, The Vanishing Country, which was published by McClelland and Stewart in October of 2002. That's me interpreting one of the reasons I think he was suggested to us as a witness.

    Ladies and gentlemen, it's my pleasure to introduce Mel Hurtig as a witness, and Mel, we're in your hands. As you know, it's usually a relatively short statement followed by questions from the members.

»  (1745)  

    Mr. Mel Hurtig (As Individual): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I have to say to members of this committee that you, Mr. Chair, are easily one of the finest, most prominent authors of The Canadian Encyclopedia.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: Sorry, Rick, it's true.

    I should also tell you, by the way, in case you didn't know, that The Canadian Encyclopedia, fully updated on a daily basis, is now available free of charge to the world on the Internet, so I'm very pleased about that.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to say a few words today. I honestly do believe that the work of your committee is the most important thing happening in Canada now, and along with Tom Kent I believe that Bill C-24 is by far the most important advancement of democracy in Canada since women were given the vote. I feel quite honestly very privileged to appear before you.

    I joined the Liberal Party back in 1967 because of Pierre Trudeau. Like many other Canadians, I'd become quite fed up with the constant vitriolic wrangling between Mr. Diefenbaker and Mr. Pearson in the House of Commons.

    I left the Liberal Party in 1973 partly because Mr. Trudeau failed to keep his public promises and promises he had made to me re election reform, which he had called “my number one priority”. I left because of my disgust with the way I saw patronage and corporate money dominating much of the party's decision-making process, a process I believed had very little to do with democracy. In fact, and I can give you a couple of examples if you want during the question and answer period, I think it worked diametrically in opposition to the real idea of what democracy should be.

    It's not as though I was out of the loop during the years I was a Liberal Party member. I was a member of the party's national policy committee. I spent a fair amount of time in the PMO and a fair amount of time at 24 Sussex. I sat in on campaign and other meetings. Two men who chaired national election campaigns, Keith Davey and Royce Frith, were and are very good friends.

    As a result of my disenchantment after my years in the Liberal Party, I have been speaking and writing about democratic reform in Canada for almost thirty years. Most recently, in my book The Vanishing Country, which McClelland and Stewart published in November, I devoted a long chapter to the urgent political changes I feel are necessary in Canada. The chapter, by the way, is entitled “Making a Mockery of Democracy”, and it covers such topics as transparency, corporate and trade union donations, voter turnout, the public's opinion of politicians, proportional representation, fixed terms, the role of the Senate, limits on contributions, and a host of other topics.

    I have no trouble, by the way, if you want to ask the clerk to photocopy that chapter in my book for distribution to the members of this committee, although my publisher will be very upset at hearing me say that.

    The Chair: We would be glad to do so and to have it translated.

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: Thank you.

    For quite a few years in my speeches, articles, and books I have been quite critical of the Chrétien government, particularly in relation to child poverty, NAFTA, and as you will have seen in yesterday's Globe and Mail, the increasing foreign ownership and control of the Canadian economy.

    However, when the Prime Minister's intentions relating to corporate and union donations and expanded transparency were announced, I was elated. Unfortunately, the elation was rather short-lived. In fact, when I learned the details of the proposed legislation, I was very disappointed.

    I believe the proposed bill needs to be improved and is in some respects inherently undemocratic and not in the best interests of creating a healthy, vibrant democracy in Canada. While I understand the Prime Minister's desire to have your committee conclude its deliberations before the House breaks for the summer, I believe you can perform a very great public service by advising the PMO that while you much approve of the intent of the proposed legislation, you may find you need a bit more time to improve it in the national interest of effective, democratic reform.

    In the few minutes I have available today, Mr. Chairman, I will zero in on what I believe to be some of the more important problems with the proposed legislation. First, it seems to me highly incongruous to finance political parties with public funds on the basis of how the electorate felt up to four or five years earlier. In fact, it makes no sense to me whatsoever.

    Imagine how in 1993, for example, when Brian Mulroney was deemed the least popular prime minister in Canadian history, down to 12% in public support, citizens would have felt about rewarding his party with millions of dollars more than for any other party, especially since the electorate clearly expressed their wishes by reducing the party to only two seats in the House of Commons in the election that followed. To fund parties on the basis of what happened years earlier would be a travesty of the democratic process and--this is very important--would surely invite scorn from electors across the country, which I don't think is what you want to achieve.

    There are much better alternatives and I will list a few of them, ones I believe you should investigate and consider. One possibility would be to engage a reputable and even-handed public opinion firm such as Ekos, right here in Ottawa, to do a national poll with a large, top-quality sample, say 5,000 respondents twice a year, and employ a rolling average to establish a formula for public party financing. I talked to Frank Graves at Ekos today and he said this would not be an expensive proposition.

    A second possibility would be to base public financing on current party memberships. Such a proposal would have to include heavy fines and even jail terms for fraud. This said, it seems to me that such a proposal would ultimately result in more Canadians becoming meaningfully engaged in the political life of our country. I don't know if you've heard from Hugh Segal or any other political scientists, but at one time only 2% of adult Canadians belonged to any political party, and 80% of adult Canadians have never belonged to any political party. I think that in a democracy those are absurd figures.

    Another alternative would be to employ annual income tax returns to allow citizens to stipulate which party they would like to see financial support go to. Now, the wording there would have to be very carefully thought out and this is a bit dicey, but it would not necessarily be a totally impossible problem to solve.

    Perhaps another alternative would be to reward parties solely on the basis of their success in obtaining individual donations. Perhaps this might relate to the total amount raised in a year, but I think better still, it would relate to the total number of individuals who have donated to that party.

    This, members, brings me to the question of the proposed upper limit of $10,000 on individual donations. I do believe that limit is far too high and should be substantially reduced, certainly to no more than $5,000. It can and almost certainly will lead to bundling: you know, Bennett Jones with 28 partners or whatever, where there is no coercion of employees or anything like that, no conspiracy, but they simply all decide to donate $10,000 each.

»  (1750)  

    I also believe that the $1.50 per vote formula is far too high. I fully agree with the principle of public support for political parties, but I also believe that in any dynamic democracy a political party should be expected to raise money for at least half of its expenditures. I think such a proposal would go over extremely well with the electorate.

    If this also means much more free-time television and radio and perhaps even newspaper access during election campaigns, even on an annual basis, then so be it. Parties should be expected to work harder to raise money from individual donors, to involve more citizens as volunteer workers, and to turn these individuals into a genuine reflection of true participatory democracy.

    The present system of big dollars and patronage works diametrically in opposition to true participatory democracy. I fully recognize that there are complications and considerations re all of the alternatives I've just suggested you consider. That said, I have little doubt that given additional time, this committee is well equipped to come up with a far more democratic piece of legislation than the present proposed bill.

    While it might be easy to criticize the alternatives I have presented, it should also be easy to defend the proposals, and with some extended hearings this committee should be able to improve upon them and flesh them out for further consideration. But obviously you won't be able to do this if you have to conclude your business prematurely.

    Here is another but very important point. I view with as much dismay as you do the public opinion polls showing the very low regard citizens have for politicians and for government, ranking politicians at the bottom of the list below even used car dealers. Where once members of Parliament and cabinet ministers were admired and held in high respect, the polls now consistently demonstrate that far too often the reverse is true. I just got a couple of Ekos polls this morning that confirm what I have just said.

    The polls also indicate other serious disenchantment with politics, politicians, and the political process and an astonishing, dismaying ignorance of the important aspects of our political system, with the majority not being able to identify the difference between left and right. Given a list of possibilities for naming the Prime Minister or the name of the official opposition party, etc., only one in three answered correctly. I've written about that extensively in The Vanishing Country.

    The total failure of our school system and our post-secondary system to equip young people to enter public life in this country is something that really must be changed. The results of polls of young people today are disgusting; that's the only word for it.

    It seems to me the members of this committee have a rare and truly splendid opportunity to turn all this around, to begin to create true, benign, democratic reform in the best interests of our country to make a just society and a truly egalitarian country. In my opinion, you need more time and you need to hear extensive testimony on alternatives to the existing legislation. You would serve the country well if you rejected the pressure for too early a termination of your deliberations.

    Finally, I have a major conundrum in relation to what I've just said. It is no secret the Prime Minister is intent on passing this legislation. It's also no secret that important members of the governing party will be quite happy if the proposed legislation evaporates or is defeated. My friends in Ottawa tell me that if the proposed legislation is delayed, then the Prime Minister's leverage with his own party will be sharply reduced in the fall, at a time very close to the Liberal leadership convention.

    I've known Mr. Martin for over thirteen years, and I do believe he will never be in favour of the kind of progressive reforms that form the basis of Bill C-24. I hope I am wrong.

»  (1755)  

    As I've indicated, I believe some important changes could be made to improve the bill. However, if extended deliberations mean that the legislation will have to be abandoned or will be defeated, this will truly be a tragedy for democracy in this country. In fact, I don't believe it's an exaggeration to say that this may well be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for genuine democratic reform.

    My conundrum is that I believe changes to the bill must be made, but at the same time, when I consider the unprecedented accountability, the transparency, the inclusiveness, and the anti-avoidance provisions in this bill, I believe it is an unparalleled opportunity. Every effort should be made to ensure the passage of the legislation even if it is imperfect.

    Lastly, while I understand that the matter is before the courts, it seems to me--you might want to correct me, and you are obviously well aware of this--that unless the courts prevent third-party election intervention, Bill C-24 becomes largely meaningless.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for the opportunity to express my views.

    I wish you well in your deliberations and I would be very happy to try to answer any questions you may have.

¼  (1800)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Before I proceed to the list, we would be grateful if, for the record, you would give us the complete reference for the book, please. Could you just read it into the record the title, publisher, date, ISBN number, and whatever.

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: The book is called The Vanishing Country and its subtitle is Is It Too Late to Save Canada? It came out in November and it is published by McClelland and Stewart. I'm very happy to say it got to number two on The Toronto Star best-seller list, number three in Maclean's, number five in The Globe and Mail, number two in The Vancouver Sun, etc., etc.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's a bit of a commercial.

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: But here's where it's an anti-commercial: you should get a copy from the library.

    The Chair: And the ISBN number is?

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: Mr. Chairman, the ISBN number is 0-7710-4215-9.

    The Chair: Thank you very much for that, and we'll now have five- or six-minute exchanges.

    Ted White.

    Mr. Ted White: Mr. Hurtig--or Mel--I appreciate the conundrum you are in, but you spent a fair amount of time in your presentation talking about the importance for democracy that parties should get money from individual voters because that connects them to the voters. I would hope that when you've thought more about your conundrum, you'll come down leaning more towards delaying this bill so we can make sure the funding is oriented more towards individuals.

    It's in connection with the funding alternatives that I have a couple of questions for you. The first one concerns the fact that you suggested that maybe a polling company should take some polls to determine levels of support for parties as one way of determining the funding. Now, you mentioned Ekos, but I am not sure I'd be keen on them. My understanding is that they are not always willing to release the questions they ask.

    I would ask you, do you believe that if we used a polling company, the question should be written into the legislation so a polling company carrying out a poll would have to ask specific questions? Second, in connection with raising funds from individuals, you talked about, I think, maybe matching funds, where if a party could raise a certain amount from individuals, the government might match it. Is that where you were going with that?

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: Up to a limit. In the first point you raise is the question of delay. When I came to Ottawa yesterday, I was going to speak very strongly against delaying this legislation. After talking to some people who have a lot of experience with what the government plans to do, it scared the heck out of me. That's why I say I have a conundrum. I don't want to see this bill fail.

    I totally agree with the essence of your comments, that it would be ideal if we could have an extended period of time to consider various alternatives and then be certain in our minds that Bill C-24 in its essence would be passed. That's my first answer to your question.

    The second question had to do with polling. Anytime you show me a public opinion poll, whether it's in the National Post, The Globe and Mail, or wherever else, and it doesn't tell you what the question was, I say, ignore that poll right away. There's one paper in particular that has a tendency to do that sort of thing. You must know what the questions are when you try to pay attention to what polling results are.

    As far as Ekos goes, I had examined Angus Reid and examined a bunch of the others. I like Ekos a great deal because it seems to me their questions are even-handed. When I talked to Frank Graves today, he made a special point of saying that the question would have to be properly phrased and that the follow-ups would have to be proper.

    I totally agree with you. I think it's an excellent idea that the question should be written into the legislation. Absolutely.

¼  (1805)  

    Mr. Ted White: My final question was about the matching funds issue and how that works in with the tax rebate system. Do you still advise retaining the tax rebates that are there right now as well as some sort of fund matching as an alternative?

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: I have to confess I don't know the answer to that. I do like the idea of parties being rewarded from the public purse on the basis of how hard they have worked to get individual donations. I like that a great deal. As to what you have just asked me in terms of the tax credit, I'm not sure of the answer to that.

    Mr. Ted White: Thank you, that's all I have. Thank you very much for an interesting presentation and for providing so many alternative suggestions. I appreciated that.

    The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I'm also interested in alternatives, and I'm going to raise the same issue with you I did with Tom Kent. My concern about the tax form is, while it sounds appealing, in fact it doesn't capture the opinion of a whole lot of people whose opinions are pretty important, especially low-income families or individuals, seniors--because they often fall into that category--and youth. How would you deal with that conundrum?

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: Of the suggestions I've made today, the tax form would be my least favourite. It's a possible alternative and it's possible to overcome those problems through some other sources of information, but it would be my least favourite. The gist of what you have said is something I quite agree with, the problem of the exclusion of a large number of people.

    On the other hand, what are there, 20 million people who file a tax form? It's not a bad way of getting some public opinion, and even if you just said that along with this tax form we were going to charge you a dollar, there's $20 million worth of public funding for the political process. But I quite agree with the essence of your complaint.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: I happen to think it's a pretty serious bias because those tend to be the groups who are rather under-represented in our political thinking in the first place.

    While it's not directly related, I would like your further comments on third-party advertising, because we've certainly heard representations that there's absolutely no proof the amount of money you spend on advertising during a campaign has any influence on public opinion and voting. Do you have anything to say to us in that regard?

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: Yes, I do. As you are all aware already, we have some contradictory evidence in Canada, namely what happened with the Charlottetown Accord versus what happened with the free trade agreement in 1988. In one case, Charlottetown, the plutocracy in Canada spent a huge sum of money but lost that debate. On the other hand, during the free trade debate there was clear evidence that there was a substantial change in public opinion as a result of about $11 million or $12 million worth of spending by the BCNI, now the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and others who helped really sway public opinion during the last week or two of the election.

    Now, we are not the United States. We are very different from the United States, but what happens in the United States is of some interest. It's clear the dominant effect of large financing in the United States has an amazing impact on the electoral process down there. In one recent election over 95% of all members of the House of Representatives and the Senate were re-elected. In all the years since the Second World War in the United States there has never been a presidential election or a mid-term election where fewer than 90% of the incumbents have been elected. We all know why that is: it's the role money plays in the political process.

    In Canada, by the way, on average about 40% of members are not re-elected, and sometimes it's as high as 60% of members.

    You heard Tom Kent talk about $3,000 for Lester Pearson, and what is it going to cost Paul Martin to win the Liberal leadership this time? Clearly, if we have been moving in the American direction as some political scientists suggest, in the direction of more and more money in the electoral process, I think we're going to move more in the direction of what has been happening in the United States. That scares the heck out of me.

¼  (1810)  

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: So you would refute the argument that was put before us that spending limits do in fact favour the incumbents. The evidence seems to indicate quite the opposite.

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: No, I think that spending limits favour democracy and that other means for members of Parliament to reach the public are very good means, including more free-time radio and television, more debates, and more hard work.

    I don't know if Tom Axworthy has appeared before you or not, but he goes on at great length talking about how in the “olden days when my hair was black” he used to sweat it out with lots of workers at campaign headquarters and going door-to-door, etc., etc.

    Of course, in the United States that whole business has been largely abandoned to television advertising and other ways that involve spending a lot of money.

    The Chair: Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

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

    Mr. Hurtig, have you had the opportunity to examine the Act to govern the financing of political parties in Québec?

[English]

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: My French is very weak, and I apologize if I answer you in English.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I have no problem.

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: I love the idea of limiting individual donations to $3,000. I love the idea of having the stringent regulations of the Quebec system and to a certain extent of the Manitoba system as well. Witness the last provincial election in the province of Quebec. Did those regulations impair democracy? I think not; I think quite the contrary. It is true that the turnout in the Québec election was down to 70%, which was lower than it ever has been in history, but 70% is not too bad.

    By the way, I just talked to Mr. Kingsley this afternoon, and the figure for our most recent federal election was not 61.2% as has been commonly circulated in the press, it was 64%.

    That being said, it was the weakest turnout in a federal election since 1896; you've probably heard this before. We have to try to understand why this is the case and what we can do to improve voter participation. The best way of all to improve voter participation is to remove cynicism and make voters feel they are part of the democratic process.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the way you don't do that is to have big money dominate the electoral process. If you haven't read Peter Newman's chapter on the BCNI in his book Titans, describing how the BCNI has largely managed to set an agenda for government in this country for many years, I strongly recommend you read that chapter. This is one of the things I would like to see changed.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Hurtig, you have mentioned that, in your view, 1.50$ by voter was too high. You know that in Québec it is 50¢ per voter. If the amount of 1.50$ is too high and you like the Québec system, between 1.50$ and 50¢, could you make a suggestion?

[English]

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: I have thought a great deal about that, and I really sort of liked Mr. MacDermid's testimony to you yesterday, which I had a chance to read. He, I think, advocated 50¢, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not trying to be a compromiser here, but I've thought about this a lot and I would advocate not $1.50 and not 50¢ but 75¢ per vote. I think that would be very good saw-off.

¼  (1815)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: If you have read yesterday's transcription, you have seen that my colleague Saada , asked an excellent question on the financing of what could be called small parties, not necessarily in term of seats, but in term of votes. Do you think that an amount of 75¢ should apply to every vote cast for any qualified party?

    I often beg to differ with my colleague Saada and I did not want to make a comment on that, but it is not for us to interpret a vote as a protest vote or not. When the candidate of a recognized party get votes, we should not try to guess if in its psyche the person that voted for that candidate it is really a protest vote. We should use objective and not subjective criteria.

    Thus, do you think that the amount of 75¢ you propose should apply to all recognized parties, which could mean some 11 or 14 parties, I think, in Canada?

[English]

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: There are now only three countries, I think, that still have the first past the post electoral system, and there are 81 countries that have some form of proportional representation. In all those countries there is a threshold before you get into parliament or whatever the chamber is before you are represented in that chamber. I would think it might be a good principle to have a threshold also in terms of the 75¢.

    One thing that does disturb me about the existing legislation in the form it is in is the way it shuts out the possibility of new parties getting public financing for at least one election. I think the committee would do well to look into that and see if there is a way of solving that problem.

    I agree with the implication of your statement, which is that maybe it would be good to have a threshold and then, yes indeed, even if they got 2% of the vote, let them have the 75¢ for every vote they got nationally.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)): Thank you, Mr. Guimond.

    We're going to go on to Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you, Mrs Chair.

    Welcome to you.

    I took notes while you were speaking, and since I cant take notes and translate at the same time, I took those notes in English. I will therefore switch to English to ask you specific questions on that.

[English]

    You have mentioned four options instead of the $1.50: polls every six months, party membership, income tax returns, and some form of matching funds for contributor support. Nobody's going to question in any way or shape or would dare even to think about questioning in any way or shape your very profound attachment to democracy. So my question is, how do these four options translate into the exercise of democracy? I would like to hear more about it from you.

    On the issue of income tax returns--and that was a question that was already put before--many people, including very low-income people, do not file income tax returns for all kinds of reasons. So in having this as a base for funding, are you not depriving democracy of the voice of the have-nots?

    The issue of the poll every six months is very interesting; some other witnesses suggested one year and so on. Let's say we focus on one controversial issue of the day, a very important decision the government has to make with a view to long-term interests, but very controversial today. The poll will put these people down, obviously, and therefore it will have an impact directly on party funding. Aren't we, by this fund, proposing a democracy of the short term?

    If I may, I'll just finish with my last two, party membership and efforts at fundraising and so on. My interpretation is that when we have party membership drives or when we have fundraising, it is viewed as an instrument of promotion of a cause; it's not an end in itself. If you increase the load in terms of time to be spent on these issues, isn't that time you withdraw from political action per se? In this case, please explain to me how you leave that to real democracy in terms of a man versus the means.

¼  (1820)  

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: Forgive me, I did not understand that last question. Would you repeat it.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: When we have membership drives, it is to increase our pool. When we have fundraising drives, it creates a means available to us for political action. The more you put on constraints and the more you demand time for these two things by forcing us to have fundraising campaigns on a more extensive basis, the more this becomes an end in itself in our action without being a means to our action.

    The last one is on matching funds. If you have 10 people giving you $5,000 and you have matching funds from the state to some degree, aren't you going through the back door to favour people who can contribute more, giving them more influence as opposed to the population in general?

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: Those are all good points, and I'll just make a note of them.

    Let me deal first with the question of polls. In my presentation I suggested a rolling average of polls, i.e., we don't dish out money on the basis of a single public opinion poll, we look at the polls over a period of time. Then, using people who have expertise in this area, we establish as best we can what would be fair and what would be democratic.

    You are quite right about basing funding for a party on what is happening at a particular time. A big scandal in the House of Commons or whatever would not necessarily result in the right thing. But I suggest a rolling average of polls, which the polling company and political scientists could easily help you work out to be as democratic as possible. So it's not a poll but a rolling average of polls, that's point number one.

    Then there's the business of constraints on fundraising. I say, absolutely no constraints on fundraising from individuals, although there should be limits on how much parties can spend where there are leadership campaigns or a federal election. The way I have seen corporate financing operate—and I'd be happy to elaborate on this if you wish—it made me quite ill, to be honest with you.

    So let's not limit the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the Bloc, the Alliance, the NDP, or whatever going out and soliciting donations from individuals and getting them really involved in the political process. But corporate financing as it has existed since my period in “public life” is, I really think, damaging to the political process.

    The business of favouring people who can contribute troubles me. It troubles me a great deal, but it's one of the reasons, as you have suggested, the Quebec system limits things to $3,000. I certainly would much prefer that to the $10,000 limit; then it would not have as bad an effect as otherwise.

    Again, I'm very worried about the big corporations with 35 subsidiaries deciding each one of their executives and their senior employees... of course, they won't do this publicly and they won't use any coercion on them, but they are each going to give $10,000, and that would not in itself be very democratic.

    How are things working right now? Well, you know, you have all the statistics about corporate donations and individual donations. It remains to me a great sadness that in an average year perhaps only 0.8% of adult Canadians donate to any political party, and I think in the last federal election it was 1.9% of adult Canadians. We have to change that, and I think good hard work by the parties is the best way of changing that and the best way of making the country more democratic.

    Now, if I may digress for a minute—

¼  (1825)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): You have 30 seconds to digress, because you're well over your--

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: I was going to give you a couple of examples of what I saw happening in the Liberal Party when I was a member. May I?

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Yes, I'm learning a lot. Quickly, though.

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: When I was in the Liberal Party, every province had a filing cabinet. In the filing cabinet there was an A list, a B list, and a C list. You would go into meetings of the party and hear, today we are going to discuss the A list. The A list was made up of people who gave the party a certain amount of money. The A list became the automobile dealers who got to sell the RCMP cars. It became the contractor who got to build the new high-rise in Yellowknife. It became the law firm that got to deal with CMHC mortgages, etc., etc., based almost entirely on how much money they gave the Liberal Party.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): But those were the bad old days, right?

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): I think you have had enough extra time, Mr. Hurtig.

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: I have one other lovely example to give you. Do I have time?

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Lovely? Oh, go ahead.

    I'm going to be shot when this is over.

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: I knew absolutely zero--well, very little--about politics in 1967. As I said, I got very tired of Pearson and Diefenbaker in the House, and this guy Trudeau looked to me like he was going to be different. I went to work for him and was working along there for a couple of months, and Ivan Head was still answering the phone but not saying “Trudeau campaign headquarters” because he hadn't made a decision yet.

    Paul Martin Senior asked me to go work for him, but I said no, I'm going to support Mr. Trudeau. Paul Martin Senior said no, no, he's off in Tahiti with some broad. Those were his exact words.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: Anyway, so we were working, and I finally said to my friend Ralph MacMillan, gosh, we should--there's a very important point I'm making about the nature of the democratic system--how do we get to go to the leadership convention in 1968, because this is going to be an extremely important event in Canadian history? I want to be there.

    He phoned me back the very next day and he said, Mel, I'm sorry, we can't go. I said, why not? He said, well, the party president wants to go, the past president wants to go; the secretary wants to go, the past secretary; the treasurer wants to go, the past treasurer. There has to be a woman delegate, there has to be a youth delegate, the bagman wants to go, the past bagman wants to go, etc., and we can't go.

    I was very depressed, but I had an idea at 3 o'clock in the morning. I said, I'm going to phone Ralph in the morning and find out how these people are selected. He said, I don't know. I said, well, find out. He phoned me back and said, they're elected. I said, no kidding; they're elected.

    So they had the meeting at Glenora School in west Edmonton. It was 10 below zero in February. The party organization had put out 200 seats, they had 200 printed ballots, and we brought 1,100 people to the meeting. I tell students in high school and at university, this is called participatory democracy when you win, and it's called packing the meeting when you lose.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: Here is the key point I want to make about this. We had worked very hard to get all these new people involved in the party. Mr. Chairman, the party executive did not call a meeting of the constituency association for almost two years. They were a bunch of lawyers running things, and the last thing in the world they wanted was more people there in the decision-making process to get involved in who gets what kind of patronage.

    The Chair: I apologize, but as I explained, I had to leave. I do regret, colleagues, that everything drops apart when I leave, particularly when it's a Liberal question.

    Mel, this has nothing to do with you. There's great interest in what you say.

    Colleagues, we're back on track again, so it's Dick Proctor and then Carolyn Parrish for 30 seconds.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

¼  (1830)  

    Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): I have to say, it was very entertaining while you were away, Mr. Chair.

    A voice: It was very incriminating.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks, Mr. Hurtig, for a very lucid presentation. Just so your publisher will sleep better at night, my wife and I bought several copies of your book for Christmas to give away to friends.

    On the business of your conundrum, let me give you my perspective on the conundrum, and while I appreciate what you're saying, it seems to me you've answered your own question. A once-in-a-lifetime opportunity trumps a what's-the-rush approach, which is what the likely next leader of the Liberal Party is saying.

    Although I respect what you're saying about the need for more time and let's get it right, I really think we have to move, and we're probably looking at January of 2004. I don't know if you want to comment on that but that's my take on it.

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: No, I've said pretty well all I have to say on that subject. I'm just praying the Senate doesn't throw a monkey wrench into things. There are an awful lot of bagmen in the Senate who are not too happy with the proposed legislation, but who knows?

    Mr. Dick Proctor: I tend to agree with the point Mr. Saada made about short-term objectives with the polling and using that as some way to finance parties, although I appreciate your answer about rolling polls or doing it over a period of time.

    Of the ones you've listed, the donation-matching proposal has some appeal and attraction. You indicated in your remarks that there should be a cap at the upper end. I think it was Mr. MacDermid yesterday at committee who was suggesting that there should also be a threshold at the lower end. In other words, a $10 membership presumably wouldn't attract a matching donation from the public purse; I think he used the figure $120. I just wondered if you'd given any thought to that.

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: No, I would disagree with that a great deal because of the same points you have made, i.e., why would you want to exclude poor people from the political process? There are an awful lot of people who can't afford a $10 membership.

    I don't know if you are aware of it, but my second-last book was called Pay the Rent or Feed the Kids: The Tragedy and Disgrace of Poverty in Canada. I spent three years researching that, and I can tell you that wherever I went, I found that for some mothers and families, the working poor, $5 is an extraordinary amount of money.

    So I would object to that. We have to solve that problem in another way.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: One of the points in the bill I didn't hear you pronounce on but one I'd be interested to hear your views on is the business that while corporate and trade union donations to political parties are banned, there is this little aperture, this little opening, where a corporation or a trade union can give candidates a maximum of $1,000. There have been several witnesses who have come before the committee and said, this is more bother than any benefits you're ever going to realize are worth; it would be better if we simply didn't allow it at all. Do you have any thoughts or views on that?

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: I would totally agree with that. I would say that if a local grocer or whoever wants to make a donation, let them do it as an individual and let there be adequate tax credits to help him or her do that. That means getting rid of all corporate donations.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Agreed.

    On the threshold, you advocate lowering the threshold. As you know, this legislation talks about 2% of the vote or having fielded 50 candidates in the previous election. Do you have a number for what you think it should be, or have you had an opportunity to think about that?

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: I haven't had an opportunity to think about that. I like the idea of not discouraging new parties from entering into the political process. On the other hand, there has to be some mechanism...

    I don't know to what extent you've interviewed Mr. Kingsley on this subject already, but if you haven't, I would certainly hope you would.

    I do think there has to be some threshold, but I'm not sure what it should be.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Carolyn Parrish.

¼  (1835)  

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'm going to ask my questions quickly because he's going to nail me. You have to answer them.

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: She did a wonderful job on me earlier.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: He heard.

    The Chair: It's okay for you to say, but I have to deal with the opposition questions now, and we could be here till midnight.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: One of the things I would like to propose, and I've been running this through as an amendment, is a $5,000 limit on individual donors but $250 maximum per candidate or riding association. In other words, I as an individual can give $5,000 out in 2003 but I can't give more than $250 to Mr. Proctor and to Mr. Saada. I'm going to be forced to shop around and give my money out in small bundles. I'm wondering if that would work even better.

    You could also apply that to corporations. I happen to be one of those people who don't believe all corporations are evil. There are some corporations affected by legislation going through the House that can't afford to bribe you into passing it, but they can show their appreciation by buying tickets to your fundraisers because they do all kinds of community stuff.

    I'd like to see a $5,000 limit for corporations and individuals but a $250 limitation per donation, and I'd like a comment on that.

    Second, I don't like the idea of rolling polls. It has the same fundamental flaw that's in the proposed bill, which is, you're giving more money to the guys who already have the most popularity, who have the least inspiration to change, and who have the least need to convert new voters over to them. I don't see that reward system as working. I don't like what's in the bill right now, and I didn't like the one you proposed.

    The base of donations appeals to me, particularly if you use the limits set by the current legislation and the amendment I am proposing. In other words, if I have to go out and get $250 donations from 100 people and then that's matched, that's a great way of doing it because it makes me work and it makes everybody work.

    The third comment I'd like to make is more to the staff. We keep hearing, particularly from Mr. White--and he has a legitimate concern--that we're taking a lot of money from the taxpayers here with this. People don't understand and there has to be a way of breaking it down. For example, when a large corporation gives $5,000 to candidate A, they write it off as a business expense and they don't pay tax on part of it. When you get a $150 tax rebate on a $200 donation, that's money from the taxpayers.

    I'd love to see what it's currently costing the taxpayers for these donations and put it in perspective here. This isn't free money coming from corporations and it's not free money coming from individual donors, but I don't know how you get at those numbers.

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: I think Mr. Kingsley has them.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: It's 60% now.

    The Chair: It's 60% now and 80% under the new regime, but it's a slightly different point.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, it is a different point.

    The Chair: Okay, it's a different point, and we'll follow it up.

    Please continue.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'd like your comment on my amendment.

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: Before I comment on things like that, I like to think about them, but it sounds appealing. I like the $250, but I have to tell you, I again disagree on the business of corporations. It's such an old cliché. Corporations don't vote, so why should they have such an influential role? Let the individual members of the corporation make their individual donations, and reward them with proper tax credits. But the idea of $250 for any candidate sounds to me to be quite appealing.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Could we have your comment, then, on what I perceive as the same fundamental flaw in your rolling poll concept and what we have in this current legislation that's before us?

¼  (1840)  

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: I don't know. It seems to me that if you're going to supply public funds to political parties, there has to be some indication as to what kind of public support they have. It may be that the best way of determining that would be the other proposal I made, which is, you base it on the number of members they have and the number of individual donations they have received. I think perhaps this would be the most democratic and the most appealing way of resolving this problem.

    Again, I think there should be very heavy fines and even jail terms if people in the party start fooling around with those numbers and fabricating them so they don't reflect reality. But based on what you've said, I think that might be the best of all answers.

    The Chair: Rick, are you ready or would you like to wait?

    Rick went to speak in the House.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: So did Mr. Regan, and then we came back.

    Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Who won?

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I think I did.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: First of all, thank you for being here.

    I really, really enjoyed your presentation. You actually brought some suggestions, which in most cases doesn't happen. I agree with you, particularly on one comment you made. I left my notes upstairs, unfortunately, but I think it was, you became disenchanted with the Liberals. Well, I should tell you, there are a lot of people who agree with you in that particular comment.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: They said nothing but good things about you while you were away.

    A voice: Oh, sure!

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Yes, about 12% of the population.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: That's why I like the PCs.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I don't know whether the subject of small parties was touched on after I left the table. A lot of what you had suggested with the formula for public funding would in fact, in my opinion, not allow for the development of smaller parties or new parties. I don't know if that question has been answered or not, but could you just touch on that for a bit, please.

    We had a number of small parties appear before us and that was one of their major concerns. If you went to a number in your formula, that wouldn't allow them to develop and grow. How would you see them being able to continue or grow under these circumstances?

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: Rick, we did discuss it in your absence. I referred to what happens in the 81 or 82 countries that have some form of proportional representation, where they make a determination as to representation in their house or legislature or whatever it is on the basis of a certain threshold.

    It seems to me that small parties should be required at the outset to have some basic floor popularity, maybe 2%. When the Reform Party went into its first election it received 2% of the popular vote, and I think maybe that's not a bad number. But for them to be rewarded, there should be a threshold; otherwise, you're liable to have absolute chaos.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have one other comment. You had also mentioned Quebec and Manitoba legislation. Today I just pulled off an article from the same paper you referred to, The Globe and Mail, and in fact Manitoba is having difficulties raising money with the $3,000 limit they have. In running its election campaign right now, the Conservative Party is actually finding it can't afford the television time you referred to. They simply have to cut back on all their advertising, more on the radio advertising. This has happened just within the last year because of the Manitoba legislation.

    You held Quebec up as a shining example. Unfortunately, my friend from Quebec's not here--we have my other friend, Monsieur Saada--but I've heard there are a number of corporations that are in fact circumventing the law, if you will. As you had indicated, there are perhaps ways of doing that with corporations particularly, and I understand that this is happening.

    With this legislation in place, do you honestly think it will solve the problem some have suggested it's going to solve, this influence of corporate donations, this influence of money you've always talked about? Is it going to resolve that issue, that problem?

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: Rick, I'm not an expert on either Quebec or Manitoba, but according to the friends I have talked to in Quebec vis-à-vis the last provincial election in particular, it went rather well and the parties were reasonably satisfied.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Because all of them circumvent the legislation.

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: Well, they shouldn't. Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe that when you are dealing with public funds and when you have people engaged in fraud, they should be heavily punished.

    Now, I want to make one other point. I was talking to the chief electoral officer this afternoon; I can't remember the exact details but I believe he told me, Rick—I have written it down here somewhere but I can't find the notes—that in Great Britain there is no television advertising allowed during campaigns, if I'm not mistaken.

    We know what has happened in the United States, where they spend these huge sums of money. Even if you're running for mayor now, you have to raise millions and millions of dollars. We don't want to go in that direction, and of course most of the money in the United States—hundreds of millions of dollars in 2002, and it will be more than that in 2004—has gone into television. Might this committee have the audacity to consider more free-time television and radio and no paid television advertising? It's an interesting thing to consider, it seems to me.

¼  (1845)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Colleagues, just so you know and so Mel knows as well, I'm going to go to Joe Jordan and then I'm going to look around to colleagues with a view to winding up, okay? Joe Jordan first.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I just want to congratulate you, Mr. Hurtig. Not that it surprises me, but you have provided us with great insights in terms of the content of the bill, and I think you have also captured the politics around this issue, which is something we have to deal with.

    My first question is actually for a clarification for the table officer, so I don't want it to come off my time. You said as one of your alternative funding proposals that there should be matching funds based on the number of individuals who donate. Were you talking about the number of individuals who donate, the amount they donate, or both?

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: I referred to both of them, Mr. Jordan, as alternatives. But the more I think about it, the more I want to concentrate not on the amount but instead on the number of different individuals who actually make a donation. I think that would be much more egalitarian.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay, we have that on the record.

    When we did the Conservative Party round table, one of the things that came out in the report concerned nomination expenses and the procedures for that. What was suggested was a threshold, where if you are under $5,000, you sign a form saying you are under $5,000 and that's the end of it.

    The danger is, sometimes with minor parties, having multiple people try for the nomination is part of an attention-getting scheme a little bit. However, you are going to discourage people from throwing their hat in if they are confronted with the need for an official agent and official forms. Perhaps there should be a threshold of $5,000 in nomination expenses; if you are below that, it's a single sheet and a declaration, and if you are above that, you then have to go through a filing of expenses and a verification.

    Do you see any problem if we go down that road?

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: Mr. Jordan, I hadn't thought about that. One of the things I love about Bill C-24 is its provisions for transparency, for making as much information available as possible as promptly as possible, and that applies at all levels: the constituency level, the nomination meeting level, the leadership level, etc.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: I meant the $5,000; maybe that's too high.

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: I would have to think about that. By and large, my instincts tell me to shy away from it.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: As the chair will probably say, feel free to provide us with any guidance through our deliberations.

    My final thing deals with the first point I complimented you on, and that is your ability to capture the politics of this. If I get a sense of where the pressures are coming from independent of those relative to the content of the bill, it's this time window and the pressure to get it done versus the desire to do it right. Then, if we delay, what are the implications if the leadership changes? I think we all understand what's going on there.

    I'm just thinking, there might be a saw-off in terms of the pressure for delay in some corners based on the notion that somehow changing the rules midstream is going to hurt the electoral chances of a party if we're looking at an election inside a year.

    Maybe there's something we can do in terms of when this comes into force that can quell some of the push-back and let us undertake a process to do it right and eliminate some of these pressures. What I mean is, we could take our time and come up with something everybody can agree is workable.

    There are more reasons than just because we're near an election. There's also riding redistribution--which I support--with the additional burdens this places on constituency associations. If we bring this into force January 1, 2004, and we're changing a lot of them the following July, we're going to be asking these associations to undertake setting up books and doing things in January, then halfway through the year we're going to dissolve those associations, realign them, and have them do it again.

    Maybe looking at when we bring it into force can be advantageous in terms of giving us the time we need to do the job properly.

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: What is your suggestion as to when—

    Mr. Joe Jordan: We wait till after the next election to bring it into force. I'm just throwing it out there; I'm not sure I agree with that either. You seemed to have captured the politics of this and I'd be interested in your assessment.

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: Well, it's an interesting proposal, provided you can get the proper quid pro quo for making such a suggestion. My instincts again tell me it is not something I would support.

    I would like to add something if I may, and I hope I won't lose your goodwill by saying what I'm about to say. It seems to me that the major opposition to this vitally important legislation essentially comes from men across the country who, if this legislation proceeds, are going to lose their impact and their authority on the decision-making process in Parliament because of their having been fundraisers and bagmen, etc. That's where the principal opposition comes from.

    I think that it's not “dumb as a bag of hammers”, I think it is a brilliant piece of legislation that needs to be improved.

¼  (1850)  

    Mr. Joe Jordan: When you're dealing with addictions—the analogy is probably fairly solid—do you go cold turkey or do you sort of wean them off it? I'm just saying that somebody who supports this concept fully and is leaning towards going to zero on the corporate side... Knowing what we're up against, if we can take away some of the pressure to kill it outright and buy ourselves some time as to when it comes into force, it might serve the greater good in the long term.

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: Well, I just go back to what I said earlier, that this is a splendid opportunity, perhaps unparalleled. Given the cynicism that exists in the community among electors, especially young people, with the political process and with politicians, if you strive to produce the most fair and democratic bill you possibly can and then stiffen your backs and push it through, then you will be heroes in this country.

    The Chair: Colleagues, I'd like to thank Mel Hurtig on your behalf.

    People use the expression “distinguished Canadian” and this sort of thing, and you're certainly that, so it is a great privilege for us that you came here today. Mel, we have all parties here and you've heard from members of all sides. We appreciate your presentation and your responses to our questions.

    We will translate and circulate the chapter of your book. We will also send you the transcript electronically if that's okay with you.

    Then, as Joe said, if you have anything else, personal thoughts or perhaps references to articles or things of that type, we would be delighted to receive them.

    So thank you very much indeed for coming.

    Mr. Mel Hurtig: Mr. Chair, the one thing you could do for me would be to see that the clerk sends the transcripts of your future hearings to my e-mail address. That would be terribly helpful to me.

    Lastly, ladies and gentlemen, I cannot tell you in a more genuine way that I feel it really has been a privilege for me to appear before you. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

    The Chair: Colleagues, if we could, let us proceed to the other item we have here, okay? The other item is the letter we received, which is now available in both official languages, from the national president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, Bruck Easton. Rick, would you like to speak to this?

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I would, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you.

    The letter is self-explanatory. Mr. Easton believes very strongly that being the elected president of the party, one of the five major parties in the House, he has some valuable information to impart to us.

    By example, I would suggest that Mr. Hurtig had an excellent presentation today. We gave him time for a full presentation, we gave him a full hour of questions, and quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I thought it was time well spent.

    However, the parties, including my party as well as other parties, have not had that opportunity. They've had five minutes of time on the podium shared with—and please don't take this as any insult—some of the minor parties. I would strongly encourage members of this committee to accept the request of Mr. Easton and have him appear to not only tell us exactly how this legislation is going to affect our party currently but explain what the future ramifications are with respect to fundraising, not only during normal operating times but also in election years. It's vital we know how this is going to impact us.

    By the way, Mr. Chair, I would extend that not simply to my party but to executive officers or presidents of the Liberal Party, of the New Democratic Party, and of the Canadian Alliance. I think it's absolutely vital we hear how this is going to impact us in the future.

    My recommendation is, as we have time—although perhaps not as much as Mr. Hurtig would love us to have and I would like to have as well, but—I think we should make time to listen to these people and put their objections or their views on the table.

¼  (1855)  

    The Chair: Joe Jordan.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    We've certainly had this letter for a while. My own feeling on this--and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Rick--is that there are some other witnesses I'd like to hear from too, and not just here. I'd like to hear from some of the lobbyists I overheard at the press club explaining to each other how they were going to get around this.

    One of the things about this process is, as we go through it, we raise additional questions, such as how it's going to affect these parties. Even though the presentations from the party representatives were interesting, they were pretty generic.

    In terms of a course of action, we should probably go through the witnesses we've identified now. At that point the steering committee or whoever should maybe talk about whether we need to see other witnesses.

    I don't need anyone else just coming in and complaining. To their credit, I thought the PC's presentation was the best, I really did. I thought they were all interesting. Certainly, Mr. Rice was rather anecdotal and personal, but it brought up an important issue. However, the Tory representative talked specifically and gave us specifics.

    Maybe a saw-off here would be, we don't say no but we say, we're going to finish the witness list we've already put together and then we'll review the need to hear other witnesses. In the meantime--and I know you don't demand or ask but perhaps suggest--I would like the existing parties to take the legislation--

    The Chair: By the existing parties, do you mean...?

    Mr. Joe Jordan: The ones in the House.

    I'd like to know the implications of this because this is what MPs are asking me. Take the existing legislation, and for anyone who gave you over $1,000, count it as $1,000; take the $1.50 based on $2,000, crunch the numbers, and let us know whether you're better off or worse off. Is there a problem or isn't there a problem?

    One of the things I'm hearing is that the national parties—this is another issue—will crunch these numbers, but we have provincial links that maybe weren't calculated into this. In the meantime, maybe we could send a letter to the parties and say, if you want, do that analysis—maybe it's just me who would like that and it's not a good idea—and tell us about any other specific clauses you object to and any suggestions for alternative courses of action.

    We can get and read that stuff now as we're going through it. Down the road it may be very good to hear from these people when this thing exists in a little different form. I just don't think we need to interject them now. I don't want to say no, but I think we should just go through our witness list as it exists.

    The Chair: Ted.

    Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'm already on the record from another day as expressing that I felt uncomfortable about the short amount of time we gave to the parties, and I suggested that the parties represented in this House be invited to come back.

    Also, for just one person here today, a single witness, we gave a disproportionate amount of time. That's not a criticism of the evidence given, but we gave an enormous amount of time to that individual. I agree completely with Mr. Proctor that for us to do that for one individual and not our own parties, there's something wrong with that scenario.

    I don't personally object to the idea of leaving it until later in the process, but I think it is essential that we get the parties back--essential. I'm not disagreeing.

    The Chair: Dick Proctor.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Neither am I disagreeing with Rick's proposal, but I tend to align myself more with Joe than with Ted as to their comments in the sense that as I understand it, the chair of the committee wrote to the leaders of all of the political parties and asked them to send representatives. It would have been within the purview of Mr. Clark in this case to have recommended that the president of the Conservative Party appear, yet he or somebody else chose other representatives. Perhaps Joe was right and they were the best presenters, and that's why they were picked.

    Another measure might be to invite the presidents of the political parties to submit a written report, which the chair of the committee does all the time, and at the same time reserve, as others have said, the possibility of having them here at a later date, depending on the time and what they have included in their report.

½  (1900)  

    The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I agree on what has been suggested; I have no difficulty with that. The only thing I would like to specify is that contrary to what Joe has said, I would prefer this to be dealt with not by the steering committee but by the committee of the whole. Everybody will have heard the witnesses that have come before us up to now and I think it would be important that this decision be made by all the members around the table and not only by a subcommittee.

[English]

    The Chair: To comment on that, I would have said exactly the same thing. We can't deal with the form of it now as we don't have a voting quorum, of course, but from my point of view it has to be dealt with formally by the whole committee at some point. I do accept that but it is a change.

    Going back to the point about the leader that came up in Rick's remark—and no one remembers these things—I should point out that the reason we went with the leader was that theirs was the only name we were sure of, the only title we were sure of. For the parliamentary parties we're fine, we understand what the terms mean. That's why we went with the leader and so on.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I was going to point out the same thing Jacques pointed out. At this point there aren't enough people here to make a decision, number one.

    Number two, I personally think that this is like one of those switches from horse and buggy to cars. We're going to get out of the business of having political party presidents raise tons of money by going out on expensive lunches with corporate heads and twisting their arms for money, but we're also doing them out of a whole bureaucracy. They won't need half the people working in those party offices anymore, they won't need half the infrastructure, and people give that up reluctantly. If this is going to be a complete change in the way we do things, they're going to sit here and tell us how bad it is.

    So I think having a written submission from each of them is plenty. Having them all come in here and tell us how bad it's going to be will be the same as having six heads of large corporations that are downsizing come in and tell us how rotten the government is, why they have to downsize, and how much pain is involved. It's a complete change in the way things are done, and they're all going to tell us what we already know. Why don't we just get a written submission from all of them?

    Since we can't make a decision now, let's not sit here too much longer.

    The Chair: Rick Borotsik.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I just have three points. First of all, time is of the essence. We're going to be doing the clause-by-clause soon; I think we decided it'll be the 15th. If you're going to have opinions that are going to be presented and listened to, then it has to be sooner rather than later, and we can't wait all that long.

    The second is that this isn't just about money; there are more issues in this legislation. It's 96 pages long, and we've basically dealt with one component of it. I also asked to have a legal panel because there are problems with nominations and there are problems with our riding associations.

    And it's not just with mine. In some places you have some riding associations that don't have a very strong organization. Under this legislation they are now going to be asked to do a number of things they're not going to be able to comply with. If they don't, then the association is in trouble and the party is in trouble. We should listen to them about how we can change this and make it better, and not just with the money aspect of it.

    The other thing is, as Mr. Proctor said, we had the opportunity of sending whoever we wanted. What we decided was, let's send the people who can best give the committee information on that one component because it was for five minutes. You can't go through all the components in five minutes.

    I am incensed that we should have five minutes--and trust me, I mean no disrespect--but the Marijuana Party had the same amount of time, and they aren't going to be affected by this legislation the way we are. We should--

    Mr. Jacques Saada: They were higher on the list.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: We should have the courtesy to say to the parties that are going to be most affected, tell us what it is you would like us to do, as Mr. Hurtig just did tonight. Give us some viable suggestions, and if you're not going to come with viable suggestions, don't come; come with suggestions as to how we can make this legislation better, and that I stand by.

    The Chair: Joe Jordan.

½  (1905)  

    Mr. Joe Jordan: One of the things is that at the MP panel a lot of the party concerns will, I think, manifest themselves through MPs. I'm hearing that from some of the people who are closer to these issues than I am.

    I am not saying, don't hear from them, but I think that if they can submit their analysis to us now, an analysis they've obviously done if they feel so strongly, it'll be useful. When we get the bill close to what may or may not be its final form, it may be better to have the panel or the round table with them and devote the proper time to it.

    I'm certainly not saying no, but maybe when we decide on this, we should take a look at the schedule and see where we might fit this in. It becomes an hours-in-the-day and days-in-the-week issue. Also, like Rick, I have some legal questions I would like to ask somebody, but I guess time will tell as to when we want to talk to them.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: It will be before we pass the legislation, preferably.

    The Chair: We're going to have to revisit it.

    Jacques Saada.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I would like to come back to this concept that the people who represent the party were sent by the leader; as I said, I agree with the principle.

    My concern is the following. Now, I don't know if it's always the case--I can just quote from my own experience--but contrary to the director general, who stays in the office and deals with things and once in a while goes to the regions, the president of the party goes in the field and settles problems riding associations face in terms of organization and so on. I think that not drawing on this experience might prove a bad thing for us.

    I fully concur with Joe's position. Let's first see where we're going with this and let's make room for that. If we have to delay, whether it's one week or half a week, I don't care; let's make sure we are satisfied we have heard all the witnesses we ought to hear.

    I contend, as I said even during the debate on Mr. White's motion, that on principle the highest elected official of the party ought to have a say on this bill. I would really like to have room to manoeuvre at the end of our process.

    The Chair: Could I say this, then, that to get this thing moving, do we agree to this idea that the parliamentary parties are the ones we'll deal with?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Okay, that's one.

    Two, because we can't decide on this thing now, would it be appropriate if I wrote to them and said... Obviously, in this case it would be a reply to your president, and it would say, thank you for your letter, the committee is considering inviting representatives of the five parliamentary parties; in the meantime, would you consider a written submission. They're going to get their heads around it anyway, and then at some later date, after we have some idea of other witnesses and so on, we'll formally consider the invitation.

    Rick, go ahead.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: It seems to me a cop-out. If you're going to do a written submission, are we then as a committee later going to say, well, we've received the written submissions and we don't have to hear them? And just as a point, why could we not have shared this panel this evening?

    The Chair: Because we couldn't get people to come.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I could have got my president to be here this evening. There was a letter on your desk asking him to appear. Why couldn't we—

    The Chair: No, listen. We couldn't get people on the list I am working with because they were suggested by you. That's the longer answer. This is an extra. And you all know, because we had the motion here the other day, there's some politics involved here.

    Seriously, we are struggling to get these people. We have a remarkable number of the suggested witnesses who decline to come and in some cases send written submissions instead.

½  (1910)  

    Mr. Dick Proctor: So why couldn't we have that letter—

    The Chair: Because I don't have the authority, Rick, at the moment to invite this guy. I'm serious. I mean, I'm sitting here as your chairman, that's the position, right?

    So now I'm going to look around again. Is it appropriate to request a written submission?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: And it's going to say, we're considering inviting them later.

    Dick Proctor.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: I would just like to pick up on Rick's point. We're going to have a submission and then we're going to invite them later--or we may. I think you need to downplay the idea they'll probably be invited later and instead say, if time permits, or we're struggling with it, but in the meantime, please submit a written—

    The Chair: I may have to leave this till tomorrow.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: I'll just make a point. We invite them here and then we hear the complaints, or they give us their complaints and then we invite them here to go into some dialogue and question. I think that's a better way. Let's get their complaints, let's digest it with what we're doing, and if it's necessary to bring them in, bring them in at a higher level.

    The Chair: I will come up with some phrasing for that and bring it here tomorrow—if that's okay with you, Rick.

    There's one last thing I want to say about tomorrow, that among the material you've received, Michel Guimond asked Jean-Pierre Kingsley to provide us with some questions for tomorrow and for what is turning out to be happening next Wednesday, that is to say, Quebec, Manitoba, and Ontario. You have them all and we should all make note of that.

    If you can build those in, I encourage you to do so. I'm sure Michel will do the same, but he can't cover all of those in his. They're here, and as we as a committee did ask for them, I hope you'll build them into the discussion. I will do my best to bring them in.

    We'll have copies of these tomorrow; you have them already but we'll bring extra copies tomorrow.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Is that Manitoba and New Brunswick?

    The Chair: No, they're finished. We passed those.

    This is a list of questions from Jean-Pierre Kingsley that was circulated to the entire committee in both official languages, “Proposed questions to ask to provincial election administration officials”. It was sent in hard copy because that's how we got it.

    The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock in Room 253-D.

    Thank you.