HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 29, 2003

¹

1535

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

Mr. Stephen LeDrew (President, Liberal Party of Canada)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

¹

1540

Mr. Jack Graham (Vice-President (English), Liberal Party of Canada)

¹

1545

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jack Graham

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jack Graham

¹

1550

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel (Chief Financial Officer, Liberal Party of Canada)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

¹

1555

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michael Hillman (Vice-President (British Columbia), Liberal Party of Canada)

º

1600

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. Michael Eizenga (Secretary-Treasurer, Liberal Party of Canada)

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. Michael Eizenga

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

º

1605

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. Jack Graham

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Jack Graham

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

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

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. Jacques Saada

º

1610

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jack Graham

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

º

1615

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

º

1620

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.)

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP)

º

1625

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Michael Eizenga

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Michael Eizenga

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Michael Eizenga

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

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

º

1630

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

º

1635

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

Mr. John Reynolds

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

º

1640

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

º

1645

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. James Robertson

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. James Robertson

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michael Hillman

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

º

1650

Mr. Benjamin Hutzel

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jacques Saada

º

1655

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Ted White

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Mr. Jack Graham

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Jack Graham

Mr. Ted White

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Jack Graham

»

1700

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Stephen LeDrew

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 047

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 29, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

    Stephen, I would like to welcome you. This has been long in arriving, but we're very pleased to have you here. We've been starting clause-by-clause, as was mentioned to you, but anything of significance to do with funding or monetary stuff we haven't got to yet. So your testimony here today will be considered by the committee on the clause-by-clause.

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew (President, Liberal Party of Canada): Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): You're welcome, and I welcome your entourage as well.

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: Right.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Is that the media?

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): No, his entourage.

    If you'd like to begin by doing a presentation, then we will open the floor to questions.

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: Sure.

    Well, thank you, Madam Chair and members of Parliament, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen. I understand you have been very patient and accommodating to allow us to make a presentation this afternoon, and for that, the people here at this end of the table and the Liberal Party thank you.

    I'll just introduce the people who are with me and then I'll have a short--

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Excuse me, Stephen.

    The cameras will have to go out now, please. This is being televised, however.

    Okay, sorry, Stephen.

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: No problem at all.

    I would like to introduce the members as an entourage, as members of the party who came from coast to coast to be here this afternoon. There is Jack Graham, who is the vice-president, English, of the Liberal Party of Canada; Ben Hutzel, who is the chief financial officer of the Liberal Party; Michael Hillman, who is vice-president of the party for British Columbia; and Michael Eizenga, who is secretary-treasurer of the party.

    They were inveigled to come here this afternoon because they said, do you know what? We don't want to have all those empty answers that you're going to have, LeDrew, and we'll fill in the blanks. So we all have a few things to say and then we'd be glad to have questions.

    First of all, I want to be clear and absolutely certain that the Liberal Party of Canada agrees with the sentiments and the stated goals of this legislation. The Liberal Party of Canada supports 100% disclosure of campaign financing and it also supports limits on donations.

    Personally, for years, I have been of the view that there should not be contributions to candidates, potential candidates, or parties that are not disclosed. It's a democratic principle I believe in and it's certainly also the hallmark of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party has advocated for disclosure for years and years.

    However, we don't agree with all aspects of the bill.

    The executive of the party, 54 people elected, met in Toronto six weeks ago. The management committee of the party met four weeks ago in Ottawa to confirm the support, again, for the stated objectives.

    The national executive of the Liberal Party does not support the financial aspects of the bill. And part of that is the fact that we will be running a shortfall if the bill is approved in its present form. I'm not going into details of that. The treasurer and the CFO will be dealing with that.

    I want to deal with the stated objectives of the bill. I understand that one of the objectives is to rid politics of cynicism, and I don't believe this bill does that. In fact, I think this bill fuels the cynical fires.

    Corporation executives and union executives can donate up to $10,000 under this bill. There will always be a question as to which one of those donations was truly personal and which one was funded by the union or funded by a corporation. I know there is a prohibition in the legislation against corporate funding of individuals, but that simply does not work.

    Another stated objective of the bill is to rid politics of corporate and union influence. I don't think that any proper-thinking citizen in Canada thinks that the president of a large corporation, the president of a union, or the president of a large organization should not be listened to. They are players. They have a point of view. It doesn't always have to be adhered to, but they should be heard. They should be heard, whether they contribute $10,000, $1, or $100.

    The bill is also intended, I am told, to do away with undue influence. I don't believe that any minister of the Crown could be unduly influenced for $10,000. This brings me to my main point, which is that union, corporate, and organization limits should be the same as an individual limit. There should be no difference. The bill, I understand, has a $10,000 limit for individual donations, so there should be no difference for anybody, whether it is a corporation or a union. However, the limit should be strictly adhered to, and as well, there should be absolute and total disclosure across the board.

    The haste in which this bill was brought forward I actually think encourages the excess. In other words, the bill is supposed to get rid of cynicism, but quite frankly, by this unnatural limit it misses the mark. It is going to encourage cynicism in politics. It does not deal with the other matters of politics. It doesn't deal with voter participation. It doesn't deal with the fact that Canadians are less interested in voting than they were years ago.

    There is no problem in Canada of political parties being awash in cash. I can assure you, Madam Chair, the Liberal Party of Canada is not awash in cash. Even if it were, we have very good, tight, effective election expense laws in this country, so we aren't going to have the American influence of millions and millions of dollars being spent in individual ridings.

    When it comes down to it, the party is very much in support of disclosure. It's very much in support of clarity. It's very much in support of fairness in politics, and we want that to be the hallmark of this bill. In order to do that, we're recommending there be some amendments, particularly to allow organizations, unions, and corporations to contribute to political campaigns.

    To get into the details of that, I'm going to hand it over to Jack Graham, who I introduced as the vice-president of the party, English.

¹  (1540)  

    Mr. Jack Graham (Vice-President (English), Liberal Party of Canada): Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

    I first want to also thank members of the committee for allowing the party to make representations to you, because I think there are a number of perspectives that are important when you look at electoral financing legislation. I bring a perspective not only from the national executive, but from a person who has served on the executive of a provincial party and also represented the Liberal Party of Canada internationally, having an opportunity, fortunately, to see how other parties are organized around the world.

    I would start my comments by simply saying that so far, the focus of this debate has been solely on the financing of political parties. Financing, though, is only a means to an end. I'd like to link the issue of financing with the role of political parties, which I'm afraid has been a bit lacking in some of the debate so far, certainly the public debate. In other words, you fund parties to do what? I would like to put those comments in a certain context, which Stephen began to comment about.

    We're living in times when there is increased public cynicism about politics; when there's low voter turnout; when there is a view among many in our society that politics is irrelevant; when there are greater regional divides in this country than we've ever had before--geographic, cultural, sometimes linguistic; when there are increasingly complex choices about economic, social, and political issues; and in a country that's vast and diverse.

    When we start the discussion about the role of a political party, I think we need to take a little broader perspective, because financing is essential to achieve the objectives of what political parties are supposed to do. The most extensive study that was ever done on political parties was the royal commission in the early 1990s, which is often referred to as the Lortie commission.

    I just want to quote a couple of passages from that, because the context of political financing has to be married to what political parties are supposed to do. From the first volume, on page 207, it says:

The electoral and institutional successes of parties depend, in part, on their ability to establish meaningful linkages with citizens by articulating policy alternatives and ideas, and by establishing themselves as vehicles for political participation and education. Together, these many activities aim to provide parties with a capacity to represent different and sometimes competing interests in society, and to structure and order choices for the purpose of governing. These objectives are especially challenging in Canada, given our profound regional, linguistic and cultural diversity.

    There isn't a party represented in this room that doesn't face those challenges. There isn't a party represented in Parliament that doesn't constantly ask itself how it can do the job that's necessary to do in politics with the limited resources that are currently provided, let alone the further limitations that would be provided through this bill.

    I want to comment a bit more about the role of political parties. This was the early 1990s, when the Lortie commission said, on page 208:

Canadians are questioning the ability of political parties to accommodate diverse and sometimes competing regional interests within federal institutions.

    They go on to talk about the various roles that parties play, and about our democratic tradition they say:

Our tradition has assigned an important role to parties. They provide opportunities for citizens to exercise their rights and to perform their civic obligations through volunteer participation in political activities and public discourse. We also recognize, of course, that geographic, social and economic factors influence the forms and functions of political parties at different times.

In other words, the debate about how you finance political parties is a shallow debate if you don't ask first the question of what political parties should be doing, and whether they should be doing the kinds of things Lortie referred to.

    What should they be doing? They should be places where there's vibrant political debate, where citizens can engage in meaningful debate on issues, on values; where young people can be nurtured and politically socialized; where there can be some constructive participation in civil society; where you can communicate to 30 million people across 5,000 miles of territory; where they can be incubators of ideas; where you can recruit people from all facets of society, from all geographic areas, and from underrepresented groups.

¹  (1545)  

    My argument, then, is that if we think we are achieving all of these objectives with our existing resources, then we're okay. If we're not doing that, if you believe the status quo with politics is okay, then you probably will have no difficulty with the existing levels of financing.

    Political parties are difficult, and I've been following some of the debate, particularly from some of the other parties who are less well funded than the Liberal Party, and some issues are the need to have a central office, to have meaningful recruitment processes, to run elections, to run meaningful policy development, to communicate across this land, to finance, and to have useful communication systems inside the party.

    As I started saying, the debate has been about financing, and the financing debate has been focused, I would say, disproportionately on the notion of revenue neutrality. The issue should be focused on resourcing political parties to a level where they can be more meaningful in the public debate of this country. I would urge you to look first at the role of those parties and not to be put in a straitjacket of any notion of revenue neutrality. And that applies to all political parties, not just the Liberal Party. The fact is that all political parties in this country, or most I should say, are chronically underfunded. The functions of political parties in our democracy are simply too important to be underfunded.

    I want to comment briefly on financing. The debate on financing has been focused on some very important and useful issues, the issues of transparency, accountability, and undue influence. I applaud the government, I applaud those members of the committee who are advocating for those things, because they are critical. This is a big step forward. To be able to deal with accountability, transparency, and undue influence, to place some reasonable limits on the influence of organizations, or corporations, or unions, is a good thing.

    But the debate has also been focused on sources and levels of support. I want to comment briefly on both the sources issue and the levels of support issue.

    The sources are obviously individual corporate unions and organizations. But I would pick up on what Stephen said earlier about the issue of sources and comment briefly on something that the Lortie commission dealt with on the question of sources of funds. It says at page 445 that:

Canada has a long history of collective action. Individuals combine their resources in an array of organizations to achieve goals they share. Among these organizations are business, labour unions and interest groups, all of which we have a stake in the political future of the country. Many of these groups have...

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): May I just interrupt you for a second. I want to make sure you understand what the rules are. We have an hour, just an hour. Because the two parties yesterday had two hours, we can't give you more time.

    Mr. Sauvageau has just pointed out that the longer you take in your presentation, the fewer questions there will be. And this meeting will be over at 4:30 p.m.

    Mr. Jack Graham: I understand.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you.

    Mr. Jack Graham: I think the point I'd like to make, Madam Chair and members of the committee, is that we have a history of collective action and there's no reason in principle why collective groups with limits cannot participate actively in this public debate.

    The other comment I would make is that there is a fear, and some would argue this, that if you place absolute strict limits such that there are no contributions, or very low contributions, it may drive some of these issues underground.

    The third point is, how can you in principle say that corporations can only contribute $1,000 per riding and individuals can contribute $10,000?

    We accept, as Stephen has said, that there should be limits on contributions. We accept that there should be transparency. However, we would urge the committee to look more broadly at the issue of financing of political parties and whether the existing levels are necessary. One of the primary ways to ensure that financing continues at a proper level is that you can restrict, but not eliminate, at the federal party level or the provincial party level, the corporate financing and financing from organizations and unions. So we would urge you to take that into consideration.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: Madam Chair, we are very much aware of the time constraints. There are a number of people here because they want to show the support of the party for amendments to this bill.

    I sense that you want to get to some numbers. I'm going to call upon Ben Hutzel, the CFO of the party, to speak next. Ben.

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel (Chief Financial Officer, Liberal Party of Canada): Madam Chair, my perspective--

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): One moment, Mr. Hutzel.

    Yes, Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Madam Chair, I believe that the witnesses are very familiar with the rules. For this reason, I would approve of them continuing with their presentation.

    I would be in favour of our extending our hearing by 20 minutes. But if they wish to continue speaking for yet another hour, rather than winding up at 4:30, that would bring us to 5:30. Otherwise, let us begin the questions, because you reach a point where it simply does not fly.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Is there anyone on the committee who would object to going over 4:30 p.m., adding on the time that it takes? Everybody's fine? But don't take that as a licence to talk for an hour and a half.

    Mr. LeDrew.

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Paddy.

    Ben.

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: Madam Chair, members of the committee, my perspective and involvement with the Liberal Party goes back almost 12 years as national revenue chair through the 1993 and 1997 elections, and CFO of the party for the last six years or seven years. So I've been intimately involved with the party while it has been in power in a different way from how most of you have. But certainly I'm very aware of all the financial implications: having to finance the elections, having to deal with deficits after the elections, and all the issues involved in running the party's offices consistent with the budget.

    Over the last couple of years, to pick up a point that Jack has made, we've been cutting expenses dramatically to the point of making it somewhat difficult, even for the existing staff, to feel comfortable in their working environment for the purposes of just making ends meet and continually getting us out of financial difficulties.

    The problems are complex here, there are a lot of sensitivities, but from a financial perspective, the party's difficulties stem to some extent from the fact that we've had three elections in a seven-year period, which is a little shorter than you normally would have. With the cycles we've had in building up funds and revenues over a period of time after an election, it has been much more difficult this year for a variety of reasons. I won't get into the specifics.

    My role here is to ensure that if there are any questions relating to the numbers that have been used to make the calculations...and the concept of revenue neutrality, which I have some difficulties with, but nonetheless it's the concept that we have to deal with to some extent now. Looking at our numbers, particularly with some of the discussions we've had recently with the PMO staff, I pointed out that the number, primarily as a result of the basis of the calculation that was made for the $1.50, did not include in our calculations the amounts that ridings actually receive in terms of corporate contributions, and the amounts they had to pay to their various PTAs and so on, such as in Ontario and Quebec and what have you.

    As a result of that calculation, we had a shortfall overall of about $1.3 million. I won't go into the mathematics. I'd be glad to answer questions. I don't want to take up too much time. I want to make sure that for the numbers that have been used in the calculations we're talking about apples and apples, because there are some questions about filings publicly, what's filed with Elections Canada, what we prepare in our annual statements, and the changes in the rules over the last while. We'd be glad to share those and discuss those with anybody else in the circumstances so that we can make sure there is a revenue neutrality issue here.

    I'm concerned about a couple of other issues. I'll make a couple of quick points. One of the things that have been important to us as a party--I think, because I've been doing a lot of corporate fundraising--are the Prime Minister's dinners. This legislation will prohibit that, essentially. There'll be no more Prime Minister's dinners, because 95% of contributions to Prime Minister's dinners, $5,000 a table or what have you, will disappear. That's an important tool for the party to dialogue, share ideas, get publicity, and perhaps be a forum for a Prime Minister to talk about issues that he wouldn't be able to talk about during the course of....

    That represents a substantial part of our fundraising. Although we get the money in a different way, I think we lose a very important tool in our society, at least in the major centres where the Prime Minister has been 12 times a year making speeches and certainly being involved in those things.

    Another thing this legislation doesn't deal with is how you finance a leadership campaign. There's nothing in there at all about it. If you have the same restrictions, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to deal with that.

    I won't get into specifics. My point is that we need more time to ensure that all these issues are focused on and properly dealt with, with all due respect to the committee.

    Also, the most important issue for me from a CFO's point of view is implementation. When a whole new piece of legislation come in this way, the associated issues, such as dealing with the PTAs, educating people, educating official agents, don't happen overnight. If this comes into effect in whatever form it does on January 1, 2004, we're going to have some horrific issues to deal with. I've heard stories across the country of other people who have made major amendments. It has taken them a couple of years to sensibly integrate and implement the legislation to make it work for everyone.

    I leave that as a comment. I'll be glad to deal with some other issues on that. I don't want to take up too much more time for anyone else, but I think that's adequate at this stage, unless someone has some questions.

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: Madam Chair, if you agree, we'll just go through one more speaker and then we'll have questions briefly. Mike Hillman came from Vancouver yesterday.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): That's all right. If the speaker takes about five minutes, then we will go to 5 o'clock.

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: I know Mr. Hillman well, and he is brief.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): All right.

    Mr. Michael Hillman (Vice-President (British Columbia), Liberal Party of Canada): We'll try, Madam Chairman, to keep it quite short.

    My first reaction to the legislation was wondering why there was a difference between corporations, associations, unions, and individuals. I found that difficult. I then went and had a look and said, what does $1,000 buy you? From a riding perspective, if you look across Canada, I suppose that means $1,000 buys each riding seven postage stamps. I looked at that and asked how much influence it really buys. Not a lot.

    I notice members around this table from British Columbia. We fight long and hard to bring forward the issues of British Columbia, be it softwood, land claims, oil and gas, and other issues. Toronto and eastern Canada have always been a focus that we've gone after and tried to have our place in. If you take the $1,000 from the corporate side, it all goes into Toronto, and we're left in British Columbia fighting for that participation. Yet those entities are very much a part of our culture, very much a part of making our economy grow and of working and being part of the life of everybody who works in British Columbia for those organizations. So I look at it and I say, seven postage stamps isn't a lot. Even if you were to increase that to $10,000, it's only 70 postage stamps and it's still not a lot of influence.

    I look at it and say, how can you maintain the issue of a $1,000 limit? Maybe we can do that riding by riding, so corporations are limited to that amount of money, with a maximum of $10,000, so they cannot exceed the contributions that are given by individuals. That way in British Columbia, that way in Prince Edward Island, that way elsewhere across this country, we will have the ability as political bodies to try to seek involvement.

    One of the members also talked about growth. In British Columbia right now we're seeing a tremendous growth, as I'm sure other organizations are across this country, in membership within our party. The cost of servicing that growth, the cost of working with them as we go forward, is something we also need to plan for and we need to look for opportunity in being able to finance that.

    I'd also like to bring up, on the organizational side--and I'll probably end my remarks there--the issue of trying to turn this legislation on and make it work in everybody's interest, especially in our volunteers' interest at the party level. They're people who give freely of their time, and it's not necessarily CAs who are in charge of finances within the ridings. We need to look at the timing on doing training, of bringing everybody up to speed, putting the systems in place, and the cost of that. Nowhere in this legislation is the cost of that transition included either, but there is going to be a cost.

    So I look at it and say that from the point of view of implementation, from on the ground working with provincial and territorial associations and riding associations, we need to be able to have the time to do the job right and to make sure it works, because I don't think any party wants to have their volunteers put on the line simply because they weren't prepared.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

º  (1600)  

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Now, Mike Eizenga, the secretary-treasurer of the party.

    Mr. Michael Eizenga (Secretary-Treasurer, Liberal Party of Canada): I'll just take 60 seconds.

    I think Mr. Hutzel slightly misspoke when he referred to Prime Minister's dinners, because in fact they're leader's dinners. We've done them when we've been in opposition, and I'm certain that it's an important part of the political process for each of the parties to have an opportunity to showcase the leader and have potential supporters interact.

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: It's more fun at the Prime Minister's dinners, though.

    Mr. Michael Eizenga: That's true.

    To weigh in quickly on the notion of a delay in the implementation date, which Mr. Hillman referred to, in our party we have a federated structure. The provincial and territorial associations are dependent on non-individual contributions to some extent, as are the riding associations, and to some extent the provincial and territorial associations rely on indirect contributions from non-individuals that come from the ridings. We have a variety of regionally sensitive arrangements with our PTAs. In Ontario, it is based on a $5,000-per-riding allocation. In Quebec, it's based on a percentage of the money that is raised. It will take us some time to negotiate, and that is what it will be, because it's like a constitutional negotiation to negotiate new arrangements, and because of that it would be very important for us to have a delay. Certainly, the PTAs aren't saying to us, that crown subsidy can just go to the national party, no problem. We're going to have to have some sort of negotiation to make sure this works fairly. I can't imagine that we'll be able to do this competently and fairly in the timelines presently envisioned.

    Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Again, I know you've all come a long way at short notice. I appreciate your brevity.

    I'm going to caution you, the committee knows we are at clause-by-clause. Their questions, hopefully, will be very specific, asking you for very specific answers, because we are at the very factual state of the bill.

    The longer your answers are, the shorter the time each member has with you. We go back and forth, opposition to governing party. So the first round will be Mr. White, then Mr. Saada, then Mr. Sauvageau, Mr. Regan, Mr. Comartin, and Madame Catterall. Then we'll go to a second round.

    I am going to try to keep each round to five minutes, so we can go around as many times as we can. We can get all our questions asked and you can get as many answers into the record as possible.

    The success of this is dependent on brief, concise, factual answers, if you can.

    Mr. White.

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

    Through you, Mr. LeDrew, I am sure it's no secret to you that the Canadian Alliance is opposed to this bill because of the public funding factor, amongst other things.

    I notice in your presentation you said you agreed with the stated goals of disclosure and limits, but you didn't make any comment at all about whether you agree with the public funding aspect of this bill. I notice you were quoted in some newspaper articles to say the funding formula that is in the bill could potentially bankrupt the party.

    We all recognize the success of the Liberal Party in having held onto the government benches. So I would like to ask you, why can't you raise the money you need from your supporters, the individuals out there, just like the NDP has done very successfully? We do that very successfully as well. You are the most successful party in the House. What's the problem with going eyeball to eyeball with your supporters and asking them for the money you need to run the party, whether the funding is increased through our deliberations or not?

    Can you also tell me whether you even agree with that?

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: First of all, the Liberal Party does solicit a lot of funds from individuals and we receive a lot of funds from individuals. It's just that with that formula, we are not replacing the money we get from non-individual contributions, which I understand the $1.50 per vote is intended to do.

    So as some of the other speakers on the executive said, we don't agree it should be revenue neutral in the first place. But even if that is the premise of the legislation, this is not revenue neutral to the Liberal Party as it is financed now.

    And it goes beyond that to the basic premise, which is that I would rather, as president of the party, accept money from a corporation, $2,000 from a milk store on the corner, than thousands and thousands from an individual. It all depends on the source of the money, whether it's a corporation, an individual, or some association.

    That's why there should be total disclosure, so the voters can judge where a party or individual gets their money from. Let them be judged by those who are supporting them.

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Ted White: Thank you for that answer.

    I'm not sure you quite answered my question, which was what's wrong with going back to your membership. You're the most successful party in the House. Surely you can raise the money you need directly from the supporters. Why do you need the $1.50 per voter at all?

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: Are you suggesting we should forgo the $1.50?

    Mr. Ted White: Why not?

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: Well, that's not something I understood to be on the table, so I haven't given it a lot of thought.

    Mr. Ted White: Okay.

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: But we will be going back to our individuals, make no mistake about that, Mr. White.

    Mr. Ted White: Okay. Then let's talk about the $1.50 for a minute, assuming this funding formula will go ahead, which I assume it will, since the government has the power in the House.

    If the funding formula goes ahead...there was some talk about fairness. I think it was Mr. Hutzel who was talking about fairness. Maybe you were as well, Mr. LeDrew. Do you agree with the formula, that it be based on the vote at the previous election? Wouldn't fairness be giving the same amount of money to every party that organizes in all 301 ridings? How do you feel about that funding formula? Is it truly fair?

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: Well, in other countries around the world, when the government does provide the funding, there are certainly different bases for it. We haven't done a lot of research as a party on that. I know there are other bases. We would be very willing to look at other bases. We simply haven't done work on that.

    Jack, do you have a comment?

    Mr. Jack Graham: Yes, I think it's a very fair formula because it reflects the level of support parties have across the country.

    I frankly have not heard of any other one. If I want to form a political party and decide I have an aggregation of people across the country with virtually no support, why should I have the same level of financial support as the Canadian Alliance?

    I think it's fair because it's linked to the votes that are provided to those parties in an election.

    Mr. Ted White: But I would put to you that you have all argued you need the money for your administrative process, and that is based on the number of ridings you're organized into and the size of the organization. It's not based on the number of votes you received necessarily in the last election.

    And how can you say it's fair to base it on the votes in the last election? You have no idea whether you would get the same number of votes today. In fact, based on the Perth—Middlesex by-election, you'd be down 8%.

    Mr. Jack Graham: Well, Mr. White, I would argue that there is a direct correlation, first of all, between the votes you get in the last election and the votes you get in the next election unless you absolutely crater. You have to base it on something.

    Secondly, I would say there is a correlation—a very clear correlation—between the seats you have in the House and the general popularity you get across the country.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you, Mr. White. You were right on time, five minutes and five seconds. We'll come back to you in another round.

    Mr. Saada, let's see if we can do the same thing this time.

[Translation]

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

    I am extremely pleased to welcome here the president of the party and the members of his management committee. Obviously, it was inconceivable for us, given that we are dealing here with a bill that will have an impact on the internal workings of the party, that the management committee not be present to speak to us about the matter. I believe that this would have been an aberration. But such is not the case, since you are here, and I am really quite delighted. I would obviously have preferred to have seen a few women accompany you here, but that will be the case next time.

[English]

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: Us, too.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I have two questions to put to you.

    First of all, if corporations were authorized to contribute directly to political parties, do you not believe this would go against the very spirit of the bill? How can you reconcile that with the fact that you have approved the underlying principle of the bill?

    Furthermore, as you are aware, in the bill as it now stands no preference is given to PTAs. Mr. Eizenga dealt briefly with this issue.

    Two things however concern me in this regard, the first being, obviously, something that should be negotiated within the party. This should involve neither the committee nor the bill, but certain measures could eventually be taken within the framework of the bill. Indeed, we must not forget that if the bill creates difficulties for provincial wings, it is precisely because they are being deprived of sources of funding that were available to them previously.

    What legislative measures--not in the context of internal negotiations--would you propose to correct the situation the provincial and territorial associations are being placed in?

º  (1610)  

[English]

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: Mr. Saada, first of all, with respect to your concern about agreeing with the principles of the bill and the seeming dichotomy that we don't agree with the corporate limitation, the principle of the bill, as I understand from the debates in the House--and I've been reading the speeches--is to prevent the air of cynicism in politics to preclude the thought of influence of money in politics. My view is that simply saying there are no corporation donations doesn't achieve that.

    In fact, as I said at the outset, I think there are going to be a lot of people saying the money is going there anyway. It's getting through there. They are going to be even more cynical because you're going to force people to put it almost underground. That's why disclosure is the only proper way to make sure people understand how politics is financed.

    As for your very good issue as to the provincial-territorial associations, it seems that in the drafting of the bill that was not considered. There's an issue as to whether that in fact is a public law matter.

    I don't know how the other parties are structured internally and whether, if the legislation dealt with, for instance, the structure of the Liberal Party, that may leave some of the other parties bereft of funding at some other level. For Ontario we have LPCO, and another party may have north and south Ontario. It's a difficult issue. I think as long as the ability of the executive of the party is to deal with that, then the parties are going to have to deal with it internally. The Liberal Party is committed to sharing that.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: You therefore do not see the importance or the usefulness of providing in the bill clauses recognizing the ability for provincial and territorial wings, within parties who have such wings and who wish to do so, to issue income tax receipts in order to ensure their own funding. Did I understand you correctly?

    Secondly, our party is a federation. Section 3 of our by-laws is very clear in this regard. The very principle of a federation is such that we recognize that there are components, but not components that are necessarily subject to the decisions made at the centre. With the knowledge that you are indeed attached to the principles of this federation, do you not believe that it would be wise that there be an option in the bill, indeed allowing provincial party wings to have their own sources of funding, independent from those they might have within the context of agreements with the national party?

[English]

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: There is no question about that. Sometimes the Liberal Party of Canada is a little looser federation than some of us may have wanted. But if there is an amendment to the bill to allow corporate donations, then that would also deal with one of the issues you are concerned with, which is the provincial and territorial associations. Those associations would then have the ability to fundraise on their own.

    As to your question on the tax receipting, there is certainly a lot of merit to the fact. Quite frankly, I know some people in our party who would welcome that, so we don't have this huge onslaught at the end of the year on Metcalfe Street. There is merit to it.

    Jack Graham has a point on one of your issues.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Could you keep it brief, please, Jack.

    Mr. Jack Graham: Just commenting briefly on the issue of principles, Mr. Saada, I would consider the principles to be transparency, accountability, and undue influence. I don't think corporate participation is a principle, because corporations are already permitted to participate up to a level of $1,000 in the riding. All we are saying is that we don't think you get undue influence with $10,000 or with $5,000 or wherever Parliament decides to put it.

    It is not a principle of no corporate participation, because it is there now. The principles are transparency, accountability, and undue influence, which can clearly be achieved without placing those strict limits.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Sauvageau, please

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Madam Chair, I was telling my friend, Yvon Godin, who was here earlier, that I find it odd to be sitting here as if we were at a Liberal family party we had been invited to to listen in on internal discussions and little quarrels of a quasi-interim government, where the leader in place has more or less control over his party and where the leader in- waiting seems to be dictating, along with the president, what is in store for the family gathered for the rest of the evening.

    I would like to ask the president of the Liberal Party of Canada who, I well understand, is lobbying for his party here before us, if when Parliament and committees... And I wish to congratulate you because on top of wanting to dictate to Parliament what should be done about financing, you have also succeeded in imposing new operating rules to the committee. In my 10 years here, I have never seen a witness be granted half an hour to make his statement. You therefore have some power over Parliament and this was worth underscoring.

    But I would like to ask you, Mr. President, if Bill C-24 that we are presently studying should be a bill, as you were saying, aimed at reducing the public cynicism towards parliamentarians, towards MPs, or a bill that should first and foremost be dealing with the finances of the Liberal Party and especially not hurt the Liberal Party's finances.

    Secondly, you stated in your presentation that you support the principles of the bill. But you stated earlier--and I hope I am not mistaken in this--that the bill was stupid. I would like to know which of these two opinions you wish to maintain here before the committee.

    With regard to the matter of cynicism, I would tell you that we are in the midst of studying a bill on the code of ethics for parliamentarians. We have here a bill on political party financing and it seems to me there is a will to correct the situation. All you are saying is that you do not accept that, that it is not good for the Liberal Party of Canada and for your finances, but I did not sense anything constructive by way of amendments or changes.

    Perhaps if Bill C-24 had existed, it would have been more difficult to ask for a $ 60,000 grant without a competitive bid call and to make a $ 60,000 donation to the Liberal Party the following week. I would like to hear what you have to say in response to these few comments.

º  (1615)  

[English]

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: First of all, I was just looking through my notes, and I don't believe I ever said the bill was stupid. In fact, I start off by saying, sir--

    A voice: Dumb.

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: I never said it was dumb, either.

    I start off by saying that years ago a ban on corporate donations was not in the best interest of politics. I still stand by that. But when we are talking about the principles of the bill, I said at the start today that I personally and the party wholeheartedly agree with limits, disclosure, and complete transparency. That is the hallmark of the Liberal Party, and it should be the hallmark of politics. I don't think anybody is going to disagree with that.

    As to the question of whether it works for the Liberal Party, we're here representing the Liberal Party. We're the witnesses for it. You've heard from other parties. I understand some parties have said it will work for them; others have said it will not.

    So if you feel that it's a bit cozy, I make no apologies. We are here advocating the position of the Liberal Party. I think it is a very presentable position, a very defensible position, and one that, as I said, from the people here as witnesses today, has the support of the party.

    It's a bill whose time has come as far as the issue of disclosure is concerned. For years the party has been asking for greater disclosure in contributions. There should be total disclosure.

    As for the financing parts, it causes some problems that are not supportable, in my view and the party's view, in public policy as the bill stands now.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Sauvageau, do you have any more questions in this round?

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: A newspaper article reported this week that caucus wished the coming into force of the bill to be moved back a year. The bill, that would normally come into force on January 1, 2004, would therefore be put off by one year or even longer. The prime minister and the president of the Liberal Party of Canada however are saying that the bill should come into force on January 1, 2004.

    Is it your view that in order to correct the situation and put an end to public cynicism towards politics, Bill C-24 should come into force in January 2004? In this way, amendments could be put forward, but the bill would nevertheless become law in January 2004.

º  (1620)  

[English]

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: On the issue of disclosure, the party policy is for complete disclosure right now. We have absolutely no problems with disclosure being the law for January 1, 2004.

    There are issues, as you heard from the other officers of the party, with the bill coming into force. There are serious issues. Political parties are run essentially by volunteers. Each one of us is a volunteer who puts hundreds of hours, if not thousands of hours, into it.

    As for the ridings, there is a lot of material in the bill that will change the way ridings work. It is going to be not only a tremendous burden, but it could be fraught with problems from lack of understanding.

    From the comments you've heard from the table officers today, I think there is a lot of good reason it would be viewed as prudent to delay implementation of the bill, just so there is a public education factor and an education factor with the volunteers of all political parties.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you. I'll come back to you on the next round.

    Mr. Regan.

    Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    First, I want to ask a question of Mr. Hutzel in relation to his comment that the drafters of the bill, when they were trying to calculate how much was needed to make this revenue neutral, did not take into account--in your words, I think--the fact that the amounts from the electoral district associations were not included.

    I have with me a printout from the Elections Canada website. It is “TABLE 3, Contributions to registered political parties, by donor category” for the years 1996 to 2000. When I look, for example, at the year 1998, it says: individuals, $5.7 million; business and commercial organizations, $7.7 million; governments, $13,000; trade unions, $19,000; and other organizations, $168,000. If the amounts that were receipted for electoral district associations are not included here, where would I find that? Where would that be if it is not here?

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: It's in those numbers. The issue was the amount that was paid to the provincial and territorial associations out of those numbers.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: What I'm saying is, if the attempt was to replace the amount here from businesses and corporations, then the amount that is given by businesses and corporations, whatever happens to it after it goes into the EDAs, as long as it's included in this amount...it doesn't matter if it has been transferred from one part of the party to the other, as long as the amount of the original contribution is included. So when you're trying to replace the amount that the LPC, the Liberal Party of Canada, gets from businesses and unincorporated associations, it's replacing that amount.

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: But that amount doesn't come to the party; that goes to the PTAs directly. We don't give that money to them separately, so that money has to be replaced somehow. That's what the differential is.

    We talked earlier, before the committee meeting, and it's the first time we've had a chance to discuss this in terms of comparing numbers. We have a tremendous amount of statistical information that we've been pulling out over a while. It has been part of the problem and the difficulty we've had to make sure we were talking about apples and apples.

    I'd be more than glad to discuss this issue with you to make sure we are comparing these issues, because there has been confusion in the press. We have a view on the numbers and the discrepancies, and we'd be glad to make sure we're talking about the same numbers. So I'd invite you to have a conversation afterwards. We didn't have much time before the meeting.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Let me ask you, if you don't feel that $1.50 is going to be revenue neutral, what amount do you think would be revenue neutral; and is there an amount you're recommending in relation to this bill?

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: We suggested that to be revenue neutral, consistent with the legislation the way it is, whether we agree or disagree on the philosophy, was about $1.3 million, give or take a bit. That was a rough calculation. I can give you the exact number.

    The $2.5 million--

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Do you mean $1.3 million more? What I'm looking for is what should be the amount per voter?

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: It's $1.3 million more.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: So whatever that equates to in terms of per voter amount of--

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: Okay, so it's $2 as opposed to the $1.50, if that's the approach to be taken in terms of this legislation going forward.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: I see.

    Those are my questions, Madam Chair.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you very much.

    Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Madam Chair, I'm a bit concerned. I'm hearing Mr. LeDrew saying he's here speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, and I'm hearing from members opposite, from the government and the Prime Minister, that they're in favour of this legislation.

    So I'm confused, Mr. LeDrew. Is there a party policy within the Liberal Party on corporate and union donations, and if so, what is it? If there is not a party policy on that, has any attempt been made to...?

    I've heard, I think from Mr. Graham, about the importance of the party in this process and the role it plays. Has it been asked what position it has as far as corporate and union donations go?

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: To clear the...I'm going to say confusion, there is a policy of the Liberal Party of Canada. The Liberal Party heretofore accepts donations from unions, organizations, corporations, and individuals. It also has complete disclosure of all those donations and has had for at least 15 years, if not longer.

    As to the issue of whether there is consultation, no, that's why we're here today. The Liberal Party executive, as represented at this table, is of the view that there should be allowed in this legislation corporate donations to all political parties, with a limit and disclosure too. That is the position of the Liberal Party.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: That's standing policy.

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: Yes.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I guess the other point is to Mr. Eizenga, about the difficulty.

    My party has already begun the negotiations with our provincial wing. We recognize that it's going to require some adjustments within our structure as well. Have you started the negotiation with your provincial wing?

    Mr. Michael Eizenga: No, we haven't, not with our provincial wings, other than some informal discussions.

    Our regional structure has representation at the national executive from the various regions. So there have been those sorts of consultations, but for some of these matters, we might actually have to consider how the constitution works, and that will require us to do some things as well.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: It's our position that from the experience we've had, particularly in Manitoba more recently but also what we learned from the Quebec experience, we felt that further delay was not necessarily, that we would learn from that experience in both cases--including, in fact, what's going on in the provincial election in Manitoba right now--and we would be prepared to deal with this legislation by January 1, 2004. Is your party not able to do the same thing?

    Mr. Michael Eizenga: We think it would be best if we could have longer than that. The reason for that is we perhaps have more idiosyncratic arrangements with some of our regions than you do. Certainly the situations are very different and we're going to have to be very sensitive to all the regional concerns.

    We're really not of the view that we'll be able to sort it out as quickly as perhaps your party. It may be that we tentatively have more money at stake, and we certainly have some major issues to deal with in terms of the size of the corporate contributions we get from Quebec. That's going to be an important issue for us to deal with. We're also in the midst of a leadership campaign, and it may well be that we won't get this set of negotiations completed as quickly as we'd like to.

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: [Inaudible—Editor] ...a whole bunch of issues coming up internally with the party, but from a Liberal Party perspective.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Well, I have to say to you, you may say you have more dollars at stake, but you also have more resources available to you because you have more dollars at stake. I assume your staff and the executive within that staff are substantially larger than that of my party.

    Mr. Michael Eizenga: It's not a function of resources and staff; it's a function of building an appropriate consensus in a national party across the country with lots of different interests.

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: Actually, our national offices don't have the staff of your party. I've gone over the records, and your party has received far greater numbers in donations, in the early 1990s in particular, than the Liberal Party. It has more money.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: It's just more effective at it, Mr. LeDrew.

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: Well, you know what, the NDP has always been good at raising money.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: This is very true.

    Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

    Ms. Catterall will finish this round, and then I have requests for more questions from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Macklin, Mr. Sauvageau, Mr. Comartin again, and Mr. White.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I want to explore two issues. First, as I look at corporate and higher individual contributions to the party, the global amount includes also the amounts receipted for riding associations. Can you tell me how much our riding associations generally raise from corporate or large individual contributions beyond the limit, and how much they raise from individuals? All I know is from my own personal experience, and it's mostly individuals and smaller contributions.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: Madam Chair, Mr. Hutzel could address that.

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: In material we just recently submitted to the PMO's office to show the differentials, in the period between 1997 and 2001 the average amount raised from non-individuals was around $2.3 million. It varies. In 1997 it was $2.4 million; in 1998, $2.1 million; in 1999, $2.1 million; and so on. So that's the average raised.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: My question was how that compares to the amount the ridings raise and you receipt for individual contributions.

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: It's about half the amount.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: The reason for asking this is in terms of the neutrality in the provincial wings in particular. As associations pay an allocation, as they do in Ontario, say, they have enough individual contributions to continue paying that allocation. Clearly they don't have to do it with corporate money.

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: I don't know the answer to that. I don't know whether...it all comes out of a pot at the end of the day. You know, it's $5,000 a member in Ontario. It's different in Quebec; I think it's a third of the total amount raised.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Right, but I think it's clear, if you look at the pattern of the ridings raising money, they raise enough from individual contributions to make it clear that...what they're contributing to their provincial wing, for instance.

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: They may or may not be able to replenish that; that's the point.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay.

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: Madam Catterall, we don't have the specific figures, but I know it depends on the location of the riding. I do know, perchance, in Toronto area ridings and in London and some Windsor ridings, it's a very high percentage of corporate donations; it's 80%. In some of the rural ridings it is less; it's down to 60%.

    But it just shows again that corporate donations aren't the anathema. It could be $500 from a corporation.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Can I just ask you briefly to comment further. I don't think this legislation should try to dictate to parties how they run their affairs with respect to the relationship between, say, the federal party and any wings that each of the different parties might have. However, we do have to know if we have to include provisions in this bill that would allow a federal party, whichever one it is, to do revenue sharing or to allow provincial arms of any of the national parties to raise money on their own and to issue receipts.

    As we address that issue in the legislation—it's a very contentious issue, there's no question about it—how is that going to be managed within the party? I don't want to worry about it and try to deal with the framework in the legislation. I don't think, frankly, many of our members want to see us pass this without some assurance from the national executive of the party that this is going to be dealt with. How do I get that assurance? How do our members get that assurance?

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: I'll give that to you right now. The national executive of the Liberal Party dealt with that issue upon a request from the Quebec wing of the party at its national executive meeting six weeks ago in Toronto. It endorsed the idea of sharing. It didn't go into the details of whether it's a 50-50 share or a 10-90 share, and that has to be worked out within the party. But there's no question about that. When we looked at this legislation, we said that, as it stands now, it's going to deprive the provincial and territorial associations of their essential fundraising ability, so we are going to have to flow money to them, no question. The executive decided that.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: And when might we expect a resolution on that? Quite frankly, that's a big concern around here.

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: I think a lot depends on where the legislation goes, obviously. The current legislation doesn't prohibit fundraising activities among the ridings. It just limits the amounts they can receive from corporations.

    Beyond that, the receipting process contemplates that they can issue receipts in the provinces, so they certainly can do that. The only issue here, I think, is how you divide the $1.50, or whatever the amount is. If the corporate contribution limits are raised, then clearly they can raise that money internally in the province the way they have in the past. But to actually work out a formula and say you shall get 6.72% of any amount raised just seems a strange way to be doing it at this stage.

º  (1635)  

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: The point is that under this legislation, in fact, they would not be able to issue tax receipts.

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: I thought the provincial could issue them...sorry, just the ridings could. I apologize.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Can we go now to Mr. Reynolds.

    Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    My first question is very short. What delay would you like to see—one year, half a year, a year and a half? As president of the Liberal Party, what's your position as to the delay you would like to see?

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: I think it should be either January 2005, a year later than is proposed now, or, as somebody wanted earlier, six months after the next federal election.

    Mr. John Reynolds: Second, with respect to the $1,000 individual and $10,000 corporate donations, as we all know, there are a lot of corporations in this country that are one-person corporations. This bill has an effect that says you can't get together as a corporation and talk about giving your employees money to donate to political parties or you're going to jail. If you're a one-person corporation and you've put money into your account, you could be charged.

    Has anybody here looked at the legal aspects of this as to a charter challenge of individual corporate people, who may be saying this is unfair to us? Has anybody done the legal work to see if there's a challenge to the charter that could happen even if this bill is passed?

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: I've heard from a number of lawyers that there could very well be charter challenges. They say it's terribly unfair. I'm not going to be able to declare that there is a certainty of a charter challenge, but that's one of the reasons we're making this representation. If you are a farmer and you have your operations in a corporation and you--or you and your wife--are the principal, then you're precluded from contributing.

    Mr. John Reynolds: For my next question, I want to go back to what Mr. Regan was at. I was looking at some figures and I just want to say we agree with you on the disclosure aspects. Right now the present bill has full disclosure. It's all there right now, so we're not doing anything new there.

    When you talk about your shortfall, I had the 2001 figures and approximately $6.6 million was raised by your party in that year. Under subsidies it gets $7.8 million. My party in that same year raised $850,000 to corporations, yet we'll get $4.9 million. So we're doing quite well.

    We're also even better than the NDP when it comes to individual donations. We do extremely well. The largest chunk of our money comes from individuals. This bill is very good for my party, but we're voting against it. I'm sitting here as an opposition member but agreeing with all the Liberal hierarchy that this bill is wrong, for all the reasons you're saying.

    I'm just wondering, with those figures being accurate and those shares....

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: I'm not sure what the question is.

    Mr. John Reynolds: The question will come.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): It was so exciting agreeing with the Liberal hierarchy that it has blown it right out of your mind.

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: I'll try to get a membership for him.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): It's a scary moment.

    Mr. John Reynolds: As I said, the bill is good for us, but it's still bad for all the reasons you're talking about.

    Why do you have that shortfall? Mr. Regan was trying to get it and you said you'd talk to him privately. That's nice, but I'd like to know from the committee's point of view.

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: I didn't mean to mislead anyone. The first time I talked to Mr. Regan was about three minutes before the meeting started, so in fairness to make sure that we gave accurate information, I wanted to make sure we were talking off the same page. That was the only reason for that comment, and I apologize for it.

    Mr. John Reynolds: I'd like to know the answer to that because I think it is very important to the committee. If you're actually going to get more in subsidies than you have raised in some years from corporations, where would you get this shortfall?

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: We were talking about revenue neutrality from the Liberal Party's point of view. You have your own dynamics, as the other parties do, obviously. We had addressed this in the context of our own environment—what's gone on in the past, the difficulties we're experiencing, and some of the problems we're having in running a national party. That's where our analysis comes from. I'll make sure the information we share is correct and I'm sure he'll report ultimately to the committee as to what the numbers are. We have our view of this. We were asked to make this presentation because we weren't talking about apples and apples.

    Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you.

    The Prime Minister said that he'll have an election if this bill isn't passed. How would you stand if there were an election in the next 30 days?

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: It's the job of the party to win elections, and we would do our darndest.

    Mr. John Reynolds: You would not have enough money right now, according to what you're saying, if you're cash short.

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: If there were an election called, the bill wouldn't be in place, would it?

    Mr. John Reynolds: I have one final question on Elections Canada. Somebody mentioned the words Elections Canada, and we know how that bureaucracy, even right now under the present rules, is very tough to deal with. It is very expensive for individual candidates and parties. What work have you done in the new power that Elections Canada is going to have not only over political parties but over individual people running?

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: We continue dialoguing with representatives all the time, as I'm sure you are to make sure your interests are properly expressed and dealt with.

    It isn't always easy, and most of that is done internally through our national director and John Arnold. The issue we just raised on the deficiency was something we've had discussions on and they've had some concern about, because it plays on the filings that are made under their legislation as opposed to our own internal audited statements. These are some of the numbers I have to talk to Mr. Regan about.

    It all depends on what you look at. If you look at one filing on the first page, it's misleading as to what the actual numbers are unless you add up all the numbers. It's no one's fault; it's just the way things have fallen out. When legislation comes in, it doesn't pick up actual practices.

    We're having dialogue with them continually to improve the system for everyone. It's not an easy process for anyone. We're trying to do the best we can.

º  (1640)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): That's the end of that section.

    Mr. Macklin is going to start for the Liberals on the second section.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I'd like to go back to the issue of leaders' dinners. Obviously that does appear to be an important part of political life, particularly so historically in the Liberal process.

    I would like to know if you have thought about any ways in which we might be able to perpetuate that within the context of the bill in a way that would be meaningful and still achieve the goals of public participation, exchange of ideas, and so forth.

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: There are a couple of ways that I've thought of, wearing my CFO hat and having been involved extensively in the Toronto dinners. One way is to exclude the dinner as a political event that isn't subject to the kind of restrictions you're imposing here, so that corporations can give amounts of moneys for dinners. If you're buying a table for 10 people, it shouldn't be the kind of thing you'd be concerned about, for all the reasons we've been talking about earlier. That's one way perhaps of dealing with it.

    Another way is to just increase the limit to corporate contributions we've talked about, because 95% of the participation in dinners in Toronto are paid for by corporations. That's a fact. I think you'll find that right across the country for the major dinners for any leader's event—certainly for the Liberal Party. It is an important issue and it can be dealt with by exception. If it's a dinner and you have over a certain number of people, to me it doesn't fly in the face—they all have to file all that information, and it's an easier way for large institutions and organizations to give to the party and should be an innocuous manner of helping to fundraise the party. It's an important part of our process, as it is for all the other parties as well.

    One may go as a party with a formula as a multiple of corporate contributions, but you lose the advantage of that dinner and what it does for all the parties, in my view. As I said, the other way is to just put a corporate limit of $5,000 or $10,000 or whatever the number is and that would then permit you to continue with those things. That's one possible solution.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Obviously in the main, following the normal fundraising process, there'd be receipted donations that would be going back. But let's suppose you go to the unreceipted side; in other words, where you actually have a dinner that in the simplest form has a certain level of cost—you're not sure what it is before the dinner—and you establish a price for tickets and end up with a surplus at the end of the event. What level of permissibility do you believe ought to be there for the development of the so-called surplus?

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: Absolutely none. It should be all reported and disclosed and receipts given, as for all of our dinners and any events like that.

    Are you talking about riding dinners, as opposed to...?

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Well, if you came back through the process, and a leader's dinner could still be held, but in fact there was simply going to be a limit on what could be there unreceipted—let's say, per head—at an event, do you have any concept of what numbers would be applied to it?

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: As a rough formula, if we raise $100 at a dinner, roughly 25% of that $100 is the cost of putting the event on. But to have a meaningful corporate dinner these days, consistent with what all the other provincial parties are doing, you're talking about an average of $500 to $750 a head to come to the event. So I'm still not quite sure what your question is.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: The question becomes almost the equivalent of the pass-the-hat level: how much of an unreceipted dollar value could be collected at one of these dinners? Do you have any--

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: I don't know of anything collected that's unreceipted. Once we deduct the cost of the meal and putting on the event, it's all receipted, and tax receipts are provided.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Macklin, have you finished?

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I just wanted to clarify whether there was any consensus as to the dollar value that could be collected at meetings or events that would in fact—and obviously we're just dealing with dinners at that moment—be unreceipted, the so-called pass-the-hat limits.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): In fairness, I don't think you gentlemen can answer that question.

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: No.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): We are currently dealing with that in clause-by-clause. One of the amounts they have in there right now is $10 as the pass-the-hat non-receiptable amount. We're looking at raising it to $25.

    The question I'd like to ask the staff is, if you had a leadership dinner and totally broke even, (a) would that be legal?; (b) if you made the $25—if we make that the pass-the-hat number—would it be legal?; and (c) if we went over that amount and a cheque was written to the Receiver General for Canada, would that be legal?

    Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): I think we'll have to get back to you on that one.

    The testimony this morning was that if the cost to the donor was the cost of producing or the cost of the good, then no receipt would be issued.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): So we could still have a dinner at cost?

    Mr. James Robertson: If you paid $25 and got a $25 dinner, it is no contribution; there is no donation to the party.

    I think if you had a dinner and then passed the hat and people gave less than whatever was the minimum limit, then there would be under the bill no requirement to issue receipts.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): If we miscalculated and decided that tickets were going to be $50 each, and the Royal York Hotel did it for $30, would the excess be written to the Receiver General for Canada and nobody be breaking any rules?

    Mr. James Robertson: That would appear to be the case.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): And you guys would love to do all the work for the Receiver General for Canada.

    A voice: No.

    Mr. Michael Hillman: Madam Chairman, wouldn't the extra $10 you would make per person be treated as a pass-the-hat donation and thus as non-receiptable, so that it doesn't have to go to the Receiver General for Canada?

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Yes, that's what I was asking. And we were looking at that this morning on clause-by-clause. It's currently $10 in the bill, and we're looking at raising it to $25.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: All right, thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): I just thought I'd bail you guys out, because that one is tricky.

    We're going back to Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: This is certainly very important but we are getting buried under trivia. Pretty soon we will be asked to choose between having chicken and beef.

    First of all, I would like to tell Mr. Eizenga that I appreciate his recognition of the differences between regions and provinces with regard to the sharing of funds. He said that each region and province has its own ways of doing things. This is a quite unusual openness of mind on the part of the government party which is very pleasant to hear. I hope this attitude will spread all the way to the government.

    Our witnesses said they are somewhat baffled and need more time and are not too sure how to organize fund-raising activities and donations. You did not look at other countries to see how parties there do their fund-raising.

    But you do not have to look so far away, you just need to look at Quebec. The prime minister, the leader of your party, said he was drawing his inspiration from the provincial legislation in Quebec regarding political party financing. So there is really no need to undertake international studies.

    Have you looked at the way things have been working in Quebec since 1977, where no cataclysm has befallen political parties, neither the Liberals nor any other one. In my view, it is not as if we were reinventing the wheel here; we only need to adapt something which already exists.

    Did you look at the system in Quebec?

[English]

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: Sorry, Stephen.

    Is this the fundraising you're talking about, the limitation?

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes. I was talking about Bill C-24.

[English]

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: Let me tell you, they are very different at provincial politics levels than they are at federal levels. Mr. Ernie Eves, our premier in Ontario, can raise money and do things that no federal party could even attempt to do.

    With all due respect, I think a lot of that goes on in Quebec, even with the limitations that go on, because you can deal with the carpenters, with the accountants, with the lawyers in a different way at a provincial level than you can with those individuals at a federal level.

    I'd be glad to discuss this with you further, but we've had this dialogue with people in Quebec and it's a different environment there from other jurisdictions.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So this means that the Prime Minister is wrong when he says that he is merely importing at the federal level the model used in Quebec.

º  (1650)  

[English]

    Mr. Benjamin Hutzel: No, I'm not saying he's wrong. I'm telling you what the facts are in certain other jurisdictions, relative to some of the things that have gone on.

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: What inspires somebody should not always be perhaps slavishly followed. There could have been the germ of an idea there, but the application of it would have to be different in the federal sphere than in the provincial sphere. That's what we are arguing.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So you are not opposed to drawing inspiration from Quebec and to applying it federally. I understood you to say that your major concerns are about the $ 1,000  limit for corporate contributions while individuals are allowed $10,000. Would you suggest we raise the limit for corporations to $5,000 or $10,000 or rather that we reduce the limit for individuals to $5,000 or $1,000 ? Which option would be best, in your view?

[English]

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: On a matter of principle, I believe the individual limits should be the same as the corporate limit. The individual limit has been set at $10,000, and so our first principle is that the corporate, union, and organizational association limit should be at $10,000.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But for donations, in order to have a win-win situation, we could bring down the individual limit to $5,000  and raise that of corporations to $5,000 .

    If I understand Mr. Saada's proposal--correct me if I am wrong--a Tim Horton franchise, for example, could presently make a contribution of $1,000 for each riding, which means $300 000  nationally.

    If we increase the contribution limit to $5,000 --I am not sure I have it right and this is why I ask--a corporation could give $5,000 to each riding association, which would bring the total to almost a million dollars. Is that right?

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Madam Chair, just a...

[English]

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: We have looked at the mechanics of it. The principle is that we are of the view that the individual, this corporate association, and this union should be allowed to give the same.

    I've heard someone say a bank can give $1,000 and Tim Horton's can give, overall, $300,000. That just doesn't seem to be right. It doesn't strike Canadians, in my view, as being correct, but those are in the details of the draft legislation.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If I may, Madam Chair, I will conclude by saying that you are giving us to understand that you do not think the bill is stupid--you have been misquoted in the press--you agree with the principles of the bill but you would like some amendments.

    Could you tell us what the two or three major amendments would be that would improve the bill so that, if you were an MP, you would support this bill?

[English]

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: Sir, as I repeat, I never said the bill was either dumb or stupid. I did not agree and I still do not agree, and the party does not agree, with a ban on corporate donations. It is that concept early on in this that I am addressing.

    There isn't a total ban. It's $1,000, but it's just the way it's drafted now.

    The Liberal Party is of the view that there should be an amendment to the bill to allow associations, corporations, unions to donate as much to a political party as an individual can. That's the amendment we are totally behind, and we are supportive of disclosure, accountability, and transparency.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): I'm going to go to Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I would like to provide a clarification for Mr. Sauvageau. The proposal I made--and it is not necessarily the same as that which the party is entitled to make on its own account...

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Could you hurry up, please.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Through you, Madam Chair, I would like to clarify that our proposal was to maintain the $1,000 limit for corporate and union donations to riding associations; however, there would be an increase in the total limit for businesses and unions and we had mentioned amongst ourselves a maximum of $5,000 .

    So this is entirely different from allowing businesses to again contribute directly to the party. This is what the party proposes, but it is different from what I propose.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Saada, do you have any questions, because it's this side.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: No. It was just on—

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you very much.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Maybe I can use just one second to make a small comment.

    Whenever we talk about the $1.50, some people, whether it's within our own ranks—in riding associations, and so on—or here, are arguing that the formula of the $1.50 per voter under the present political circumstances tends to favour regional as opposed to national parties. Of course, the more you increase this contribution of $1.50, then the more you encourage these regional parties.

    Now, it's not a political statement I'm making here. I'm just asking, from the point of view of the intent of the contribution, what's your take on this?

º  (1655)  

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: Others may want to speak to that.

    We have had discussion of it. Some people have said, if we cannot have an increase in the corporate and union donation, then the $1.50 per vote should be increased. Others in the executive said, well, if it's increased, it should only be increased for nationwide parties. How do you define that? It's tough. But it's not the case that the executive of the Liberal Party wanted to encourage having regional parties.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. White, I'll give you one or two questions, and then Ms. Catterall.

    We're finished at 5 o'clock.

    Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    If we can believe the media reports, there seems to be an astounding disconnect between the Liberal Party of Canada and the PMO. I'm shocked at the apparent lack of consultation that went on before this bill was introduced. I can only conceive that it was introduced with no consultation.

    There was a report in the paper that on Monday, Mr. Graham, you called Eddie Goldenberg's office and tried to persuade him to change the bill, and the appeal fell on deaf ears. You must be feeling the same sort of frustration we do, as an opposition party trying to influence the government. In fact, you're having less influence than special interest groups have on the government.

    So I'd like to ask you, if this bill is pushed through Parliament without the changes you have requested, are you going to have to consider turning in the keys to your office?

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): A brief answer, Mr. Graham. We're trying to be non-inflammatory.

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: That big political office? Which office?

    Mr. Jack Graham: First of all, you'll note that I didn't comment on the media report.

    Second, I'm confident that under any circumstances.... My thesis from the beginning, Mr. White, is that political parties need to be stronger. That's the fundamental thesis: that we're not doing the job we need to do—all political parties, including yours. So I would say we don't have to turn in the keys, but we would continue to be under-resourced to do the important work we need to do to engage citizens across the country.

    Mr. Ted White: Since you're still going to be there in your office, I'll ask you one last question.

    The riding associations are going to be involved in a tremendous amount of administrative work to comply with the requirements of this bill. We discussed an amendment this morning, which was rejected, to raise the threshold for the reporting levels for the riding associations, to try to reduce the amount of work they have to do.

    I'd like to ask you what your feeling is about the amount of administrative work; and would you favour something in terms of thresholds that would improve that situation?

    Mr. Jack Graham: That's one of the reasons we need the delay—to figure out these arrangements. We don't want to burden volunteers. We need a little bit of time to deal with it.

    Mr. Ted White: All right. Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): I accidentally skipped Mr. Comartin, Ms. Catterall, so I'm going to let him ask the next question.

    I'm sorry about that, Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    This is to Mr. Graham again, or maybe to Mr. Hutzel; I'm not sure.

    Given the poverty plea I'm hearing about not being able to function as a democratic party as much as you would like, have you given any consideration, rather than cutting back on the activities of the party, to cutting back on expenses—and I'm going to say specifically during the election period on the amount of TV ads, and other ads that you buy in the newspapers?

    Mr. Jack Graham: The point was not an issue of democracy. We consider ourselves to be very democratic, Mr. Comartin.

    I think the issue is what the role of political parties is and whether all political parties, including yours, are engaging citizens as fully as they should be all across this country. I would argue the role needs to be strengthened.

    Concerning cutting back on expenses during an election campaign, quite frankly this is a vast country with a lot of very important issues, and to be able to communicate with people across the country is a huge challenge for all political parties. No, the spending limits continue to go up, but we need to continue trying to communicate a message, as your party does and all other parties do.

»  (1700)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): All right, Mr. Comartin?

    Ms. Catterall, you may have the last question.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: One side issue to the central issues you've raised, but an important one to me, is the limit on spending for nominations. The bill proposes 50%. The government is introducing an amendment to reduce that to 25% of what you could spend in an election in that riding. I personally intend to introduce a further amendment to reduce it to 20%.

    Does your party have a policy on it, and what are your views on that?

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: The party does have a policy that was passed in a general convention in March 2000, which made the spending limit for nomination meetings accountable. I thought it was 50% of what could have been spent in a general election in that riding, and the national executive supported that, and the convention supported it. It is a policy of the Liberal Party.

    As to whether it is 20% or 25%, we haven't discussed it. There should be limits, and in particular, Madam Chair, if I recall correctly, it was put forward by the Liberal women's caucus. It was a major issue, and the convention endorsed it overwhelmingly.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: As I recall, it was that the convention endorsed amending the constitution so that there had to be a limit, which happens to have been set by the management team for the last election at 50%.

    That wasn't the recommendation of the women's caucus; it was between 10% and 20%.

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: I'm not arguing with you.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: No objections, in other words.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): We are finished sharply at 5 o'clock. I want to thank you again for coming at such short notice. I understand from the clerk we are paying for your trip, and the rest of the guys are going to have to pay for their own.

    Mr. Stephen LeDrew: This is the most expensive one right here. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity, for your accommodation.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you.

    This meeting is adjourned.