HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 26, 1999

• 1136

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. I see a quorum.

Colleagues, you have in front of you an agenda for this morning's meeting. Following the completion of some of our procedural matters, we'll move to deal with Bill C-2. We have the government House leader attending in that regard.

The first item I want to take up this morning is a matter than came to my attention in the House on Friday. I do it as your chair, and I hope you'll understand the spirit in which I raise it.

This committee routinely introduces into the House reports on committee membership. The reports are signed by all whips of the recognized parties in the House, and these reports are routinely tabled and concurred with during routine proceedings. On Friday I tabled the third report of this committee, a routine membership tabling dealing with associate membership of standing committees. For reasons that were a little unclear to me at the time, one of the parties in the House refused to consent to the concurrence.

So I take the matter up as your chair. If I am to table on behalf of this committee and if we are to stick with the convention of the House of concurring with those reports without debate, then I want it to be understood around the table that your chair doesn't want to waste his time, and I'm sure none of you want me to waste my time. If there's a lack of communication within the lobby staff or members of an opposition party or the government party in that regard, I'd like to get that cleared up. As matters were, it was the Reform Party on Friday.

I just wanted that to be on the record. When I rise in the House in that regard, I do it as chair of this committee and not in any of the other roles I play in the government. Mr. White was not aware I would be raising this.

I'd really just like to see heads nod around the table, not falling off to sleep, but just to say, “Yes, we understand, and we'll try to avoid this in the future.” I'm sure you'll understand if I have to take it up again that there's been another problem. However, I'm pretty sure we can overcome these communication issues informally, behind the curtains and in lobbies, without the chair having to make the walk around the House. I hope I don't have to do the walk in order to get a routine committee report tabled.

• 1140

Can I move on to the next item on our agenda?

An hon. member: Sure.

The Chair: The next item we want to do is future business. We'll deal with the report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, which met here last week. Colleagues on that committee attempted to scope out the hearings on Bill C-2, and we achieved some success. A draft of that report is in front of you. If there is any discussion—and perhaps there should be—either we could adopt it and take up matters that have come out of the report, or we could discuss it before we adopt the report.

Why doesn't your chair tempt fate and ask for some discussion before we adopt it? Does the adoption require a mover? Yes. Can I ask someone to move adoption of that report?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I so move.

The Chair: So it's on the floor. Can we have discussion?

Your chair does note that parties around the table had agreed that today would be the deadline for submissions of names of proposed witnesses, so while that doesn't have to be done at this meeting, I hope all the parties are in a position to comply with that. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): I'm assuming this was adopted by consensus, that there was general agreement by all the parties at the steering committee. If that's the case, I'd be prepared to vote on it. I've read it quickly. We're off to a reasonably good start. It looks fine to me, in other words.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Knutson.

Ms. Bakopanos.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Thank you.

On item 7, the political parties that have been deregistered, would you like to clarify that for me, please, Mr. Lee? We're speaking, for example, of what political parties?

The Chair: The Marxist Leninist Party is an example. These are parties that were registered but that, because of the provisions of the Canada Elections Act, have fallen into some element of non-compliance with the prerequisites of being registered, so they are either in a deregistered mode or about to be deregistered. I think they are deregistered, and they still have an existence out on the street, if not under the Canada Elections Act.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: But they would have originally had to be registered.

The Chair: They would have been fully registered parties; that's correct.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): I have a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. Last week, when we were working up the agenda here, I mentioned the desire of Mr. Nunziata to appear as an independent, since he represents a specific interest with respect to the Canada Elections Act. It's not clear whether he fits into the parties scene or whether he will be treated as a separate witness further down the line. Was that ever resolved?

The Chair: I appreciate what you're saying about the status of independents. I think we have two in the House now. But they could easily be dealt with under the MP segment of our hearings. We are crafting an envelope for MP perspectives that we wouldn't want to—

Mr. Ted White: With all due respect, I think you're wrong, Mr. Chairman. That's specific. Independents are almost a party to themselves. I think they are deserving of a little more consideration than maybe the general input we get from numerous MPs.

The Chair: I'm prepared to accept that they are MPs without a party label and without access to a party label, and should be recognized as distinct in some way because of that. I don't have a problem with that.

Is there any other comment on that issue? Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): The steering committee will have to meet again, because this is not final; this is a beginning. I think what we agreed is we'd receive written submissions from MPs who wanted to make them and then review those and decide which MPs, if any, we wanted to invite. That's the time to consider Mr. Nunziata's situation particularly. I don't know if Mr. White would agree with that.

• 1145

The Chair: Your chair wouldn't envisage an independents night here, but I do envisage independents as having a perspective we should indeed take account of, and they may have something special to add to the discussion of this bill. So we'll make sure we don't forget about them as we craft the hearings.

Do you have something more specific?

Mr. Ted White: Well, a specific request was made to me, as a member of the committee, by Mr. Nunziata to have his name put down as a witness. I brought that submission to this committee last week, and I believe he falls into a different enough category that he should be invited as a specific witness. It may be that the committee overrules me, but I stick to that position.

The Chair: Okay. We'll note Mr. Nunziata's request. Thank you.

Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I do not want to unduly prolong the discussion, but I think that we have already had this debate at the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure.

Regarding the MPs, I understand their situation is somewhat different, but I would like us to maintain the decision that was made, that is to first receive briefs or written representations, after which, as Marlene was indicating, the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure will consider the possibility of inviting members of Parliament who are interested to appear during an evening session. Eventually, we could indeed consider how we could organize that evening session in such a way that independent members could really have their say. Mr. White may want to consider that Mr. Hoeppner might wish to appear at that time.

[English]

The Chair: Point made.

Does anyone else want to discuss this? Okay.

It is clear that we have to have witness names in today. Our committee staff will review those witness lists by name, by region, and by category of interest in the Canada Elections Act, and then come back to the steering committee with some sense of order that we can look into and hopefully adopt as a pattern of witnesses here before the committee.

If that's agreeable, then may I put to a vote the motion for adoption of this subcommittee report? It's already been moved.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we have one small item of business that should take us up close to the 12 o'clock window for the minister.

Colleagues will note that the subcommittee report we've just adopted does contain reference to our hosting of a small event for the visiting Italian MPs. I thought we might want to deal with that separately, but I will remind you that—

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor].

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: We're still fighting over what kind of wine, if any, will be served at the event, Italian or Canadian. That happens on Monday, November 1 from 4:30 to 5:30 in Room 237-C, just upstairs. We as a committee are hosting, so I would encourage your attendance for as much of that period as you are capable of.

Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Thanks, Mr. Chair. I have just a clarification on the names that were suggested at the steering committee for witness options. Are they going to be invited? What was the final decision? In particular, the ones I recommended....

• 1150

The Chair: Mr. Solomon, you did present an excellent list with many competent people, leaders in their field, but we want to have a comprehensive list from all of the parties before we make a final decision. That would be imminent. We'll likely have to convene a meeting of the steering committee to finally settle on that. We hope to be able to do that soon.

Colleagues, regrettably we've run out of controversy to deal with here around the table, and the minister is not due for another eight minutes, so Mr. Bergeron has something.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would like to make two comments to relax things, Mr. Chairman, so that we can enjoy a few minutes of chatting while waiting for the Minister.

First of all, I would like to draw your attention to the presence of our former chairman, Mr. Adams. It is always a pleasure to have you among us. I don't know whether we will have many more opportunities to see you in our committee, but I do hope so.

Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Thank you. I don't think I will attend your deliberations frequently, but I will do so once in a while.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Fine.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could suggest that we order wine produced by Canadian producers of Italian origin.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I want foie gras with icewine.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Italian foie gras?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, you're doing a great job. If you can keep it up, then you won't have to do any dancing on the table for us here.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: I'm going to suggest that we go off record now and suspend for five or six minutes, so that we don't have to put all of this into the Hansard. Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: We'll suspend.

• 1152

• 1203

The Chair: Colleagues, we'll now resume.

We're delighted to have with us the Honourable Don Boudria, government House leader. As minister, he will be introducing to us today Bill C-2, the new Canada Elections Act.

Mr. Minister.

The Honourable Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Colleagues, I am accompanied by Mr. Michael Peirce, who is director of legal operations at the Privy Council Office. As you are no doubt aware, the Privy Council is the Department I am responsible for under the Elections Act and under all other acts in my capacity as Minister of State.

I am indeed pleased to be here with you today to discuss our new Elections Act. I am pleased first because I see the very familiar faces of my colleagues from the House of Commons, and second because this gives us the opportunity of resuming our work on the Elections Act.

I am very aware, Mr. Chairman, of the patience and dedication that all members of this committee have shown in working very hard to prepare the report on the Elections Act, and I want first of all to commend them for their work in improving our democratic process in Canada, for that it is exactly what we are talking about here. I will not belabour this, because everyone here knows full well the importance of what is incumbent upon us—perfecting our democratic process. I also know that the members of this committee recognize the critical role played by our Elections Act in that democratic process.

• 1205

Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendments to the Canada Elections Act, which are now before you for your consideration, will come as a surprise to no one. Indeed, most of those proposals reflect the outcome of a wide-ranging consultation, a process which has culminated here, around this table.

In fact, the amendments we are proposing today are largely based on the findings and recommendations made by this committee, as well as on the reports of the Chief Electoral Officer, those of the previous committees that have dealt with this issue and, of course, on the findings of the Lortie Commission, whose report was published in 1991. I will come back to this later on.

Even though parliamentary committees and the House itself have already discussed the Lortie Commission report and even though we already have made some amendments, there is still a long way to go. I need only remind you that in 1993, a bill had been introduced in the House of Commons, but because an election was called that same year, it died on the Order Paper.

[English]

To begin, let me highlight a few of the administrative changes to this act.

First of all, we're proposing to empower the Chief Electoral Officer to adjust the voting hours for areas of the country that don't switch to daylight savings time. This will address the problem the Saskatchewan voters had in the 1997 election. I'm sure MP Solomon will know very well what I'm referring to here.

On a related topic, Mr. Chairman, that is to say the topic of administrative changes, I want to indicate to you that an Ontario court struck down a provision regarding the liquidation of assets for the parties that lose their official status. We've responded in this legislation by allowing registered parties that fail to field the required number of candidates during an election to retain their assets, subject to certain conditions. That was a decision of Justice Molloy some months ago, and you'll probably be familiar with it, Mr. Chairman.

Also as a result of that court decision.... We used to have a condition whereby $500 from your $1,000 deposit was refunded for filing your papers, and the other $500 was refunded only if you received 15% of the votes. Again responding to Justice Molloy's decision, we're going to make the entire $1,000 refundable if a person files the papers, and the 15% criterion will be removed.

We're also proposing to extend voting rights to returning officers. You might ask what happens in the case of a tie. Well, first of all, I believe the last time we had one in Canada was in the general election of 1963. There are 300 or so elections every time, and we've had 10 elections since then, so 3,000 times returning officers have been denied the right to vote, without our ever having a tie since then. That procedure is so seldom used that I don't think having it in there is warranted. Much more preferable is a mechanism for a run-off in the event that there is a tie, and that is proposed in this bill.

Also in this legislation we're offering to offset the impact of inflation, since the act as we now know it was introduced in 1974. As you know, the threshold for receiving the 75% political tax credit is $100 right now. We're proposing to increase that to $200. It will bring it a little closer to what the provinces have. For instance, Ontario has it at $250, some provinces have it at $300, and so on. So we're proposing to bring that to $200. We don't propose to change the other limits within that, just that one—in other words, to further encourage the smaller donations.

• 1210

Second, we're proposing to increase the voucher expense limit from $25 to $50. You'll know that the voucher system is a system whereby, if you buy small things for the campaign office that cost, I don't know, $10 and you forget to get the receipt at the cash register, you can just write a little voucher and put it in the till, and that works for the purpose of accounting. Well, maybe that was fine in 1974, but nowadays if you go and buy two pizzas and forget to pick up the receipt, you're over the $25 limit. So we're proposing to bring that to $50.

In the last election, many people had problems paying the auditors. The auditors were only allowed to charge as much as $750 to your campaign, and that may have been all right in 1974, but it's very difficult, particularly in larger centres, to find one for that price now. We're going to increase that maximum to $1,500 under this bill we're proposing.

We also want to have measures to ensure that canvassing and the posting of signs in apartment buildings will be permitted. We have the curious situation right now where in row housing, for instance, if they are freehold, a candidate can express their democratic opinion by having a lawn sign on their lawn. If a similar building across the street is condominium owned, the condominium corporation can pass a bylaw preventing a person from that right of self-expression. We think the act should say you can't do that, that a person should be able to put up that kind of sign if they so wish. The same thing applies to apartment buildings, if people want to put a sign in their window and so on.

We also have put into this bill a strengthening of the enforcement capabilities of the commissioner for Elections Canada. As you will know, at the present time, if you catch your opponent cheating in an election on the expense limit or on anything else, you have to resort to the courts to get a common law injunction, and the threshold for that is very, very high. You must prove irreparable harm and material damage and all kinds of stuff, and that is a very high threshold. We want to make that more flexible, so that it's not three months after the election by the time you are able to get redress.

Mr. Chair, we've looked closely at the 1996 decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal to throw out spending limits for third parties, but we've also examined the 1997 Libman decision in the Supreme Court of Canada in that regard. You will know, of course, that the Libman decision—and I have a copy of it here—says about the Alberta Court of Appeal regarding third parties:

With respect, we have already mentioned that we cannot accept the Alberta Court of Appeal's point of view because we disagree with its conclusion regarding the legitimacy of the objective of the provisions.

—the provision being to restrict third parties to a $1,000 limit.

The court further stated, and again it's from the decision, speaking of third parties:

While we recognize their right to participate in the electoral process, independent individuals and groups cannot be subject to the same financial rules as candidates or political parties and be allowed the same spending limit. Although what they have to say is important, it is the candidates and political parties that are running for election. Limits on independent spending must therefore be lower...

So the courts were quite clear that third-party spending rules are appropriate and that, whatever they are, they must be lower than what is imposed on candidates.

We reflected on the 1988, 1993 and 1997 general elections, which went without spending controls for third parties. I'm offering in this bill the following: that spending limits for third parties be $150,000 at the national level and $3,000 within a constituency, but to be deducted from the $150,000 national level. In other words, the Supreme Court told us that $1,000 works. The amount we put in is 150 times that size, just in case someone is led to the mistaken view that the courts would throw this limit out. Clearly this is not going to be the case.

• 1215

Our role then is to ensure that all electoral participants have an opportunity for meaningful expression.

In this legislation we're also proposing to respond to the court decision regarding blackouts. This is a rather interesting one, because it manifests itself, as you know, in three different ways, two of which have been struck down by the courts.

In response to the striking down of the 72-hour election blackout on public opinion polls, the legislation will reduce the blackout period from 72 hours to 48 hours and will implement a new 24-hour publication requirement on polling methodologies. You will know the court said 72 hours is too long, and in any case, any rule that doesn't have a methodology in it won't work. So we shortened it to 48 hours, and we've included that for the first 24 hours in an election campaign, if someone broadcasts a poll, they must reveal the methodology according to a formula set by the broadcast arbitrator. It's all in the bill.

We've also responded to an Alberta court decision striking down blackout measures on third parties and candidate advertising at the beginning and at the end of the campaign. We're not going to touch the part at the beginning of the campaign, because the campaign has now been shortened, so there doesn't seem to be any purpose. But at the end of the campaign, we're proposing to have a 48-hour blackout on candidate advertising, party advertising, polling, third parties, and what have you. It will be the same for everybody. That way there's no argument as to whether candidates can advertise, third parties cannot, polling can do this, somebody else cannot. It will be the same for everyone. That's a fair way, and it will ensure that the only group to get the last word will be the Canadian voters.

Mr. Chairman, you will remember that when this bill was introduced last spring, I encouraged Canadians to take a closer look over the summer months at the legislation we're proposing. I have taken that opportunity myself. I've met with academics in at least four Canadian universities. I've given talks as well. I'm giving a number of additional talks during the week of break in November, because of course when Parliament is sitting, because of my function, I can't go very far from this place, as all of us will understand.

Here are some of the amendments I will be proposing right away, in addition to the bill that is there.

First of all, it was brought to my attention by a number of people that child care expenses should be a candidate expense. That isn't clear at this time. In some ridings they've been accepted as candidate expenses, in others they have not, and in others they have probably been considered campaign expenses. So now a candidate would be able to have the child care expense as a candidate expense. This means of course, particularly for women candidates—that's the source of this—it would make it easier to recruit female candidates in an election campaign, an objective I'm sure all of us support.

Also, electors in physical danger—and I'm thinking here of shelters for battered women—would be allowed to indicate their former place of residence in order to vote, as opposed to the address of their shelter, for very obvious security reasons. That is not provided for at the present time. With the permanent voters list and so on, it's a very important thing for us to think about, particularly as we're amending this act.

Also, these same people would be allowed to vote by mail, so the offender would not be able to even see them go to the poll to vote. They could use the mail-in provision, and therefore they would be guaranteed safety, which again I'm sure all of us would want to support, or at least I hope so.

• 1220

There's another anachronism in the present rules, and it has to do with the disabled voter. When disabled voters are voting, again using the mail-in ballot, particularly people who have severe physical constraints, it's relatively easy, I suppose, to be able to mark the X on the ballot, but you must also sign on the outer envelope when you're using those things. Well, obviously some of these people can't do that. There's no provision in the rules to accommodate that. I'm proposing that the committee look at that as well, and I'd be prepared to offer the actual written amendments to make that happen.

There's another issue I'll be seeking the advice of this committee on, and that is the recommendation made by the Lortie commission in 1991. The numbers they proposed wouldn't work now, because it was close to 10 years ago, but they said at that time that if parties succeeded in attracting a greater number of female candidates, there should be a system to financially reward a party for doing that. As you know, parties get 22.5% of their expenses reimbursed right now. At a certain threshold, should it be 25%, and so on? I'll leave it at that right now. We can come back to it perhaps at a future meeting. I hope it's something the committee will consider.

Finally on that score, another technical glitch has occurred over time, and it is the following. Now that we have the permanent voters list, the revisions at the end usually cause a greater number of people to be registered at the end than they did before. The amount you're allowed to spend in a campaign is based on the preliminary voters list and doesn't provide for that. So I'm proposing that we use a date, the 11th day before the election, and that we be able to utilize those greater numbers to adjust the expenditure amount of a candidate.

Naturally we would have to make a provision there that if the amount went down, it wouldn't apply. Otherwise, if you ordered lawn signs, you can't go remove them from the ground and return them to the supplier. It doesn't work that way. So it would have to be upwardly mobile, but not the other way, in order to work. Again, I'll be providing this committee with the exact technical wording for you to consider on that issue.

Those are technical glitches that were brought to my attention over the summer by interested Canadians.

I want to close by saying all of these proposals rest as always on the principles of equity, transparency, and accessibility, which are the foundation of our Canadian electoral law. I've read the excellent report your committee proposed, and here I want to take a moment to congratulate the previous chairman of the committee, Dr. Peter Adams, and all those who worked on the report that was submitted to me. I want to congratulate them for their excellent work. I think you will all find the principles set out in that report are reflected in the law we have today.

I'm looking forward to the contribution of this committee. I'm looking forward to answering the questions. I want to go at this with a very open mind.

As you know, we're referring this bill prior to second reading, which permits a wider-than-usual scope of amendments, providing we're amending the same act, of course, not a different one. But within that, there's room for compromise to hopefully make this law better for all Canadians.

That isn't to say this law isn't good already. It is recognized worldwide as one of the best. But of course court decisions and other decisions have made it such that it is incumbent upon us to improve the laws we have. I know we will all be working to do that in the interest of all Canadians.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for your comprehensive and succinct introduction to the bill. I want to thank you as well for making reference to some of the court judgments that have guided you and the government in crafting these reforms.

• 1225

I would just note as chair that although the court judgments are out there, courts don't legislate. Any judge who purported to legislate would probably be out of his or her depth, out of order, and in my view out of business.

It is our job in this House to legislate, and that's why we're here. We appreciate the guidance of the courts in reaching our conclusions, and we thank you for bring those judgments to our attention here today.

We'll lead off with questioning now. We'll go first to Mr. Lowther of the Reform Party.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be very quick and then turn it over to my colleague, Mr. White, who has a number of issues he'd like to bring forward.

My concern this morning, Mr. Minister, is with impartiality, and the non-partisan, non-political credibility of Elections Canada. Currently Elections Canada has directly approached 15,000 schools, directly to the classroom, for children aged 6 to 18 to vote for their favourite right, Mr. Minister. No provincial oversight or approval was ever granted. No school board or parental consent was ever asked for.

This right is then to be reported to the Government of Canada as to the position of children, in the middle of a children's throne speech, in a much-billed children's budget to come.

With this backdrop, we've had 13,000 parental signatures petitioning the House of Commons about the undermining of parental authority. Related to that, a number of the school boards and people who are concerned about this initiative of Elections Canada have elected to not participate and to boycott this particular program. Those numbers are growing across the country.

Does the minister responsible for the Canada Elections Act feel it's appropriate for Elections Canada to be involved in public education programs that may be utilized for political purposes, as this national election for the rights of youth is seen to be by many? If not, perhaps we need to clarify the wording in subclause 18(2) of the bill so that the Chief Electoral Officer does not have the authority to embark on these types of politically sensitive public education programs.

Mr. Don Boudria: I'm prepared to listen to the advice of this committee. Elections Canada has always had a public education role. It's always been there. Right now they're undertaking a simulated election with UNICEF.

I mean, they're not doing this exercise with the Hell's Angels. They're doing it with UNICEF. We could criticize it if we don't like it, I suppose. I'm not here to defend any particular issue in which they're involved.

I was asked a question on the floor of the House yesterday. It's a simulated election they're having on—guess what?—the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Again, they're not asking them whether they're in favour of bank robbers. They're asking them questions about a convention to which our country adheres to.

I guess I just ended a sentence with a preposition.

In any case, that's essentially what is being asked and what Elections Canada is participating in as part of its public education mandate, as stipulated in the act. If we want to contest that, I suppose we could. But when we're talking about the voters of tomorrow, the validity of having them participate in simulated elections, all of the exercises Elections Canada has participated in with regard to democracy in this country, recognizing everything Canada has done around the world....

As former Minister of International Cooperation, I can tell you that our reputation in that regard is second to none. I'm really wondering whether some people are seizing on an issue that really isn't one for the purpose of damaging what is essentially, I believe, a good program.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you.

The Chair: Without objection from colleagues, I had allowed approximately ten minutes to the Reform Party, so Mr. White will continue on that basis.

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

My first round of questions refers to clauses 350 through 362 of the bill, which deal with third-party spending and rationed political speech. What interests me is that it restricts only certain kinds of political expression according to the definitions in clause 319. Could the minister explain what harm the rationed forms of political speech do that non-rationed forms do not—for example, editorials, debates and letters? What specific examples of such harm can he cite? Are there any examples, in the three elections mentioned in which there were no third-party expenses, of situations where registered parties and candidates in Canada have been unable, because of their own party or candidate expense limits, to adequately respond to or rebut the advertising of the third parties?

• 1230

Mr. Don Boudria: What this strives to do is control third-party election advertising spending. As you know, right now you, the honourable member, and I are restricted in what we can spend. We're restricted in terms of both the amount and what can go into advertising from that amount. As well, anything we spend must be from Canadian sources.

On the other hand, third parties right now, as of today, in what I hope is this temporary vacuum of law in which we are living, have no limits. They spend 100% of what they want, with no maximum on advertising, and all of their money could come from offshore if that's what they wish to do.

That doesn't meet the test of equity. If we decide that we no longer want spending limits for candidates in this country—and I don't advocate this, of course, because I think it's good, sound law to have these limits—then it stands to reason that third parties need to be subject to limits as well. What kind of limits? Well, then, the Supreme Court decision has given us guidance, certainly, on what is an appropriate amount.

I notice the honourable member in his speech the other day, for instance, said, well, this will be challenged in a court. Of course it may be challenged in a court. Who knows? But the courts have already said what is acceptable, and surely that would indicate to anyone wanting to challenge it whether it has a chance or no hope at all.

Mr. Ted White: With all due respect to the minister, what harm do non-rationed forms of political speech, according to the definitions in clause 319, not do that the rationed forms do?

For example, editorials, letters to the editor, and debates are fine, but there's a ration on other types of advertising on billboards or something like that. What evidence does the minister have, from three elections that have been run with no third-party spending, that any harm was done to any political party or any candidate or that there was insufficient funds available to a candidate or party to defend themselves against such advertising?

Mr. Don Boudria: I like your use of the word “ration”, as though spending oodles of money on anything is considered to be the appropriate way.

I'll use my own example. Does anyone in this room think I would be an MP in a country with no spending limits? I can't speak for anybody else around the table, but most people here know my background. You know where I'm from. You know where I started. Yesterday I celebrated the 33rd anniversary of my starting here as a busboy. Do you think I'd be an MP where you had to spend $1 million to get elected? Obviously not. Do only millionaires have the right to be represented by their peers in the House of Commons? I would hope not.

I think there is room in this place for everybody. Some, of course, are going to come from the agricultural community. Some will be lawyers. Some will exercise other professions, and, yes, maybe once in 130 years one of them will be a busboy. I don't believe there's anything wrong with that.

The election laws we have in our country, and the fact that there are spending limits, makes it such that people who are not the absolute wealthiest can seek to run for office. If you have no limits on a certain category—those who want to defeat candidates, third parties—and you have limits on those who do want to be elected, well, there's inequity there, obviously. It doesn't take rocket science to understand that if there is going to be rules, they have to apply to all, not just to some.

That being said, I think it's totally rational that there would be rules on third parties.

Mr. Ted White: I take it, then, Mr. Minister, you can't provide any examples.

I'll move on to ask you a question about whether or not the minister or officials of your department have had any discussions with the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the preparation of the wording contained in Bill C-2 related to third-party spending.

Mr. Don Boudria: No.

Mr. Ted White: Okay.

Was the federal government or any of its agencies involved in any way in the funding of the Libman litigation, including the provision of any funds to Libman's attorney, Julius Grey?

Mr. Don Boudria: I have no idea. I'm not the Attorney General for Canada. I cannot speak as to who funded any part of an action in which neither I nor my department participated.

• 1235

Mr. Ted White: Okay.

I have one minute, I see.

Still referring to the third-party spending provisions in the bill, why is it necessary for a citizen to hire an accountant in order to be able to take part in third-party spending? In fact, why are the restraints on citizens so onerous, and why is the enforcement of the rules the responsibility primarily of citizens rather than government agencies?

Mr. Don Boudria: That's not entirely correct. First of all, anyone who spends less than $500 doesn't even have to register, to ensure that someone who participates in a letter-writing campaign to their MP for their local association and so on doesn't register.

Secondly, those who spend less than $5,000 have very summary rules to which to adhere. Only those who spend greater amounts will be subject to the higher threshold of rules that resemble the type of scrutiny candidates have to address during a campaign.

So there are three thresholds, actually. It's not accurate to say that they are all subjected to having to hire an accountant or some such thing.

Mr. Ted White: But they are subjected to a situation where enforcement of the rules tends to be the responsibility of primarily citizens rather than government agencies. Normally Elections Canada would enforce the rules, but—

Mr. Don Boudria: No. The reporting of candidates' expenditures is not made by Elections Canada but by the candidate—referring to a candidate now. It is verified by a private accountant, usually referred to as the auditor, and then that is filed with Elections Canada for verification should they wish to verify.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was about to welcome the Minister and to note that he was celebrating the 33rd anniversary of his stay in the House of Commons yesterday, not just as a member of Parliament or a minister, but also as a staff member. He was celebrating 33 years in the House of Commons. This is quite an achievement and this anniversary is important on two accounts as it is also the anniversary of the 1993 election.

Let me now turn back to the topic of today's debate, namely the bill to amend the existing Elections Act. The Minister says that he has examined with great care and interest a number of suggestions that were made and forwarded to him during the summer. I would imagine that he listened with equal interest to our preliminary debate in the House of Commons.

We could therefore have expected the Minister to come with a number of suggestions this morning. Among his proposals, some indeed deserve the support of the members of this committee and the Minister should be commended for those. They involve some very interesting features which have been mentioned earlier.

I feel, however, that some recommendations that should have been made this morning were not. I have to tell you that I'm somewhat disappointed, especially considering the fact that the Minister said that he had listened to all concerned Canadians. In that respect, a number of recommendations, some of them very important, have been put forward, but it seems that the government has not taken them into consideration.

I would like to focus on four points and to have the Minister comment on those. Firstly, I will deal with the issue of equity.

The Minister says that his reform is based on three basic principles: transparency, equity and accessibility. Although we all agree on the principle of accessibility, I believe the concepts of equity and transparency tend to be interpreted in different ways.

With respect to equity, I agree with you, Mr. Minister, that there must be spending limits for candidates, otherwise some groups of people would not stand the slightest chance of ever being able to have a career in politics. But it would also have been appropriate—and we heard some rumours about that—to limit the amount of contributions.

• 1240

In terms of equity, clearly—and we cannot go on forever hiding our heads in the sand—a citizen who does not contribute in any way to an election fund or who only contributes an occasional $5 or $10 is bound to get less attention from a politician than the chief executive of a company that contributes $25,000 to a political party. We have therefore made recommendations in the past dealing with the public funding of political parties. The Minister appears to ignore our recommendations in that respect. We thought we could expect that some of those recommendations, such as the one dealing with putting a ceiling on corporate contributions, would be endorsed, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

As far as transparency is concerned, there was one recommendation which all opposition parties in this committee agreed on and which had been made by the Chief Electoral Officer in his report following the 35th and 36th general elections. The Lortie Commission had also made a recommendation on that topic. I'm talking about the procedure to appoint returning officers. Here again, the government has turned a deaf hear to our appeals, and chosen to maintain the present partisan appointment process without even trying to bring in some changes in order to have a more transparent appointment process. That process is not transparent right now, and it will not be once the bill is passed, in spite of the principle you are trying to put forward. This is regrettable.

As for third parties, Minister, I am in full agreement with you. We do need to limit third-party spending in elections, so as to ensure that the rules are the same for everyone and that the rules of the game are fair for the political parties and candidates. I therefore agree that we need to limit third-party spending.

However, if we look closely at the bill as it is written, it becomes clear that the only spending that will be limited is on advertising. That means, for all practical purposes, that a union or a big corporation could invest in equipment or staff to help or hinder a given candidate. For example, door-to-door canvassing could very well be done by paid staff of a union, a business, etc.

Mr. Don Boudria: But we deal with that issue.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You deal with that?

Mr. Don Boudria: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Well, I would like you to give me some specifics, since I had understood that only advertising was covered by the bill.

Mr. Don Boudria: No, no.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If you are telling me that neither the offices nor the staff of businesses or unions can be used, I would like you to tell us which provisions apply, because my understanding is that only advertising is limited.

Another recommendation, this one supported unanimously by the members of this committee, dealt with controls on trust funds, not for the parties but for the candidates. As things stand now, a candidate can set up a trust fund before an election, and when an election is called, the fund is transferred to the campaign fund. The source can then be indicated as merely being a “trust fund”. There is no disclosure of exactly where the money came from that was transferred from the trust fund.

The committee's report included a recommendation to that effect, but as in the other case, it was not taken into consideration by the government. The question of trust funds for parties was raised, but not those for candidates. If that is not the case, I would like you to tell me, since my understanding of the bill is that it will still be possible for candidates to set up trust funds, which can be transferred to their campaign fund without the public—and this is where transparency comes in—having any idea where the money came from.

Those are my remarks, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Don Boudria: Thank you for those excellent questions, although they are not easy ones.

First of all, two issues were raised about financing, but you have broached only one this morning. People usually talk, on the one hand, of setting spending limits and, on the other, of allowing only individuals to make donations and preventing companies from doing so. I think that prohibition is even covered by the Charter. If I remember correctly, the Lortie Commission never recommended spending limits; in fact, it recommended the opposite, on the basis that these kinds of limits do not achieve anything. In order to encourage more grassroots contributions from individuals and small businesses, we are allowing for contributions up to $200 to be given more generous tax treatment. Very large companies will receive proportionally less advantage on the income tax side.

• 1245

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That may be true from an income tax point of view alone, but when it comes to having the ear of politicians, as I was saying earlier, you would have to have your head in the sand to think that a company donating $25,000 is not listened to more closely. It is certainly likely that the Prime Minister is more receptive to requests, expectations and appeals expressed to him by the president of that large company, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Don Boudria: Listen, I can talk to you about the financing in my own riding. I do not remember receiving donations above 500 or $600 for my election campaigns.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The situation is quite different for political parties at the national level.

Mr. Don Boudria: Most of the time, when our party receives major contributions, the media publicize that. A few years ago, the guest speaker at my annual benefit dinner was the Prime Minister, and most of the media that are here today probably covered that event. People were charged $100 to come, and the cost of the meal, room rental and invitations was only $40 a person. It came out to a contribution of about $60.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I am not referring to that, Mr. Minister, as you are quite aware.

Mr. Don Boudria: I know that you are not referring to that, but rather to the distinction between parties and candidates. I was simply saying that, where candidates are concerned, most of the contributions came about that way.

The Lortie Commission did not recommend setting spending limits for the parties, as is done in some provinces. In fact, where such rules exist, sometimes two individuals give donations adding up to the limit in order to get around the rules.

With respect to third-party financing, the rules are limited to advertising because third parties are clearly not candidates. Obviously no link can be made with the expenses of candidates, who are subject to the rest of the rules.

Take the example of a hypothetical plant, the ABC plant. Let us say this plant is located in my riding and wants to loan four of its employees to do door-to-door canvassing for me during their working hours. Their work would become part of my campaign expenses.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I agree, but they could do it in their own name.

Mr. Don Boudria: It does not make any difference if they are acting in their own name or not. Any activity to promote a candidate becomes an expense of that candidate.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Let us take the example of a business that decides to put 20 employees at the indirect disposal of a candidate. Could that not do considerable harm to the candidate by sending his or her election expenses skyrocketing?

Mr. Don Boudria: The candidate would refuse that offer because he or she would have to immediately report it to Elections Canada and under the new mechanisms in the bill, the Chief Electoral Officer could intervene and use legal means to have it stopped. In the past, someone could have, claiming good intentions, gone out to support your campaign with 10 employees and intentionally made you go over your expense limit, and then you would be charged. These new measures are more flexible and will enable us to report any situation of that kind immediately and have these activities stopped through the legal means provided. The rules have been made more strict in order to protect us against such abuse when people, either because they sincerely are trying to help or because they are pretending to help and really want to do us harm, invest in a candidate's campaign and cause problems.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I asked two other questions, Mr. Minister.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Don Boudria: The two other questions...

The Chairman: No. It is now Mr. Solomon's turn.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: About the returning officers and the trust fund?

Mr. Don Boudria: We already talked about trust funds for political parties. I thought that I had pretty well dealt with that issue. I will look at the situation in more detail to see if it goes any farther. I believe that the committee's report looked only at political parties' trust funds, which are also covered in the bill. You can check that on your side and I will do the same.

• 1250

As for the returning officers, I think the current system works well, that we have received excellent service, and that returning officers carry out their duties in a non-partisan way. Since 1993, nominations in each polling station have been supported by the member elected during the previous election and the main opposition candidate in the riding. Prior to 1993, nominations were the responsibility of the party in power at the national level and the party that came in second at the national level. That procedure was perceived as being less objective, because in some ridings, the person who perhaps needed the most protection from someone with ill intentions could potentially be from a political party other than the two most popular political parties at the national level. The changes introduced in 1992 or 1993 recognized that fact. I think that the system has been working much better ever since.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Solomon.

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Boudria, welcome. From one busboy to another, I like many things in your bill. I was a busboy in Kresge's actually in 1965.

Mr. Don Boudria: Hear, hear.

Mr. John Solomon: Spending limits are very important in our country, and they distinguish us from countries such as the States, where for example Barbara Boxer in California paid $33 million Canadian to get elected. That's just outrageous.

You talked, Mr. Minister, about equity, transparency, and accessibility. I want to congratulate you on recognizing Saskatchewan as the only province or territory in the country that maintains central standard time 12 months of the year. This bill resolves the closing of the polls in that province.

With respect to accessibility, I want to ask you questions in particular about rural vouching. In Saskatchewan our farms are becoming larger and larger. In the bill you're recommending we eliminate rural vouching. Our farms are so large now that quite often enumerators don't get to the farms to enumerate people, because farmers are actually out on the tractors. On election day they go to the polls, and because they're out harvesting, seeding, haying, or spraying, when they're out on the tractors and the combines, they're not carrying ID. So they can't go to a poll and say they have ID if they haven't been enumerated. It just doesn't work.

By eliminating rural vouching, you're targeting Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta rural districts in particular in denying accessibility to individuals who may have been left off the voters list, farmers in particular. I'd like to ask what the rationale was for doing that and whether or not you could reinstitute it or entertain a motion or an amendment to have it retained in constituencies that have significant large farms.

In many cases these farms are 2,000 acres to 10,000 acres; they are huge places. When you're farming and you want to go vote, you'll sometimes jump into a half-ton and drive, but when you get to the polling station, which may be 15 or 20 miles away, you have no ID. Everyone in the community knows you, because you've lived there a long time. The various party scrutineers and poll clerks all know you, but you're not on the voters list; therefore you can't vote.

I'd like to know whether or not you'd entertain an amendment to reinstate that item.

An hon. member: Can they drive without a driver's licence in Saskatchewan?

Mr. John Solomon: Absolutely. Many people do. Even those who don't have a driver's licence drive without a driver's licence.

Mr. Don Boudria: The first question was about the source of it. It was this committee that made the recommendation to remove the distinction between urban and rural voters. I can draw your attention to the page number; it's page 69, section 26.11. But if it's the feeling of this committee, upon further reflection, that it should be kept, I don't per se object to it.

I'd like to hear more of the deliberations. Perhaps the Chief Electoral Officer will testify before you too, and together you'll be able to develop a consensus of the committee. But I thought I was acting on the consensus of the committee as expressed in 26.11 on page 69 of your report.

Mr. John Solomon: I wasn't aware that was a recommendation of the committee. Certainly we did not support it at any time. But we'll review that.

• 1255

Mr. Don Boudria: Okay. I'm not trying to say that given the committee said so, it can't be reopened again—not at all. Look at it again, and if you think there are still valid reasons to keep it there....

Particularly in view of the fact that the main reason we had it before was to add people to the voters list when they were missed in enumeration—an enumeration that of course now has completely changed, with the permanent voters list and so on—it was felt by this committee that the distinctions between urban and rural voters—and that's the main one—should be removed.

But I'm prepared to look at it again, sure.

Mr. John Solomon: Part of the argument for retaining it is that in a rural area, you tend to know your neighbours a little better than in the city. I've lived in both areas. In the city, unless you're in politics and you go to your neighbours quite often, if you're an average citizen, you don't know your neighbours, in particular in apartments and so on. So it's tough to vouch for your urban neighbours if you don't know them, whereas in the rural area it's very easy to do that.

Mr. Don Boudria: But of course with ID, one doesn't need vouching any more either. And in urban areas, one problem we had is that even if people had ID previously, they could not be sworn in or added to the list. But that was eliminated in urban areas to permit someone with ID to vote anyway, so I suppose it was felt by this committee that a similar provision in rural areas would work well.

If you say there's strong evidence that people in rural areas go out to vote without ID and therefore we should look at it again, well, discuss it in committee. I'm not against it per se.

Mr. John Solomon: It's not a widespread problem, but it happens, as I say, during seeding and harvest, when they're working 18 hours a day. They don't carry their ID with them on the combines.

The second point I want to raise is with respect to the permanent voters list. There have been examples in by-elections and elections, provincially and federally, of huge gaps in registered voters—for example, in polls that have a large number of apartments. A lot of people move in and out of apartments on a regular basis. In my city and in some of the towns in my riding, the apartment polls are totally changed from one federal election to another and one provincial election to another.

And it's not just apartments; it's senior citizens' high-rises, low-income people, and people who are not able to have a residence over a long haul. These people are being excluded, and your accessibility objective is not being met. I'm wondering, Mr. Minister, whether or not you would consider changing the permanent voters list, and in certain ridings where they have apartments and so on, having mandatory enumeration.

Mr. Don Boudria: Of course at the present time the Chief Electoral Officer has a right to order enumeration where he feels it's necessary, as you probably know. We established that under the previous bill to cause the permanent voters list.

Second, I'm not saying it is, but maybe part of your question is premised on some of the difficulties that occurred at the provincial level in Ontario.

Mr. John Solomon: Yes.

Mr. Don Boudria: Need I remind you that in the same province, we had a federal election almost at the same time as the provincial one, in the riding of Windsor—St. Clair, and we had problems in the provincial election and not in the federal one in the same riding? So there was more to it than the voters list that was wrong.

The Chief Electoral Officer administers that, and I'm sure he could speak to it in far greater detail. But he has the authority right now to order partial enumeration where it's necessary.

And he has, on several occasions per year, the tools necessary to revise the list permanently. Those are all rules established by this committee.

It starts with the Revenue Canada income tax; you can just check off to ensure that you're on the voters list. As well, your driver's licence and a number of other devices like that adjust the voters list on a permanent basis to achieve what we have as the permanent voters list.

In addition, there is the revision that goes on when the campaign is called. Then of course the floodgates are open to permit additional people to register and to be put on the voters list. That holds right up until the 11th day before the election. That's the same day I want to have that limit for increasing the threshold of expenditures; I'm going to use the same day, because it's the revision day.

And then of course it's possible also for people to actually be processed one at a time if they're not registered at all, with the proper identification.

So there are all of these mechanisms now, plus the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, still retains power to go into an area—say, for instance, a new subdivision was built in the last three months—and register everybody.

• 1300

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you.

There were two items that were not included that I would like your opinion on. The first is fixed election dates, regular dates for federal elections every four years or every five years. I would like to know your view on that and whether you might entertain an amendment to the bill with respect to that issue. The second is lowering the voting age. I can give you the pros and cons in terms of why I think these two should be included.

The third issue, which is more wide-sweeping—and we as a committee might have representations on this—is proportional representation. Proportional representation may be covered under the Parliament of Canada Act or some other act of Parliament.

I'm wondering what you think about those three issues, please.

Mr. Don Boudria: On the fixed election date, I think a constitutional adviser would tell you there is one right now, and it says that it's every five years. Obviously that's not what you mean. What you mean is a greater certainty that it will be held roughly around the same time, providing Parliament isn't defeated and so on. That's not just a change to the Elections Act; it's a very profound constitutional issue.

While we live under a system known as responsible government—upper-case “R”—it means that effectively the one who holds the confidence of the House, the Prime Minister, makes the decision of either when he wants to seek a new mandate to renew that confidence or when he feels he has lost the confidence of the House, either case. It's a major constitutional departure from what we're doing right now to get into anything different.

In this country, over the last two or three decades, we have had elections roughly every four years. At the provincial level, in the eastern part of the country they're almost once every three and a half years or thereabouts. As you go further west in the country, they tend to be somewhat longer.

So there are variations in there, but we're all subject to the same constitutional provision under what was then known as the British North America Act, now the Constitution Act, and that's the five-year maximum. I don't propose we should change that, but it's a debate that is quite outside of changing the Canada Elections Act.

On lowering the voting age from 18 to 16, there was no recommendation like that in the report of the committee. There was no recommendation like that either in the Lortie commission report. I don't know of any other jurisdiction.... Certainly there's no other country in the G-7 that has a voting age lower than 18. There doesn't seem to be much of a case to achieve that, so I don't think we should entertain that at this committee either.

Finally, the last proposition you raise is on the issue of proportional representation. Depending on what you mean, it could either mean changes to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act—not the act that's before us, which is a different issue—or if you wanted to change the proportion between provinces, that would actually be not only an amendment to the Constitution but the kind of amendment to the Constitution that would require unanimity, a vote of every single provincial legislature plus both houses of this Parliament. That's what was advocated. Either way, it would not be within this act. Either it would be the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, if you just wanted to take the same number in a province and change the formula—say, having one giant constituency for all of Saskatchewan, with a list—or if you wanted to change the proportion from one province to another, it would be the other scenario.

The Chair: Thank you.

This is just the opening round. There will be many other opportunities to continue discussion on this, I'm sure. If we have difficulty with these issues, I know the minister would want to come back and assist us.

Mr. Don Boudria: Sure. At 1:30 I have to leave to prepare for question period, but I can come back right after that.

The Chair: I know there are a number of government colleagues who want to make interventions, but I'll follow the pattern for today's meeting and ask Mr. Harvey if he has a question.

• 1305

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): There has been a lot of talk about October 25, 1993. You can understand that it is not a good anniversary for everyone.

Mr. Don Boudria: For my part, I talked about October 25, but not 1993.

Mr. André Harvey: I was reading your real intentions, Mr. Minister. We did not celebrate for the same reason yesterday, did we, Mr. Chairman?

I would like to start by pointing out to the Minister that the bill contains some interesting technical amendments. I think that this bill is a progressive step towards improving the Elections Act. The issue that Stéphane raised is the whole issue, at least for Quebec.

I would like to ask the Minister to make a statement of principle on the issue of individual and corporate financing to which national parties have access.

I would like to give the Minister an opportunity to spend 10 or 15 minutes discussing amendments to eligible amounts as well as a better framework for the publication of polls, in keeping with the 24-hour period that is suggested in the bill, so that we can have relevant information on all polling techniques. How do you reconcile democracy and funding, both corporate and individual, that we are entitled to at the federal level?

I know that in Quebec, it is possible for a large corporation that wants to participate in party financing to enable its associates to participate, and subsequently, if I'm not mistaken, to compensate its associates. We all know that national parties receive huge corporate donations.

I would like the Minister to tell us if he agrees that allowing corporate donations at the national level does not necessarily run counter to the principles of democracy. I would like to have your opinion on that. In Quebec, the debate on individual financing and corporate donations is ongoing.

Mr. Don Boudria: And on donations by unions.

Mr. André Harvey: Yes, of course. It is an ongoing debate, and I would like to hear your opinion on the issue, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Don Boudria: First of all, donations must be public. When the Elections Act was adopted in 1974, we took a giant step towards democracy. Something that had previously been hidden away in a closet was exposed to the public. The public must accept that. Any parliamentarian may, if he or she sees fit, rise in the House and say to someone: “Did you do that because such and such a corporation gave you such and such a contribution?” We all have the right to do that. We have all done so. I asked questions like that when I was in opposition, and today it is the opposite. That is what we call accountability, and it is excellent. No election contributions should be secret. Our system has adopted that transparency.

Secondly, spending limits have been set for candidates. No limits have been set concerning the amount collected, but as far as candidates are concerned, very strict spending limits have been set.

Thirdly, there is a 22.5% contribution from government to the parties' expenses. In addition, about 50% of the candidate's expenses are reimbursed by the government. Finally, all those who make a donation, mostly the smallest contributors, receive a fairly generous rebate from the government which becomes much less generous as the amount of the contributions increases. Today, the most profitable contribution, so to speak, is the $100 contribution. The proposal I am making today would increase this amount to $200. However, in this bill, I did not propose to increase the other limits. In other words, the existing limit for the next $250 would not change. The one for the 33.33% would not change either. So, the incentive to make small contributions would be even greater than for large contributions.

• 1310

Those are the elements, not only those proposed in this bill, but also those which have been in place for a long time, which increase the transparency of the electoral contributions system.

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Minister, how can you justify the large donations made by companies in electoral campaigns? For example, how can you justify a bank making a large contribution to a national party?

Mr. Don Boudria: Companies and individuals have almost identical rights according to the law. What a company can legally do in terms of contributions, an individual can also do. They are not treated differently by the law. The law does not provide for higher limits for individuals than for syndicates or companies. The limits are the same for everybody. In other words, there is no ceiling, in either category, in terms of rebate. The same rules apply at all levels, as long as we are dealing with a taxpayer. You could say that non-taxpayers are at a disadvantage, because if the person who wants to give $50 to a political party doesn't pay income tax, this donation costs that person $50, while an individual who works and pays income tax only pays $25 when he or she donates $100 to a political party. You can say that there is some difference in this respect, but it is not significant, because usually, someone who has no taxable income does not tend to make contributions. These people may pay for a membership card from a political party, but in general, they do not make other contributions.

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Bakopanos and Mr. Pickard had both signalled. Which one of you would like to begin? I think we had Madam Bakopanos on the list first.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you.

First of all, I'd like to thank the minister for changes that included the incremental child care expenses, because I lived that example, for instance, as a candidate. But I'd like to say that it isn't beneficial only to female candidates, but it is beneficial, Mr. Minister, to all candidates. So I'd like to make sure we—

Mr. Don Boudria: It would apply to everybody, but the request came largely from groups representing female candidates, yes.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes. Thank you for that.

I also thank you for the amendment regarding the electors who are in physical danger. I think that's a very important amendment for women who have violence in their lives and who fear—

Mr. Don Boudria: That one applies almost exclusively to women.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you.

Now, my question would go along the lines of what Mr. White raised in terms of third-party advertising and third-party spending. He was looking for two examples, and I'd like you to clarify whether the two examples I'm going to raise concerning past campaigns would be covered under the changes you are proposing.

One is the Canadian Police Association posters on changes to section 745 and the pictures of our colleagues who did their duty as members of Parliament and who were referred as serial killers, or lovers of serial killers, or whatever the terminology was. I don't quite remember the terminology. Fortunately, my picture wasn't one of them, but I know that certain colleagues lived a living hell during the election campaign when their children were told in school that “Mommy loves killers”.

• 1315

So that's one example of protected advertising used by third parties, the other one being the National Citizens' Coalition, which, during certain periods in between elections, manages to spend vast amounts of money lobbying, quite openly, pro or con government. But we won't go into that. Certainly during an election campaign they would use whatever means to put forward their opinions and views.

Would the changes you are proposing in fact stop this type of advertising during the election period?

Mr. Don Boudria: No, they would not, but they would limit the amount they can spend doing it both nationally and locally.

For instance, it would stop this group you've named from buying an ad that says “Mommy loves serial killers” if the ad cost $5,000, because they'd be limited to $3,000. So they'd either buy a smaller one or forget about it altogether. There would be that limit of $3,000 against, or in support of, any particular candidate. Nationally it would be $150,000.

But this is not censorship. It's not designed to stop. If a person feels that something is done in a way that is malicious and wrong and harmful, the courts are there, and our laws. Otherwise, this bill does not address that. It addresses limits.

There still could be vicious and unfair and what-have-you attack ads and so on. This bill does not touch attack ads, per se. It doesn't mean we have to like them, and obviously most people don't. Most people watching them don't like them, I think.

In any case, it wouldn't stop them but it would limit the amount that can be spent.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I have a supplementary question and I'll finish there.

If it doesn't stop them, Mr. Minister, are there other measures besides limiting the spending that could be introduced—I don't have the answer, I have to say, but it's something I've been following since we've been discussing this act—to actually limit malicious advertising or personal attacks?

I know it's close to censorship. I know it's a grey line in terms of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country, but are there other measures within the act that we can envision in terms of perhaps not allowing it two weeks before the end of the campaign? Or perhaps there are other provisions that could be used within the Election Act.

Mr. Don Boudria: That would be quite difficult. Probably provisions of it could be struck down. There is one thing, though, that might address in a very small way what you're saying. Actually, there are two things. First is the limit that they cannot have a concerted attack of $150,000 in one riding, because $3,000 is the limit. So that's one limit. The second one is that the 48 hours at the end of the period prevents a last-minute attack ad—you know, at seven o'clock in the morning as you're driving to work on the day of the election. So for that last 48-hour cooling-off period on everything, candidates' ads or third-party ads—any ads, for that matter—would cover that.

You see, what the recent court decision did was to remove the provision for candidates' ads but leave the provision there for party ads. Therefore, on election day, Mr. Solomon couldn't say “Vote NDP”, but he could have an ad saying “Vote for me, John Solomon”. That was the anomaly that had developed with some of the provisions being turfed out and others remaining in there. It was a rather curious thing that was left.

As well, you could have someone say “Hi, I'm Jean Chrétien, vote for Eleni Bakopanos”. The word “Liberal” isn't there. Provided you paid for it, that would have been an acceptable ad on the day of the last election. I didn't participate in any kind of advertising like that. I just thought that the spirit of the rule that was there should live on.

Technically, though, I believe that would have been legal because of the fact that we had a series of provisions. Some here and there were thrown out, and it left a few others standing. That's the curiosity in which we're living right now.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Before I end here, my comment would be that I know the court required you to lower the 72 hours to 48 hours. Because of what I just raised, I'm a little concerned about the lowering of the hours to 48 hours instead of allowing it for 72. It's exactly for that reason—vicious attacks on candidates, and candidates of all parties, by the way.

Thank you.

Mr. Don Boudria: Well, it before had been the opinion of not only government but also Parliament that 72 hours was the appropriate amount of time; however, the courts ruled that 72 hours was too long. It didn't say that 48 hours would work; it just said 72 was too long.

• 1320

Second, the court also said that if you're going to have a limit on polling—and I'll address only the polling—it has to address methodologies. So if 72 hours is too long, then whatever it is should have methodology in it as well. So both provisions were put in, and 48 hours was used.

If you're asking me why not 24 hours, my answer is that it really wouldn't do anything. Because newspapers generally publish once a day, 24 hours and zero hours would be the same quantity. If you decide you're not going to have a rule, well, that's a decision that could be made, I suppose. But the minute there is one, it leave only 48 hours as the next threshold below 72.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you.

The Chair: Madam Bakopanos, in connection with your reference to the possibility of false statements about candidates intended to affect the election result, there is a prohibition section in clause 91 that you may want to refer to. The procedural remedies following that are contained later in the bill. The minister has already referred to the injunction procedure.

Mr. Don Boudria: That injunction was very severe, and by the time you got it, the election was usually over. Well, that's going to be made softer, or easier to access.

The Chair: Thank you.

There are a couple of minutes left.

Mr. Pickard, would you like to take the floor.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to compliment the minister on the changes he has suggested, but referring as well to Mr. White's comments, where he specifically asked for examples of damage that has occurred in the last few elections, I don't know that we are in the business of measuring damage that has occurred. I have absolutely no question that I could look at elections and say, yes, there were various lobbies that campaigned very heavily against candidates. We could name a police association, a teachers' association, the gun lobby, or the National Citizens' Coalition. All of these lobbies have spent large amounts of money on campaigns.

We don't have the ability to measure, or I don't think we've taken into account, the damage that has been done, but I think what is really critical is the potential damage that could be created by interests that we haven't even thought of at this point in time. There is a tremendous potential damage that I think could remove democracy in many respects.

No matter what I spend, I can't match the treasury of many large organizations or many corporations that have viewpoints differing from my own. That creates a real dilemma, and I think the third-party advertising is a very important critical area for democracy itself. I think I would have great concerns if we didn't make sure we adhered to those regulations very carefully.

There is a second point I wanted to bring up for the minister. I think it is important. Mr. Solomon just came around with a memo referenced from the committee when Peter Milliken was the chair. They did look at rural vouching in respect to recommendations being made.

Interestingly enough, it stated that most members were in favour of rural vouching but there was no consensus in the committee. I think that would then open up discussions here, because in fact I believe that in many rural situations that has been a common practice. I don't see how it hurts anyone in light of the fact—and I think Mr. Solomon's point is correct—that I think a lot of people have gone to the polls without proper identification in their wallets and so on. Be it correct or incorrect, it does create a problem in some communities, and I think it's a valid point to raise and discuss at this committee.

Mr. Don Boudria: I just saw this document that relates to the Milliken report. Of course, the recommendation from the last report is the direct opposite.

As I said, if the committee wants to have a look at that again, I don't object per se. As the rural Canadian I am—I still live in rural Canada—I recognize that it's not the same. Maybe it's not right, but it's quite common for people in rural Canada to take off and go to the store or what have you but not have any wallet on them. They just don't think of it. Anyway, if you're going to pick up something at the co-op, you put it on your account, which you settle at the end of the month, and all that sort of stuff. It's part of what I live almost every day too, so I recognize some of these arguments. But please debate them, and I'll gladly have a look at it.

• 1325

Mr. Chairman, I'll gladly come back to this committee again, if it's the wish of the committee, to further discuss these issues and any others. I want to thank in advance members of the committee for the hard work they will be doing on this bill. I'm sure that with everyone's participation, the bill, which is already good, will be improved.

With that, I'm going to have to go and prepare for the question period. In the unlikely event that the opposition asks our ministers partisan questions, I'm going to have to go and prepare the non-partisan answers.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. If there were a few more minutes, which there are not, I know there might be a few comments.

Mr. Don Boudria: I can come back.

The Chair: Yes, I realize that. So we will let you leave for your 1:30 commitment, as previously agreed to.

For members who wish to comment specifically on something that's come up today and wish to do it now, I would recognize you now for just the next two or three minutes.

Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: I just want to raise one thing, and that is with regard to the 50 candidates rule. The Ontario high court decision struck down the 50 candidate threshold, and that is unchanged in the act. I'm wondering—

Mr. Don Boudria: We're appealing that decision.

Mr. John Solomon: Okay. So until the appeal is finalized, the 50 threshold is still intact and you wouldn't consider lowering that. The reason is that it really restricts regions. If you're going to have a regional effort politically, it eliminates the prairies and Atlantic Canada. It certainly provides opportunities for Ontario and Quebec, but the rest of the country is quite restricted on it. I just raise that as an issue.

Mr. Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I'm of the view that this is probably the worst time to.... Once a decision has been made to appeal it, which it has been—and I suppose you could argue whether two people constitute a party, which is effectively what Justice Molloy said—changing that number while the appeal is in process would probably be questionable, both as an idea and perhaps even ethically as well. I think it should be revisited some other time, if it needs revisiting. And obviously, given that I'm the minister who suggested to have such an appeal, I'm of the opinion that it works just swell the way it is.

The Chair: Members will give that their due consideration. Nice comment, Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron or Mr. White. This is without the minister. The minister has had to go to his 1:30 commitment. And I offer it only as a short period for comments only.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would like to make two very brief comments addressed to the people who were with the Minister. Perhaps you could give him the message.

I find it a bit strange that the Minister uses the absence of a recommendation from the Lortie Commission to evade the issue of popular funding and rejects the recommendation of the Lortie Commission on the issue of the appointment of returning officers. You cannot at one and the same time use the absence of a recommendation as an excuse to say that you won't do something, and completely dismiss a recommendation to say that you won't do something else.

Concerning the issue of the candidates' trusts, there is indeed a paragraph in the committee's report, paragraph 21.9, which says:

The Royal Commission on electoral reform and party financing has raised the issue of contributions made directly to members of Parliament, outside of an electoral period. The Chief Electoral Officer proposes that in the name of transparency and the public's right to review, members of Parliament be required to disclose those contributions [...]

Following that, there was a little note that said:

Members endorse the proposal made by Member of Parliament Marlene Catterall, that when the time comes to consider changing the definitions of “contribution” and “electoral expense”, it should be clearly stated in the Canada Elections Act that the name of the original donor should be disclosed, no matter in what way the money has been channelled to the campaign organizers. This obviously includes the candidate's personal trusts.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. White, did you have a comment?

Mr. Ted White: Yes. I just wanted to place on the record here the observation regarding attack advertising. The attack advertising in my riding in fact came from the Liberal candidate. We actually filed two formal complaints with the commissioner of elections. So I'm interested to find out that this process is going to be sped up, because I'm still waiting for a decision two years after the election.

• 1330

As it happened, that particular candidate ended up causing such a problem for himself that I got the highest percentage vote in North Vancouver in 30 years.

I think that ties in with if you look at the evidence from around the world and studies that have been done on the amount of spending on things like referendums in California and in Switzerland, and even here in Canada in the case of the Charlottetown Accord, for example, or the PCs' election spending in 1993, the amount of money that is spent does not guarantee an outcome. In fact, if anything, overspending guarantees the opposite outcome. So I would say the evidence from studies that have been done is that third party spending generally doesn't cause any problem with the general trend of the voters.

I would invite any members who have concerns about that to take a look at the record, even from their own ridings: where they had attack ads going on didn't prevent them from being elected. The thrust of my question to the minister was whether there was any evidence where a party or a candidate didn't have sufficient resources to rebut or criticize that advertising. I don't think there is any evidence that that's the case.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Pickard, do you want to wait?

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I'll deal with it later. Just a quick comment with you would be helpful in that regard.

The Chair: All right, that's fine.

Thank you, colleagues. Our next meeting is Thursday morning, with Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer. Steering committee will happen somewhere between now and the gatepost, as soon as we get our witnesses lined up.

Mr. Ted White: When is the minister coming back?

The Chair: The minister won't be back until we ask him to come back.

Mr. Ted White: But he will be coming back.

The Chair: He's agreed to come back if we want him.

So the Chief Electoral Officer Thursday at eleven, followed by a technical briefing from two groups of officials immediately after the Chief Electoral Officer, who will make a brief presentation. We'll hopefully know what the future agenda looks like at that time.

Is there a motion to adjourn? Mr. Pickard. Great. We're adjourned.