HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

Á

1105

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

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC)

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, CPC)

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform)

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

Á

1110

Á

1115

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, CPC)

Hon. Jacques Saada

Á

1125

Mr. Ted White

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Ms. Holly McManus (Assistant Chief Legal Counsel, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer)

The Chair

Ms. Holly McManus

The Chair

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

Á

1130

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. Michel Guimond

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. Stéphane Perrault (Senior Counsel, Political Financing Reform Team (Legal Operations/Counsel), Privy Council Office)

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Michel Guimond

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP)

Á

1135

Hon. Jacques Saada

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Hon. Jacques Saada

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Hon. Jacques Saada

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

Á

1140

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Hon. Jacques Saada

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

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

Á

1145

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. John Bryden

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)

Hon. Jacques Saada

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Hon. Jacques Saada

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Hon. Jacques Saada

Á

1150

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Ted White

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Á

1155

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Stephen Zaluski (Senior Counsel, Legislation and House Planning/Counsel, Privy Council Office)

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

Â

1200

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. John Bryden

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. John Bryden

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. Stephen Zaluski

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Michel Guimond

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Holly McManus

The Chair

Ms. Holly McManus

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Ms. Holly McManus

The Chair

Â

1205

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Â

1210

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Â

1215

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Legislative Clerk, Committees Directorate, House of Commons)

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

The Chair

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Hon. Roger Gallaway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons)

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Hon. Roger Gallaway

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Â

1220

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 005

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

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

    Pursuant to the order of reference for Wednesday, February 18, 2004, we are here with regard to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act.

    As you can see, there's a motion here that I think we're supposed to deal with before we begin.

    We have the Honourable Jacques Saada with us, but if the minister could please wait a moment, I do have some housekeeping things to deal with.

    First of all, I hope you now all have these three draft letters. One draft letter is to committee chairs regarding appointments. One draft letter is to members of the House regarding appointments. The third is a draft letter also regarding appointments. This is business to do with the action plan, which the committee is discussing. At the end of this meeting, I'll simply ask you if these letters are okay as they stand, in which case we can send them out, which means we're getting on with our business with respect to the action plan.

    Before we begin today, I'd like to mention to you where we stand with respect to Thursday's meeting. You should know that our colleague Mr. Pankiw asked, within the appropriate time period, to appear before the committee to appeal his case. So Mr. Pankiw will be appearing on Thursday.

    The proposed main agenda item for Thursday is an in camera meeting with the Speaker with regard to security on Parliament Hill. At the moment, I'm proposing to go forward with that. As well, because we can also do it in camera, we have the draft report on privilege, the matter of the two cases of privilege that went to the Supreme Court. We have the draft report, which we could look at then. So those are three things on Thursday.

    Today we're considering Bill C-3. Because it's legislation, and it's referred to us by the House, we give it priority. As you can see, I've prepared the agenda so that we can move to clause-by-clause. I've already heard some comment on that, so maybe we won't move to clause-by-clause today, but I would suggest to you that if we do not, one thing I'll be suggesting at the end of the meeting is an extra meeting to deal with Bill C-3. As it is legislation, I think it's appropriate that we deal with it relatively quickly.

    The other possibility is to bump some of these things, although I don't think we can bump Jim Pankiw, and then proceed to clause-by-clause on Thursday. But we'll have some debate on....

    Mr. Strahl.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the draft report on privilege. Are we going to get that before the next meeting or are we going to get it only at that next meeting?

    The Chair: Before, certainly.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, because it's problematic when we get three or four letters and we somehow have to read them while someone's giving testimony. It's less than ideal.

    The Chair: I do understand that. The translation of the letters was finished this morning. But I understand your point. It's a draft report. I assume it's confidential, and we'll discuss it in camera before we decide what we're going to do with it. So you'll get it beforehand.

    Anything else, Chuck?

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: No, as long as we get it before the meeting. It just makes the discussion at the meeting maybe more intelligent.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Would someone--other than Chuck Strahl--care to move the motion with respect to the subcommittee on private members' business, that Chuck Strahl replace Garry Breitkreuz on the subcommittee?

    Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, CPC): I so move, Mr. Chair.

    (Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Colleagues, we'll now proceed to the order of the day.

    Minister, we appreciate your being with us again, in this case on a different topic. I assume that you'll formally introduce your colleagues to us in a moment.

    We're in your hands for a statement.

[Translation]

    Hon. Jacques Saada (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I'm here so often, or so it seems, that I will soon be asking to become an honourary member of the committee. With me are Stéphane Perrault and Stephen Zaluski from the Privy Council Office, as well as Simone Joanisse. As you know, as Leader of the Government and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform, I have four assistants on staff to cover committee work. Consequently, Simone Joanisse will often be attending meetings of this committee.

[English]

    The Chair: We welcome Simone, Stéphane, and Stephen. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, committee members, I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you to discuss Bill C-3, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (party registration).

    As Members are aware, in conjunction with my introduction of Bill C-3 in the House of Commons, I also tabled a letter to invite the committee, following consideration of the Bill, to begin a broader review of the Canada Elections Act, with a view to finding ways to improve the functioning of our electoral system.

    While I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have about the broader review, I would request that the first order of business of the committee be the consideration and timely passage of Bill C-3.

    As I mentioned in my remarks last week in the House, Bill C-3 is a response to the June 27, 2003 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Figueroa, in which the Court struck down the requirement that a political party field at least 50 candidates in order to register and gain access to certain benefits, in particular the right to issue income tax receipts.

    The Court ruled that the 50-candidate requirement violated the Charter of Rights by disadvantaging smaller parties, but suspended its ruling for one year, that is, until June 27, 2004, to give Parliament time to amend the law. This date is approaching rapidly.

    In my remarks today, I will briefly discuss the implication of the Supreme Court decision, and then proceed to review the key sections of Bill C-3.

    Let me say at the outset, however, that political parties and parliamentarians are not the only stakeholders here. This is fundamentally about voters, and about the choices Canadians have in the electoral process.

    Bill C-3 and the subsequent broader review by the committee are concrete examples of the Government's commitment to democratic reform. Bill C-3 will ensure that our democratic system continues to operate effectively, while enhancing opportunities for voter choice and voter participation. The broader review will provide an opportunity for Members to become directly involved in developing legislation on electoral matters.

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    Let's look first at the impact of the Supreme Court ruling. If new legislation is not in place prior to June 27, 2004, there will be a major gap in Canada's electoral legislation. That will compromise the proper functioning of our electoral system and create a significant risk of abuse. Most importantly, there will be nothing to stop any group from registering as a party simply to gain access to key benefits, in particular the tax credit for political contributions. The fiscal impact could be significant; it could be in the tens of millions of dollars.

    That is where Bill C-3 comes into play. The additional registration requirements proposed in the bill are designed specifically to respect the ruling of the court, while ensuring that groups that are not genuine parties cannot abuse the system in any way. Unless we act quickly, however, the Supreme Court decision will take effect without having in place any replacement measures to regulate parties.

    Not legislating now could also mean that further recourse of the courts will be necessary. The government would likely have to apply to the Supreme Court to request an extension of the suspension period beyond the June 27 deadline. There is no guarantee that such an extension would be granted.

    Alternatively, the courts may have to provide guidance to the Chief Electoral Officer on the applicable rules from that date forward. Whatever the case, the absence of a timely legislative response would create great uncertainty, and would have a negative impact on the effective functioning of our electoral system.

    What are the two pillars of Bill C-3? First, to protect the integrity of our electoral system, Bill C-3 has two interrelated components. It provides new registration criteria that reflect the court's ruling, while ensuring the accountability of political parties.

    Second, it includes a series of measures to prevent abuse and allow deregistration of parties whose conduct has been fraudulent.

[Translation]

    I would now like to turn the committee's attention to party registration and accountability provisions.

    The Court's decision left little room to maneuver in legislating a new number of candidates as the threshold for party registration. For this reason, Bill C-3 would replace the 50-candidate threshold struck down by the Court with a single-candidate requirement.

    I would like to point out that the single-candidate requirement not only respects the Court's decision, but is also consistent with the Government's objectives in the Democratic Reform Action Plan.

    The expected increase in the number of political parties will widen the spectrum of opinion available to Canadians when they are making their choice about whom they wish to support in an election. There will be more vehicles for electoral participation.

    In my view, greater voter choice should help re-engage Canadians in the political process, and help to combat declining voter participation rates.

    At the same time, the Bill adds further registration requirements and other measures to ensure that parties seeking to register have a genuine interest in electoral competition.

    First of all, Bill C-3 adds a definition of “political party” to the Canada Elections Act, which to this point has not included a definition.

Á  (1115)  

    A “political party” would be defined as “an organization one of whose fundamental purposes is to participate in public affairs by endorsing one or more of its members as candidates, and supporting their election”.

    To make the definition meaningful, a party leader who submits an application for registration would have to make a declaration confirming that the party meets the proposed definition, and the Chief Electoral Officer may require further documents in that regard.

    The Bill also includes measures to ensure that a party has a real and legitimate organizational structure. Parties would be required to have at least three officers in addition to the leader who expressly provide their signed consent to act as officers. The Bill also requires that the minimum number of party members would be increased from the current 100 to 250 members, and the 250 members would be required to make an individual declaration that they are indeed members of the party and support its registration.

    This provision would prevent the possibility of a fictitious membership list or the direct conversion of an interest group's existing membership list to a list of party members.The list of 250 members would also have to be resubmitted every three years, ensuring that the party maintains true membership over time.

[English]

    Let me now talk about some anti-abuse measures. The second key section of Bill C-3 contains a series of specific measures to screen out fraudulent parties and to protect the integrity of the electoral financing regime.

    First of all, the bill includes a new false information offence for knowingly making false statements in relation to registration of a party. In this regard, a party leader would be required to provide a declaration as to the party's objective in light of the proposed definition of a political party.

    In addition to the individual penalties attached to making a false statement, parties that make false declarations could be refused registration or be deregistered. As well, parties would not be allowed to solicit or receive contributions simply for the purpose of redirecting them to a third-party entity.

    Let me emphasize here that this would not prevent a registered party from making legitimate contributions to outside entities, nor from transferring funds within the party structure. Another important measure will increase the powers of the commissioner of Canada elections, who is responsible for enforcement and compliance under the act.

    Under the bill's provisions, if the commissioner has reasonable grounds to suspect that the party is not bona fide, he could require the party to provide information to satisfy him that it meets the new definition of a political party.

    Should the party fail to do so, the commissioner could apply for judicial deregistration of the party. Of course, when such an application is pending, the bill provides for automatic suspension of the party's authority to issue tax receipts. Judicial deregistration would also be available as part of the sentencing process for offences under the act.

    In addition to deregistration--I'm sorry, I have difficulty with this word; I should use an abbreviation--the judge could also order liquidation of the party's assets. Finally, individuals, including party officers, could be held civilly liable if convicted of offences related to or leading to financial abuses, and they could be ordered to make restitution to the public purse.

Á  (1120)  

[Translation]

    Before closing, I want to draw the Committee's attention to two small technical changes that have been made to the Bill since its introduction last fall.

    First of all, an amendment has been made to ensure the ability of party officers to act while a party is in the process of voluntary deregistration.

    Secondly, an obsolete reference to January 1, 2004 has been removed, and the coming-into-force clause has been adjusted in light of the time remaining between now and June 27, 2004.

    Normally amendments to the Canada Elections Act would come into force six months after Royal Assent or sooner if the Chief Electoral Officer publishes a notice indicating that all the necessary preparations for the application of the new rules are complete.

    In light of the Court's deadline, however, Bill C-3 would come into force on June 27, 2004 rather than the usual six-month period, unless the Chief Electoral Officer gives notice that he is ready earlier.

[English]

    In conclusion, Bill C-3 provides a response to the immediate implications of the Figueroa decision. It respects the court's ruling and it facilitates democratic reform by ensuring greater fairness for small parties and greater choice for voters. It allows more voices to be heard. At the same time, it protects the integrity of the electoral system.

    I was very pleased with the tone of the discussion on Bill C-3 during the referral debate last week. All parties supported the bill in principle. I'm confident that this positive tone will continue in your deliberations and that together we'll deliver a timely solution to the Figueroa decision.

    Before I take your questions, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate the importance I place on the broader examination that will follow this bill. We are dealing here with the definition of political party in Canada, with a fundamental definition in democracy, and I look forward to your very valuable input.

[Translation]

    Of course, we will welcome the committee's recommendations at the appropriate time.

    Thank you very much.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Minister. We appreciate it.

    Colleagues, I neglected to introduce Holly McManus, who's here from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, and Trevor McKnight as well.

    Holly and Trevor, we appreciate your being here.

    The officials from Elections Canada are here to answer questions. They're not here as witnesses but as expert support for us.

    I have a list that begins with Ted White. Then it's the chair, Michel Guimond if he's here, and Lorne Nystrom.

    Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Minister, does your office have reason to believe the affected small parties are aware of the existence of this bill and the provisions contained in it, and have you received any correspondence from any of those small parties indicating that they agree with the provisions, or have problems with them? And has anyone from your office been in contact with Mr. Figueroa to determine whether or not he has input or comments on the legislation?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: To my knowledge, the answer to your first question is no.

    To the second question, I would believe the committee might deem it necessary to talk to him, although it's up to you to see which witnesses you want to hear. The Figueroa case went before the Supreme Court. While taking action on the substance...and it was broader than that, more than simply the involvement of one party, or of one person.

    But the answer to your question is, again, no.

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I just wanted to get that on the record, because I think it's important that we do hear from these people who are affected in order to make sure that we're not very quickly pushing through here something that contains some fatal flaws or some other problem that will lead to even more expensive court cases.

    So I understand the urgency. As you've already said, in principle we've agreed with this. We're glad to see this 50-candidate rule consigned to the trash can, but frankly, I think we still have to be careful that we're not doing something that causes more problems than it fixes.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Mr. White, you will understand that as minister I have the deepest respect for the independence of the committee and for what they choose to do.

    Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

    That's all.

    The Chair: Mr. Minister, we received your letter, and it was circulated promptly. It's a part of our briefing book. When I read it, I was aware of the deadlines you were describing, and that kind of thing. However, as chair, I'm also very conscious that this has been referred to us by the House from, I understand, a shortened debate, and with the support of all the parties. So I take it very seriously, and my job is to kind of organize the committee's work.

    Now, in your letter, it seems to me that what you are suggesting is that we discuss the bill, that we debate it, that we accept it for the purposes of immediacy and the impact the Supreme Court decision has had on the electoral system, but that we then later return to it for detailed study in terms of, I guess, the way it integrates into the Canada Elections Act as it is currently.

    Am I right in that? Is that really what you're saying?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: You see, we have two issues here. One is the immediate consequence of the Supreme Court judgment and the impact it would have if we left a legal hole in the law. That's one thing. That's what we need to deal with very quickly.

    The second thing, which is much broader than that, is actually all of the implications of this judgment on the Elections Act.

    So you interpreted my letter perfectly. I'm seeking the support of this committee to proceed quickly with the bill, which is not necessarily a final, final answer to the problem. In my view, it could very well be a temporary answer to address the problem just for the time being while the committee takes the time to complete the work on this issue.

    The Chair: As you will well recall, Mr. Figueroa appeared before the committee in connection with the last revision of the Canada Elections Act. He and a number of other representatives from smaller parties were here. Of course, they didn't discuss this matter, because I guess it was before the courts.

    With respect to Elections Canada--and if in fact they can't answer this, perhaps they can give us some idea--as a result of the hearings here, the advisory committee to the Chief Electoral Officer was revitalized, and my understanding is that it has been having meetings--which includes all the registered parties, 12 or 13 registered parties. My question really is, Holly, to your knowledge, has this been discussed by the advisory committee with the smaller parties?

    Ms. Holly McManus (Assistant Chief Legal Counsel, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): To my knowledge, it was mentioned as a point but has not been discussed in detail with the advisory committee.

    The Chair: Is there any intention that the advisory committee meet soon?

    Ms. Holly McManus: I'm not aware of the next meeting date. There's no date set at the moment.

    The Chair: Okay. We'd be grateful if, by the way, you could find out if one is proposed and when it might be, or if one is likely, or something like that, because what I'm hearing here is that we may need that information.

    Thank you very much.

    Michel Guimond, and then Lorne Nystrom.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Saada, if memory serves me well, the Supreme Court also refers to the rule of 12 and draws a connection with the number of members that must be elected in order for a party to have official party status in the House. You felt that setting the number at 12 would have gone against the ruling, hence the one-candidate requirement. WIth all due respect to the Court, I personally think a distinction needed to be drawn between recognizing a party and acknowledging official party status in the House of Commons.

    I'd appreciate your comments on this matter.

Á  (1130)  

    Hon. Jacques Saada: The reference to the number 12 can mean two things. It can refer to the number of members that must be elected in order for a party to have official status in the House, or the number of candidates that must be running in order for the party to be listed on the ballot.

    With your permission, I'll ask my colleague to elaborate further.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Excuse me, but I'm familiar with the rule of 12. It refers to the number of members that must be elected in order for a party to have official party status in the House.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: I'll let my colleague field that question. However, this has nothing to do with the work of the House. All this means is that a candidate would have the right to list party affiliation on the ballot. It doesn't mean the party would have official status in the House.

    Mr. Stéphane Perrault (Senior Counsel, Political Financing Reform Team (Legal Operations/Counsel), Privy Council Office): With your permission, I would like to review the sequence of events.

    You will recall that the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the 50-candidate registration requirement. However, this requirement was deemed invalid when it came to listing party affiliation on the ballot. The Court hinted, however, that the number of candidates required for registration should be lowered, without issuing any specific criteria or instructions.

    In conjunction with the 50-candidate requirement for registration, Parliament adopted the 12-candidate rule --you may recall Bill C-9 at the time. Only 12 candidates needed to be running in order for party affiliation to be listed on the ballot. This rule was consistent with the practice whereby a party needed to elect 12 members in order to have official party status in the House of Commons.

    However, if the previous threshold is struck down and replaced with a single-candidate registration requirement, then there is no need to require a higher number of candidates to be running for election in order for party affiliation to be listed on the ballot, since the parties would already be registered.

    Logically, therefore, if the 50-candidate threshold is struck down, there is no reason for party affiliation not to be listed on the ballot. Wouldn't you agree?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: This has nothing to do with a party having official status in the House.

    Mr. Stéphane Perrault: No, this wouldn't have any effect on the requirements for official party status in the House.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I want to thank Mr. Perrault for clarifying that for me.

    I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: May I give the reference to my colleague?

    The Chair: By all means.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: I refer you to paragraph 17 on page 12 of the decision. The last sentence reads as follow:

Hence, the manner in which Parliament determines which political parties have official status in the House of Commons in not at issue in this appeal.

    Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Lorne Nystrom.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): I'd like to welcome the minister and the officials here this morning.

    I want to ask the minister a couple of questions. First of all, I agree with the decision, and so on. I notice that the Ontario court, first, has said to reduce it from 50 candidates to two, and now the Supreme Court is saying one, for being a registered party on the ballot, and tax receipts, and so on. I wonder if the minister agrees with the one, or why couldn't it be two, or four, or six, or something like that?

    Also, you need 250 people to sign a registration form as members of the party. I wonder if there is a possibility for abuse here. For example, we talked about Mr. Pankiw, the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, who was elected as a member of the Reform Party in 1997 and re-elected for the Canadian Alliance in 2000. He is now not accepted into those two former parties, and I doubt that he would be accepted in the new Conservative Party. Could he start his own political party with 250 members from his own riding, registered as the leader, and then get all the benefits of a registered party? I just wonder if that's a possibility. And if he could do that, I wonder why he wouldn't do that.

    Regarding the 250 members that you have to have registered, can they come from anywhere? Could they all be from one person's riding? We could have our good progressive friend, Mr. Bryden here, start a new party and get 250 members from his own riding--and I don't put them in the same category, obviously, at all. Sometimes there is a provision that you have to have members from different provinces.

Á  (1135)  

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Are you being flattering here?

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: No, I'm being honest. I'm being very honest.

    Can the 250 members all come from one community, or do so many have to come from each province?

    I know when we have a party leadership race in our party and the other parties, you have to have a certain number of people sign your nomination forms, coming from so many provinces or so many ridings.

    Anyway, that's my question. I just wonder what you think of that and whether it's open for abuse.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: As to the issue of numbers, if I understand the Supreme Court judgment correctly, the issue was not the numbers; the issue was the intent. In other words, you had to demonstrate intent, that you want to be an active political party. So as soon as you intend to present one candidate, then you are actually taking part in the electoral process and therefore you have a political party.

    One thing I would like to note at the same time is that by doing that, you do not have to wait for general elections to become a party. If you have a by-election and you run one candidate, you can be a party.

    The answer to your second question is--and my officials will correct me if I'm wrong--I don't think there is any limitation in terms of the geographic distribution of the 250 members. It's just simply 250 members.

    In terms of the financial advantages to that, I must say that with Bill C-24 and the act as it is now, political organizations in ridings can issue tax receipts as soon as they're recognized as a party. So it doesn't change anything whether you are a separate party or whatever; it's the same thing.

    If I have a Liberal riding association of riding X with 250 members, I still have access to the advantages that this other party would have with the same numbers. So I don't think it's substantively any different.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: So my hypothetical case probably stands, then, that Mr. Pankiw, for example, could form a political party, register with 280 or 290 members, all of whom could perhaps come from his own riding, and then get the benefits of this act.

    I wonder if you think it would be possible to amend this act in some way that would still be constitutional to have a greater number of members--say, 1,000 from two or three different provinces. Would it be legal to require more than just one candidate?

    I know the party status in the House was an arbitrary number of 12 seats. I was there when that was decided. It could have been eight or 10; it was just an arbitrary number that the parties sort of agreed to, and there were reasons for it in those days. I won't get into that and sidetrack the debate, but why just one candidate, and why just 250 members, and do you have any concerns about the system being abused if it stays the way it is today?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: The 250 number is arbitrary, the same way as in the House, as you've just said, the number is arbitrary. In some other jurisdictions, outside foreign countries, the numbers change, vary. I understand that in Australia you said it's 500. So it's really up to the committee to look at what they want to do with this.

    This committee will not lose sight of the fact that this is purely a temporary measure. This temporary measure, of course, will have to be addressed on a more permanent basis once you follow up with the other study.

    I understand your concerns. The only way to go around these concerns with a foolproof guarantee is to not respect the judgment from the Supreme Court, because they are the ones who told us that you cannot impose numbers to have a recognized party, in terms of the number of candidates. We are going with one, which is a bare minimum, to show political intent, as opposed to a lobby group.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: I guess my question, then, is on the 250. Is there a legal or constitutional reason why it is 250? Could it be 2,000, with at least 50 members from seven of the provinces or whatever? We have a constitutional amending formula that talks about two-thirds of the population, seven and 50, but it's two-thirds of the population representing at least half the provinces of the country. Why the 250? If we were to raise that, would that create a legal problem?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Let me first answer that.

    The Chair: It should be a very brief reply.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: You see, if I follow your question, the Bloc Québécois would have never existed. Is it fair for the Bloc Québécois not to exist?

Á  (1140)  

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: No, it's not. It should.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: All right, then in this case, I cannot go among provinces. I have to stick to the--

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Or among ridings....

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Then it becomes not really a reference in terms of regions. It's very difficult to embark upon those things. I think that we have to be very cautious because of the implications of all that.

    The Chair: We'll have Loyola Hearn, then Michel Guimond, then Lorne Nystrom again, then John Bryden.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I have similar concerns to Lorne's. In the House we have 12 members. It works very well. It's a recognized party. If one is the number, every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there can create a party. I'm just wondering what kind of confusion.... And then, of course, the push is on that if we're recognized as a party, why wouldn't we be recognized in the House? We're going to get that same argument, with all the ensuing benefits.

    The court ruling, and perhaps this is my question, struck down 50 because it's unconstitutional...the number one that's recommended...but the judgment is suspended or the decision is suspended to give us time to put something in place. Does that mean that we can insert another number besides one? Could it be 12 to match, and would that be acceptable, or are we stuck with one? And if that is the case, why did they bother to give us the chance to do something about the legislation, because arbitrarily this is it?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: There are a number of elements to the answer. Number one, if I refer to the judgment, on page 26, at paragraph 92, the second sentence reads, and it's very clear, “The thrust of the reasons is that no threshold requirement is acceptable.”

    So the Supreme Court is very clear. Why we as parliamentarians have to deal with this issue has to do with the fact that his doesn't mean that we should not have a definition of “political parties”. It should not mean that we just leave it open. And that's exactly the point of what we are trying to do in two stages here: to define a “political party”, to have some rules in place to prevent outside organizations, which do not have political ambitions, in the noble sense of the term, to actually have a channel to do what they have to do, and to come back with a definition that is going to suit our democracy.

    The Chair: Michel.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I'll skip my turn, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci, Michel.

    Lorne Nystrom, it's you again, if you wish. I can come back to you if you want to wait.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: In about one minute, if I can.

    The Chair: Okay. Then it's John Bryden, Paddy Torsney, and Chuck Strahl.

    John.

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

    Right now, the Canada Elections Act puts limitations on third-party advertising of $3,000 in a riding, and $150,000 across the country. It seems to me that this provision we're looking at circumvents those limitations, so that instead of a third party now looking at maximum spending in a riding of $3,000, all they have to do is to declare themselves a political party and they not only have the maximum expenditures pertaining to political parties and candidates, but they also have the subsidy of Parliament.

    It seems to me that you're opening a door extremely wide here, which is going to just let a flood in of.... It will make it very difficult for legitimate candidates.

    Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could get an explanation of why in the definition of political party it says that it means “an organization one of whose fundamental purposes...”. Why one? You're suggesting that there may be other fundamental purposes. I would have thought that it should be the fundamental purpose, rather than suggesting there may be many other fundamental purposes.

Á  (1145)  

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Sorry, could you repeat the question?

    Mr. John Bryden: The definition of political party that you have before us in the legislation says that it “means an organization, one of whose fundamental purposes...”. When one talks about fundamental purposes, usually there's only one. Are you suggesting in this wording that there may be other fundamental purposes? I would like to know why you have suggested this particular wording.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: In the three points you have raised, John, the first one refers to the Harper case, which is before the Supreme Court as we speak. As you know, that case was just heard last week, I believe. We still have no answer, of course, or no decision from the Supreme Court.

    On the limitations, when an organization establishes itself as a political party within the definition we are giving here, they have access to public funding, of course, on the basis of the votes obtained at the last general election. So even though they are a political party in a by-election, it doesn't affect their public financing. Public funding comes from the number of votes obtained at the last general election.

    Number three, if a party gets enough support to have enough funding coming to it, maybe this indeed proves it really is a party. Therefore, it's an expression of democracy that is quite respectable.

    As far as being one of the objectives is concerned, and not the entire objective being an election, promoting a candidate to run for an election is a vehicle of expression for a political party. But there are many objectives of a party. I'm saying this objectively and with full respect, but we have a party in the House whose objective it is to arrive at Quebec's independence. You have all kinds of objectives in parties; the objectives of parties are much broader than simply having one candidate or candidates. That's fair enough.

    I don't think it would be appropriate philosophically for me to justify the fact that a political party has only one aim, which is to have an election, because then I'm just questioning the substance and the philosophy of that party.

    The Chair: John, you have less than a minute, including for the answer.

    Mr. John Bryden: No, thanks, Mr. Chairman. Those answers were very good.

    The Chair: Paddy Torsney, then Chuck Strahl, and Lorne Nystrom.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): It struck me as interesting when we talked about whether or not there should be different provinces, or different ridings, or different kinds of people who are represented in the 250 names that have to get signed. Of course, Canada leads the way in talking about democratic reform in other countries around the world who are establishing their democracies. We've got places like South Africa, which have a list system where every second name is female and every second name is male.

    I wondered if there were going to be any restrictions around the 250, and whether there are going to be any gender issues that are going to be raised as part of that, or if we can have an amendment to make sure that it's not all women who are putting forward a candidate—or all men perhaps.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: I'm stuck here because I would like to answer the way I feel, like answering emotionally, which is that we should have that, but unfortunately I must refer to the reality of things. The reality of things is that if you apply that to one political party, you have to apply it to all political parties.

    Number two, the way political parties are organized depends on their own inside decisions and it's not for the House of Commons to regulate the rules pertaining to each party. We have bylaws in our own party, the same way as other parties have. Whether this should be encouraged.... Do I really need to say how much I would like to encourage that? But the question was very specific, and I don't think it belongs to us as members of Parliament to direct how a party should be organized.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: So this list of 250 members would apply to all the parties that are around the table and it would apply to any new party?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Yes.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: So wouldn't we say that 10% has to be of the opposite gender, for every party? I don't think any party around this table is going to have a problem finding 25 people of the opposite gender to be included on this list, and why would it be a problem?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: I'm going to answer the first part, which is that I don't believe it's up to the House of Commons to determine what a political party should have. Imagine you have a political party, for instance, that wants to run on being only men. Are you going to prevent it from being a party? Actually promote something and tough luck.

    I'm going to the extreme on purpose here. If you wish to consider that, then--

Á  (1150)  

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: Exactly, I'm agreeing with Mr. White that there shouldn't be all women, and he's throwing questions--

    Mr. Ted White: Why is it a question for us to decide?

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: Why shouldn't we? We're giving them contributions and we're giving them a whole lot of power to put names on ballots and to call themselves something. And if we tell other countries around the world to be held to a higher standard so that they are gender-inclusive, absolutely it shouldn't be an all-women's party either. So if they're going to get tax benefits, there are restrictions.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Ms Torsney, I would very much like you to discuss that among yourselves. I'm not close-minded, except that I'm afraid we would encounter some very serious problems in terms of infringement upon the decisions of political parties in terms of how they operate within themselves. But I'm open to demonstration otherwise.

    The Chair: I assume these 250 have to be eligible to vote. I know in the Liberal Party at present we have 14 years and older for people who can vote for the leader. But obviously the 14-year-olds to 17-year-olds inclusive can't vote. In this case they would have to be voters.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Yes, basically they do have to be eligible to vote.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Chuck Strahl, then Lorne Nystrom.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    It does seem to me that we should just have the persons who are voting, the 250, defined as Canadians. I don't want to have quotas for male or female, or ethnicity, or other potpourri issues that I think are.... Even transvestites, cross-dressers, you might have anything; there's a small group of them in every 250. So it seems to me we'd better just leave it at Canadians and move on.

    My question was on the observation you made a couple of times, Mr. Minister, that this legislation wasn't perfect and might have to be changed later, that these are interim, stop-gap measures. But as you know, Mr. Boudria tabled the legislation last year, and you're retabling it this year, and there may be another minister tabling it again in June--we don't know. Wouldn't it be better to bring forward what you think is good legislation, rather than stop-gap legislation? Why not fix what you think are the loopholes or the problems and table something whereby we could boldly go where no person has gone before?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: If I thought there were loopholes in this bill I wouldn't be tabling it. Obviously, if I table the bill it's because I feel it's answering the need. But what I've said also at the same time is that if the committee examines it and wants to go beyond that later, they can feel free to do it. It doesn't mean that I don't believe my bill is right. My bill is correct in addressing the concerns of the Supreme Court.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: So your comments about it being a stop-gap measure or an interim measure are meant in what way?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: No, I understand your question; I'm sorry if I haven't been clear on that.

    The issue of stop-gap has to do only with the timeline that we are facing in terms of answering the Supreme Court judgment. It's not necessarily a gap in between in terms of substance.

    Purely from a technical point of view, we have to have some law in place before the 27th of June, and this should be read very cautiously in the following way. Once we have covered the legal aspect of it in the short term, I've invited the committee to look at much broader implications of this. And while you're doing this exercise you might draw conclusions that are going to affect this bill, and I'm prepared to look at them. That's what I meant by interim.

    The Chair: It's Lorne Nystrom, then briefly John Bryden.

    Now, colleagues, unless I see otherwise, it's my intention to draw the part of the meeting that involves the minister to a conclusion so we can proceed and discuss this further among ourselves. So if you'll just indicate that you want to speak....

    It's Lorne Nystrom, then briefly John Bryden.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: I'd like to have a legal opinion from the minister or some of his legal advisers. The minister referred to section 92, and he said that “no threshold requirement is acceptable”. I want to read the whole section just to get a reaction for the record, Mr. Chair, if I could. It says:

In addition, the question also arises as to the number of candidates required to justify restricting access to the three benefits discussed in these reasons. The thrust of the reasons is that no threshold requirement is acceptable.

    The minister has mentioned that already.

However, I note the recent amendment to the Elections Act that reduces the threshold requirement in respect of the right of candidates to list their party affiliation on the ballot papers: S.C. 2001, c. 21, s. 12. Pursuant to this amendment, a political party need only nominate 12 candidates in order for its nominees to obtain the right to include their party affiliation on the ballots. Obviously, the constitutionality of the amended provision is not currently before the Court. It may well be that the government will be able to advance other objectives that justify a 12-candidate threshold. But suffice it to say, the objectives advanced do not justify a threshold requirement of any sort, let alone a 50-candidate threshold.

    So I'd like to get the minister or one of his legal advisers to tell us how they interpret that part of the ruling. I'm not a lawyer. Maybe it's not as ambiguous as it sounds to me, but it seems to me that the government could make an argument that something more than one might be acceptable. Am I right in that?

    Then my second question would be on the 250 again. Where did the government get the 250 from? Could we have 1,000 from anywhere? Is there any legal problem with that? Or is it just a figure that's arbitrarily picked out of the air? I'm not criticizing; I'm just asking the questions because I think we have to know the answer to those questions.

    Thank you.

Á  (1155)  

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Let me answer the second question quickly first. As I said, the 250 is as arbitrary as the decision to have 12 in the House to recognize a party. As to the first part of the question, I'm going to answer you from a political standpoint and I'm going to ask my official to answer you from a legal point of view.

    It seems to me coherent that if we are changing the definition of a political party and say that one candidate is one of the criteria, in this case it would be acceptable for this candidate to have the name of his party or her party on the ballot. And therefore the threshold to have the name of the party on the ballot falls at the same time. This is the interpretation I have of this.

    Mr. Stéphane Perrault: I would just add that the court expressed a very common, normal prudence. When they were asked to rule on the legislation, Bill C-9, which implemented the 12-candidate rule, was not before them. So it's proper for the court to refrain from pronouncing on that rule, which they did in that paragraph. Now the issue is having refrained from doing so, is there any policy reason in the world of a single candidate requirement to say that these parties, while registered, should be hidden from the ballot? And that's what this committee is going to have to look into. In this bill, the proposition is that there is no real good policy reason to do that.

    If I may just add a few words on the 250, the thrust of the court's ruling is that size does not matter, and we can't rule out parties because they're just too small. The 250 number is a de minimis--and you certainly will agree to that--requirement not to exclude very tiny parties but to ensure that--

    The Chair: Most of us don't speak Latin. Can you just explain that?

    Mr. Stéphane Perrault: It is a minimal requirement to ensure that this party has a real existence. And it's not too easy to find 250 people who will sign on and say not only I'm a member of this party but I support this registration if it's a fraudulent party. It's a criterion for seriousness but not a criterion for size that would exclude parties that are not big enough.

    Mr. Stephen Zaluski (Senior Counsel, Legislation and House Planning/Counsel, Privy Council Office): Can I add just one additional point on that? The thrust of the reasons of the court is clear that the more requirements you impose in terms of size, in terms of candidates, in terms of any range of criteria, the more you're pushing the envelope in charter terms. So it's certainly true that there's no magic to 250, but the more you increase it, the more you're limiting your room to manoeuvre and setting yourself up for a more difficult charter defence when it comes.

    The Chair: John Bryden. Briefly, if you would, John.

    Mr. John Bryden: Running as an independent candidate is a very real and practical possibility for me. All I have to do is put $100 out and I can run as an independent. What I'd like to ask you and your officials is what advantage would I obtain if, instead of running as an independent candidate, I created my own party and ran as a party? What benefit would I gain by running as the sole candidate of the “Transparency Party”, for example? What's the advantage?

  (1200)  

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Do you want the answer to be transparent?

    Mr. John Bryden: No. I'm trying to measure what the difference is between running as an independent candidate and running as the sole candidate of a political party.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: It should be equal to Roger Gallaway's party.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: I'm not going to answer in terms of the political impact, because that's a personal judgment.

    Mr. John Bryden: No, no, I didn't mean that. I mean financially and others.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Financially speaking, I think there is no provision in the law for the funding of independent candidates outside of the election campaign per se. So you will be restricting yourself in terms of potential access to funds that political parties do not have in terms of restrictions.

    You would have, of course, all the reporting requirements that would come with the fact of being a political party. When you're independent, you would not have this burden of the annual report.

    I honestly don't think it's a technical question. I think the question pertains more to a political decision than anything else. But in terms of impact, technically speaking, these are the impacts I can see.

    Do you see anything else?

    Mr. Stephen Zaluski: I think the key point that the minister has made is that you have an existence outside an election period if you're a party. If you attract supporters, officers, and so on, who form part of your party and you have an existence outside an election period, you can engage in activity pre-writ.

    Mr. John Bryden: Now, I would only make the observation that it would then open the opportunity to every special interest group in the country to form a political party and raise money in between elections.

    I would suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that is a nightmare that you really do not want to embark upon.

    The Chair: Minister, could I go to Paddy Torsney?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Sure.

    The Chair: Very briefly, Paddy, because this is the last thing.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: It was something that Mr. Bryden raised. That's this issue of being listed as independent. Is there going to be some protection of independent versus independent being a party of independents? How do you deal with that issue, if it only takes 250 and anybody can be a party?

[Translation]

    Are there any safeguards associated with the word “independent”? Anyone could claim to be running for the independent party.

[English]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Quebec independence.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: Independence or Canada.

    I only wonder because if you're listed as independent, how is this going to work with Elections Canada?

    The Chair: Holly, would care to you comment on that?

    Ms. Holly McManus: Sorry, if you're listed as an independent...?

    The Chair: No. If you're listed as the independent party, how would that have an effect? I think that's the question.

    Ms. Holly McManus: I'm not....

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: We could list it as Liberal versus BQ, versus.... So if you're listed as independent....

    The Chair: Do you want to take that under advisement? Minister, do you want to reply?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: I understand that Elections Canada has the obligation to make sure to avoid confusion. Therefore, you cannot have two parties with names so similar that they can be confused. As to the word “independent” itself, I don't know how it works.

    The Chair: Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I checked with the Speaker of the House and in the House, independent members can choose their designation. I believe Mr. Carignan, the Member for Québec Est, still sits as an Independent Liberal, while Ms. Venne sits as an Independent Bloc Member. I'm not sure what Mr. Lebel's status is. However, I would like to hear the Chief Electoral Officer's explanation. For example, if the name of the 250-member Independent Liberal Party were to be listed on the ballot, that might lead to some confusion. I thought a provision in the bill addressed this issue.

[English]

    The Chair: Yes, I know.

    I think we may have a reply to this now. It's in the House of Commons.

    On the ballots, Holly McManus.

    Ms. Holly McManus: There is a section, as a matter of fact, in the Canada Elections Act that says that if you are registering, your name cannot “include the word 'independent' or a word that so resembles 'independent' that” it would likely cause confusion.

    The Chair: I think that's enough on that for the moment.

    Minister, on behalf of my colleagues, I would like to thank you and your colleagues for being here. We're very grateful. We will now proceed with this as we see fit. You came here in a very timely fashion.

    I'd like to ask our friends from Elections Canada to remain, if they would.

    Minister, do you have anything to say before you leave?

  (1205)  

[Translation]

    Hon. Jacques Saada: No. I just wanted to thank you for having me here and to let you know that you will be receiving very shortly the answers to the questions raised during my last appearance. My staff is busy getting the information together for you. Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much, and thanks to Stephen and Stéphane. Thank you very much.

    Colleagues, could we perhaps now discuss what we will do next?

    Ted, I'll start with you, and I'll then go to Marcel.

    I want you to just get some idea of where we are here. Officially, we have six or seven more meetings before April. You know that we are driven by the matter of privilege, the action plan, and by security on the Hill, which is a serious matter, in my view, which we have been looking at for more than a year now. We have to come to some conclusion; it's not something that should just be left hanging. I want you to keep that in mind. That is only until April. Obviously, if we have until June, it would give us some more time. The deadline we're dealing with here is June 27.

    As you see, I had clause-by-clause on the agenda. It would be my intention to proceed to that item after some discussion. Could we have some discussion as to how best to deal with this matter? I've listened to the discussion here. It's a complicated thing, with the court having ruled and with us having to do something by a certain date, but with some of the ramifications that members have anticipated here.

    Ted White, and then Marcel.

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

    It sounds like the special caucus meeting on Thursday, so you'd better vote for a fall election.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Ted White: In light of some of the questions that were raised here today—and surrounding, for example, a point I was going to bring up, but which Lorne brought up, about the 250 members and what's an appropriate level—you heard me ask the minister whether there had been any correspondence received from or any notice given to any of the small parties about this legislation. He indicated no. So they don't even know that it's here, and they have no idea that they're going to be required to achieve these things.

    This morning I spoke with the Chief Electoral Officer for a short time, and asked him a couple of questions. I posed questions that he couldn't answer immediately on the telephone, and he indicated that he needed to do some research. I think that's obvious. At the barest minimum, we have to get the Chief Electoral Officer here to answer in detail some questions about this bill. And we need to inform the small parties, and at least get Mr. Figueroa here—and certainly parties that have been here in the past.

    I'm sure we can do that fairly quickly. It's not a complicated bill, so we should be able to get it through quickly. But we owe it to the people who will be affected to do our job properly, and that's to make sure that they know this legislation is here, and have a chance to see if it will affect them.

    The Chair: Again, just for your information, I'm advised that this was tabled in the House on October 2, I believe. So it has been around for some time.

    Marcel Proulx.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, while I deeply respect all those who wish to form a party, if we have to consult with every single one of them, since one person alone can form a party, then we'll never be done with it. I think we should proceed with the clause-by-clause study of the bill right away, as noted in our agenda. Thank you.

    The Chair: Michel Guimond.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, you'll be surprised at what I'm about to say. I've already had a run-in with Mr. Regan, who wanted to rush through a bill and prevent us from calling witnesses. I even accused him of thinking about his own career and wanting to promote his chances of becoming minister. As you can see, his wish was granted by Prime Minister Martin.

    I was saying that you would be surprised. Since the House was prorogued on November 7 last and since this bill is, in every respect, consistent with the provisions of the former Bill C-51 and since we heard testimony from witnesses, including Mr. Figueroa, I don't intend to repeat the same exercise. If, for their own personal enlightenment, some members wish to review the testimony presented last October, then by all means they may do so. I disagree with Mr. White and I think we should proceed with the clause-by-clause study without further ado, particularly as the Supreme Court has giving Parliament only until June 27. That's another reason to move quickly on this bill.

  (1210)  

[English]

    The Chair: Could I just have a moment?

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I feel obliged to side with the government, but I think I'll abstain from voting, as I might become ill. So, I will abstain, in case I catch something from you.

[English]

    The Chair: Unless I hear formally otherwise, I'm going to proceed with clause-by-clause, because it was on our agenda.

    Ted White.

    Mr. Ted White: I'd like to put it on the record, Mr. Chairman, and it has been on the record, that I have worked on this file with respect to the 50-candidate rule for many years. I negotiated an agreement with the small parties in the year 2000 when we were doing the Elections Act. Everyone agreed to the number 12. It was the minister who refused, at the time, to accept it. Now we're faced with this bill today.

    I want it on the record that I cannot, in good faith, proceed with clause-by-clause without having the affected parties here to talk about what has happened. I will remove myself from this meeting if we proceed that way. I cannot sit here and do clause-by-clause, in fairness to the parties who are affected.

    Mr. John Bryden: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Yes, a point of order, John Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden: Can I have Mr. White's vote?

    The Chair: No. It's an interesting point of order, but no.

    Colleagues, it's my intention, as I said, to proceed with clause-by-clause.

    Chuck Strahl.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: For the record, I was involved in this bill last fall. My understanding was that this bill didn't actually get debated. It never got to committee in debate, did it? It was discussed in the House, but did it get debated here in committee?

    The Chair: No, it was not debated.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: It has never been debated. I know there's some sense of urgency, but we have until the end of June. We may not have an election between now and then. I mean, we have several months to work on this.

    If we wanted to have one meeting with witnesses, it seems to me that's not unreasonable. We probably only need one. We'd have a couple or three witnesses and get Ted's concerns out of the way. Having one meeting of substance on the bill, with one set of witnesses, is not an unreasonable request, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I may be wrong, but as I recall, Mr. Figueroa gave testimony on this very subject to the committee. Did he not? Our research officer is indicating to us that he did not testify, but the clerk is saying that he did. The one time in my life that I laid eyes on Mr. Figueroa was when he testified before us. I'm wondering if perhaps someone slipped some pot into my coffee. I'm sure I'm not imagining things.

[English]

    The Chair: He was here. But it was the old Bill C-24, and it was on election financing. We called, if they wished, the representatives of all the small registered parties. To my recollection, he didn't discuss this matter. He was here, but it wasn't on this. That's just for the record.

    This is all on the record, of course. I intend to move to clause-by-clause.

    I ask the parliamentary secretary to move to the end of the table, please.

    Colleagues, you have the clause-by-clause under (e).

    We have with us at the table Susan Baldwin, who has been with us before. Susan, would you explain exactly who you are?

  (1215)  

    Ms. Susan Baldwin (Legislative Clerk, Committees Directorate, House of Commons): I'm a legislative clerk working in the committees branch. My specialty is procedure concerning bills.

    The Chair: I was actually going to call all of these 27 clauses one by one and then the title, but Susan said to me that if there are no amendments, it would not be unusual to call them all at once.

    Colleagues, are there particular clauses you would like me to call separately?

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'd like you to call them all separately.

    The Chair: That's fine with me.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'd like to spend a day or two on it. So I think we'll start.

    The Chair: The Honourable Roger Gallaway, the parliamentary secretary, is here.

    (On clause 1)

    The Chair: Is there any discussion on clause 1?

    Lorne Nystrom and then Chuck Strahl.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: I'd like to have Mr. Gallaway's considerable knowledge on why this is only talking about a political party as “an organization one of whose fundamental purposes is to participate in public affairs by endorsing one or more of its members as candidates and supporting their election”. What other purposes might there be for a political party? Just so that we have it on the record.

    Hon. Roger Gallaway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons): I can think of no other purposes.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: So why would that wording be in here? Why wouldn't it be “an organization whose fundamental purpose”? I know you're a distinguished lawyer.

    Hon. Roger Gallaway: I don't understand your question. It's a definition clause, and that's all it is. It defines a political party. If you want to change the definition of “political party”, I would invite you to do so.

    The Chair: Chuck Strahl.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: As you know, I'm not happy with how this is proceeding here, so I may take quite a few hours to talk about this bill. I think this is a lousy way to go about it, so I'm going to question all things, as a good questioner would, because I'm not pleased with the way we're proceeding here at all.

    One could argue, especially given what we've seen in the House over the last couple or three weeks, that a political party is an organization of close friends meant to benefit the people in that party, with a generous amount of governmental and ministerial interference in the proper administration of public funds benefiting the people of that political party, especially if that party's name is Liberal. We could argue that's a good definition of political party, and we could go on at some length about it.

    It does seem to me that a political party is often a group of like-minded people who have a similar, or closely similar, set of political goals and ambitions. They work together with like-minded people in order to pursue those goals. It seems to me that this definition of political party may be too narrow. A political party may not want to endorse one or more of its members as candidates as its primary, fundamental purpose. It may want to enter into political discourse. It may want to raise funds for public education of the political process. It may choose to do all sorts of things that like-minded people like to do, but it may not be particularly to endorse one of its members as a candidate and support his or her election.

    In fact, we have seen in times past where some political parties actually don't necessarily support their own candidates--at least they do a pretty poor job of it. You could argue that some members of Parliament feel so unsupported by their parties that they end up running as independents; they don't feel welcome in their own parties. Sometimes it's an oxymoron. Perhaps the parties aren't supporting their election at all. They may be doing all sorts of things, but they're not doing that.

  (1220)  

    The Chair: Do you mind me interrupting you? It will give you a chance to have a drink of water.

    I have enormous faith in Chuck Strahl's ability to continue in this vein for a very considerable period of time.

    This is an unusual committee. This is the senior committee of the House of Commons that we're dealing with here. We have on it the whips and other party officials, whose time is very precious.

    On this bill, I have a number of options. We could close the meeting now, and the parties could go away and discuss it. As I mentioned before, this thing came to the House. It appeared to me, because the debate in the House was relatively short, that it had all-party support and that we were going to move on it in some reasonable fashion.

    We could continue the meeting until one o'clock, which would be a reasonable time for the whips. Then we could have an extra meeting tomorrow or tonight. It doesn't make any difference to me.

    The other option is to start bumping the material that is before the committee, which the steering committee said was very important. By the way, we all agreed it was very important. We could start bumping it by having a meeting on Thursday.

    My inclination is to go with the first of those options. This is obviously something that has arisen here. I could adjourn the meeting with the view that at some useful time--perhaps not tonight, although conceivably tonight or tomorrow--we would continue with this matter at the position we are at now, with Chuck Strahl having the floor.

    I'm looking around. What do people think about that proposal?

    Loyola Hearn.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I have a lot of concerns about it too, and if Chuck runs out of breath I have a lot of things I want to say about it. We would like to have some time to be able to look more closely at this stuff with some of our officials. I have some real concerns about the bill and the way it's being shoved through. I think we're doing all of us an injustice by just ramming this through.

    The Chair: I repeat, we have on this committee all the people necessary for the parties to talk about this. Let's say our next meeting will be tomorrow, which will give the parties time to really go to some trouble to discuss this matter, so we can come back with some new vision of it. Then my proposal is that we continue Thursday as planned with security and Mr. Pankiw, which we have to deal with, and so on.

    Claude.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): I agree, but if we get into this again, the opposition will have to bring in competent people to make some decisions. We're here to make decisions, that's our job, but we don't seem capable of doing it at the present time.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay. We do have competent people on the opposition side.

    I'm going to adjourn this meeting until sometime tomorrow, when we will continue with Bill C-3. I'm serving notice that at 11 o'clock on Thursday we will continue as planned. James says I should say “at the call of the chair”, but it means sometime tomorrow.

    The meeting is adjourned.