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]

Wednesday, November 17, 1999

• 1853

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. Colleagues, we're continuing our review of Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act.

Tonight we have representations from colleagues in the House of Commons. We'll style it as a round table, but we'll simply receive representations from colleagues as they see fit. Because we're not meeting with members of the public as witnesses, we will perhaps be a little less formal than we might otherwise be.

Perhaps we can be forgiven by going with seniority. I'll recognize the member for Davenport, Charles Caccia.

Charles, I gather you're going to make some submissions relatively short in nature. So please proceed.

The Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. You're really spoiling me. I will certainly not make an abuse of this particular treatment by being long.

It seems to me the legislation is moving in the right direction and it certainly deserves support. If anything, it would be desirable to reduce the amounts being made available at the national and the riding levels when it comes to the promotion of special interests in the course of an election.

• 1855

We all know what it's all about, and I don't need to go into the nature and the purpose of special interests in preceding elections. So in this respect the government is taking a most desirable step, and if anything, it ought to be actually entirely abolished if at all possible. But I understand why it cannot be done.

Mr. Chairman, in the debate in the House before second reading I briefly indicated my desire to improve the good system we have had since 1972 by not permitting contributions by corporations and unions. If contributions are to be made by employers and union organizations, by all means they can be done, but in the name of the person who makes the contribution rather than in the name of the corporation. I believe the Province of Quebec has already put in place legislation to that effect, and it seems to me it is a good measure that we also ought to adopt at the federal level.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, as we make progress with this legislation—and this item would require particular study perhaps at the next round of amendments—we should be moving to a system whereby elections are not paid by parties but by the public purse.

I'm told this kind of expenditure would amount to roughly $30 million per election. There are good reasons for moving in that direction in order to reduce the dependence of political parties on contributors, particularly large contributors. I think the process would be improved by a measure of that nature. Perhaps today it sounds a little extreme, but nevertheless I believe in this system. I'm therefore taking the liberty of putting this thought forward for your consideration perhaps at the next round of amendments.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Caccia. Are there any questions for Mr. Caccia?

Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Caccia, I'm interested in the last point on the election funding, the 100% funding from the public purse.

How would you envisage funding small parties, say, the Green Party? What would be your formula for funding them 100%?

Mr. Charles Caccia: That's an important point and I'm told it has been the object of studies in other jurisdictions. There would have to be an indication that a minimum ceiling would be set of nominated candidates in the field so as to give credibility to that particular party and prevent the proliferation of parties. I'm sure a formula could be found, and of course it would have to be examined thoroughly in order to avoid the proliferation of parties.

Mr. Ted White: Can you see the potential, though, for it to be unfair? I am thinking of the situation of the Reform Party when it was in the growing stages. We had lots of people who wanted to support us out of their own pockets, to just give us money, but if we had been restricted by some sort of public funding idea we never would have had any money at all.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Those funds could be channelled to charities if there is an alternative for candidates who are so popular in their ridings. Once a formula is put into place, its dependency on donations would be reduced.

It would be a completely different approach. There is no doubt about it.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, do you have a comment for Mr. Caccia?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Caccia, I appreciated your comments very much, especially those about the financing rules that you would like to see in place eventually.

• 1900

There is one aspect I did not fully understand. Perhaps you could enlighten me. I felt a paradox between the desire you expressed to reach a much more popular type of financing that would no longer allow corporations to contribute to the coffers of political parties and that would only allow ordinary voters to contribute, and the other desire you expressed that we eventually arrive at financing only by the State. How can you reconcile these two ideas which seem somewhat paradoxical?

Mr. Charles Caccia: You are right, the two cannot be reconciled. I only suggested that in a first phase we adopt the province of Quebec model for corporations and unions, and that in a second phase we look at the possibility of financing elections through a public system. The two are not related.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Caccia.

We have three other colleagues. I think the format we would use is we have each of you make presentations in sequence and then colleagues can address the issues you've raised. I will follow this order. I'll depart from the paradigm of seniority. There's alphabetical order or I can go left to right. I'll start left to right and alphabetical order, which is close.

Mr. Bryden first.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to address three aspects of the bill, the first being the suggestion that female candidates should receive special dispensation or special advantage from Elections Canada in terms of campaign financing. The second issue I'd like to raise is the issue of non-profit organizations and charities contributing to political parties and campaigns. The third issue is my thoughts on third-party advertising.

On the first issue, I have to tell you, and I don't want to dwell on it at length, that I am absolutely and fundamentally opposed to giving any Canadian an advantage as far as their ability to run for Parliament based on gender, race, language, or any other thing is concerned. In my view, and it's an absolute view, we are equal before the courts, we are equal when we cast our ballots, and we must be equal when we run for public office.

This is not to say that political leaders cannot express their interest in getting particular types of candidates in the nomination process. This is a privilege they may exercise, and the electorate will decide whether it is a proper privilege. But if we entrench it in legislation, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest we're making the same mistake as has been made by democracies in the past when groups have been given special advantage based on non-malevolent characteristics such as race or religion. I point out to you it's not impossible once you set that precedent in law that, in another age, maybe 10 or 15 years from now, perhaps another Parliament would like to change it from gender to religion, or perhaps from religion to race.

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that when you start dealing with race then you are hearkening back to what happened to the Weimar Republic when it chose to give special privileges to Aryans. I leave it there, with one final thought. So strongly do I feel on this particular issue that I would not be able to support the legislation in the House of Commons if this committee and the government moved to give special privileges in law for female candidates or any other candidate based on race or other considerations.

The second point is about non-profit organizations contributing to political parties; this is very new. This has come up in only the last few years, and you can test it yourself by checking the Elections Canada web page for donations. What you'll discover is in the last election federally and in the last election provincially, quite a number of hospitals, universities, and other non-profit organizations and charities contributed provincially to the provincial Conservatives and federally to the federal Liberals.

• 1905

I submit to you that when charities and non-profit organizations get special dispensation from government and from Parliament in the sense that they don't pay taxes, or indeed in some cases these charities can be nearly 100% supported by taxes.... I point out that hospitals are a good example; they are charities and most of the revenue, one way or another, comes from government. I would suggest to you that such organizations have no business supporting political parties, either during election campaigns or outside of election campaigns.

It has only come up very suddenly. I suggest it's because the non-profit organizations and charities—which, as you may be aware, I've done a number of studies on—have become alarmed by the trends we see in the provinces and with parliamentarians like myself who are demanding more scrutiny, more transparency, and better value for dollar out of non-profit organizations.

They appear to be expressing this concern by supporting the parties in power. I have to say to the Bloc Québécois, you don't stand much chance of getting any of this money from the look of it, and neither does the Reform Party. I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is fundamentally wrong, that taxpayers' dollars should never be used, either directly or indirectly, to support parties in politics, under any circumstances.

I actually have a suggestion as to how you might deal with that; I'll just leave that suggestion. I've also sent my comments to the minister and made the same suggestions to him. Just in passing, there's subclause 404(1). This section describes those organizations that are not eligible to contribute to a registered party. There are corporations not carrying on business in Canada, a foreign political party, and so on. If you simply add a final category, “not for popular organizations”, that covers my concern entirely. I will say that the money we're talking about at present is not a lot of money, but it has started and it is something I think we should nip in the bud immediately.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to discuss third-party advertising. That is something near and dear to my heart because during the last election campaign, I suspect I was probably one of the most attacked backbenchers in the country in terms of third-party advertising. This was because, Mr. Chairman, I had for some years undertaken a campaign to bring better levels of scrutiny to various types of non-profit organizations and charities—the so-called special interest groups.

While many of these organizations are very responsible, there are a number of them that were very upset by what I was doing, and that led to a series of attack ads in the newspapers during the election campaign. I had not only those attack ads that were accusing me of trying to kill children and being against health care and all that kind of thing, because Mr. Chairman, some of my criticisms had been directed against the very strong health lobbies, who counteracted, particularly during the election campaign, by accusing me of being against health. At any rate, Mr. Chairman, I not only had that, but I also had the National Citizens' Coalition going after me. My complaint about the National Citizens' Coalition is that I didn't know who they were. I still don't know, Mr. Chairman, who is behind the National Citizens' Coalition, and I'll address that in my remarks to come.

But the final analysis is that more money, I believe, was spent on third-party advertising against me than was spent by even my opponents. So I had an interesting problem.

My problem with the clauses dealing with third-party advertising is that, I submit to you, they will accomplish nothing to prevent people like me from being attacked systematically by the very people I should be criticizing. I point out to you that the subclause 350(2), states that any third party should only be permitted no more than $3,000 spending on advertising in a particular riding.

Mr. Chairman, in my entire election campaign I only spent $32,000. So what this bill says is that just one third-party person who wants to get at me can spend a tenth of the total amount of money I was able to raise myself to spend—a tenth.

In my particular case, and this goes on to the next point, there's nothing that limits—that's clause 351. It cautions that third parties are not allowed to split themselves into numerous other third parties. There's nothing in this section that forbids numerous third-party groups coming against a candidate like me. So I could be faced with not just one third party buying advertising at a ceiling of $3,000; I could be faced with 10. In my case, I have offended so many people, particularly in the non-profit organization—well, I have—I could have 20 or 30. So there's nothing in this legislation that prevents them from going after me.

• 1910

The reality is I do my job when I go out there as an MP, and I hold people to account. If those people can then turn around and use more money than I have at my disposal to ensure I'm not re-elected, then I think we have a very serious problem.

Another section I have complaint with—and I'm nearly done, Mr. Chairman—is subclause 353(2). That says the third party has to give its name, address, and telephone number, who the head officer of the corporation is, and all that kind of thing. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that is totally inadequate. As in the case of the National Citizens' Coalition and a number of the special interest groups that went after me, you could get their names, addresses, and telephone numbers, but you could not get who was behind them.

I can't tell you for certain, even though I'm very suspicious, it really was the Non-Smokers' Rights Association that was gunning for me on that particular occasion. But I can tell you that a lot of the people who were named in the full-page ad that came out against me certainly ran with that group. There were other ads, so you can't tell. The National Citizens' Coalition—who knows who's behind them.

The problem is that unless you can see the financial statements of a non-profit organization, charity, or whatever, and you can track its original source of funding, you don't know whether the original financing is coming from offshore or not. For example, the National Firearms Association, which is another organization that has mounted attacks against candidates, has a branch in Texas. The constitution of that branch is to do everything it can worldwide to prevent gun control. We have no way of knowing whether the branch in Texas is a subordinate of the Canadian organization, or the Canadian organization is a subordinate of the American organization, nor do we have any way of tracking the funds that might be going across.

It is therefore perfectly useless to have clauses here that describe the types of contributions a third party advertiser can solicit when you cannot determine where that third party is getting its primary funds. It may be offshore, and I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, we cannot risk that.

Finally, I don't like it when Parliament or the government or any of us is scared off doing the right thing for Canadians simply because of a court decision or because of what the media says. As far as I'm concerned, what we have before us is an attempt to cater to a court decision because we are afraid to stand up as parliamentarians and say the reason why we cannot have third-party advertising is because we have to protect our democracy. We have to protect the ability of candidates like myself, who do not have corporate funding. All my money has come from little people. I raised $15,000. If you allow third-party advertisers in, then you'll eliminate me.

The last thing I'll say is during the election campaign of 1997, I figured that I lost about 3,000 votes because of third-party advertising.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll move to Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think you did well in selecting this order because I will expand only on one topic touched on by Mr. Bryden, the representation of women in politics.

I will talk about three things. First, I would like to talk to you about women in politics. Second, I will discuss the reasons that lead me to suggest the adoption of a certain measure. Finally, I will suggest a piece of legislation to be integrated into the electoral reform.

• 1915

Regarding women in politics, I will be brief even though I have a lot to say.

Although women make up 52% of the population, they are represented by only 20% of the MPs in the House of Commons. According to the most conservative estimates, if no measures are taken, we will have to wait until about the year 2040 before reaching parity between men and women in Parliament. In addition, nothing leads us to believe that the upward trend will continue.

Researchers seem clear on this point: the presence of more women in politics cannot be achieved without the adoption of measures designed to favour their election.

If you want to know a good number of the reasons for this under-representation of women in politics, I invite you to read the report of the Lortie Commission, which describes the situation well. This report also states that women are the most under- represented social group. I also invite you to read the works of Manon Tremblay, associate professor of political science, who has written extensively about the political representation of women.

To summarize the situation briefly, I will only say that there are few elected women simply because not enough of them are candidates, especially in what are known as winning constituencies. The challenge for women is therefore to become candidates.

Women face many obstacles, such as the nomination process, socio-economic status, sexual stereotypes and negative prejudices within political parties.

Obviously, and fortunately by the way, there are women who become candidates and are elected without any help. However, we must face the fact that there are far too few of these women and that if nothing is done they will remain far too few.

This brings me to telling you why I support the adoption of legislation that would favour bringing more women into politics.

First, let me tell you that, in an ideal world, no measure would be necessary. We have long since reached equality under the law, but we cannot say the same about equality in fact. Of course, taking the necessary steps so that democratic institutions reflect society is a societal choice. It is therefore urgent to ask ourselves what means to use in order to achieve a more equal representation since it is clear that time alone will not fix things.

I already hear some of you asking me why we should take measures for women and not for the young or the ethnic groups, as Mr. Bryden was saying. I would respond to him and to you by saying that it is true that our institutions must reflect all of society, but especially women because gender transcends the other groups. Women are neither a minority nor a category, but half of humanity, which includes all minorities and categories, such as the young, the elderly, the ethnic groups, the unemployed, the handicapped and all the rest, exactly like the other half of humanity, men.

Of necessity, public policies affect women. The State is called upon directly, not only in its financial capacity, but also in its regulatory role in the relationships between the citizens of both sexes. The number of women in political institutions must be increased because they can make all the difference in the world. The idea is not to increase their number so that they can do better than men, but simply so that they can do things differently.

Allow me to point out that adopting a positive measure to increase the presence of women must be only a temporary remedy. This measure is designed to favour the emergence of a new culture leading to a balanced presence of women and men, in Parliament as well as in the political parties. In fact, it is only a temporary measure to reach parity more quickly instead of waiting yet another fifty years.

Many people say that measures favouring the election of women are anti-democratic. To them I say that a democracy that excludes half its population is no better. To those who say, in the name of equality and respect for women, that such measures are discriminatory and insulting to women, I answer that what is insulting to women is the consistent systemic discrimination perpetuated by people who want equality for everyone but who refuse to do anything to make it a reality.

Believe me, the day we have more women in representative positions, democracy will only be healthier. And the issue of parity is not that women would represent women and men would represent men. Under parity, they would represent all the people together.

I would now like to talk about the measure that I propose to include in the electoral reform now being studied. In fact, I am proposing to include in the Elections Act a financial incentive for political parties that elect more women. It was along these lines that during the last session, in April, I tabled bill C-497, which died on the Order Paper at prorogation. Therefore I tabled it again last November 1st, and it now bears the number C-290.

This bill amends the Canada Elections Act by reimbursing a political party part of its election expenses when at least 30 per cent of its elected candidates are women. The reimbursement would be equivalent to the percentage of women candidates elected that were sponsored by the party, up to 50 per cent. I believe this financial incentive would encourage the parties to have more women elected.

• 1920

Although different, the measure that I am proposing to you is inspired by the report of the Lortie Commission on the principle of financial incentives. With this measure I hope to move political parties to recruit more women, thus increasing the chances of electing more of them.

Of course, I am aware that this financial incentive will not solve all the problems encountered by women. The adoption of a single measure such as a financial incentive for political parties will not solve the entire problem.

There is no miracle solution to the issue of the political under-representation of women. There is no simple solution to a complex problem. Other factors play a part, especially the cultural, political and social context, as well as the change in not only social attitudes, but those of the political parties. However, I believe that now is the time to begin thinking and acting. We now have to make a societal choice.

Before I conclude, allow me to return to the testimony of Minister Don Boudria last October 26th. When he appeared, Minister Boudria showed signs of openness to a measure designed to favour bringing more women into politics, and I congratulate him. However, I believe that the Minister did not go far enough in his thinking since he only alluded to a financial incentive for women candidates, and not for elected candidates. I will be clear on this point. There is no point in emphasizing the increase in the number of women candidates if the goal is not to have more of them elected.

We must at all costs avoid limiting women to becoming candidates only in so-called losing ridings. We must avoid the trap of allowing a political party to enrich itself at the expense of women without making the effort of reaching the intended goal, to elect more women.

Here, therefore, is the measure I propose. Of course there are many others, but given the circumstances, it seems the best to me. The only thing we must not lose sight of is the objective of electing more women. The study of bill C-2 gives us the opportunity to act concretely. I invite you to take it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll move now to Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is my second opportunity to come before this committee to talk about the same topic. I will deal with the following five subjects: the presentation of bill C-2; postal voting and absentee voting; the identification of the voter; the appointment of electoral staff and the financing of federal political parties.

Bill C-2, a document that is about an inch thick, seems to me a total aberration. We know that this document will be used not by legal scholars, who may themselves have trouble finding what they want because it is badly done, but by tens of thousands of citizens who will have to work during election campaigns and who have a right to a simple, well-made, direct and complete document, whereas we have before us a document where confusion reigns. It is not normal that legal scholars, and some of you are such people, cannot manage to provide the future users of this legislation a better conceived and better presented document.

Secondly, I will talk about postal voting and absentee voting. I tried to find the clauses on postal voting in the new version of bill C-2. It is a painstaking task that requires a lot of motivation because this topic is covered under “special activities” or “other activities”. It is mind boggling that an element as important as postal voting, which in itself is a hornet's nest, be hidden in such a manner.

It is a voter in my riding who made me aware of the issue of postal voting on June 2, 1997. She phoned to tell me that she had just visited one of her women friends in a senior citizens' home. She told me that her friend had voted using an envelope provided by a man who was in the kitchen of this small home for seniors. He had taken an envelope from another envelope and had given her a special ballot. The voter in question, it seems, had to name the candidate of her choice and the man who accompanied her, who, by the way, was the representative of the Liberal Party of Canada, in all courtesy because the person was elderly, would himself write the name of the candidate. We found 22 ballots written in the same hand and they were all for the same candidate.

• 1925

So we have difficulty finding these clauses. Does the postal vote as we knew it in 1997 still exist? If so, we should ensure that postal voting and absentee voting are clearly the responsibility of the returning officer or his representatives, and not left to the discretion of the political parties, which ensures that the party in power is greatly favoured. It has to be a neutral process, and it is the returning officer who must supervise the entire process. In addition, representatives of each of the recognized political parties must be present. The clauses in this regard must be unambiguous. At the time, there was a lot of confusion about postal voting and absentee voting.

I have been told that in my riding of Trois-Rivières, in a hospital where there are bed-ridden patients, the deputy returning officer was telling other members of the staff accompanying him or the representatives of the returning officer, like the clerk, that they had to stay in the corridor and that he would take care of getting the vote from the bed-ridden voter. It seems that was allowed at that time. I was told that had been clearly spelled out and that such a thing could no longer be done. There always have to be many people present to witness the vote of a voter who must use this voting procedure.

The third point is the identification of the voter. I believe it is abnormal that we are not further along than we are in Canada, given all Canada's democratic pretenses. Canada is a Western country that goes all over the world to tell people how to vote and that questions the neutrality of the electoral process of this or that country when it has not adopted measures that require the voter to identify himself or herself. I think there is a obvious deficiency here. We know about the anonymity of large cities and we know that the pace of life is rapid. The human warmth of yesteryear in our societies is a thing of the past. We must ensure that it is indeed the registered voter who is voting. In our modern anonymous societies, we have no measures to protect the voter and we recognize the dangers that represents. We have seen, in the Montreal region especially, for example, that what is called the overlaying of people could be used in a well-articulated system, especially at the municipal level. It is an elementary measure to be taken in a society as pretentious as ours.

Fourthly, I will talk about the appointment of electoral staff. Here again there is an aberrant deficiency in the Canadian system, with all its claims. When I was in Cameroon, 18 months ago, I met a Quebecker who was sponsored by the Department of Justice Canada and who had come to teach people how to hold proper elections. I believe we should look in our own back yards and examine how we act. We know that one of the main criteria to be appointed a returning officer in Canada is to have been a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, to have been a defeated candidate or to have been president or vice-president of a Liberal riding association. It is an aberration. Canada is not worthy of its international reputation when it still behaves like that today.

The Chief Elector Officer of Canada himself, Mr. Kingsley, recommends to the government that this way of doing things, this way of institutionalizing partisanship in such a delicate task as that one, be changed. We will use the same reasoning later in talking about the financing of political parties. In a situation where there is a conflict during the election campaign, on voting day, all the opposition parties have a right to impugn the returning officer since his appointment is systematically and institutionally tainted.

• 1930

Finally, I will talk about the financing of federal Canadian political parties. We know where we are. We know it is the kingdom of the big banks, the big businesses, the large industrial sectors, mining, forestry, oil, etc., that can act individually or as a group; it is also the kingdom of the chambers of commerce as well as the unions. We are not at arm's length. When a political party thus financed takes power, it is dependent. We just had an extraordinary example with the case of Onex and Air Canada. This allowed members of the opposition to impugn the liberal government as much as they wanted, given all the contacts, affinities and links between certain people at Onex, Canadian and American Airlines, and the Liberal Party of Canada. We could legitimately impugn as we wanted. The government is paying for its old sins. The government is paying for the institutional vices of this country. I think we have succeeded in giving the government, which has always been on the defensive in this regard, a good lesson because there was proof.

When we see members of the Prime Minister's Office invite people from such-and-such a board of directors, when we know that the promoter in question is a funder of the Liberal Party, all accusations are authorized, but on the other hand it is unhealthy because it undermines all the credibility that is so greatly needed in a democracy, all the credibility of our institutions and all the credibility of the elected representatives that we are.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I hope that bill C-2 will clarify things. The old law needed fundamental reform, and it must be hoped that bill C-2 will be up to the task.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now we'll undoubtedly have some questions from colleagues. We don't have to be quite so formal. We won't go to five-minute rounds, but just keep it to one question at a time. We'll go around the table and hopefully everybody will have a chance to say what they want and ask what they want.

I'll start, as usual, with Mr. White. Just one question or comment; it will come back.

Mr. Ted White: I have a question for each person, so should I ask one now, and then we'll go round and round, or what do we do?

The Chair: Colleagues, look at the clock after a while. Maybe you should just ask the questions now. I don't want to be too formal. We might as well get the questions out.

Mr. Ted White: We can all be quick.

You mentioned the problem in the geriatric home with the mobile polling unit. I realize you believe part of the problem could be solved if returning officers were appointed independently by merit. But the Chief Electoral Officer has also asked for the ability to experiment or test electronic technologies for voting, so people could maybe vote by touch-tone phone, or something like that.

There are very few people, even in geriatric homes, who can't use the telephone. Do you think something like that might be the long-term solution?

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Are you talking about electronic voting or voting by telephone? Honestly, I haven't thought about that. I know that in Quebec we have just tried this method at the municipal level. I know that in one place there is already a lawsuit. Plaintiffs allege that a municipality used a substandard paper that was not secure, but honestly I cannot answer your question.

When I talk about senior citizens' homes, I am talking about postal voting. There are two things: there are those who are mobile and those who are not. For those who cannot move around, there is the absentee vote. The political organizations can monopolize postal voting. There are links forged between the directors of establishments and the political party in question. People's names are identified, the necessary documents are obtained from the returning officer and one goes from place to place, but on one's own initiative, not as directed by the returning officer. It is the political party that takes the initiative of providing a service to the voter in a senior citizens' home. That voter may be mobile, but we offer him or her that service. It's not like going to a hospital or a prison.

• 1935

[English]

Mr. Ted White: Caroline, would you think it's likely that there were some men in your riding who voted for you?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Yes.

Mr. Ted White: And would you say it's quite likely that some women voted for me as well, as their MP?

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Not likely.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm not quite sure.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Ted White: Obviously, what I'm getting at is that it's not a question of whether this place is 50% women and 50% men. It's a question of whether women have representation here and whether men have representation here. I think I would be a pretty bad MP if I wasn't representing the wishes, views, and desires of the women in my riding. In fact, of the five calls that I returned to constituents today, they were all to women who were calling me with problems.

I would say you wouldn't be doing your job either if you weren't representing the men in your riding. I'm sure you take pride in doing so. Don't you think the real issue is whether or not men have representation and whether or not women have representation here, and that it's not an issue of whether you're a man or a woman doing the job?

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: I will try to be serious in giving my answer. I do not think that I represent only the women or only the young people in my riding. I represent all the citizens of Longueuil here in Ottawa.

As I indicated clearly in my presentation, and I will repeat it for you, I do not think that women would do better than men, but I think that they can do things differently. I believe there is also a power relationship. The dynamics of the topics changes a bit, depending on whether there are 2 or 60 women sitting in the House of Commons. It is women who started the debate on support allowances.

I will only underline a very recent topic. As if by chance, when the pay equity issue was resolved, it is Lucienne Robillard who was the government's spokesperson. Did that happen because she is a woman? I dare to believe so. That does not mean she represents women better or that she represents only women. It simply means that it was possible to do things differently.

It is a societal choice. I believe it is important that women be more numerous. If you don't agree with me, I will respect your point of view but I will not share it.

[English]

The Chair: I want to move this around the table a bit more quickly.

Mr. Ted White: In the end, it doesn't make any difference. There's still the legislation.

The Chair: I know, but I'd like to keep the time moving.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would first like to make a comment about Mr. Bryden's presentation and then ask Ms. St-Hilaire a question.

Mr. Bryden alluded to what happened to the Weimar regime after Adolf Hitler took power and, despite all the respect I have for him, it seemed very inappropriate to me, even cavalier, when he compared that to the proposal aimed at creating positive discriminatory measures, if we can call them that, to favour bringing women into politics.

I cannot conceive that such a comparison could be made. If the Weimar Republic became what it became, it is not because the democratic regime in place at the time set up positive discriminatory measures for groups or for a part of its population. It is simply because a coalition government took power, then preempted full powers and practised a polity not of positive discrimination, but a policy of total exclusion. I think the comparison is untenable.

I will now move on to my question for Ms. St-Hilaire. As the minister has said, there is a growing concern about favouring bringing more women into politics. You have put forth a suggestion that seems to have elicited a favourable response from the minister. Of course there is a difference at the perceptual level. You would like this measure to be applied in terms of the number of elected candidates and not simply in terms of the number of candidates appointed by each of the political parties. There is still a certain amount of resistance to this type of measure.

I would simply submit to you that the Canadian Labour Congress has made a very original proposal, although it obviously cannot be fit into the framework of this bill. I believe you have made it quite clear that we should set up some intermediate measures. The one you proposed could be part of that.

Should Canada adopt a proportional component in the electoral system, the Canadian Labour Congress would make a suggestion. The proportional component in itself is very arbitrary because the parties present lists of candidates based on the percentage of the votes they received and these candidates are elected, but this proportional component is aimed at correcting a certain number of disproportions or distortions in the plurality single-member system.

• 1940

Could we eventually integrate in the proportional component an element that would eliminate the disproportion in the representation of women in the House, after setting up a certain number of temporary measures like the one you have proposed?

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Yes, that is the fact that I wanted to stress most. I thought about this bill after the Lortie report and the consultations with, among others, women's groups. I believe that this way of doing things could speed up the process. If we arrived at a proportional system, it would surely be even easier and perhaps less discriminatory, but I believe that until then an amendment to the Elections Act would speed up the process.

[English]

The Chair: I gather Mr. Bryden wanted to respond to Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bergeron, with the greatest respect in exchange, when I made reference to the Weimar Republic, it was a calculated reference. I did so because I wanted to remind this committee that democracy, and particularly parliamentary democracy, is an extremely fragile institution. We hear all the time about the great power that's vested in the leadership, whether it's Mr. Bouchard in Quebec or Mr. Chrétien here in Ottawa. The leader in a parliamentary democracy is able to do an awful lot because of his majority in the House of Commons. He can move very quickly and can change things very quickly. What stops it from happening is precedent.

What works for Canada and is missing in so many countries that experiment with democracy and fail is the fact that we have a long history of being very careful in not setting precedents that could be misused if we get a leader some years hence who has a particular thing he wants to do or a particular group he wants to promote.

I suggest to you that while I agree absolutely with Caroline on wanting to see more female politicians in the system—I think that's a very noble and proper thing to want to see—it should occur at the nomination level or at the party level. If you entrench it in legislation, if you discriminate in terms of gender or race or religion or any of those things, you set a fearsome precedent that can come back to haunt you maybe 10 or 20 years from now. That is why I'm so adamantly opposed to this proposition.

That's my comment.

The Chair: Ms. Bakopanos.

[Translation]

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

My comments are addressed in part to Mr. Rocheleau. My experience of postal voting has been very positive because many voters in my riding who were traveling on election day could still express their voting intention. I must admit that I have no idea whether they voted for me or for another candidate.

These voters had to go to the office of the returning officer and vote in his presence. There was no question of a representative from my party or any other party going to their home or giving them a ballot. It is the returning officer who exercized control over this process. In any case there is a whole range of possibilities allowing voters to exercize their right to vote. They can even do so at an embassy abroad. I believe it is important that the law give all these possibilities to Canadian citizens who want to exercize their right to vote.

I believe I understood that you did not believe that it is the best system in existence and that you had certain reservations about the criteria used to appoint a returning officer. I do not believe that in my riding or in others a returning officer was appointed to the position because he was a member of the party or a former candidate. I must admit that I was not there when the choice was made.

Although it is generally useful to say what we think, we should avoid making comments that are a little too discriminatory about people who are trying to do a job that is far from easy most of the time.

• 1945

I have been in politics in Quebec for 25 years and it has never been easy. There are people who try to stay neutral even when they have previously been candidates for a political party. From the time they are sworn in, their duty is to ensure that the electoral process allows the citizens to exercize their right to vote.

The Chair: Mr. Rocheleau.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: As for postal voting, Mr. Chairman, I am not necessarily opposed to it, but I believe that this mechanism needs guidelines. In fact, we have seen abuses. That we allow the greatest number of Canadians to exercize their right to vote by making the process easier is all well and good. On the other hand, we know that this has been used in a somewhat biased manner, and I have given you examples. We must not fall into abuse or be naive. There are abuses of democracy or caricatures of democracy when people take a mechanism that was granted to make things easier for them and use it to vote for other people, in almost complete legality. Then something is wrong.

Therefore, in my opinion, we have to use our imagination so that people can vote, whatever their situation, but we need guidelines when there are abuses.

As for appointments to electoral offices, I think that there is no neutral mechanism. I would simply say that we should once again be inspired by Quebec. We have adopted neutral nominating mechanisms in Quebec, with all that implies. At home, in the riding of Trois-Rivières, we appointed a returning officer who had experience at the federal level and whose political affiliation was known. This was done without any political taint because there was a neutral mechanism, supposedly in any case, for where there is man there is manipulation. But at least there are mechanisms.

At the federal level, you have the means to appoint someone who has a reputation, who... I think you are putting yourself in a defensive position. That has nothing to do with the fact that you are there or not. It is the institutions that allow that in a given riding the Liberal Party can appoint a candidate without people knowing that that person is from the Liberal Party.

Therefore, a mechanism that ensures neutrality is missing, and the Chief Electoral Officer recommends one in any case. It would not be difficult to use it as an inspiration. Go see in Quebec.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: [Editor's note: inaudible]... when they are sworn in.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: I'm sorry, but that...

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: That has been my experience in Quebec.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: No, I cannot concur with that. That is of course the argument on which people fall back. To use strong words, I would say that it is a form of institutionalized hypocrisy. People do not become disincarnate when they are appointed. When they are appointed, they have tendencies and they have friends. When the candidate for the Liberal Party comes to see his old friend who has been appointed returning officer, the relationship cannot be the same as with a representative of the NDP that he doesn't know.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: I'm not making a debate of it. I am making my comments.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: It is a question of human psychology. If you, the Liberals, believe you are above that, you are deluding yourselves.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Thank you.

I have two questions. One is related to John Bryden's suggestions regarding the not-for-profit agencies, the NGOs. What you're suggesting is that because they are in potential receipt of tax considerations, they should be excluded from being involved in election campaigns and from making contributions. How do you feel about businesses and corporations that are clearly the benefactors of tax considerations that are made at the federal level, that are made to political parties? If NGOs should be exempted, do you think corporations should be exempted as well?

Mr. John Bryden: No, I think the contributions of corporations to political life in this country are very important. I would like to see corporations always spread their contributions across more than one political party in order to not weight too much of the support to any given party. But I point out to you that unions and corporations are in the same category. I would suggest to you that unions and corporations, because they are essentially supported by private individuals both as shareholders or as union members, are not the problem. The problem arises when an organization derives its fundamental support from the taxpayer, either directly or indirectly.

• 1950

I remind you that in the current income tax guidelines, charities are forbidden from engaging in partisan politics, except for the fact that in the legislation pertaining to charities there is a 10% rule that is very vague. In principle, though, Revenue Canada believes charities should be applying their charitable activities across all society in a non-partisan way, whereas corporations and unions....

I have no quarrel with the unions supporting one party over another. It's part of our political life. But I am very much opposed to charities trying to get leverage with one party or another by making political contributions either to the major parties or to the individual candidates.

Mr. John Solomon: I agree with that, but I think the same idea should be spread out to corporations. For example, Bombardier isn't really a charity, but it got $85 million from the Government of Canada.

Mr. John Bryden: Sorry, excuse me, but I get enthusiastic on this particular subject.

In either the election of 1993 or 1988—I can't remember—I did find that the Canadian Labour Congress contributed $1.5 million to the NDP.

An hon. member: What year?

Mr. John Bryden: I think it was either 1988 or 1993. I have the actual documents and I can show them to you, but I think this was an improper expenditure.

An hon. member: It was more than that.

Mr. John Bryden: Of course, the union figures are very high as well, and we can get these things.

I would support any proposition that's very similar to what the Bloc Québécois does. If you want to eliminate financing from corporations and unions, then by all means do both, and find another formula. My only reluctance there is that when unions and corporations spread their support across more than one party—I think unions should do that, and I think they are indeed doing that right now—it helps the political life. But I do not believe corporations should be supporting individual candidates and I do not believe unions should be supporting individual candidates. The parties themselves, yes, but the individual candidates should get their support from their communities. I think the Bloc Québécois and the PQ are well in advance of the rest of us in that regard—and I have to tell you that I looked at their election returns as well.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: We are the best.

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: With respect to Caroline St-Hilaire's presentation, what level of funding would you suggest would work best to encourage more female candidates?

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: What level of financing? In terms of the parties? I don't fully understand your question. Financing in terms of the political parties?

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: You suggested that there should be some financial incentives to encourage parties to nominate more female candidates. In the NDP, we've had that party incentive in place nationally for many years. That's why we end up with about half of our candidates being female. We provide party incentives in terms of cash and other considerations.

My question to you is, what kind of public money would you suggest that we put in place to encourage more females to run for office, to encourage more females to run for nominations? That was your point. You're saying there should be some financial incentives for parties.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: I am talking about the reimbursement of political parties. Currently, an official political party is reimbursed 22.5 per cent. I am saying that a political party that had 30% women candidates elected would be entitled to a 30% electoral reimbursement. Therefore, the level would go from 22.5% to 30%, with a maximum of 50 per cent.

The reimbursement is very important, of course, but it must be in terms of the number of elected candidates. Otherwise, a political party could boast about having 50% women candidates, but put them here and there and end up with no additional women elected.

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: I missed that part, and I apologize.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: That's okay.

Mr. John Solomon: I have a follow-up, Mr. Chairman.

Apparently, then, what you're suggesting is that those parties that tend to be national parties would benefit more from the tax subsidies than would, say, the Bloc Québécois, the Progressive Conservative Party, or the NDP, because we traditionally have not elected a huge number of members in this country.

• 1955

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: There are political parties that will have to work very hard. We won't name them.

[English]

The Chair: I have a question I'd like to direct to Ms. St-Hilaire, and perhaps Mr. Bryden and Mr. Rocheleau. It's the only time we will have a chance to ask this question of members of Parliament and get responses, because when we get back into the House of Commons we'll be debating.

As you all know, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms states very clearly that the order of the day is equality, and one may not advantage a particular group at the expense of others; that would not be legal. The section reads that every individual is equal before and under the law and is entitled to the benefit of the law without discrimination.

There's an exception to that rule that says subsection (1) doesn't preclude any law or program that has, as its object, the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups, including disadvantages because of race, national origin, sex, mental or physical disability, etc.

In order for an incentive provision to provide financial incentives to parties and to women, at first one would have to show legally that women as a class were disadvantaged in our society. I'm actually intellectually looking for an articulation of the disadvantage women have in our society at the present time.

Is the disadvantage we are articulating a disadvantage of women MPs or a disadvantage of women candidacies for Parliament? I'm sure you'll all agree that not all women are disadvantaged just because they're women. There are rich women and poor women, smart women and stupid women, etc.

I am looking for an articulation of how women members of Parliament are disadvantaged, or how women candidates are disadvantaged, in either an absolute sense or a relative sense. We need to articulate that if we are going to be able to justify the incentives that may be contemplated in this bill.

Ms. St-Hilaire, could you comment on that? By the way, when I say disadvantaged, the charter does not say underrepresented; it says disadvantaged. It's a question of being disadvantaged in an absolute or relative sense. Could you comment on that?

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Unfortunately, I don't have the Charter with me, but I know that paragraph 15(2) stipulates, if memory serves, that it is not discriminatory to favour these groups of women. I cannot quote it from memory but I am sure that your researchers will find it.

[English]

The Chair: I just read it in English.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Is it in fact paragraph 15(2)?

[English]

The Chair: Oui. I will read it en anglais and it will be translated for you.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Okay.

The Chair: It says:

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: If I understand correctly, you are telling me that reading that clause makes you wonder if a woman is necessarily disadvantaged. If that is not the case, how is it that we are only 20% of the House of Commons and of the Assemblée nationale du Québec? It's the same thing.

I seriously wonder about the reasons why women do not go into politics. Why do the political parties not make an effort to have more women in their ranks?

• 2000

I think that a bill can be an incentive for the parties to change their attitude. It won't solve all the problems, but I believe that it is one way to get there. I think that women are in fact an under-represented group.

[English]

The Chair: No, I have already made the point. We may not simply state here in Parliament that women are underrepresented. The law requires that they be disadvantaged. There are no women on the Montreal Canadiens hockey team. They are definitely underrepresented there. The question is, are they disadvantaged in some respect?

Forget about hockey now; forget about sports. Let's talk about the House of Commons. How are female members of Parliament disadvantaged, either in an absolute sense or relative to the male members of Parliament? Can you give me examples of how female MPs are disadvantaged?

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: What I am talking about is not the number of women MPs. The unease is more about the number of candidates. In the House of Commons, I am not necessarily disadvantaged in terms of my male colleague. What I say is not in that vein. I am talking about the way of encouraging woman to become...

[English]

The Chair: As candidates.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: ...candidates. Once elected to the House of Commons, it's up to them to manage on their own. I am talking about what comes before, about the whole process that comes before. Do you understand me?

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Could you articulate for the record the ways in which a female is disadvantaged as a candidate for office in the House of Commons?

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: There are many factors. I am not an expert on this subject. I will indicate some as they come to mind.

First, I would remind you that it is women who have babies. It's still that way. Unfortunately or fortunately, it's still that way. So, usually, a woman who has children and who wants to be a candidate makes a political choice, but also a choice in terms of family, culture and history. I am talking to you about this and you surely know it better than I do.

In the historical context, it is new to have women in politics and I believe that this is a feedback phenomenon: the more we see it the more we will see of it. Currently, it's new to have women in politics and that will affect representation.

Of course, there is also an economic factor. It is new to have women in the labour force. There are still many of them at home. Before moving in a social circle and being able to consider a political career... That also is new. Working women are often single parents. Some are poor.

There are a number of economic, social and cultural factors. I cannot name them all, but it is clear to me that women are disadvantaged. Some have advantages; some women are rich, some are intelligent, just as there are men who are rich and men who are intelligent. But that is not the problem.

There is a problem or a concern because of the fact that women are disadvantaged and have been a part of politics only recently. If we want to accelerate the current process, we have to give them some help for a while so that there can be more of them. As their numbers increase, the momentum will become self-perpetuating because women at home will see that there are women in politics. That will motivate them to involve themselves. Moreover, we will have changed the attitude of the political parties.

[English]

The Chair: I understand the goal and support it. I was looking for an articulation of the disadvantage that exists out there.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: First of all, I'd like to point out that when the word “disadvantage” is used in the charter, it's used in the context of the laws of the land. We're not talking about the disadvantages we might have in society, because each one of us has some advantages or disadvantages because of our size—we're tall or thin, short or fat—or whether we're male or female. These are the advantages or the disadvantages, depending on your perspective, that exist just with living.

The word “disadvantage” used in the charter, however, means very specifically that the charter is talking about the laws and disadvantage in the sense of inequality of opportunity. The charter intends, I believe, that everyone before the law in Canada should have equality of opportunity, and when it uses the word “disadvantage”, it means there is inequality of opportunity.

• 2005

I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is precisely the reason why I'm against the suggestion of giving financial benefits in law to female candidates. It's because it creates a situation of inequality before the law, and it puts another group at a disadvantage before the law. That other group is anyone who is not female. In setting that precedent then you invite, of course, at a later time other categories of individuals who should be treated unequally. When you give an advantage to one group, you take away equality of opportunity from another. And, Mr. Chairman, you put your finger on precisely the reason why I would not support that change.

The Chair: I was trying to shed some light and not put my finger on anything in particular, but Madame Dalphond-Guiral has a question.

[Translation]

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Chairman, you are not going to believe this, but I am going to talk about women in politics. My question is for Mr. Bryden.

In the New Democratic Party, there is, of course, a philosophy that underlies the support for women in politics. In the Liberal Party, it is the party leader, in this instance the one we have had as Prime Minister since 1993, who decides on the appointments.

How will you react on the day Mr. Chrétien decides to appoint women as official candidates in 75% of the winning ridings? If I were a man, I would invoke the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and say that the Prime Minister was exaggerating. However, in the city of Laval, in the three federal ridings, there were three women appointed by the Prime Minister.

There is therefore an over-representation of women in Laval. I would like your opinion on this point.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I think because it's not entrenched in law and it's a privilege that any party leader can exercise, that privilege is going to be tested by the electorate.

When the Prime Minister did that in the 1997 election a great many people—including many women—in my riding and in my riding association were scandalized, and I would suggest to you that any leader who doctored the nomination process such that they put in a lot of female candidates or a lot of....

Let's give an example in the direction of the Reform Party. If a leader decided that the best candidates should be Christian Protestants, that is precisely what a leader can do now, and should he do that, the electorate will determine whether or not it was a wise thing.

The problem is if you put that in legislation, in the law of the land, then of course you're creating an entirely different situation out of the reach of the electorate.

So, no, I think if the Prime Minister chooses to do that—I make no secret of it, I think it was a very foolish thing to do—I don't agree with it. He did it. That's his privilege as a leader, and I won't quarrel with it because he's my leader and he's entitled to make mistakes, if you will, but I will not accept it as part of the law of the land.

[Translation]

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Do you find it more acceptable to appoint women in ridings that are less safe?

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Well yes, there it is OK.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I have to tell you that I think women are perfectly capable of competing just as well and just as vigorously as men under just about any circumstance.

There may be some situations where a party leader may wish to encourage one group or another, and he has the opportunity to do that. A party leader can make sure that, for instance, a particular candidate gets lots of money, doesn't have to worry about fundraising, and all that kind of thing. These are the privileges of a party leader if he wants to exercise them. It's the same with the Prime Minister when he selects his cabinet. He doesn't select on merit alone. He selects in order to reflect the nature of the country.

So there are inequities in terms of, shall we say, ability in the cabinet, but this is his privilege. It's not in law. In the final analysis, his exercise of this privilege is tested by whether his party wins the next election. When you put it in law, however, then you are trapped, and you set a precedent that can come back to haunt you in the years to come.

The Chair: The last word goes to Madame St-Hilaire, if she wishes to comment.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Non, merci.

The Chair: Mr. White.

• 2010

Mr. Ted White: Thank you. Actually I want to get to my question for John, but I think I have to set the record straight on some stuff here that indicates a misunderstanding about how Reform works.

We have a provision in the Reform constitution that specifically prohibits the leader from nominating a candidate. In fact, the leader cannot turn down a candidate who has been selected by a riding association. Within the Reform Party there's an elected group of members who actually approve the candidate and then the leader must sign the nomination paper.

So we do not have within Reform an ability to create more women candidates or more men candidates. It's entirely decided at the constituency level. So women have the same opportunity to run, and that means the women who are in our caucus here fought in a fair, equal opportunity election. They're equals; they got here exactly the same way I did.

So that sets the record straight on that.

We couldn't comply with anything that would be done in the Elections Act of the nature that's being proposed by Caroline.

John, I wanted to pursue something about your third-party situation. You mentioned that your vote total went down about 3,000 votes, you figure. In the surrounding ridings, was there also a deterioration in the vote?

Mr. John Bryden: No. The reason I felt the pain was that riding redistribution gave me a section from another riding in which I was unknown. In fact, there had been a lot of very negative publicity about me because of the riding redistribution. The 3,000 or so votes I didn't gain were votes I would have expected to gain. I think they damaged me quite severely in that part of the riding because there were about, I don't know, 7,000 to 8,000 votes in that particular area and they had never seen any of my householders; they didn't know anything about me. Had the election been closer, I would certainly have lost.

If I may make a point on that, the very big danger in the situation I found myself in is that other candidates facing a situation where winning their riding would be more problematic, or perhaps who have less of the iron will, shall we say, that I sometimes possess, might be tempted to not criticize organizations for fear that in the next election campaign those organizations would mount third-party advertising against them. It's a very big danger.

Mr. Ted White: I really want to pursue a little bit further, though. I'm trying to head for something.

Mr. John Bryden: Please do. Sorry.

Mr. Ted White: In the section of the riding that then came into your riding, would you have expected them to vote Liberal normally?

Mr. John Bryden: No.

Mr. Ted White: So it was a difficult area anyway?

Mr. John Bryden: It was a swing area that traditionally has always voted Conservative.

Mr. Ted White: What I'm getting at is maybe all the third-party advertising didn't make that much difference to you. I admit third-party advertising is very annoying—it makes you angry—but the third parties would argue they are defending the democracy you claim you're defending.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm sorry, Ted. I got angry calls from that section of the riding in my campaign office asking who the hell was I that I should be against health care, or that I should be making sure children who smoke cigarettes at an early age...all this kind of stuff. No, there is no doubt about it. I got angry calls. Then there were letters to the editor based on those advertising campaigns, plus radio jingles.

You have to appreciate, Ted, that I am, shall we say, a low-cost candidate. I spent a total of $32,000 on the entire campaign. I submit to you the third-party advertisers spent more than that just on the advertising alone. So I didn't just have the candidates opposite me; I had a third opponent.

Mr. Ted White: Yes, but there are consequences for actions taken. I agree with the work you've done. I've used it myself. I've written about it in my own north shore newspaper. But there are consequences for actions taken. I'm sure if the third parties were here tonight they would argue they are defending democracy as much as you claim you are by being able to speak out and point out what they object to in the things you do. So I think you're being unfair and one-sided.

The Chair: I'll tell you what. All colleagues here have been very patient. We've had a relatively good exchange. Each one of us is perfectly capable of engaging in these discussions off the record, amongst ourselves in the House, at committee, and after we adjourn the meeting. So we can go off the record now and continue to make our points as the need arises.

Mr. John Bryden: If I can conclude, Mr. Chair—

• 2015

The Chair: No, unless there's some absolute need to correct the record, and I don't think there is. This is an exchange of views by Mr. Bryden and Mr. White. Ordinarily I'd let the witness have the last word, but the witness is a member of Parliament, so we're all equally advantaged in getting the last word.

I'm going to adjourn. We're adjourned until tomorrow. Thank you.