HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 8, 2003

Á

1115

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

Mr. Marcel Blanchet (Chief Electoral Officer and President of the Commission for Electoral Representation)

Á

1120

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Á

1130

The Chair

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

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

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

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Á

1135

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Á

1140

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Octavio Soares (Assistant and Direstor of Political Party Financing, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Québec)

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Á

1145

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.)

Mr. Octavio Soares

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Octavio Soares

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Octavio Soares

Á

1150

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Octavio Soares

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

Mr. Octavio Soares

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Octavio Soares

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Octavio Soares

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Octavio Soares

Á

1155

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Octavio Soares

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.)

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Â

1200

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Â

1205

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

The Chair

Â

1210

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Â

1215

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Octavio Soares

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

The Chair

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

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Â

1220

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Octavio Soares

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Michel Guimond

Â

1225

Mr. Octavio Soares

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Octavio Soares

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Â

1230

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Octavio Soares

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Octavio Soares

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Marcel Blanchet

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Octavio Soares

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Â

1235

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 040

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 8, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Continuing our hearings on the public financing of elections, the order of the day is Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing).

    Following the last evening, I should advise you that I have a letter that will be going to the presidents of all the parties explaining that we're continuing our investigations and asking them for written submissions.

    As I did last evening, I would like to draw your attention again to the letter we received from Jean-Pierre Kingsley with questions specifically for witnesses such as the two we have today. I would point out that those questions were provided in response to a request by Michel Guimond. I know Michel will be using that list, but all of you also have it. When Michel has finished his first round, some of you might consider posing Mr. Kingsley's questions. If you do not, I may well do that.

    I'd like to welcome our witnesses today. It is very good of both of you to come here. We have, from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec, Marcel Blanchet, who is the Chief Electoral Officer, and president of the Commission for Electoral Representation, and Octavio Soares, who is the assistant and director of political party financing.

    Gentlemen, we are particularly pleased that you are here today, because we know that the legislation you work with is in many ways the legislation upon which this bill has been modelled.

    Mr. Blanchet.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet (Chief Electoral Officer and President of the Commission for Electoral Representation):

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    You have already introduced my assistant, Octavio Soares, who is responsible for the actual enforcement of the provisions of the Elections Act with respect to political financing.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased to be here this morning at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to tell you a little bit about our experience in Quebec in this area. I will try to be brief in my remarks since we have limited time. I will concentrate on a few key aspects of Quebec's electoral financing law.

    As you are certainly aware, this year marks the 25th anniversary of the implementation of Quebec's political financing law. After a quarter of a century, it was time to take stock. We needed to reflect and look at the results. We have done that, and followed up with a three-year action plan aimed at tightening up the provisions of the legislation to allow for better implementation.

    First of all, however, before sharing with you the results of our analysis and describing our action plan, I will briefly explain the Quebec system. In Quebec, only electors have the right to contribute to political financing. Contributions are limited to $3,000 a year per person, for each authorized political entity, either independent candidates or political parties as such. Any contribution over $200 must be reported. Taxpayers who made these donations are eligible for a maximum tax credit of $300 a year, which is 75% of a maximum donation of $400.

    To offset these limits, the state provides annual operating allowances to the parties. These allowances are calculated on the basis of 50¢ for each registered voter and are divided among all the parties according to the percentage of votes received in the latest general election. So all recognized parties are eligible for this allowance.

    Election expenses are limited to 62¢ for each registered voter for parties, and for candidates, to $1.04 for each voter in the riding. The state pays 50 per cent of the expenses for political parties that receive 1 per cent of the votes in elections and candidates who receive 15 per cent of the votes in their riding. You will certainly recognize certain elements there that have been used in Bill C-24.

    Basically, the rules governing political financing in Quebec have not changed over the past 25 years, although minor adjustments have been made.

    What can the chief electoral officer of Quebec conclude about Quebec's experience since the law was brought in 25 years ago?

    Well, a quarter of a century later, we feel that tangible progress has been made in Quebec with respect to political financing and control over elections expenses.

    The legislation really encouraged political parties to change their financing methods. They diversified their sources and made them more democratic.

    In keeping with the legislator's objective in 1977, the vast majority of financial contributions to parties are very small. In 2001, for example, 82 per cent of contributions were under $200. The average contribution was $76. Only 1.2 per cent of the contributions were between $2,000 and $3,000, and 0.85 per cent were at the $3,000 level. So the vast majority are small contributions.

    With respect to enforcement, we have launched 1,300 proceedings over the 25 years for violations. In the courts, I can tell you that our success rate, if I can put that way, is very high.

    We feel that the thrust of this legislation is still sound. In our opinion, the values and principles embodied in it need to be reaffirmed. Its rules should be maintained. Grassroots financing of parties, complemented by state support, is clearly the cornerstone of a system in which voters exercise genuine control over political power, a system in which democracy truly flourishes, in my view.

Á  (1120)  

    I am not claiming that the law is perfect. I do not deny that its implementation creates certain difficulties, as is true for any other law. These difficulties, in our opinion, are not insurmountable. To date, there is nothing that would lead us to conclude that the legislation cannot be implemented. Despite certain allegations, the facts and the information that we have do not indicate widespread violations.

    In order to improve implementation of the legislation and make the necessary adjustments, our institution released a very concrete action plan in February. The action plan sets out a number of priorities. Among these priorities, I would emphasize the need to carry out systematic audits and examinations of political parties' financial reports. We want to be proactive by doing more audits more quickly in order to prevent problems.

    Another priority is to obtain new tools and adopt an integrated approach to our audits and investigations. Access to certain data that we do not currently have would help improve implementation. I am referring here to data held by other government departments and agencies, in particular Revenue Quebec. Access to certain data would enable us to make useful links in our investigations.

    We also need to implement systematically an integrated or comprehensive approach to our audits and investigations. There needs to be a continuum of various types of audits and investigations, including simple verifications of financial reports, legal and regulatory audits, checks for compliance with the law, administrative investigations and criminal investigations. The approach must be comprehensive and seamless.

    Finally, another priority in our action plan involves legislative amendments that we would like to see passed.

    Among other things, we would like legislators in Quebec to amend the Elections Act by clearly spelling out the legal responsibility of political parties for implementation of the political financing provisions. We feel that such an amendment would help the parties become more aware of their role in ensuring that their representatives obey the law. I would point out that this legal responsibility already exists at the municipal level in Quebec, for which we are also responsible.

    Moreover, we feel that it is time to increase the fines imposed, particularly in cases where contributions are made in someone else's name or an offence is committed by a corporation. Recent cases involving third parties like unions also lead us to think that increasing fines would be a good idea. Since the fine was relatively small, some people have had the idea of including the cost of breaking the law in a union's election budget. So we are going to try to correct that situation.

    So those are the main priorities of our action plan. I have brought with me a copy of the notes that I mentioned. I understand that what we say is recorded, but if you would like a copy right away, I will leave them on the corner of the table. I also have one copy of our action plan, which I have described. If you would like to have this document, it would be very easy to contact our office in Quebec City, and we will be very pleased to send you copies.

    At the time we launched our action plan, we also produced a study on election financing in Quebec. This study gives a general overview of the history of political financing, with particular emphasis on Quebec. I think that this document could be very useful for your study of Bill C-24. We have this document available as well, and I will leave a copy of both of them with your secretary. You can certainly obtain more copies by contacting my office in Quebec City. I will be pleased to have them sent to you.

    My colleague, Mr. Soares, and I will now be pleased to answer your questions and have a discussion with you. Thank you.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Marcel and Octavio.

    We will now have exchanges of about five or six minutes between members and the witnesses.

    Ted White.

[English]

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

    Thank you very much, Mr. Blanchet, for your presentation. I was particularly interested in the figures you provided on the size of donations and the relative percentages, because I was going to ask a question about those. Related to that, you mentioned that 0.85% of the donations were of $3,000. I think I have that figure correct.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: It is less than 1 per cent, it is 0.8 per cent. So it is very, very low.

[English]

    Mr. Ted White: So considering that only 0.8% of the donations were at the maximum level of $3,000, do you feel that it's even necessary to have a maximum? And if so, why?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: I noticed in Bill C-24 that a maximum of $10,000 is proposed for individuals, which would be equivalent to our own $3,000 had it been indexed, since our legislation was brought in some 20 years ago. In our case, no one has ever suggested increasing the maximum or even raised the issue. The maximum seems adequate to me, in Quebec at least, since individuals seldom reach it. Once again, barely 0.8 per cent of electors contribute that much.

[English]

    Mr. Ted White: Can I take it from your comments that you don't feel strongly either way about this? If the maximum were $100,000, do you think there'd probably be nobody who actually contributed that much?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: Once again, there have been no discussions around that issue. So we have to conclude that $100,000 seems to be an adequate maximum in Quebec.

[English]

    Mr. Ted White: Moving on to another question, I assume that you've done some comparison between the Quebec act and Bill C-24? Have you compared the two acts?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: Briefly, yes. We have not done a detailed study, but we have obviously noticed certain differences, in particular where the level of contributions is concerned. As I mentioned earlier, only individuals can contribute in Quebec, whereas Bill C-24 allows unions and corporations to contribute up to $1,000. That is an important difference between this bill and the Quebec law.

[English]

    Mr. Ted White: Aside from that difference you identified, are there any areas in Bill C-24, based on your experience, that you feel could be problematic to implement in a permanent act?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: The other measures are similar, even though they are slightly different from what we have in Quebec. The amounts may be somewhat different, but that is the major distinction.

    There is one thing in Bill C-24 that we do not have in Quebec, which is control over leadership campaigns. We do not have that in Quebec. That said, we have never actually had problems concerning leadership campaigns. In fact, we have had very few leadership campaigns in Quebec. So that is something that my team and I will be watching carefully, that is, your work on this part of Bill C-24, which is something that is not included in the Quebec legislation.

[English]

    Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

    During your presentation, you indicated that you'd like to see the Quebec act amended to clearly indicate the legal responsibilities of the parties, so that they could ensure their representatives obeyed the law.

    Can you give me some examples of ways in which the representatives have not been obeying the law in Quebec?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: There is no evidence as such that representatives have not been obeying the law, but it may be too easy for a political party to distance itself from illegal actions that could have been done by people in the party with respect to soliciting for financing, etc. So we decided that it might be a good idea to align the municipal and provincial laws in this regard in Quebec, so that parties realize that they have a duty to ensure that their representatives act in accordance with the law. Once again, it should be made clear that people are not necessarily acting in bad faith. These things often happen by mistake or out of ignorance of the law.

    If Parliament ever passes this bill, I would advise you to ensure that it is well-publicized and that the rules are explained. It is much better, in the long run, to have the rules known and understood than to go after people later and lower the boom on those that break the law, sometimes in good faith. So that is the message that I wanted to leave you with.

    In Quebec, there was a great deal of publicity about the new law when it came into force in 1978. Later on, of course, we took for granted that people knew the rules. But I can assure you that it is extremely important to give regular reminders about the rules, which are not very complicated, but people need to know them if we want them obeyed.

    I obviously count on the political parties to help me enforce this legislation. So it's a little bit like any other facet of society: people need to become more civilized and disciplined in this area. People in Quebec are open to this, since it is in the tradition of political parties there, and I think that it will work.

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Jacques Saada, Michel Guimond...

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

    Just to be consistent with my last fit of pique about the distribution of documents available only in English, I should ask our witness if his document is only in French, or in French and English.

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: The action plan?

    Mr. Michel Guimond: No, the notes that you want to leave with us.

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: My notes are in French only.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: In that case, Mr. Chairman, in order to be consistent—and I think that consistency confers credibility—I would ask the witness to keep his documents over there on the corner, and that we take a copy of all the documents, which the clerk will distribute to us later in both languages. I hate to do that, since this is an important witness from Quebec, but I simply want to show that I am consistent and have a good memory, and that I did not get upset the other time for no reason.

    The Chair: Michel, I also learned something from our discussion last time and I noted that the witnesses said that they were leaving their documents over there because they were only in French.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, but remember what I said. I do not want the witnesses to leave documents there so that colleagues can pick up copies in English, which is not fair to me. That is not the way things should work. When a witness has a document in only one language, he should give it to the clerk, who will distribute it to everyone in both languages.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Michel, you are always right.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, you are too flattering.

    The Chair: Jacques Saada.

    Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I think you are going a bit overboard. I have a great deal of respect for you, but still.

    Mr. Blanchet and Mr. Soares, thank you very much for appearing before us today. I have three questions for you.

    Did I understand correctly that only voters can contribute to political party financing in Quebec?

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: That is right; only the voters who are on the Chief Electoral Officer's voters' list.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Very well. Thus, non-voters cannot contribute funds to political campaigns.

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: That is right.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Do you not feel that it is crucial for the integration of new landed immigrants in Canada to participate in political life, and, consequently, to contribute to their own future by donating funds to political parties?

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: This is more of a political issue. You may have noticed that according to Quebec law, only those voters who are registered on the voters' list can vote. This law is very strictly enforced. But to answer your question, there could, as a matter of fact, be a political issue when it comes to allowing contributions from non-voting private individuals. I cannot answer this question for you. This issue might eventually be debated at the National Assembly, and lead to an amendment to the act. But this is not happening now.

    Let me make a comment regarding the discussion you just had. Both of the other documents I mentioned are also available in English in Quebec.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand your answer very well. Let me tell you that I, for one, find this crucial... In any case, within our mandate regarding the Canada Elections Act, for me it is paramount that anyone residing in Canada as a landed immigrant should be able to contribute to political activities, in the same way that they can join a political party.

    Maybe this is in your document, but have you any study that shows how contributions have evolved over the years?

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: We certainly do.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: There is a very simple reason for my question. All too often, the entire issue of financial contributions is linked to the growing cynicism of the population with regard to politics. To me, this link is not all that obvious. This is why I would very much like to see that graph, especially given the fact that the decreasing participation is linked to this growing cynicism. Basically, we want to know whether the issue of funding political parties has any direct impact on the level of participation.

    Let me put my last question, because I know that I will be cut off before it is finished. You are not as likely to get cut off as I am.

    Bill C-24 contains anti-avoidance provisions, such as 405.2 and the ones following, whereby one cannot do indirectly the things that the legislation does not allow one to do directly, which is, of course, logical. I believe that there are no such provisions in the Quebec legislation.

    Have you read these provisions, and do you find them sufficient and adequate?

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: As for your question about the connection between participation levels and funding, I really do not think that there is any connection between the two.

    Yes, in the electoral study of which you can get a copy, this background is fully described. There you will find all kinds of information about how funding levels have evolved in Quebec. Do not hesitate to get in touch with us for more details. Mr. Soares has a great many files on that matter; they will certainly provide you with more information than I could give you this morning. So I invite you to get in touch with us for more details, if you feel the need. But there is really no connection.

    During the most recent provincial elections in Quebec in April, you noticed that there was an 8 per cent decrease in the participation level. Now, what is this due to? There are various factors. It may have seemed that up to this year, Quebec had not been affected by the decrease in participation which occurred in many large modern democratic states. Let us note that the same also happened in the federal elections in the year 2000. I think that we must work on this, but I do not believe that there is any connection between funding and decreasing participation.

    With regard to the anti-avoidance provision, to use your term, I know that this provision exists in Bill C-24. Basically, it is a reminder that those who violate the act will be prosecuted. This is interpreted as an implicit part of the legislation. Offenders will be prosecuted. When there is evidence of an offence, the offenders will be prosecuted and sentenced. So we tried to see what this could contribute to our legislation. I am not making my decision about this today. We are studying this provision which you included in Bill C-24, to see how it could help us to enforce the act, but our immediate reaction is as I just described. Of course, any infringement of the act will give rise to criminal investigation, prosecution and enforcement.  

[English]

    The Chair: Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Blanchet and Mr. Soares, thank you for having taken the time to meet with us. We know that general elections were held in Quebec last April 14, and I think that you must be fairly busy, especially as you had to deal with a by-election, as well as some potential recounts and complaints. So first let me sincerely thank you for having found time to share your knowledge of Quebec electoral funding with us.

    As you know, we are currently redistributing federal electoral districts following the 2001 decennial census. I know that the new electoral map was used in the elections held in Quebec last April 14. Would you describe for us the transitional mechanisms that were used for registering riding associations after the redistribution? Due to demographics, some Quebec ridings were abolished and others were created.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: If I understand your question, you want to know how the new electoral map, which was implemented during the elections held on last April 14, influenced political parties' organizations? Am I right?

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Riding associations have to be registered.

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: I will let Mr. Soares answer. There were adjustments. Boundaries were changed in 71 of the 125 ridings, but there were very few major adjustments. The island of Montreal now has two ridings less than before and these were replaced by a new riding on the south shore and another on the north shore of Montreal, but there were not many other changes. Perhaps Mr. Soares can provide some details.

    Mr. Octavio Soares (Assistant and Direstor of Political Party Financing, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Québec): The organization of associations was hardly affected. In fact, there were 125 associations and there are still 125 associations. The organizations and the associations whose riding was changed remain basically the same. The area of one riding that was eliminated now belongs to two ridings; so there are two associations on the former territory and therefore one must necessarily disappear. At the end of the day, it is a matter of transferring the books from one association to another. The impact in terms of the financing act is very minimal.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. White broached a topic I would like to expand on. How can you ensure that corporations and unions do not bypass the ban on donations? I would like to know whether you have done any studies on that. You said there had been complaints. Could you send our clerk your 25^th anniversary report, the one that dates back to 1977? What can be documented?

    I was never elected to the National Assembly, but I worked in electoral organizations. There are all sorts of urban legends in Quebec on the way to get “corporate” financing. You go into an office with 10 accounting associates, you leave them 10 contribution forms and you go back half an hour later to collect 10 cheques of $3,000. Let's not hide our head in the sand, that is the story.

    I raise the point because it is worrisome. A major Canadian bank could have 40 vice-presidents, at its head office and in outlying areas, that could each write a personal cheque of $10,000, as is allowed under the bill, and it would be perfectly legal. How could you check the source of those funds? I would like to know whether there are mechanisms to ensure that that does not happen.

    The Chair: I would ask you to give a brief answer.

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: I will try. It is indeed a real problem. But you must remember, as you mentioned, that the said $3,000 comes from a personal bank account. The issuer of the cheque has the right to use his own money to make a political contribution for which he may get a tax receipt.

    In cases where we were able to detect some illegal manoeuvers, the employer generally gave a sum to the employee, on condition that it be given to a political party. In order to prove such violations, you need agreements with other departments, namely the Department of Revenue, as I said earlier. The $3,000 or the $10,000 that is “given” to an employee for him to give to a political party then becomes part of his taxable income. That is how they can get caught. The cases we were able to prove were those types of transactions. Our study does refer to that problem.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Will you send us your study?

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: Yes, it is available, as I said earlier.

[English]

    The Chair: Geoff Regan.

[Translation]

    Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the witnesses for coming here today. I would first like to discuss our bill. There are rules for the financial agents and some for the riding associations.

    In the bill, there are specific rules for riding associations, who must fill out a form every year, register, etc. What are the rules for the riding associations in Quebec?

    Mr. Octavio Soares: They are the same rules as for a political party. In fact, in Quebec, a political party has one association per riding. So it has 125 associations. It is similar to a company that would have 125 subsidiaries, and the same rules apply everywhere. In Quebec, a voter who wants to give $3,000 can give it to an association or a political party. It is the same thing. I think that Bill C-24 is different: an individual can make a donation to a political party, but a corporation can only give $1,000 to an association.

    In Quebec, the same rule applies in all cases. The 125 associations are an integral part of the party. Whether you give $3,000 to the association or to the party, the same rules apply.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: So there's no need for the riding associations to register.

    Mr. Octavio Soares: The 125 associations must be registered and request authorization from the Chief Electoral Officer to solicit contributions in order to do so. Some parties in Quebec have that authorization for their 125 associations, but in other cases, only 7, 8 or 9 regional associations have that authorization. Every year, they must produce a financial report. The only difference is that the political party's financial report must be audited by an accounting firm, whereas the association must produce a financial report in accordance with the law, and the auditing is done by a member of the Chief Electoral Officer's staff.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Have you read the riding associations' obligations in the act? Are they the same as in Quebec? What differences do you see? Do you think they are necessary?

    Mr. Octavio Soares: Based on the quick review we did, there are differences between these two legislative measures. For example, the unions and companies cannot contribute to an association. However, we did not study which type of report was required. I cannot make any comparisons on that. It seems to me that based on what we read, a report must be filed, just like in Quebec. I think that it is the same in that regard. Some rules are different. Under Bill C-24, an individual can make a donation to a party or an association, but a corporation or a union can only make a donation to an association, and not to a party. It therefore seems that we have the same rules. As for transparency, I think the act provides for what is already in existence in Quebec.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Some witnesses suggested that the amount paid by the government to political parties should be based on surveys. What do you think of that idea?

    Mr. Octavio Soares: In Quebec, there have been various proposals on how to determine the payment amount. There is a difference between Bill C-24 and the Quebec Electoral Act in that regard. In Quebec, a political party is entitled to an amount stemming from those funds as soon as it has 0.005 per cent of the votes, unlike Bill C-24, which sets the minimum at 2 per cent.

    The Quebec legislation is apparently flawed. The new political parties would like to get the funding before their first general election. We haven't yet found a way to resolve that problem.

    We also looked at how that allowance should be calculated. We thought it should be partly based on the percentage of votes garnered and partly on other criteria. Examples of these other criteria could be the level of public contributions, but no decision has been made. However, the idea of using surveys was set aside.

[English]

    The Chair: Dick Proctor.

    Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you for the presentation. We've long admired the Quebec legislation. I think it's the prototype for what we have before us today.

    I was distracted when you were going over the public financing, Monsieur Blanchet. I thought I heard you say there was money for a party head office as well as for constituencies. Did I hear you correctly on that? Could somebody just go over that again for me?

[Translation]

    Mr. Octavio Soares: During his presentation, Mr. Blanchet said that an allowance is given to political parties. No money is given to the association, if I understood your question correctly. There is just one fund, as stipulated in Bill C-24, but there are not two levels.

[English]

    Mr. Dick Proctor: How much is the amount?

[Translation]

    Mr. Octavio Soares: Right now, it is 50¢ per voter.

[English]

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Is that based on the last election?

[Translation]

    Mr. Octavio Soares: Yes.

[English]

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Has it always been 50¢, or has that level been raised over the past 25 years?

[Translation]

    Mr. Octavio Soares: It was 25¢ per voter until 1994, which represented a total of approximately $1.2 million. In 1994, the amount was increased by 25¢ to 50¢. When the allowance paid to political parties doubled, it was decided that all political parties would also be reimbursed election expenses at the rate of 50¢ per voter, whereas prior to that, no such reimbursement existed. Those two measures were introduced at the same time.

Á  (1155)  

[English]

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Do you have a view on the $1.50? Does that seem high or about right?

[Translation]

    Mr. Octavio Soares: The advisory committee where the parties are represented has already discussed that matter. There was never any proposal, even by the advisory committee, to increase the allowance paid to parties by 50¢, because it was enough for the time being. However, the reimbursement for election expenses during the general election was increased. Despite that decision, that amount should be increased further. It is therefore difficult to say whether $1.50 is enough or not.

[English]

    Mr. Dick Proctor: One of the things we hear is that simply giving political parties $1.50 based on how they fared in the previous election amounts to a disjunction with the electorate, as there's less and less reason to go out and talk to the voters. I think Mr. Regan mentioned that somebody suggested we should do a poll, but I see more problems with that than successes. Others have suggested matching funds. In other words, if a political party goes out and recruits membership or does a financial drive, there would be public matching of that, public financing of that work. Do you have a view on that? Do you see merits or demerits in that proposition?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: It may be an incentive to get involved in political financing. I would suggest you study that idea carefully. Would the members of the National Assembly be open to that idea? They should be asked; I do not want to answer for them. But it is interesting.

[English]

    The Chair: Rodger Cuzner.

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): I want to bring up a couple of points that have been raised already to get a little more information.

    Following what Dick Proctor was asking, is there much concern with regard to the system you use now in identifying the amount of public support per party with reference to the past election's results? Is there a great deal of opposition? Do you people have much of a concern with the way it's being allocated now, using the past election's results for allocation of public funds?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: Not really. The discussions in Quebec over the past two or three years were not on that topic, but on the means to ensure the act is enforced. The rules in it as well as the constraints and compensations are not really the topic of discussion. The focus is more on the best ways to enforce the act. We also wonder whether there is widespread violation or whether there are just a few specific cases that were drawn to our attention.

    The study I had done focused on that. As I said in my presentation, it was not a matter of challenging the legislation and its principles, but of ensuring we had the tools required to enforce it. Quebec believes in its legislation and wants to keep it. Of course there are adjustments to be made, to the contributions for example, and there will no doubt be discussions that will follow upon those being held here. But the legislation was not questioned at all. We just want to ensure that it is enforced properly. Last fall, I had a discussion with members of the advisory committee and the minister responsible for the reform of democratic institutions. We were wondering whether corporate financing should be allowed, since rumour has it that they manage to make donations indirectly.

    The proof we have shows that there is compliance with the act, generally speaking, even if some people find ways around it, as is the case with any law. We are looking into that.

[English]

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Great.

    You indicated in your presentation that you believe greater links with departments like the Department of Revenue would allow you greater access to information that would be of help in tracking down people who contravene these particular laws. You also made the comment that you believe further increases in penalties would be a deterrent against contravention of the laws. Could you give us some indication of how many cases you would find in the wake of an election where people actually contravened the laws or went beyond the limits? How are they triggered? Are they triggered by spot audits, or are they claims by other candidates?

  (1200)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: During or after the recent general elections in Quebec, there were approximately 230 complaints about the financing rules. They were on matters such as advertising not being properly identified. Since it wasn't identified, it was not eligible as an electoral expense, which is partly reimbursable. So it was really those types of things, very minor ones.

    I would once again point out that the political parties in Quebec are now well disciplined when it comes to enforcing the rules on political financing. So even if there are occasional violations, I think that generally speaking, people abide by the act.

    During an election, the political parties monitor one another, and it must be the same thing at the federal level. When one party does something that seems illegal to the other, we are immediately contacted and asked to conduct an inquiry. So we have a team of investigators who go on site to meet the witnesses, prepare a file, if required, or make a recommendation to start legal proceedings. In Quebec, the situation is quite unusual, in that the Chief Electoral Officer himself initiates the legal proceedings before the civil courts. So it is a mechanism that has been in existence since the legislation came into force, and it works, as I have already said.

    As for fines, when a major union is likely to be fined an amount varying between $500 and $10,000 for contravening the act, one could think it might set aside $10,000 in its budget for that. I mentioned a union, but it could also be a company or a major firm. So there must be a way to discourage those players who want to tamper with the electoral process by financing one candidate or one party rather than another. But on that point, once again, a substantial increase in the fines might discourage those groups. That is really our opinion.

[English]

    The Chair: Rick Borotsik.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    As a clarification, the formula you have in Quebec, the 50¢ per voter, is the same formula that is identified in Bill C-24. The number of votes they've received in this past election multiplied by 50¢ will be the annual contribution to that party. Is that correct?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: The only reservation I would have is that Bill C-24 mentions a minimum. The parties must have reached a minimum threshold to be entitled to a reimbursement, whereas in Quebec, it is the electors who are taken into account. There are some very small parties in Quebec that receive very few votes, but that nonetheless receive some compensation.

[English]

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

    Do you have restrictions with nominations within the constituencies themselves? Does that $3,000 upper limit of personal contributions also apply to a nomination contribution?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: No, we don't have that in Quebec. That is a subtle difference I mentioned during my presentation. Quebec does not have rules on nominations, but it is something we will look at very closely, of course.

    Again, the problem in Quebec has never really presented itself. There are no leadership races. The last was in 1985, if I am not mistaken.

  (1205)  

[English]

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm not referring to leaderships, I'm talking about when you've got four people from the same party contesting a nomination to run for that party.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: No, we do not have any rules.

[English]

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: In Bill C-24 that's regulated. Not only is it regulated, but you must, as a nominee, file a document that says, these were the contributions to my nomination. You don't have anything like that in Quebec with nominations?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: No.

[English]

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: You've administered this quite successfully. Would it be difficult for you to administer if it were put into your legislation?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: A way would be found to do it.

[English]

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: If you had to do it, would you consider that there could be limits, so if a candidate wanted to seek the nomination and spent less than a certain level, they wouldn't have to submit their financial statements? This is something we have to talk about at this table. Is there any number, is there any special limit?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: I, for one, think there ought to be limits. We have to make sure that everyone is treated the same way and it's up to them to campaign hard enough to sell themselves. So I don't think that we should reward those who make less of an effort.

[English]

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: True. With some nominations, it's a limited amount that we spend.

    I'm interested in gifts in kind. When you're running a campaign, there are sometimes corporate gifts in kind, automobiles, office space, or something of that nature. Because you have no corporate contributions available at all within your legislation, do gifts in kind pose any problem with regulation in your legislation?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: What's being taken into account is the cost of those goods or services. How much is a car worth? Normally, it's worth more than $3,000 unless it's an old jalopy. So it wouldn't be allowed.

[English]

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, I understand it wouldn't be allowed, but how do you regulate that? If there's office space, for example, given to a candidate, there has to be a real value placed on that, and it has to be paid for by the campaign. How do you investigate something like that?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: We're trying to find the market value or the nominal value of a good or service provided either to a candidate or a political party and that's the amount we use as being the contribution. If it exceeds those limits, we can prosecute and that is what we do.

[English]

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Your $3,000 potential campaign contribution can go to a party, a candidate, an association, or someone who is being nominated as a candidate. You don't have any controls on leadership, I understand, whereas we do in Bill C-24. What we don't allow in Bill C-24 is a corporate contribution, the $1,000, to a party. Do you anticipate that this is going to be a problem for us?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: You're talking about a control problem. In fact, it will be the enforcement of the law. That's a measure you consider as being valid because it's in the bill. Will it stay there or not? It's a choice that has to be made.

    As far as we're concerned, our philosophy in the matter of political financing in Quebec is to say that the parties should belong to the voters. We had a discussion before on who that voter is. It is a political choice. In our province, political parties belong to the electors and they are the ones who contribute, not the corporations. So if ever you go with the hypothesis of allowing corporate contributions, that will be the political choice made by the Parliament of Canada. In that case, it doesn't seem any more difficult to apply those rules to a corporation than to an individual. So it should be done the same way and I think it will be easy enough to do.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Rick, perhaps you could help me before I go to Ted. Gentlemen, we were hoping that your equivalents from Manitoba would be here at the same time as you, because their legislation is similar to yours, as you know, it's based on yours. We have heard expressions of concern about the way their legislation's played out. Rick, could you very briefly explain that? Then my question would be whether you have any comments on what Rick has to say now?

  (1210)  

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: The problem I understand our counterparts in Manitoba are encountering is that there is no public contribution component to their legislation. Where you have 50¢ per vote per annum, in Manitoba there's nothing. There is a complete ban on corporate and union donations. There's also a $3,000 limit on personal contributions. What they're finding is that without the public contribution, it's becoming very difficult to raise enough money for annual operating costs. If you had to counsel them, would you suggest that they look at a public contribution component to their legislation?

    The Chair: Feel free to answer. We would be grateful for any comments you have on that.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: When the legislation was passed in Quebec, we most certainly had that problem, and it was to allow progressive and easier implementation that the legislation provided for public funding. If Manitoba didn't do it, they probably thought they could manage to implement those rules without state involvement.

    You're saying that poses problems presently, because political parties have to substantially change their ways and mores. That was the case in Quebec. You had to have been there before 1977. Coming up with such rigid and strict rules of control overnight was hard. We managed to soften the problems with the public contribution. Could Manitoba use Quebec as an inspiration, or use the measures you come up with here, at the federal level, in that matter? I think there could be a very interesting debate in the Manitoba Parliament on that. But in our case, it's working.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci beaucoup.

    Ted White.

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

    I'd like to pursue a little further Mr. Guimond's example about walking into an accountancy firm and leaving the forms around for people to donate. That same principle could apply, for example, to a large law firm. Let's say there are 30 lawyers in a law firm, you could potentially walk in there and come out with $90,000. But let's use the example you gave of your average contribution, around $100. If 30 lawyers give $100 each, you've got $3,000. The average person would say it's really the law firm that's giving the money; each of those partners is giving $100, but the benefit for the law firm as a whole may be a government contract. You could look also at a small corporation, what we would know as a mom and pop corporation. I used to run one of those, and I often made my political donation with a corporate cheque, just because we didn't do the personal finances until year end. What's the difference whether I give it as a personal cheque or a corporate cheque? It reminds me a little of the ostrich with its head in the sand: we pretend it's not happening, but in fact, there are lots and lots of ways corporations can still donate and perhaps have an influence without it ever being evident, because it's not recorded as a corporate donation, it's recorded as an individual donation. Can you comment a little on that?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: I would say that is exactly the main problem in implementing those rules. How do you deal with it, how do you solve the problem? It's our links with other departments and organizations at the government level that will eventually allow us to do it, as I was saying before. That's why, at one point, we saw reaching agreements with the Department of Revenue as being a solution.

    There was actually a case where the employee of a company complained that the Department of Revenue was taxing the amount he had donated to a political party as being part of his income. Let's say that the employer had given him $3,000, and that became part of his taxable income that he had to pay income tax on. Once the money was in his pockets, if he wanted to give it to a political party and recover part of it as an income tax refund, that was his choice.

    Those are the rules of the game. Can we totally prevent that? Are corporations that interested in doing that sort of thing? All the more so since we are talking about small amounts, as I was saying, contributions of about $70 or $100 per voter; will corporations really start playing that game and generalize the practice? I'd be surprised. That hasn't been our experience in Quebec, in any case.

  (1215)  

[English]

    Mr. Ted White: Okay.

    I also have a question regarding contributions from individuals. My understanding is that the Quebec law requires that only voters give contributions. How is that policed? Does somebody check the name of every donor against eligibility to vote, or is it just taken on trust?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: You know, in Quebec we have what we call a standing voters' list. That is a list of all the electors in Quebec, and it is updated every week using different methods. So, in fact, the political parties that collect funds have to make sure that the voter contributing to the party is on that electoral list, otherwise the contribution is illegal. And, in fact, we audit that and if the voter is not on the list, then the contribution is illegal and has to be given back to the contributor.

[English]

    Mr. Ted White: I'm assuming you can't check everyone, that there must be some sort of auditing where you do a spot check?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: I will ask Mr. Soares, he is the one who is really responsible for enforcing that part of the act. He could tell you how he proceeds to make sure that it is honoured.

    Mr. Octavio Soares: Actually, we proceed through surveys. We do not check each and every case, but we do establish comparisons. That allows us to identify the borderline cases.

    I should also say that the political parties themselves have systems that allow them to carry out a validation. You have to establish whether the person is a voter and if the contribution exceeded $3,000. In some parties, say every two months, an amount is sent to the Chief Electoral Officer. He must then remit the funds to any donors who have exceeded the contribution limit or to those who are not voters.

    This is an ongoing process. In those cases, there is no prosecution unless the person is a two- or three-time repeat offender. In those cases, we inform the offenders and we send them a copy of the legal provision setting out the rules in that respect.

    Previously, in Quebec, contributions could be made either in cash or by cheque up to an amount of $200. A new provision was added to the act : since November, the parties may receive contributions by credit card or transfer of funds. The donor must give his consent to the Chief Electoral Officer so that we can obtain information from his financial institution to proceed with an audit.

[English]

    Mr. Ted White: There's the saying that birds of a feather flock together, and there's honour among thieves. Do you get the impression that there could be some collaboration among parties out there to avoid some of the rules and not report one another?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: I still believe that the parties are showing discipline in that respect and that they really respect the rules in their entirety.

[English]

    The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): One of the questions that's been raised in some discussions is whether in an election year there should be an opportunity for a double donation, the thinking being that the riding associations need money to run their affairs, but the candidate in an election year needs money specifically for a campaign. Do you have any provision at all for that?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: No, in Quebec, it is still the same maximum $3,000 per year. There are no particular provisions for an election year.

  (1220)  

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: So they consider that the contributions paid to the local association are available for the candidates at election time.

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: These are gifts to political parties or to independent candidates; they must be limited to $3,000 per voter. This amount can be given to several different parties: $3,000 to one and $3,000 to another, but the $3,000 limit must be respected.

[English]

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay.

    Do you have this issue that's also been raised of associations that are affiliated both federally and provincially? As one concrete example, there's a women's Liberal association in Nepean, my riding, and they're active both federally and provincially. How would they sort out living with rules that affect federal giving and provincial giving?

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: Once again, I do not think there can really be any confusion. If those people are voters in Quebec, they can make a contribution not exceeding $3,000 from their own funds. We do not check as to whether they are contributing to a federal party or any other party. It is $3,000 per party. Our responsibility is to ensure that in no case shall the contribution made by a voter exceed $3,000 per party or per independent candidate.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: May the association receive contributions directly as is the case for the Liberal Association in Ontario?

    Mr. Octavio Soares: No, you can't do that in Quebec. There were some cases like that, but we set the record straight. It was clearly established between the parties that in Quebec a political party may not receive funds from a federal counterpart, for example. On the other hand, a Quebec party could do it; its expenditures are not controlled, as such.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, my other questions had to do with nominations and contributions from unions. Those questions have already been asked and answered.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Marlene.

[Translation]

    Michel Guimond and Dick Proctor. Then, we shall adjourn.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Blanchet, when the decision was made to invite you—I agreed with it—I suggested that we go a bit further and invite representatives of the Chief Electoral Officer, such as yourselves, but also representatives from the ranks of the elected members from the three parties sitting at the National Assembly, as well as some chief officers of those parties. We could have set up a sort of a round table together with people like you, who are the guardians of the law, and the people implementing this legislation on a daily basis.

    I know that our assistant clerk, Mr. Bourgault, tried to do this but was not successful. We are in a post-election context and many elected officials would like to take a week or two off. I don't know if we'll have any time to do this before the bill is passed by the committee.

    Are you still sure that this would be a good idea? Could we make a bit more of an effort? There might perhaps be names and phone numbers you could suggest, and that would help things along.

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: I strongly suggest you do it. I, for one, have given you the viewpoint of the Chief Electoral Officer on the implementation of this legislation; I told you about our perception and the studies we've carried out on this matter and, by the way, they are at your disposal.

    As for getting the point of view of those the law applies to, those who must respect those financing rules, it would certainly be quite edifying for your committee.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Second, in your presentation, you referred—I wrote this down fast and the handwriting is so bad I just can't read myself—to an amount of 62¢ and to another one of $1.04. Do those amounts represent the expenditures the candidate and the party can make?

  (1225)  

    Mr. Octavio Soares: The amount is now 64¢; it is indexed every year.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: What is the logic behind those amounts? Why 64¢ rather than 74¢ or 58¢? What reasoning was used when the legislation was enacted?

    Mr. Octavio Soares: All I can tell you is that it goes back to the enactment of the legislation. The amount was 70¢ and it became 80¢ as of 1988-89. The 80¢ amount was not indexed. For the party, the amount was 25¢. At some point, because of the increase in expenditures and so on, the parties agreed it was not enough. So the amount went from 25¢ to 50¢.

    The 80¢ amount became $1 because of the common expenditures incurred by the candidates and the parties. They then decided to proceed with a 30 per cent increase and raise the cap. The discussions in that respect were always based on the expenditures. Now, indexation has become necessary and it still relates to the increase in costs.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Forgive me for having left a few moments ago, but as whip I had to deal with something urgent.

    Mr. Chairman, has the question about returning officers appointed in all the ridings been asked?

    The Chair: No.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Kingsley, with whom you are in close touch, is somewhat envious of the provisions in the Quebec legislation. I'm quite sure of this, because he listens to us very carefully. Even though he is not here today himself, his spirit is certainly hovering over the committee table.

[English]

    The Chair: There's no doubt about that.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Kingsley has said repeatedly that he would like to have some aspects of our Quebec system. He likes the selection process, the notices posted, and the provisions for reviewing the abilities of returning officers in every riding.

    With the current system, we have patronage, pure and simple—and I am not mincing words here—things are left up to the governor in council. Sometimes the people appointed are perfectly competent, but sometimes they are given the position as a political reward, and we end up dealing with incompetents.

    What can you tell us in praise of the Quebec system? I am quite certain that you are much too diplomatic to attack the government, but unfortunately, the government has turned a deaf ear to our demands and wants to keep its power of appointment, its patronage power.

    The Chair: You have about one minute.

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: Indeed, Mr. Kingsley—whom I see regularly—has told me that he approves of our method of recruiting returning officers.

    Our method has the advantage of giving us the best possible people for the job. We organize public competitions, the same kind of competition arranged to hire government employees. The competition is very stringent, and has three stages: an examination of the candidate's file, a written exam, and an interview to ensure that the best candidates are selected. We require absolute political neutrality, and the three stages of the competition give us an opportunity to ensure that candidates are in fact politically neutral.

    In areas like these, we must not only be independent but also appear to be independent. Perception is frequently very important. Our process makes it possible for us to be and to appear independent. It also makes it possible for us to train returning officers. They are appointed for a term of 10 years, as employees of the Chief Electoral Officer, and thus receive very rigorous training which is extensive and repeated in an ongoing fashion. As you can understand, having returning officers selected in this fashion, having almost absolute control over their duties, and ensuring that the electoral process is thereby simplified is very helpful indeed. We appreciate our system enormously.

    In 2000, Manitoba adopted a similar system. Obviously, Mr. Kingsley would like to do the same.

[English]

    The Chair: Dick Proctor.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

    I was interested, Monsieur Blanchet, in the fact that you don't have a threshold for the smaller parties. In other words, if there's a registered party, they qualify, regardless of how few votes they've received in the last election. How many registered parties are there in Quebec, and has the number grown significantly over the past 25 years?

  (1230)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: When the writ was dropped for the general elections on April 14, there were 14 registered parties. Now, there are nine. Five disappeared because they could not field enough candidates to be recognized as parties. As for your question on whether the number of political parties has grown in the past 25 years, I don't have the answer to that; Mr. Soares, who has been there longer than I have, may be able to answer.

    Mr. Octavio Soares: The number has grown by 20 or 21.

[English]

    Mr. Dick Proctor: And how many candidates do they have to field in order to be recognized?

[Translation]

    Mr. Octavio Soares: Twenty candidates.

[English]

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay.

    The other matter is limits on third-party involvement in election campaigns. Could you please explain what rules exist in Quebec? Specifically, François Côté was sitting where Monsieur Blanchet is earlier this week and was recounting a difficulty that came up in the last election where one of the political parties-- I think it was the ADQ-- said something against the labour movement in Quebec, the labour movement attempted to respond, and that was ruled to be against the Quebec election law. I wonder if you can explain the third party situation in Quebec and perhaps outline what your feeling was on that specific charge.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Blanchet: Third-party involvement is now also regulated under the act. However, there is a fairly low cap on what a third party can spend, and the cap is set at $300. Moreover, third parties cannot be companies or unions, but solely individuals. One condition is that third parties neither work for nor against the parties. They can have an option quite different from that of the registered political parties, and must not promote one particular party. Thus, if they promote a party through their statements or through low-cost advertising, they would be violating the act. That can happen, and we have to watch them closely. There is very little registered third-party involvement, because third parties also have to be authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer. We have had very few cases—four, if I remember correctly, during the last general elections. There was some discussion, and you will understand that third parties are examined very closely by the political parties; they do not constitute a major problem. I don't know what else Mr. Côté might have said on this, but in my view nothing very drastic happened.

[English]

    Mr. Dick Proctor: The matter has come up in this committee of volunteers in fundraising. I assume that volunteers go out and raise money for political parties and under the Quebec legislation that would have to be filed with your organization. If that assumption is correct, have there been problems with that? Is it fairly routine, is it difficult to do? The suggestion is that it is too complicated for volunteers to manage, with all the filing that will be required. What happens in Quebec?

[Translation]

    Mr. Octavio Soares: There have been no problems with that. I don't see any problem, even in Quebec. The system is quite simple. When we authorize a party or an association, there is always an official representative, and that official representative is responsible for contributions. The official representative must issue a certificate for the fundraiser.

    The candidate cannot raise funds without that certificate. So that is how the system works, with the official representative administering everything. We don't even see that here, except when there is an investigation or an audit, and then the certificates have to be produced.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

    The Chair: Colleagues, I would like to thank our witnesses today—Mr. Blanchet, Quebec Chief Electoral Officer and Chairman of the Commission de la représentation électorale.

    Marcel, thank you very much.

    I would also like to thank Octavio Soares, Assistant and Director of Political Party Funding.

    Octavio, thank you.

    Gentlemen, your testimony has been very useful to us. We are very grateful to you for having come here today.

  (1235)  

[English]

    We continue with consideration of the provinces, Quebec, Manitoba, and Ontario, next Wednesday evening, but our next meeting is the round table for members, which will be in this room at 5:30 on Tuesday. I would urge you all, if you've not already done so, to mention that to our colleagues. They have received notice earlier this week, they're going to receive renewed notice today, and we hope there will be a good turn out of members of Parliament.

    The meeting is adjourned.