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 3, 1999

• 1544

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. I see a quorum, colleagues. We're continuing our study of the Canada Elections Act, Bill C-2.

• 1545

The first thing I have to do is apologize for delaying the start of the committee. I was unavoidably detained in the House on some matters I found impossible to delegate. I'll have to search for ways to prevent this from happening again. My apologies to the witnesses and to colleagues.

We have with us here today important witnesses from parties in Canada that are registered parties but that do not otherwise have representation in the House of Commons. We have the Green Party of Canada, the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, and the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada.

If we have a full house, then we'll proceed as we did yesterday and ask each of the parties to make a submission, which I would ask you to keep to ten minutes, with some flexibility, but ten minutes would be our target, and it should be yours. After each of the submissions is completed, we will go through a round of questions with members here on the committee. If that's agreeable, we'll proceed.

I'll follow the list of parties as they are shown on the list here. If anyone is curious about the order in the list, the clerk can speak to that later. In any event, I'll simply take the order that is here.

We'll start with the Green Party of Canada. I see Mr. Julian West. If there's someone else with you, you may wish to introduce that person. If there isn't, please proceed.

Mr. Julian West (Green Party of Canada): With respect to the chair, I'd suggest perhaps the Christian Heritage Party might like to begin, because that's the way we thought it was going to happen.

The Chair: Okay. If colleagues have no objections, then that would be satisfactory.

Mr. Ron Gray from the Christian Heritage Party.

Mr. Ron Gray (National Leader, Christian Heritage Party of Canada): Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee.

Four of the five smaller registered federal parties have expressed some common concerns about Bill C-2, and three of them are here today. Others could not come, but the Canada Action Party has sent a message, which I'll read to you later.

When the minister stated recently that Canada's democracy is the envy of the world, serious students of political science must have gagged. In truth, Canada's so-called democracy has degenerated almost into an imperial oligarchy, and most of the world knows it.

Many of our problems, such as the accretion of power into the hands of one man, are not capable of rectification within the purview of this bill, but three egregious faults can be addressed here. So on behalf of the Christian Heritage Party, I want to bring to your attention some serious deficiencies in Bill C-2.

The first is the need for proportional representation.

The second is the continued improper use of the power of elected office to perpetuate office-holders in power. This second concern has two main components. One is the allocation of tax moneys to pay half of the election expenses of political candidates and 22.5% of the election expenses of parties if they win 15% or more of the popular vote. The second is the unequal allocation of free broadcast time.

Let me address first the issue of proportional representation.

Canada and the United States are now the only industrial democracies that have not yet begun to take steps toward incorporating some form of proportionality into their electoral systems. Even the U.K. now has proportional representation in elections for its representatives to the European Parliament, the Northern Ireland and Wales Assemblies, and the new Scottish Parliament. And Prime Minister Blair has talked about introducing proportional representation into the mother of Parliaments.

In June of last year, an editorial in the Globe and Mail reminded Prime Minister Chrétien that in 1985 he said, “If ever I am Prime Minister, the first thing I will do is introduce proportional representation.” Clearly at that time the Prime Minister recognized the virtues of proportional representation.

In the last election, the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Party earned approximately the same number of votes, but one got three times as many seats as the other.

• 1550

Because only 38% of the voters in 1997 cast ballots for the present governing party, it is as though we had taken the other 62% of the ballots and destroyed them, saying those Canadians' votes don't count, because the party that got 38% has 100% of the effective power in the House of Commons.

Therein lies a benefit offered by proportional representation—the capacity to ensure that virtually every voter will feel that his or her viewpoint has a voice in Parliament. In the 1997 election, one eligible voter in three stayed home, probably because many of them felt they couldn't have any real effect on the result. But there are other benefits, which perhaps explains why the rest of the world is moving to proportional representation.

For one thing, it tends to replace the adversarial nature of legislative debate with meaningful discussion and cooperation toward finding what would really be best for the nation. We were thus dismayed to find that Bill C-2 had made no moves at all toward this sorely needed electoral reform.

Now, there are many forms of proportional representation. We've agreed not to advocate any particular form at this time but simply to urge that Parliament consider the benefits of a system of proportional representation suited to Canada's needs, recognizing regional, linguistic, and other special needs.

At this point, if I may take a moment, I've been asked by the leader of the Canada Action Party, the Honourable Paul Hellyer, who's unable to be here, to read a statement on behalf of his party. It is a single sentence: “The Canada Action Party agrees with the Christian Heritage Party submission on proportional representation.”

The second point I want to raise concerns the abusive misuse of the power of office to perpetuate oneself in office. This has been a problem in Canada since the days of the infamous Family Compact. It is important to eradicate such abuses whenever they begin to appear.

Now, most of the present members of Parliament are innocent of this particular instance of corruption creeping into the electoral process—I believe it happened in 1974—but you who now sit in the House of Commons have a unique opportunity, with the presentation of Bill C-2, to do the right thing by correcting these abuses. Let me document some of them.

Perhaps the worst outrage is the use of taxpayers' money to supplement the future campaign funds of successful candidates—specifically, the provision in subclause 435(2), refunding 22.5% of the election expenses of parties above the threshold level; and clause 464, refunding 50% of the election expenses of a candidate who receives more than 15%.

Consider the effect of this legislation. At the conclusion of the election, every successful candidate receives a refund of half of the allowable expenses. In the current by-election in my riding, Hull—Aylmer, that's a sum equal to about $32,000. So when the next election is called, that candidate or party starts with the war chest half full. It's filled not with donations from supporters but with money taken from taxpayers through the coercive powers of the Income Tax Act.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that it is tyrannical to compel people to pay for the promulgation of ideas with which they do not agree. Jefferson was right. However, that is exactly what this legislation does. It compels taxpayers to support parties whose policies they may actively oppose.

May I point out to you that if that opposition is held on moral or religious grounds, this legislation violates those taxpayers' religious and freedom of conscience rights held under charter paragraph 2(a). In any case, it violates their rights to freedom of opinion and expression, as under paragraph 2(b). The compulsion of support may well be interpreted by courts as a violation of their rights under section 3. If Bill C-2 passes in its present form, you may certainly anticipate a charter challenge.

So many other parties represented here have their own ideas of how to redress this particular wrong. Let me outline for you the proposal raised by the CHP.

• 1555

Instead of this coerced support, if Parliament really believes the democratic process requires public funding, then let it be voluntary. For example, we propose that a box appear at the end of the income tax return, stating that, say, $10 of your tax return will be used to support the democratic political process in Canada, and here are the registered political parties to which you may allocate that $10. If no party is specified, your $10 will be used for the direct non-partisan operating costs of Elections Canada.

In this way, not one cent of any one taxpayer's money would go to any political party unless that taxpayer had specifically so designated it. Above all, public funding would not be used illegitimately to perpetuate the power of those already in power. You have the power, in the refining of this legislation, to correct an abuse of power that's as bad as was the old Family Compact.

Bill C-2 would also perpetuate another inequity under the old act, and that is the allocation of free broadcast time to parties in accordance with the number of seats each held in the previous House. The focus of that policy is wrong in two ways.

First, and most of all, it looks at how free broadcast time can be used to benefit the parties when it should look at how that time can be used to benefit the voters. A democracy requires an informed electorate. The purpose of free broadcast time is to ensure that the voters will have access to the information they need to make an informed choice, not to give one party an advantage over another.

I plead with you to set your eyes off of how the allocation of time serves the parties and to look at how it can best serve the electorate.

Second, in the time of an election, no party has any seats. All votes and all seats should be considered equally accessible to all parties. To allocate the lion's share of the time available to the party that held power in the previous House is, like the previous issue, an abuse of power to retain power, which is what I meant when I said “oligarchy”. It also, therefore, violates the citizens' and candidates' equality rights under the charter and is certain to provide another basis for a charter challenge if it's allowed to stand.

As a suggestion for an alternative formula, the CHP would recommend, for example, that national network time be divided equally among all the parties, and that regional or local time be allocated among the candidates in that region.

Let me reiterate that Bill C-2 gives the members of this Parliament an opportunity and a choice to either perpetuate 25 years of abuse of power and corruption or to step into Canadian history as the Parliament that finally put away such abuses and began the restoration of real democracy.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Gray. You were just about right on time. I thank you for that, and for your succinct delivery as well.

Mr. West, would you care to go next, then, from the Green Party of Canada.

Mr. Julian West (Green Party of Canada): Thank you.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Gray, for your comments. I note that Mr. Gray is currently his party's candidate in the riding of Hull-Aylmer, which is very close to here. We would, therefore, like to wish him good luck.

Mr. Ron Gray: Thank you.

Mr. Julian West: We hope that he will do well, perhaps coming in second after our excellent candidate Gail Walker.

[English]

On to my remarks.

Any hockey fan understands the way the NHL draft works every year. They give the teams that finish at the bottom—and in recent years, I have to say, that unfortunately includes the Vancouver Canucks—first choice in the draft the following year so that they'll have a chance to get some better players and they'll come up to a higher level. The league has an interest in doing this because it has an interest in maintaining overall a level playing field. You don't want one team winning every year.

In Canadian elections, we use the opposite system. The party that wins one year is then allowed to write all of the rules to suit itself for the next election and to create a set of rules under which it wants to play and that gives it an advantage over the other parties.

• 1600

The parties that lost do not get to set the rules, and in fact do not even get very much consultation in the process, because the suggestions we have for the committee are largely ignored. I'm speaking here not only about very small parties but even the larger opposition parties in the House of Commons.

It's true that the government attempts to give the impression that this is a non-partisan effort. All parties are consulted. We are told to submit briefs, appear before committees and so on. But I can tell you that our engagement with this process has been extremely unsatisfactory, to this point.

We were asked to submit a written brief two years ago. We limited our comments to six main areas and thought we spoke quite forcefully on each of those areas. We had points similar to the ones Mr. Gray was making. We felt certain things would not survive a charter challenge. In one case we have since been proven correct. We felt the 15% threshold for reimbursing candidates, where some candidates would get all of their deposits back and others would not, would be found unconstitutional; and it has been found unconstitutional. The government has accepted that and isn't appealing it, and it has gone into the legislation.

We were right about that, and we feel we're right about a good many other things in our report. We also feel our report is not being given very much weight. The few suggestions we made that survived to the committee stage were dismissed very quickly. People asked questions about them. For instance, we felt something should be done to give parties more access to the media and stop the press from saying things during election periods such as “All five party leaders were on the campaign trail today”. This perpetuates the notion among the electorate that there are only five parties and they have only five choices, when we know there are ten registered parties.

When we suggested this and it came up before this committee, somebody made the comment, “Is the Green Party opposed to a free press?” But this person had clearly not read our report. No other person at the committee said, “No. It's in their report. They say they support a free press, but they believe the government should take it into their own hands to make sure the electorate is informed.”

What we had suggested was not to muzzle the press but to simply send out a householder leaflet to all houses giving a one-page summary on each party, explaining their platform, and indicating to people what parties were contesting the election, so they would know their full range of options.

That's common practice in a number of other jurisdictions. I've brought a few examples along with me. This is what was sent out in the Quebec referendum by

[Translation]

the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec. It included the Yes and No, so that everybody would understand the significance of both Yes and No.

[English]

This one was sent out in Vancouver: “Vancouver Votes”. It told the electorate who the candidates were and what the ballot issues were.

That was our proposal. It wasn't even really discussed in the committee because we were not invited to appear in person, so members of the committee could not ask us to defend or support our positions.

Now we've finally been invited, but I live on Vancouver Island and I was asked on Thursday if I could be in Ottawa on Wednesday with a brief in both official languages. I've done it, but you can imagine that it was done quickly.

In their submission, the Christian Heritage Party has forwarded a three-point plan that all the small parties are united on. We support this completely. The three main points are: to make some forward motion on proportional representation; to make some change to the rules for media access; and to make some change in the structure of public financing of political parties.

In the matter of proportional representation, it's a very large change and we understand that the committee is not going to recommend that it be implemented before the next election. We don't believe it could be implemented before the next election. It's a further election cycle away. You have to educate the public, design a system that's appropriate to the country, and so on.

The opportunity to do that has been presented by a member of the NDP, Lorne Nystrom. He has a private member's bill that would create a royal commission—certainly a public commission—that would travel across the country, get the views of Canadians, find the best selection system for Canadians, and then put that to the people in a referendum. Then Canadians would not have a system they did not design and for which they did not vote.

• 1605

At present, no Canadians have had a say in the making of this system. It was designed for us in the United Kingdom in the 19th century, based on a system they had since the 15th century.

I see no possible objections to Mr. Nystrom's bill. I think it would be appropriate for this committee to signal that there is broad all-party support for moving forward on it. The bill should come up for vote and should generally just be endorsed.

On the second matter of media access, I suggest the minimum change that would be appropriate right now is to look at the legislation regarding the allocation of broadcast time during election periods. We have problems about media access between election periods as well, but during election periods there's a certain formula in statute for how many minutes of broadcast time—both free and paid—the parties get. We normally get three minutes, in the statutory approach.

This approach hasn't been used for years, if it was ever used, because there's a broadcast arbiter who every year allocates us more time than that. He has a modified formula and he's used the same formula since 1993. We have a series of meetings, the parties fail to agree, and the broadcast arbiter makes the same allocation year after year.

We suggest the committee should recognize that this is now the common practice. The modified approach of the arbiter has been used year after year and it should simply be moved into statute. Just say it is now the guaranteed floor for smaller states. What the broadcast arbiter uses, we will accept as the judicial formula.

Lastly—and I realize I only have a few minutes left—I turn to the most important issue, which is party financing. We'd like to see a complete change in the structure of party financing, along the lines proposed by Democracy Watch in their submission to you; by the Lortie commission; and by the Chief Electoral Officer in Strengthening the Foundation. They all agree that reimbursement should be based, not on how much money you can raise or how rich your donors are, but on how much support you have among Canadians. So financial support should be in proportion to the amount of support we have among the public. It should be reimbursed on an amount per vote, not per dollar we spend. That's what we'd like to see.

Again, that's a fundamental change. We think it might be realistic at this point to simply examine the 15% threshold for public funding. All of the candidates for large parties—that is to say all the Liberals except for nine—get 50% of their expenses back, as Mr. Gray pointed out. We get zero. We're only asking to get something in proportion to the amount of support we have. So I suggest we should look at that 15% number. Just as the courts have already thrown out the 15% threshold for return of the deposit, we should throw out the 15% threshold for refunds on expenses. If one is unconstitutional, surely the other is too. The same arguments apply.

What you do after that 15% goes is up to you. The Christian Heritage Party and I believe the Reform Party support the idea that no one should be reimbursed. In other words, the Green Party would get zero, but the Liberals wouldn't get the $6 million they take either. I can live with that. I'd rather see everybody get reimbursed.

I have some graphs we can refer to later, if people are interested, that suggest this would not to cost a lot of money. It would be a very small drain on the public purse and would simply level things so it would be fair. We're only asking to get what other parties are used to getting.

I would tell the minister that if he does something about the structure of public financing and simply eliminates that 15% threshold, he will have our support. It should be the minister's goal to have all the parties stand up and say they contributed something to this bill; it is non-partisan—and not only were they consulted and came to Ottawa to speak, but they were listened to. So we ask you to listen to us today.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you as well, Mr. West, for staying within the time bracket and providing a very succinct delivery.

Now we'll move to the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada. We have Ms. Di Carlo and Ms. Morten.

Ms. Anna Di Carlo (Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada): I'm representing the Communist Party of Canada, Marxist-Leninist, which during the elections, for electoral purposes, is registered as the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada.

• 1610

There are three main points I would like to present here today. First of all, Bill C-2 in its entirety should be rejected. I would like to explain why.

The second point I would like to make includes some proposals for immediate measures that should be taken on the current Canada Elections Act.

The third point I want to cover is a proposal for the drafting of a new electoral act—the democratic principles upon which it should be based, the democratic rights it should enshrine and enable, and how this should be brought about.

From the outset, I'd like to have it recorded in the minutes that the submission entitled “Review of the Canadian Electoral System and Canada's Elections” that was presented to the standing committee by Sandra Smith, our national leader, on January 28, 1998, still stands as our comprehensive proposal on the matter of a new electoral law that would modernize the electoral and political process in keeping with the requirements of a modern democracy.

What we are presenting today is in light of the developments since that time—in particular, the proposed new electoral law, Bill C-2, which we must point out is new in name only.

I'll start with point number one—why the entire bill should be rejected.

Mr. Chairman, we consider it completely unacceptable, and in terms of the responsibilities that fall upon national legislators, it is completely unconscionable that the drafting of a new electoral law has been carried out essentially preserving the old act. Preserving an old act when a review is necessary is not in itself objectionable. What is objectionable is that like the old act, the new one is in complete contempt of the principles of modern democracy. It continues to violate the rights of Canadians to elect and to be elected, and it infringes on the rights to freedom of conscience, association, and expression, the right of citizens to equality before and under the law, and the right of equal benefit and equal protection of the law. Many of these rights are protected by the charter.

As you know from our previous submission, our party is opposed to the domination of the political and electoral process by political parties and by the party system, and it considers it an anachronistic feature of the system that keeps citizens out of power and marginalizes them from the political process.

These hearings themselves, I would have to say, are testimony to the broad marginalization of Canadians. Who can really accept that questions so fundamental to the functioning of the polity as how the government is elected, how the agenda for the government is determined during the election campaigns, how candidates are selected, and matters related to the spending of money to influence political public opinion are left in the hands of a small number of political parties that represent less than 3% of the Canadian population. Even more so, it has to be said that in the end, it is the parties in the House of Commons, or more precisely the particular ruling party, that will make the decisions.

We aren't very heartened by various amendments that we've heard of. For example, we've heard that Minister Boudria is saying one of the amendments he would like to see is funding of political parties, providing them with extra funds, if they nominate women candidates. Leaving aside the patronizing and chauvinistic character of this kind of approach, the proposal is simply another measure toward elite accommodation. It has nothing to do with actually solving the problem of the marginalization of large numbers of Canadians.

The fundamental flaw, which remains intact in Bill C-2 of this unrepresentative democracy.... They all remain intact. For example, concessions that have been made in regard to the participation of other organizations and associations referred to as third parties only highlights the problems that have surfaced, because this electoral system is based on political parties dominating the electoral process. To suggest, for example, that allowing third parties to spend $3,000 up to a maximum of $150,000 is in some way going to resolve the issue of freedom of expression is really a dream. And the very moment that these limits are set, you can bet there will be more charter challenges by people who think these limits are not fair.

• 1615

It neither resolves the problems related to the court cases, nor resolves the matter of the role of money in the elections. To stick to this old notion that the financial, electoral, and political corruption, and the creation of a fair playing ground can be resolved simply by putting limits on spending is deeply flawed. It starts from the premise that all citizens have oodles of money that they can use to exercise their political rights, and that everything will be fair if restrictions are placed on the level of money that everyone can spend.

It goes back to a period of democracy when only men of property were franchised. Furthermore, we can immediately pose the question, how, for example, are all citizens being guaranteed equality before the law when political parties are entitled to spend more money than other organizations, and they are also entitled to issue tax receipts for tax credits when other organizations are not?

Let us leave aside for the moment the marginalization of citizens by the party-rule system. Even within the existing first-past-the-post, party-rule system, Bill C-2 fails to create a fair playing field during an election, as Julian West and Ron Gray have pointed out very articulately. I think I would just like to add my voice to the points they have made on these questions.

Reviewing Bill C-2 with all its details for the disclosure of finances, such as the amendments that require political parties to disclose their trust funds, etc., the only conclusion one can draw is that elections in Canada, and the electoral laws governing them, have more to do with money than the process of the members of the polity actually deliberating on the economic, social, political, and cultural affairs of the society, and collectively deciding the direction in which the society should go.

We really want to emphasize here that it is a dangerous game that is being played by the political parties in the House of Commons. To carry on thinking that such matters are not rooted in deep flaws in the system, and to act as though everything is just fine except for some so-called administrative and technical glitches, as Minister Boudria puts it, will lead to a very disastrous situation.

The political discontent and disaffection in Canada has never been higher, and the fact that the current party governing Canada was elected by a mere 38% of the voters is proof of this. There are many other aspects of the political crisis that I will not go into. I'll go on to point two.

What we are proposing is that Bill C-2 should be rejected, and that there be the following immediate amendments made to the Canada Elections Act.

First of all, the ruling issued by Justice Molloy should be implemented vis-à-vis the registration of political parties. This will resolve the problems of freedom of association and freedom of expression that were brought before the courts. In this regard, we would like to point out that it is very regrettable that the Liberal government has chosen to appeal Justice Molloy's ruling. It shows that the arguments she presented as to why she did not defer the matter back to the legislature are very true. She pointed out that there is no evidence that government reform is moving incrementally toward extending the benefits of party registration to more citizens and that “This is not an appropriate situation in which to defer a process of supposed government reform”.

The second amendment is that the violation of the principle of equality should be corrected by amending the provisions regarding the allocation of broadcasting time for political parties. It is truly remarkable that the argument of equity is used to justify the unequal allocation of time. How ironic it is that the political parties in the House of Commons choose to interpret equity, which is traditionally taken to be a body of law that corrects inequalities in the society, to mean that we should give preference to those who have the most power and privilege in the society.

Third, the violations of freedom of conscience and equality before the law, and of equal benefit and equal protection of the law should be corrected by an immediate end to the use of public funds to finance political parties. As long as the state finances some and not all political organizations, and some more than others, this violation of political rights remains.

Fourth, the proposal presented by Mr. Kingsley regarding putting an end to the partisan appointment of electoral officials should be implemented.

On the third matter, the amendments we are proposing here to correct the most gross violation of political and civil rights do not, of course, solve the problem of providing Canadians with a new electoral law that is in keeping with the demands of a modern democracy.

• 1620

What we propose on this matter is that the process immediately begin for the drafting of a new law. The new law must be based on principles that recognize the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians as outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It must ensure that it does not violate other human and civil rights, and that the individual and collective rights are harmonized with the general interests of society.

A broad consultation with citizens should take place to draft this new act, in order to ensure maximum citizen participation in working out its provisions. The electoral process must empower citizens, not political parties—which do not represent them—to govern the polity.

On this matter I think the issue of proportional representation is an immediate starting point in terms of what should be considered in the drafting of the new law. A lot of work has been done on this, and there are conditions to immediately proceed. The final decision, however, must be in the hands of the electors. They are the ones who should determine what kind of electoral law they want going into the 21st century.

As my final point on this—and I appreciate that I've gone beyond my time—I think it's extremely important that we go into the next millennium by strengthening democracy. Under the arguments that Canada is the best country in the world, that we have the most advanced democracy, and so on, if the flaws in the democratic process that are tending towards political reaction and party dictatorship are not only being preserved but strengthened, the political crisis is bound to deepen in Canada.

Nobody here is talking about throwing the baby out with the bath water, but to keep the bath water when it has become quite saturated with corruption, with dissatisfaction and with discontent is really to court disaster. To not even recognize the baby, let alone to help it, to give it the possibilities to grow and to become an adult, is bound to come back to haunt those who take such measures.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Colleagues, we'll now go to questions. I'll start with Mr. White for a round of five minutes, I'll go to Mr. Bergeron for five minutes, and then I'm going to flip to a government member for five minutes. I've been advised, however, that Mr. West has to leave at about five o'clock. The other witnesses can stay a bit longer, so I'm willing to allow any member to pre-empt and direct questions to Mr. West before his departure. That way he'll have ample opportunity to respond.

Yes, Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): On a point of clarification, Mr. Chair, I have a question of Mr. West and then of others. Perhaps if we are in agreement, if we have questions for Mr. West, maybe we should quickly do that round first, as quickly as it goes, and then move on to the other ones.

The Chair: Is that agreed? Yes? Okay, Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: I have a couple of quick questions for you, Mr. West. The first is on the idea that you put forward in terms of reimbursement. You said it should be on the basis of the amount of votes, a certain amount per vote, rather than being based on achieving a certain percentage and then getting a lump sum of 50%. Do you have a commitment from any one of the parties in the House to advance that as some sort of amendment to this act?

Secondly, you've mentioned another interesting idea, and that was the idea that an electoral body would send out a pamphlet or brochure to every household, listing the candidates and the issues. You used an example from Vancouver. We have fixed election dates for municipal elections, so we know when they're going to happen well in advance. That allows people to prepare that sort of documentation. We don't have fixed election dates in the case of federal elections, so we don't know when they will happen. We have very short election campaigns, and I'm not sure it could be managed. Would you tie that in to a fixed election date idea?

Those are my two questions.

Mr. Julian West: Those are both excellent questions, so I'll have to try to keep everything in my head as I answer.

Do I have a commitment from any party in the House of Commons? I never heard the per vote reimbursement plan being advanced by a party, but that could just be that I haven't looked in the right place. It's in the Lortie commission proposal, it's in Strengthening the Foundation. It is certainly common practice in many other countries. In Europe, this is the way most democracies proceed. I don't know about the case in New Zealand, but it certainly is in Australia as well.

• 1625

There is no question which parties would benefit the most. They're the ones that got a considerable number of votes but didn't get reimbursed. I would think the NDP would be one. I'm not necessarily expecting parties to advance it because of self-interest, but because it's a good idea. I'd be interested to hear from the parties on that, but I haven't.

On the question about fixed election dates, that hitch had not occurred to me. Of course, I just imagined that the parties might have their platforms drawn up and on file with the Chief Electoral Officer in advance, so that they could just simply be finalized during the writ. Since we have the voters list ready, that could be sent out more or less at a moment's notice. I would think the problem would be in compiling it.

But your quite right. The other jurisdictions that I've pointed to here do use fixed election dates, like a lot of states in the United States. The U.S. is another good example, because some states have this kind of thing. I wish I could find my example from California, because it's really excellent. It has candidates running for state-wide office and local office, and ballot initiatives. Of course, they do have fixed election dates.

My party favours fixed election dates. Like probably many parliamentarians, I have a fairly romantic attachment to the parliamentary system. It's what I grew up with, and there's much that I like about it. I always quite fancied the idea that the government could fall at any time. As an election junkie, that kept you on the edge of your seat. So I do like that, but now that I've been through a few elections while working for a smaller party, I feel the benefits of a fixed election date would just be enormous.

It's difficult to recruit candidates when we don't have the funds to support them or fund their campaigns. We don't support their offices, so we're basically asking for volunteers. When we go to people like those in Saskatchewan in order to try to recruit candidates, they ask what day the election is going to be, because they have to know about farming. We say we don't know when the election is going to be, because there are no fixed election dates.

So it's difficult to recruit candidates, it's difficult to plan, it's difficult to finance, rent office space, and all kinds of things when you don't know when the election is going to be. Fixed election dates would therefore be a big help for smaller parties. It's not something I've pushed on, but we would support it.

Mr. Ted White: I'm done with Mr. West, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Since reference has been made to the positions of the various parties on the issue, I would like to state that, like Mr. West, I feel it is important that the State encourage political participation by reimbursing the electoral expenditures incurred by political parties. The question we must now ask ourselves is how do we do this. Do we maintain the current formula whereby candidates who obtain 15% of the vote are reimbursed for 50% of their expenditures and parties who garner 15% of the vote are reimbursed for 22.5% of their expenditures, or should we opt instead for a formula such as the one you're suggesting? I want to make sure that I really understand the mechanism you are suggesting.

Does that mean that in each riding, the candidates would be reimbursed an amount that was tied to the percentage of votes that they obtained and that the political parties would be reimbursed for an amount that corresponded to the total percentage of votes that they would have garnered throughout Canada as a whole? Or would it be more than like an average per region? How would this work in terms of reimbursing political parties and reimbursing candidates in each of the ridings?

Mr. Julian West: We are currently talking about partial reimbursement according to the number of votes garnered. I haven't examined whether or not we should reimburse both the candidates and the parties. Perhaps one level should be reimbursed and it would be up to the parties to determine how the money should be divided.

[English]

I'm going to switch to English, because it will be faster.

I think of the situation in a country like Germany, for example, where they have this per-vote reimbursement. The thing is, because it's a proportional system, the most important vote in Germany is not your vote for the candidate but for the party list. I imagine there's no reimbursement for candidates at all in Germany, that everything is funnelled through central party finances.

In Canada, there's much more emphasis on votes for individuals in local ridings, so maybe it would make more sense to have a reimbursement at the local level as well. I can't see why you couldn't have it at both. Perhaps each candidate could get one dollar per vote, and then the party could get a second dollar that would be given into a national fund.

• 1630

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We currently use this formula. The candidates in the riding...

Mr. Julian West: Yes, yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: ... who garner at least 15% of the vote are reimbursed for 50% of their expenditures. At the national level, when they obtain at least 15% of the vote, the parties are reimbursed for 22.5% of their expenditures.

Mr. Julian West: As things stand now, the candidates must obtain 15% of the vote in their riding in order to qualify for a 50% reimbursement. At the national level, they must have obtained 2% of the national vote or 5% of the votes in all of the ridings where a candidate has run.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I see.

Mr. Julian West: In this case, it's 22.5%. It is possible to provide the two levels with more equitable reimbursement. We can continue to reimburse at these two levels.

[English]

Maybe I should talk a little bit longer about these reimbursement schemes that we've proposed. I'm very happy to talk to the member about this per vote reimbursement, because that's really our ultimate goal.

In my presentation I did concentrate on the idea of simply keeping the per dollar reimbursement that we have now. That's not too good for our party, because we spend very few dollars and we get quite a lot of votes. We actually get more votes per dollar than any other party.

At the stage we are at now in the progress of this law, they want to bring it into Parliament. I think it's more politically realistic, and that it's going to be more useful, to focus on things that would be fairly small changes and that I think the minister could see his way to doing. There could be some sympathy for saying that the Liberal Party takes 50% of its expenses and brings those back out of the public purse, and for asking why the Green Party shouldn't get 50% of its expenses instead of zero.

Actually, to put this in context, I could say the national press has been paying quite a lot of attention to this recent idea that instead of 22.5%, maybe it could be moved up to 30% if a party nominates enough women. Well, what's going to happen to us if we nominate enough women? If we have 301 candidates and 201 of those are women, are we going to be moved from 0 to 7.5%? It just shows how up in the clouds the government's thinking is. They're thinking about whether the governing party should be reimbursed 22.5% or 30%. These are nice questions, but there are still five parties that are being reimbursed nothing in the meantime.

Actually, it's very interesting that the Marxist-Leninists were opposed to this idea of extra dollars for nominating women. Their party actually did nominate the most women in percentage terms, at 37%, followed by the NDP at 35%, and us at 33%.

Am I supposed to be keeping this within five minutes for the member?

The Chair: We're being pretty flexible, given the logistics.

Mr. Julian West: You're pretty flexible? Okay.

I'll just call your attention to two charts that I included almost as an afterthought at the end of the submission. I think one makes my point quite graphically. I just took all the candidates and ranked them according to the amount of dollars they spent, from the one who got the highest percentage of the vote. The top 301 on the list are the people who got elected, and those further down are the people who didn't get elected.

You can see from this chart that the people who get elected spend a lot more than the people who don't. There are some blips. There are a few independent candidates who got 1% of the vote and spent $40,000, but they've been smoothed out by an averaging effect. But then you can see that it just tails off. These top people are the people who get their reimbursements, while the others are the people who don't. You're really taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

If you just look at the area under the graph, it tells you how many dollars you're talking about total. It shows the $16 million that are given back in candidate reimbursements now. There is also the $2 million extra that I'm talking about. And then there are tables that show how that money would be divided among the parties. They show that of the $2 million that I'm talking about, almost $1 million of it goes to the NDP and almost $1 million of it goes to the Conservative Party, because those are parties that are nominating a lot of candidates who are spending a lot of money but are getting under 15%. These people that we're talking about are major party candidates. Our candidates are way down here and are spending almost nothing.

• 1635

We're only asking for tens of thousands of dollars for our party; we're not asking for a million dollars. We're just saying that if the Liberal Party should get $6.6 million and the Reform Party $3 million, could we have $22,000, please? This is the kind of money we're talking about. That's the level of money that the bill is petty enough to withhold from us.

I have just one further comment. Some people don't like this idea that you could have candidates out there who spend $40,000, get 2% of the vote, and are then reimbursed $20,000. What are they going to do with it? They're never even going to run again, right?

To sort of forestall that, I look at this idea of putting a cap on it, so that people who get under 15% are still penalized in a certain way. They get 50% reimbursement, but they can't get that all the way up to the spending limit. They can spend up to the spending limit, but they can only be reimbursed up to a smaller amount. I suggest capping. For anyone under 5%, they can only get back $1,000; up to 10%, it would be $5,000; and up to 15%, it would be $10,000. If you do that, it means that instead of costing an extra $2.5 million, this costs us only a little more than half of that.

That's because you're just capping off those high-spending candidates from the big parties and the independents, and almost none of that cap actually comes into play for the smaller parties. It would mean that instead of this being an extra million dollars for the NDP and a million dollars for the Tories, it would be $500,000 for them, and we would still get our $20,000 or whatever it is we're asking for.

Those are my comments.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would like to make a brief comment, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank Mr. West for clarifying the percentage required in order to qualify for reimbursement at the national level. I don't think that I had quite understood it. I simply wanted to say that this idea of having the Chief Electoral Officer produce a small document to inform the people of the various options available is an interesting one.

Having said this, we would have to pay attention to ridings where not every party is running a candidate. Only those parties with candidates should be introduced by the Chief Electoral Officer. As you indicated very clearly, this is something that is already being done, more specifically by the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec. I think that it would be good to extend this practice to the rest of Canada.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you for your short comment.

Ms. Parrish, for just a short round with Mr. West.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I want to put something on the record. I don't want to be looked at as one of these big-spending Liberals, because just before the 1997 election—unbeknownst to me, the Prime Minister was going to call the election—I did a big fundraiser for cancer in my riding and I hit all my good donors. Then he calls the election on me. I sent one letter out to everybody and managed to collect about $13,000. I spent $16,000. I budgeted for what I had and didn't spend one cent more.

When the rebate came back, it went to my riding association. They have used it to further their own political interests by going to conventions and doing other things and subsidizing people in our riding who can't afford to do this.

I don't like the impression that all the Liberals, all the Conservatives, all the NDP, are these big spenders. We're not. Even if I had had more money, I wouldn't have spent it. It just wasn't in me to do it.

You keep saying you have a proportion of votes, that you get so many votes in the country, that these are people who really believe in the Green Party. More people have said to me when I was just talking to them and asking how they voted in the provincial election, for example, that they threw their vote away, that they voted for the guy that didn't belong to any party.

What do you do about that? We're going to be reimbursing the Green Party and the Marxist-Leninist Party for a whole bunch of people who really don't care if you're alive. They go in there and they just.... Their wife wants to vote passionately, the husband gets dragged along, and then he just checks off on the ballot a name that he likes. I mean, are you going to make them state their intentions when they go in? I don't know how you do this.

Your implication is that if there are x number of Green supporters out there, there should be x number of dollars going to the Green candidates. I really believe—and I don't want to call you peripheral parties—that a lot of you get a lot of your votes because people are ticked off at us or because they don't understand the issues, so they don't want to pick one of the standard parties and they just throw it away.

Mr. Julian West: Well, I don't know what to say to that. I mean—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I don't know what to say to a lot of the presentations here today, because I can't believe lobbyists...and that's what you are here today. You're here to help us make small changes to the bill.

By the way, I happen to agree with you on putting more money in for women candidates. I don't agree with that. It's tokenism.

• 1640

You're here to help us. Believe it or not, we do listen. One of you says it's a corrupt bill, one says to throw the whole thing out.... You were pretty sensible up to a few minutes ago. All three of you came in here attacking us: throw it out; you're all corrupt; you're doing a terrible job. How do you expect us to respond in a rational manner?

Mr. Julian West: When did I stop being sensible?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: A few minutes ago.

Mr. Julian West: Do you mean five minutes ago?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: You used the word “corrupt” again.

We're not corrupt. We're doing the best we can.

Mr. Julian West: With respect, I don't think I've used the word “corrupt”.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Well, one of you did.

All right, Julian, don't split words with me. You're getting more aggressive and you're implying that we're being unfair, that we're being nasty, and that you guys are being downtrodden and you're all pure and beautiful.

Mr. Julian West: I'm sorry if I'm coming across as aggressive, because my intention in coming here today was definitely to focus on a number of small changes to the statute which I thought were achievable. I think we can get support for those changes, and not just from the opposition benches, but from the government benches.

I'm really trying to work with you here, but with respect, we are downtrodden. We have this system that just cripples small parties. If that's not common knowledge to you, it just shows to what extent the issues of small parties are ignored.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: But the system in 1993 gave all the air time to the Tories, gave all the big bucks to the Tories, and gave the electoral officers to the Tories, and we wiped them out.

Mr. Julian West: They got 19% of the vote.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: But we still wiped them out.

Mr. Julian West: They only got two seats because the system doesn't reward 19% of the vote if it's spread across the country.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Nineteen percent is a pretty poor showing for having had all those advantages.

Mr. Julian West: Look, whether one party puts in a good or a bad showing on election day doesn't affect the fact that we as parties are just downtrodden. I'm just using your own word.

In 1974 there were four parties contesting the election. In 1993 there were 14. People start new parties and they grow. People try to nourish them and get them to be bigger parties. The Reform Party did this. They started out very small. By the 1988 election, they were up to 5% in Alberta, and in 1993, they were bigger and they grew.

We're trying to do that too, but the system pushes us down all the time. My evidence for this is that we've gone from having 14 parties in this country to having 10. Five of them have been deregistered because they can't comply with the Elections Act. They want to run in elections, but they can't even make it through the act to run in the election. So they may have supporters—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: If I may, Mr. Chairman...?

Using your own argument, the Reform Party had something that caught the imagination of a large number of people—I don't happen to agree with it—and they didn't have to be nurtured. They didn't have to be artificially watered and fed. They actually caught the imagination of the voting public and we're here contending with them.

Mr. Julian West: Yes.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: They grew very rapidly not because the Election Act made it possible; they grew rapidly because they found a spark out there and people were interested. If you don't have that spark, you're not going to get a lot of people following you.

Mr. Julian West: Okay, but remember, I'm not asking for an artificial leg up to put me into the public view until that breakthrough happens. All I'm asking is that you stop pushing the other way, that you give us the same advantages that you're voting for yourselves.

You're writing an act that says the Liberal Party should get this much money and the Green Party should get that much money, and you're giving yourselves more per vote, by every measure, than you're giving us.

I'm just astonished by this suggestion that you can't reward parties for how many votes they get because people might go into the voting booth and vote for a party they don't support. We assume that if somebody votes for us, they're offering us support. Otherwise, why have an election? I'm just surprised I heard this coming from you at all, because it suggests a complete disrespect for the electoral process to suggest that the electors don't really care who they give their votes to.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'm not saying “all the electors”. I'm saying “some electors”, and I'm saying we don't reward—

Mr. Julian West: And I would put it to you that there are a significant number of electors who voted for the Liberal Party who didn't really support the Liberal Party but just wanted to stop one of the other parties from getting in. People vote strategically. I wish I had a dollar, let's say, for every elector I talk to who says “I support the Green Party, but I don't vote for you”.

• 1645

In the British Columbia election in 1996, we did a canvass of our own members, people who gave money to the party, and 50% of them told us they were going to vote for a different party on election day, because if they voted for us, that would have some effect, but it would not help to elect anybody, and they were going to use their votes strategically.

So I would suggest to you that far more votes from people who support our platform are being dragged away from us by the system than votes from people who don't really support us are coming to us by chance—far, far more.

Perhaps if voters knew, as they do in Germany or Holland or any European country you'd care to name, that if they vote for that party and it doesn't elect somebody, at least that party will get $5, let's say $1 a year over the course of the Parliament.... That's what they do in Quebec, by the way.

[Translation]

That is the case in Quebec and New Brunswick, where I believe they are reimbursed on a per vote basis.

[English]

If voters knew they could give some physical support to their party of choice by voting for them, perhaps more Green people would go in there and say “I'm voting for the Green Party. My vote won't help elect them, but they'll at least get the $5.”

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Di Carlo indicated she wanted to make a short intervention, and then I want to go to Mr. Solomon for questions.

Ms. Di Carlo.

Ms. Anna Di Carlo: I just wanted to present my views on this whole discussion that has arisen here.

First of all, I'm also very shocked that you could make this kind of statement—not that you're making the statement, because to tell you quite honestly—

The Chair: I have a fear that this is going to turn into a back-and-forth debate.

Ms. Anna Di Carlo: No, it's not an argument.

The Chair: If you're prepared, I would like you to make a short submission in relation to something Mr. West said, and I'd like you to do it through the chair. Otherwise we'll go to Mr. Solomon for questions.

You will have ample opportunity to make your case.

Ms. Anna Di Carlo: I'm sorry; you're saying I should say something about what Mr. West said?

The Chair: I thought you did have something.

Mr. Julian West: I'll be 15 minutes, and then you can have a chance.

Ms. Anna Di Carlo: Oh, I'm sorry. That's fine.

Mr. Julian West: I have to catch a flight.

Ms. Anna Di Carlo: Of course; no problem.

The Chair: But I promise I will allow you ample time to take up issues that have come up here.

Mr. Solomon then for a round.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Thanks very much.

First of all, let me say, Mr. West and your colleagues, your presentations were very important to me and very important to my party as well. We have had a history in the New Democratic Party of not being the largest party in the House of Commons, and it's always very challenging for us to be marketing philosophy in very small numbers across the country with very limited resources.

I believe your presentation, Mr. West, is based on fairness.

To address Carolyn Parrish's comments a bit, part of the reason we're having lower and lower turnout every election is that Canadians are becoming dissatisfied with what's being offered to them. It's not that there are other particular parties they may be attracted to, but they're very dissatisfied with the status quo. That's why the Reform Party was born. That's not news to anybody; that's just a historical fact.

If we're going to be making significant changes in the Canada Elections Act—that is, we're rewriting it, basically, for the first time since 1972, I believe—then maybe we should make some significant changes that reflect the reality and some of the challenges we all have as parliamentarians. One of those challenges is how to get more people involved in the electoral system. How do we get more people to believe the electoral system and Parliament have some relevance in this new age of declining perception of relevance?

So I like many of the things you've put forward here, not because I personally have promoted them or my party colleagues have promoted them or the party has promoted them, but because they do provide an opportunity for more fairness in the system.

I had two questions. One related to the financial implications and the graphs, which were already tabled. I appreciate that. I would appreciate as well, Mr. West, if you could perhaps at a later date give us in writing, through the clerk, some numbers as to what those graphs mean and maybe a copy of the graph.

Mr. Julian West: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. John Solomon: Do we have graphs here? I don't have a copy.

A voice: It's on the last page.

Mr. John Solomon: Oh, yes, I do. I'm sorry. It's at the back. Okay, that question was addressed.

The other question I had was this. I would appreciate receiving from you how you would envisage the broadcasting issue. What would you propose as an equal opportunity during the course of an election campaign?

• 1650

Mr. Julian West: There's quite a lot in there for me to pick up on. Let me see if I can get all of it.

First, you say we shouldn't be afraid to make big changes in the legislation, because it's something we're doing once every 30 years. I totally agree with you. I think there should have been a much deeper overhaul of the Elections Act than there actually has been. I also think realistically the government is determined to see this in place in time for an early election in case that eventuality arises. So I'm trying to focus in on things I think the government may actually agree won't delay the progress of the bill too much.

But you're quite right, perhaps if we had been here two years ago, when you had the last round.... One of the recommendations I made in this written recommendation but didn't speak to is that the smaller parties here perhaps should be full participants in this process. Instead of being here just one day, maybe we should be here every day. Otherwise you're going to find that two years into your review of the act you can have a member sitting here who says he or she is surprised that we feel so downtrodden. Well, that's obviously because you haven't spent much time talking to us. We feel this way all the time.

So, yes, you're absolutely right. We shouldn't be afraid to make big changes.

It's a little off topic, but I'm going to mention one because it comes from the NDP. There was a suggestion in the House of Commons last week by Nelson Riis that the voting age should be lowered. We would support that wholeheartedly. We think if a person feels that they're old enough to vote, and if they're informed enough to vote, then they're old enough to vote. We let 16-year-olds in this country do a lot of things—drive a car, for example—and a lot of them have opinions, and a lot of those opinions might surprise some of their elders. They're part of the fabric of this country, and I really think they should be listened to.

I know Mr. Harvey spoke to that as well in the House, and we really appreciated that comment.

I will certainly try to provide you with more written documentation later. In point of fact, I have done more tabular work on expenses subsequent to this, which I can provide to you later and you can circulate it to the committee if you wish. I can also write up in detail the sorts of things I would look at in terms of using the broadcast allocation more effectively. It's timely that you mention that, because I was speaking with one of your colleagues—actually, one of the parliamentary assistants for the NDP—this afternoon, and we agreed that the way broadcast advertising is packaged for the electorate could be made much more effective.

I believe it used to be the case in Canada that instead of 30-second ads that were just scattered throughout the day, there used to be a package on certain nights of the week during an election campaign when you could tune in for a half an hour and watch election broadcasts for all the parties, and a lot of Canadians tuned in. We would find it much more effective to have our ads broadcast at a particular time in an advertised program when voters were tuning in for that reason than to have it run at 3 a.m. or 3 p.m., when our supporters might not know to switch in to get the message.

I was in the United Kingdom this summer just before the European elections, and they gave free time of five minutes to each party. The five minutes was given as a block, and it ran at 8 p.m., just before the nightly news. People watched it and the newspapers wrote about it the next day. They said look how awful that ad was, or look how good that ad was.

One of the things about that was that the Green Party put a lot of work into their five-minute broadcast and it was the best received of all of them. People said this is a fresh new party.

So that was a way to get the package across with only a five-minute allocation of free time. Instead of having it chopped up into 30-second ads that people tune out or don't see, or whatever, it was done in a very effective way. Your colleague and I talked about this, and we both felt that it would be a really good idea to reinstate a half-hour broadcast once, twice, or maybe three times during an election window, in which there would be messages from all the parties that wanted to participate and use their free time in that way.

Does that address all your points?

An hon. member: I think so.

Mr. Julian West: Okay.

The Chair: You solved my questions.

Mr. Julian West: Okay.

The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Harvey. There would not be a need now to focus exclusively on Mr. West. You are free to ask him a question, but please—

• 1655

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that I would not want to take credit for something I did not do. I was not the one who made that statement, but a different Mr. Harvey who was a member.

Mr. Julian West: I apologize.

Mr. André Harvey: It would not have been nice of me not to point that out, would it?

Mr. Julian West: I am sorry, but okay.

Mr. André Harvey: I would like to ask Mr. West a short question. Personally, I have always been somewhat impressed by marginality. I see the work that is done by people who start from scratch to try to defend important principles. We could have a very long discussion on what motivates you, because you have not chosen one of the quickest ways of reaching your objectives and applying your principles.

Mr. West, what is so different about the Green Party of Canada that it does not use an existing party, perhaps the NDP or another party, to promote its ideas more quickly? You are currently working very hard with a view to one day perhaps hoping to... I would like to know what motivates you.

I would also like to ask Ms. Di Carlo how the Communist Party and the Marxist-Leninist parties throughout the world are doing, in Russia or elsewhere. I would also like to know why you chose the Marxist-Leninist Party to promote your ideas here in Canada. Do you believe that some day you'll be in a position to take on the ultimate political responsibilities in Canada? I would like to hear your comments on that. There are perhaps some historical facts that escape me, but I would like you to tell me what difference there is between the Communist Party and the Marxist-Leninist Party.

First of all, Mr. West, why don't you use a quicker means of achieving your environmental objectives?

Mr. Julian West: We have noted...

[English]

I'll say this in English, because I'm told my ride is waiting.

For us, in the party in which we choose to work we have an effect. Actually I met with a member—and I'm going to say something very kind about the government now—of the governing caucus this morning who said the reason he was so strong as an environmentalist was because he was so impressed with the Green candidate who ran against him in his riding. He got ideas from our party by being forced to debate him, and that would not happen if we didn't have a party that showed a certain amount of public support—we could just be laughed off.

We've gotten to the point now where we're not laughed off any more. In British Columbia, where we show 7% to 8% in the public opinion polls, where we're going to be a major player in the next provincial election, where we're already on the verge of electing people in the major cities, we're looking for that breakthrough. It's the same thing that motivated the Reform Party in the 1980s, when people said “Why don't you just join the Progressive Conservatives?” It's because they had a different vision.

We have a different vision and we're going to promote that. We're looking forward to the day when we sit here with you. I have a member in Parliament who represents me. We had 55,000 votes in the last election, so what is it that brings me here today? It's the fact that I speak for those 55,000 voters. Fifty-five thousand votes is more than any one of you got to get elected, so it's enough votes to elect somebody.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Don't throw figures around like that when you're not sure that we didn't get more than that.

Mr. Julian West: I'm sorry, it's more than the typical amount that one gets in winning an election. I'm sorry.

So it's about what it takes to elect somebody. And the Globe and Mail calculated the day after the election that if our 55,000 voters had all been living in Vancouver, in the same place, we'd elect somebody. But you have a system that says you want our voters to concentrate into one city instead of being spread across the country.

So, yes, I'm here as a lobbyist but I'm lobbying on behalf of 55,000 ordinary Canadians who voted for the Green Party. If I were here as a lobbyist on behalf of a major airline that employed 55,000 people, I'm sure you'd be listening to me and taking my views very seriously and asking what can the government do for you.

So that's my question: what can the government do to accommodate all of us people who want to vote for smaller parties and want to see their votes count for something? That's the question. I'll leave you with that, because I must go to Vancouver. I do appreciate very much your inviting me here today.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. West. I want to thank you and your party for providing your submission in both official languages.

We'll go to Ms. Di Carlo to follow up on that question.

Ms. Anna Di Carlo: If I understand the question correctly, I don't think it's really the place for me to answer it. The difference between the CPCML and CPC isn't really the subject of discussion here. I would be more than happy to provide you with reams of papers that you can go through at your leisure.

• 1700

The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Now we definitely want to hear from Ms. Di Carlo and Mr. Gray. I'm sure colleagues do.

Mr. Gray.

[Translation]

Mr. Ron Gray: I apologize because my brief has not yet been translated. I was apprised of this meeting only upon my return from Alberta. May I distribute copies to committee members?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, and I'm very sorry, I should have added in something when I spoke to Mr. West.

Every Canadian is free to come here and deal with Parliament in their language, French or English. We deal with Canadians on that basis all the time. If there is a submission in either of the two official languages, you are very free and encouraged to distribute it, and the committee will take steps to translate whatever is not in the other language.

As a rule, the committee staff do not distribute one-language submissions, but witnesses are encouraged to make written submissions and distribute them. So I will take care of the translation in due course.

Can we continue with questioning? I don't see anyone else, so I'll go to Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

Mr. Gray, I'm actually addressing the question to you now. I really enjoyed the presentation from the Marxist-Leninist Party. Although it was quite aggressive, I really do agree with most of what's in there.

Mr. Gray, I have some specific questions for you. You mentioned the need for proportional representation and some sort of process to get there. You may be aware that New Zealand used a process of referendums to determine whether the people supported that idea. They in fact had a referendum first to ask people if they wanted to change the first-past-the-post system. When that was answered in the affirmative, then the electoral body in New Zealand spent about a year teaching people about all the alternatives and then they had a second referendum where they chose a system. It happened to be MMP. Would you agree with a process like that, in terms of moving toward proportional representation?

Secondly, with regard to the rebates to candidates, you heard Mr. West suggest a system of a certain number of dollars per vote. Reform Party policy is to get rid of the rebates altogether. So I would ask for your comment between those two choices.

And the last one is in terms of the broadcast formula, as was mentioned by Mrs. Parrish. The amount of money spent doesn't always necessarily translate into results: there was the Charlottetown Accord yes side, for example, or the PCs in the 1993 election. So how important, really, is the amount of money that's spent or the amount of broadcast time that's given? I agree with Mrs. Parrish on this—isn't it more what you have to offer the voters?

Mr. Ron Gray: Let me take those in sequence, if I remember them.

The first thing was the question of proportional representation and the process for getting there. I would welcome any process that would begin to get us closer into a system where voters would not feel their opinion was irrelevant to the process. One voter in three stayed home from the 1997 election, and I think that probably was because many of them felt that their participation was becoming irrelevant.

We have, in the smaller parties, generally agreed that we favour the idea of moving into proportional representation. There are a lot of different systems in use. STV is one, MMP is another. People who oppose it generally beat us up with places like Italy and Israel. In Israel the margins are simply too low to make it workable, and I don't know what has been the problem in Italy. Most of the world is moving in this direction simply to ensure that people will feel represented in their legislature.

• 1705

I think it is always true, of course, that what you have to offer is more important than the amount of money you have to spend. That's why the chart Julian showed you included some people who spent $40,000 and got practically no results. But it is also important that what you have to offer is heard. One of the problems for our party, for example, has been that the major metropolitan and national news media simply will not speak of us. I think the reason for that is that they have tended to categorize us as a kind of Canadian branch plant of the American religious right, which is absolutely a false characterization. Our roots are in people like Groen van Prinsterer and Abraham Kuyper, who gave the world the first workers' compensation plan, widows' pension, and old age pension at the turn of the century. But we simply do not gain access to the media very readily.

Nevertheless, the charts Julian showed you also showed that by and large those who spent the most got elected. There is a relationship between the amount you spend and the kind of result you get. It isn't a guaranteed relationship. But the loading of the reimbursement formula in a way that gives those who win this time half of their treasure chest for the next campaign is just blatantly unfair. That's the thing we spoke against.

I'm sorry, there was a third point.

Mr. Ted White: In choosing between the two ideas, I just wondered whether you would choose Mr. West's idea of a rebate based on the number of votes, an amount per vote, or do you think we should get rid of the rebates altogether?

Mr. Ron Gray: Mr. West and I have discussed this, and we understand the philosophical differences behind our disagreement over how it should be done. He feels that everybody should have a right to participate in the funding, not just those who pay taxes. We feel that the right of private property, which is not, alas, guaranteed in our Constitution, should extend to the money we earn. We object to taxpayers being compelled to fund things they don't agree with. So we've proposed a formula that would overcome that. We would accept any system that was seen to be fair to all, but the present system is not.

If I could just piggyback on that a bit, I believe it was I who introduced the term “corrupt”, and I'm sorry I offended Ms. Parrish by that. I did specifically exempt the members of the present Parliament from that charge. In fact, what I was saying to the members of the present Parliament is that they have an opportunity to go down in history as having been the people who corrected this.

The Chair: I don't think Ms. Parrish is easily offended.

In any event, you're next, Monsieur Bergeron, if you wish.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No.

The Chair: Okay. We'll turn to Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: My question is related to a comment from Anna Di Carlo. She indicated that we should end the use of public funds for financing political parties. Would you maintain that should be the case for candidates as well? If that were to happen, how would you propose that parties and candidates be funded?

Ms. Anna Di Carlo: Our proposal involves various aspects. First of all, as I think you may know, we don't think the selection of candidates should be in the hands of political parties. We think the selection process should emanate from the electorate at large, which means, for example, at a university. People in the university would nominate people they know from among their peers. Workers or whatever sectors of the people would nominate their peers. Whether or not that person is a member of a political party is neither here nor there. The legitimacy for that candidacy comes from the constituency in which he or she lives. We have a proposal for a whole mechanism through which that nomination process would take place.

• 1710

We think the funding of elections shouldn't be the funding of candidates, the funding of a political party, or the funding of any other organization in the polity as such. It should be funding to conduct the elections in a manner where every citizen gets the information they need in order to make an informed decision. It's much along the same lines, although not precisely, as the example Mr. West showed of having a state-funded publication that gives access to all the views being presented. It would have reference material, background information, and so on. So in that sense whether or not a candidate has money is neither here nor there. The election process itself would be what is being financed. There would be publications and meetings organized. All kinds of things would take place. I myself as a candidate would never have to put out a penny.

Mr. John Solomon: So there would not be things such as lawn signs or pamphlets that a party or a candidate could distribute.

Ms. Anna Di Carlo: This is a different issue. Right now we have the limit of $3,000 for third parties, the electoral limits for candidates, and so on. Our political persuasion is that none of this money should enter into the realm of influencing political public opinion during the elections. That is called a limitation on freedom of speech.

By virtue of the same token, however, let's say we brought about these changes in the funding of the election process, not candidates, not political parties. Every elector would have all the information they need. If Bell Canada, let's say—to throw out a corporation—decides to have a big campaign, it's neither here nor there in the end, because the citizens would have all the information they need to make an informed decision.

Mr. John Solomon: So you wouldn't have a problem with unlimited expenditures by third parties—that is, non-political parties.

Ms. Anna Di Carlo: I'm saying we do have a problem with it. We don't think that should take place during an election.

We have a proposal for an elected national commission. In each constituency there would be an elected body that oversees the conducting of the election, including the selection of candidates, publication of all the information that's required, and access to all the media that's required. This would not be for people to advance their particular partisan interests, which is not the same thing, but to actually conduct the election.

Mr. John Solomon: I have a final question, if I might, Mr. Chair. What would be the cost of this compared with what it costs now?

Ms. Anna Di Carlo: I'm quite sure it would be oodles less, but we don't have any pricing worked out that way. The amount of money that right now goes into financing very expensive campaigns, including big PR campaigns and so on, would be out of the scheme. All that kind of money would become financed by private members of political parties. It wouldn't be—

Mr. John Solomon: So only the very wealthy would be able to run campaigns, then.

Ms. Anna Di Carlo: You keep on insisting on this schemata. I'm talking about—

Mr. John Solomon: I'm just asking questions. I'm not clear on this.

Ms. Anna Di Carlo: But, in my opinion, if we weren't stuck on the way elections as we know them are run today as competing campaigns and not as a period of time when all the electorate actually is involved in discussing what is going on in the country—not having some politician come to me and say vote for me because I'm going to fix your life, or vote for me because I'm going to give you jobs—and where there's actual sober discussion on what is taking place in the country and on what are the problems of the economy, the problems facing youth, and the problems facing workers, then we wouldn't want to have some big advertising billboard saying vote for me because I have a nice face.

• 1715

I see some election campaign material I'm just stunned by. There's somebody's face on there and it says to vote for them. What on earth does that do to advance my political consciousness about what decision I should make in this country?

I'm not talking about election campaigning. I'm talking about conducting elections in which the entire electorate is enabled to participate in governing, right from setting the agenda before an election—what the issues should be—right through to who the candidates should be. It can't carry on that 2% of the population is responsible for nominating candidates. And that 2% figure, which comes from the Lortie commission, is based on the highest periods of party membership.

I just want to make one last point, if I can, because I really would like to emphasize it. We're not here saying that we're downtrodden. This is not the point that we're raising. We think this is one of the problems that is perhaps colouring the discussion on electoral reform. There are very serious problems related to how democracy is working in Canada. It's not an issue of whether or not our party gets one minute more time than some other political party. We aren't coming here with that spirit.

What you can say is that by virtue of the fact that the small political parties in Canada are treated as less than equal members of the polity vis-à-vis other political parties, it is a reflection of the way all citizens in this country are treated, all the electors. You cannot tell me that electors in Canada feel they are part of the decision-making process in this country. Yes, they have a vote every three or four years, or four or five years. The minute after they vote, though, they say “God, what have I done?”

I'm quite serious here. You yourselves make these comments. Ms. Parrish, you made the comment that you believe a lot people cast their votes for a small political party or for an independent, or maybe even spoil the ballot, because they're dissatisfied with what's going on. Your particular concern out of that was that we shouldn't be funded, and not that there is something seriously wrong here.

I don't want to get argumentative in that sense, but I just wanted to make it clear if there was any confusion. When we talk about equal funding of broadcasting time, it's a very fundamental principle that a democratic system cannot have inequality written right into the law. When you say it's because we don't have ideas that spark the population, how different is that from saying it's legitimate to have laws based on discriminating on the basis of colour of skin because maybe someone with that colour of skin isn't quite as smart as someone with some other colour of skin? How different is it? In the end, inequality under the law is inequality under the law. You can't impose some higher or greater consciousness that the ideas of one party are better than the other.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Pickard, then Mr. White, followed by Mr. Harvey and Mr. Richardson.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just as Ms. Parrish was taken aback, I guess I was taken aback when both Mr. Gray and Ms. Di Carlo suggested corruption in government. That doesn't sit well with members around this table. I don't believe any of my colleagues do anything except what they feel is correct, and they try their best. However, I'll pass that point.

Ms. Di Carlo, what bothers me about your presentation in particular is your ability to limit a democratic voice however it comes. Quite frankly, you may say you're broadening the perspective, but if I am a candidate in an area and I have people I am trying to talk to about the policies, the directions, the attributes, the messages I wish to put forward, I really don't believe it is acceptable for anyone in this country to limit my ability to do that, outside the fact that there are spending limits to which I can go. There are parameters in which I am required to operate, but, again, I am an individual candidate. Each person around this table who was elected to the House of Commons was elected as an individual who purported certain political ideas, certain attributes, and then campaigned on those.

• 1720

I certainly understand that the Reform Party, clearly, to be responsible, has put down policies and directions and has operated in that way. The public is well informed about those directions and policies. It's the same with the Bloc, the same with the Conservative Party, with the Green Party or the Christian Heritage Party or your party. We all have the opportunity to voice our principles and concerns, but to suggest that you put everything into one basket and everybody has to have exactly the same time and exactly the same.... Quite frankly, the Canadian public doesn't view everything in that way either.

I'm thinking back to election campaigns and debates in which each of your parties, by the way, was represented and had opportunity to deal in public debates and had opportunity to participate equally. Although it becomes rather cumbersome for a radio audience or another group of people to look at seven or eight or ten parties putting their views forward—that is a very difficult process—it's still democratic to allow that to happen.

With what you are suggesting, I'm taking it that the initiatives shown by individual parties, the initiatives shown by individual candidates, or the efforts made by individual candidates, have to be capsulized and put into parameters in which it's not as free as it is in Canada today. I think that's limiting on their ability to present ideas, so I would hope you could comment on that side of it.

Ms. Anna Di Carlo: We aren't talking about limiting a political party's ability to put out its views in any way. We're talking about candidates. If a political party agitates for its opinions—and political parties do it day in and day out, just as we do, if you don't mind the expression “agitates”, which I hope is not too aggressive—and presents its views, that party should be doing that every day of the year. It should be presenting to society its vision of how it wants to see this society go.

We think it's great that parties should do that every single day. They should collect all the money from their members. They should have very lively political organizations. They should really become what the Lortie commission called primary political organizations. The Lortie commission also discovered, however, that political parties in Canada—at least those parties in the House of Commons—only exist as election machines. In the study the commission conducted, I think it actually said that if ordinary souls decided to go join their constituency's party in their riding, most people would have a hard time. This was the Lortie commission's finding, not mine.

During the election, it's the same thing. Political parties should have completely free access to present their political opinions. We're not talking about any limits on them. But when it comes to the electoral law saying that because the Liberals, for example, got x number of seats and x percentage of the votes in the last election, they should get a certain formula and should get x amount more time than some other political party, that is called an inequality built into the law. That's what we're opposing. It's the idea that there can be no built-in inequality in the legislation. We have to be equal before the law. I don't understand how it has become such a complex issue to understand.

The Chair: Okay, it would quite possible to continue the debate here, but I have to try to confine it to short questions and short answers, as time is running. I think we're expecting our final witness at about 5:30.

• 1725

I'll go to you, Mr. White, and I'd ask you to direct specific questions to specific witnesses.

Mr. White will be followed by Mr. Harvey, and then Mr. Richardson.

Mr. Ted White: These are specific questions, so I only need short answers, Ms. Di Carlo.

Accepting the reality that we work within a party organizational structure at the moment, the Molloy decision—which you mentioned—said two candidates should be sufficient for a party. As you know, the government is reinstating a fifty-candidate rule or is carrying through with the fifty-candidate rule. If you had to choose a number yourself, what number would you choose?

The second question is consistent with your promotion of the idea that we should be empowering citizens rather than empowering parties. You talked about involving the community more. Would you support the right for citizens to initiative and referendum?

Ms. Anna Di Carlo: Yes, we support the right to initiative to recall and referendum, but we don't think they're the problems in themselves. If they were to be added to the system as it exists now, however, we don't think it would really resolve some of the fundamental problems.

In terms of the number, as far as I'm concerned, two people make a party if you recognize freedom of association. It's one of the complexities that has arisen in terms of the electoral law right now, once you make political parties the instrument through which the elections are conducted. Right now, the electoral law enables political parties, not citizens. Once you do that, the only way in which it can be consistent is to say any political party is going to have that right. It's one of the anomalies of a system that's based on political parties, and I think it has so many flaws in it that if these fundamental problems aren't dealt with, it's just going to carry on like this.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I have a short question, Mr. Chairman.

In mathematics and many other areas, there is nothing better than an example to understand principles. Perhaps Ms. Di Carlo could give me an example of a situation where the principles of the Marxist-Leninist Party are applied to ensure that democracy is even better than what exists here in Canada? Of course I would like to know. Seriously, are Marxist-Leninist electoral principles currently being used in a country that we could visit and where we could see the effects of a democracy that is better than ours?

[English]

Ms. Anna Di Carlo: I don't think the issue of democracy is a part of an issue. I would never, ever say our proposals are a Marxist-Leninist scheme. Democracy belongs to everybody, regardless of their ideology. So how can you come with a system inbred, any more than I would come in and say this system is a Liberal one? It's not. It's a system that has emerged out of the experience, out of the developments of society developing how it's going to govern itself. We don't call this a Marxist-Leninist political process. It's based on the experience of the entire world's population in terms of developing modern democracy.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you very much, madam.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Richardson.

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

I'd just like to address a question to you, Ms. Di Carlo. Earlier you described how the government would get together at a specific time before an upcoming election, whenever that was and whatever it would be, and it would determine the platform and the issues. After that, it would go to the people for debate. Did I read you right on that?

Ms. Anna Di Carlo: Partially, but what we're proposing is that the candidate selection process be in the hands of the people, of the electors. It is in that process that the agendas would also be set. In the process of people discussing what their concerns are, who they want to represent their concerns and so on, that is where.... You could say the campaign issues would emerge from that process.

Is that answering your question?

Mr. John Richardson: Yes, I thought that's what you mentioned: that there would be a development of the platform and the issues, and they would be debated by the people.

• 1730

Ms. Anna Di Carlo: I'll give you a concrete example, if I could.

Let's say one of the places where selection of candidates would take place was among the students, as wherever people are gathered on a day-to-day basis. Universities are one example. Students have very specific problems, plus they are concerned about what's going on in society. In the course of them selecting their candidates, they would also come up with what they want to see fought for in terms of the agenda of the government. It wouldn't be a situation where a political party is coming to us and saying these are the issues.

Mr. John Richardson: I see.

Ms. Anna Di Carlo: It wouldn't be quite that way.

Mr. John Richardson: The agenda would basically be driven by planning—

Ms. Anna Di Carlo: By the electors.

Mr. John Richardson: Yes, okay.

The Chair: Thank you.

I have one short question. I hope it's a short answer, but maybe it won't fit as a short answer.

Looking at our current system and how the bill proposes to alter it, there are incentives and mechanisms to assist new parties by providing public funds, by capping the amount of money the richer parties can spend, and thereby facilitate entry and participation by a lot of parties—with one proviso, and that is that as of this point there's a threshold the new party must meet, but if it meets the threshold, it begins to get reimbursement of public moneys and participate either on an equitable basis or on an equal basis with the other parties. So I would have thought the system was designed to enhance parties, subject to meeting the threshold.

Could you comment on that?

Mr. Ron Gray: Let me answer by giving you a specific example.

I'm currently running in the by-election in Hull—Aylmer, which is my home riding. I have raised about $7,000 toward my campaign expenses for that election. The largest of my opponents started this election campaign with $32,000 in the bank because of the refund that was given to that party for that candidate in that riding from the last election campaign. Like Ms. Parrish, we don't spend money we don't have, and we work on fairly modest budgets in any case. We have raised the money for a $7,000 budget, but it took a little while. It is not equity to go into an election campaign with one candidate looking at raising $7,000 and the other candidate having $32,000 in the bank from the beginning.

I would also say, by the way, I would favour for the same reason Mr. White's idea of fixed election dates. But I have some reservation about the direct democracy things of referendum recall, and so forth. I tend to believe, with Edmund Burke, that the member of Parliament owes the electors his intelligence and character and vigour, rather than just his obedience. I wish Mr. Green were still here, because I've been down in California and watched some of that at work down there, and they denude whole forests in order to send stuff out to the electorate.

It is not equal the way it is set up right now. That's the problem.

The Chair: How about equitable? You don't think it's equitable either?

Mr. Ron Gray: No, I don't.

The Chair: I don't think we're going to get into insisting that every candidate for a registered party, in every constituency, have identical amounts of money available to them to run. All that Canadians have done so far is cap the amount they're allowed to spend on a campaign. So the fact that you're running up against somebody who has a few more bucks in the till is happenstance, hard work, saving, whatever, as opposed to the circumstances you find with your party. You do have some money, as opposed to no money.

Mr. Ron Gray: In fairness, though, it is not his own money that he's using; it is taxpayers' money.

• 1735

I accept that 25 years ago, when Parliament brought this kind of public support of the process into being, they were concerned about using some public funds to facilitate the broader spread of information. That's why we have proposed that if public funds are to be used, it should be at the option of the taxpayer, not in a formula that favours the previous House, because when we go into an election, theoretically no one has a seat, no vote is identified; everything is afresh.

We would suggest that the taxpayers have the option of deciding. If they want to send money to a candidate, they decide who they send it to. If they decide to send money to none, it would simply go into the non-partisan part of the process.

The Chair: Just for the record, I'm sure you would acknowledge that Elections Canada was not previously financing this particular by-election. In turning money over to the riding association, to the Liberal Party in the riding in which you're running, they were reimbursing for election expenses incurred in the last political campaign.

Mr. Ron Gray: Yes, but it does have the effect of filling the war chest half full before things start.

The Chair: It reimburses for expenditures which they could have borrowed for and used the money to repay the loan, but didn't. But I do take your point, and I think our members understand that.

Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, just for the record, though, I don't want you to be under a false impression that the $32,000 was all rebate. The way the Liberal Party works, we sign over half of our rebate to the central party so they can run a really tough campaign.

So if Mr. Massé spent roughly what the limit would be, which is in the $60,000 range, he doesn't have a $32,000 rebate. He probably had $15,000 in there. Since then, he has done fundraisers. People have donated, but all to his riding association, not to him. If the new candidate is fortunate enough to be blessed by the riding association, they can choose to spend that money on his campaign—or they can choose not to.

So don't feel that he already had a $32,000 nest egg there; he probably didn't. If he does, a lot of that was raised by the riding association and they have chosen to spend it on that candidate.

Mr. Ron Gray: But my point is that if the reimbursement came, then it's taxpayers' money that is available to that candidate but not to others.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: All right. Yes.

The Chair: I want to thank both the witnesses for coming here today. We acknowledge that while you had less than a week's notice of the event, the bill—you are representing registered parties—was introduced into the House in June. I do concede that you've been very good in being able to bundle together good submissions and deliver them to us, and we are grateful for that.

I trust Mr. Gray will have a good campaign. He probably has a lot of hands to shake in his riding.

I thank Ms. Di Carlo and Ms. Morten for coming.

Minister Boudria will now take the witness chair.

Mr. Minister, welcome. You were good enough to respond to our request that you come back for a second appearance. I know that at least one of our members—possibly others—had additional questions, both general and technical.

You are accompanied today by two officials. I believe our colleagues have already met them. They are Mr. Peirce and Ms. Mondu, who gave a technical briefing to us earlier.

Mr. Minister.

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

• 1740

I'd like to start by adding a few remarks which will perhaps respond to some questions raised at the last meeting, plus some things that have come to the attention of the public domain via questions asked generally by some people around this table. If you'll allow me, perhaps I could start with that. In any time that you have left over, I could answer questions.

I'm pleased to be back with you today, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I want to congratulate you for the excellent work done so far. I know this has been a long process, one that was commenced, as I indicated previously, a very long time ago, by your predecessor immediately after the 1997 election. The bill was tabled in June and now we're in November. We're advancing, perhaps slowly, but we're advancing. The work is being done very thoroughly, I'm sure, and I want to congratulate all members for the work they're doing.

A number of issues were raised last time, one involving rural vouching. You will recall that one member, Mr. Solomon, raised this as an important issue in rural Canada. At that time, I indicated that I was prepared to examine this issue and, more particularly, to listen to the consensus that could develop in this committee.

I'd now like to seek the committee's view on the proposal to allow an elector to vouch for another elector in certain designated areas as long as the so-called voucher—these are probably not words, but I'll try them anyway—takes the oath on the fact that he or she knows that the vouchee—that's not a word either, of course—has lived within the polling subdivision for the period defined by the act.

Under this proposal, which you might want to look at—and officials could assist in further developing it—the Chief Electoral Officer could be given the discretion to decide where the vouching procedure would be available, rather than simply distinguishing between rural and urban ridings.

The reason I raise this is that in the 1997 election, for instance, Elections Canada had to very quickly develop an administrative solution to enable voting for a group of people who wouldn't necessarily have qualified under the rural designation; they worked in diamond operations. People who are in that kind of work can't carry ID with them when they go to work; they can't carry anything on their person.

So you leave to go to vote, presumably at a place nearby, perhaps right on the mine site, or something like that, and you can't carry magnetic cards or anything like that, security being what it is. Perhaps people who work in other kinds of operations may have the same restrictions.

So rather than simply having a rural-urban distinction, perhaps we could, together, develop parameters to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to designate areas where this could take place. Anyway, I offer that as a solution.

A second place where this may apply—it's not necessarily a rural area, although it is sometimes—is, for instance, in an aboriginal community, an Indian reservation, in other words. There could be a need for vouching there. Many of them, of course, are very rural, but they're not necessarily all rural. Particularly as some of our colleagues in southern Ontario will know, there are urban areas with that designation too—or at least somewhat urban areas.

I suggest that the committee may want to review this proposal to consider whether criteria could be developed to maybe circumscribe the Chief Electoral Officer's powers, to make the program workable so that it's not blanket everywhere but could apply in certain areas—if this committee feels that this process is still necessary.

I'm trying to respond here to the issue Mr. Solomon raised, but I'm sure that perhaps other rural MPs as well might have thought of this as being important.

[Translation]

The second issue I would like to address deals with candidates' trust funds. I believe that you are the ones who raised it, colleagues. Bill C-2 stipulates that if a registered party sets up a trust fund for an election, its main agent or one of the registered agents prepares a financial report covering its financial operations.

• 1745

Committee members, more specifically Mr. Bergeron, asked why the same rules would not apply to candidates' trust funds. There is a difference, but there is also perhaps a solution.

The main difference is that candidates, contrary to political parties, are not authorized to receive contributions outside election periods and they must turn the surplus over to their political party. Moreover, the person who preceded me spoke to that. So the candidate must return the money to the political party or the riding association or the electoral district where he or she was a candidate.

Having said this, the objective of some of the proposals is to ensure that the name of the donor is disclosed, regardless of how the money may have reached the candidate. If that is indeed the objective, as it appears to be the case, perhaps we could use the following solution.

The committee could give some thought to amending the law so as to require that the official agent of a candidate during the election campaign record, in the candidate's election campaign books, the name and address of each donor who has made one or more contributions totalling $200—this being the figure for disclosure I suggested elsewhere in the bill—and that this be submitted to the official officer, through a trust established by a candidate or for the benefit of a potential candidate.

If we were to establish rules applying to all potential candidates, then we could go into the street and identify anybody. Just about anybody could be a potential candidate. How do you sort through all of that?

I would invite you to give some thought to this solution. If you felt that this was a good solution, I would be prepared to work on it with you. Perhaps it has the makings of a solution, if you feel that a solution is required.

[English]

Mr. White raised the issue of electronic voting. I don't recall if he raised it in committee, but he certainly raised it one on one with me. I appreciate the conversation we had. It was of considerable interest. I also know he raised this with the Chief Electoral Officer at this committee.

I've reviewed the proposal contained in Bill C-268 that would amend the Elections Act to provide for electronic voting by telephone as an alternative to casting a vote by personal attendance at the polling station. According to Mr. White's proposal, the Chief Electoral Officer would have to devise and test an electronic voting process to be ready for use in any general election or by-election held after December 1999.

Before any positive action is undertaken with regard to this one, I think we need to look at a number of issues. I invite the committee to examine them. For instance, security, cost, privacy, and of course public acceptance would need to be worked on quite a bit.

I know, of course, that in the United States electronic voting, not of the kind contemplated by Mr. White but of the kind where all the data is accumulated in a machine, is used extensively. Perhaps the other is used as well, to an extent, but the kind most of us are familiar with is the kind where people walk into a voting station, vote for all of the offices, and at the end, when everyone has voted, you press a button of some type and the results for everybody all come out at once.

Of course, that is done in some jurisdictions in the United States where there are as many as 80 candidates running for the various offices, and a single ballot printed would be about three feet long. It's not exactly the condition we have in the federal election.

Some of us, when we're running, think perhaps there are too many names on the ballot, but that's another matter.

Regardless of how you look at it, then, it's not usually a very long prospect. Secondly, of course, there's only one office being voted on at once. In other words, you don't vote in this country for, say, a member of Parliament, mayor, school trustee, councillor, or regional district chairman, plus a number of propositions, all at the same time. You vote for your member of Parliament and that's it.

• 1750

So while it's reasonable to assume that some steps in the direction of electronic voting are desirable, and perhaps eventually inevitable, I would endorse at this point the cautions expressed by the study tabled by Elections Canada. Elections Canada said the following in their document:

The challenge and the opportunity for parliamentarians is to ensure that the potential benefits of the new voting technologies are secured for Canadians without in any way compromising the integrity of the voting process or the confidence of Canadians in their electoral system.

So I would suggest that the committee study very carefully this proposal on electronic voting before it's included in legislation. Perhaps this is something that would be of a longer term in terms of its work.

If and when we do go to some form of electronic voting, perhaps the first step, rather than voting by telephone or something like that, would be to test out in a by-election, say, actual voting machines, where people go to the same place, and instead of making an X, apply a button, where all the results come at once. If that's seen as an advantage by someone...recognizing that counting votes in a federal election is not a lengthy process right now.

What sometimes is a lot more lengthy is the transmission of the data to the returning officer afterwards, for a whole variety of reasons. There, perhaps, we could do things electronically to make things a lot more practical.

Why can't we in most polls fax the information immediately to the electoral officer for the riding instead of having one of our officials stand there, phone and phone, eventually leave with the ballot box, get stuck in traffic, and arrive there two hours later when everyone's waiting for the results? That's a condition all of us have lived through. That's an electronic issue that is probably easier or quicker to solve. It may not even need anything in legislation. It's probably more an administrative practice.

On the registration of political parties, again, Mr. White has introduced a bill to allow the registration of a political party when the party nominates 12 candidates.

I referred to this issue in my last presentation here. I remind the committee that your same committee decided last year, in the previous session, during its review of electoral reform, not to consider issues being challenged before the court until they've finally been disposed of by the court. Again, I would suggest this may be an appropriate course for the committee.

As you know, Justice Molloy struck down the fifty-candidate threshold that currently exists and replaced it with a threshold of two candidates. On behalf of the government, I've asked that an appeal be launched against that. I don't think that is correct. But without influencing the process before the courts, I think I'll leave it at that.

I want to address the issue of returning officers. It was raised in the House by two members, I think last week. I think I might as well talk about that right now. I have the feeling someone's probably going to ask a question about it anyway.

Again, there is a private member's bill to change that to assist them where the Chief Electoral Officer appoints the returning officers, presumably establishing some type of process all across the country for their hiring, dismissal, replacement, and so on.

I want to remind members of the committee that the Lortie commission concluded that “it would be preferable and more cost effective to build on the present appointment process rather than to change it completely”. That's 2.3.6 of the Lortie commission report. This isn't something I've recommended unilaterally to the people here.

Second, of course, this committee did not recommend to change it in the report it made, as tabled in the House of Commons.

Finally, of course, I should remind all of us that seven Canadian provinces, plus the federal institution—namely, the House of Commons—have exactly the same process. So there are eight jurisdictions in Canada that have the same process we have.

• 1755

Some members of the media were under the mistaken opinion that somehow I, as minister responsible for elections, can change election officers every election or some such thing. Of course that's utter nonsense. There's no such authority.

Once an election officer is appointed, they are there for a long time. They cease to hold function only if there's a redistribution and only if the redistribution applies to that riding. For instance, where there is a redistribution and the boundaries of a particular riding don't change, not even there is the returning officer up for appointment. In any given year 10 or 12 returning officers, approximately, are replaced, nearly all of them by resignation or death. Very few of them are ever dismissed. If they're dismissed you have to show cause, which is a complicated process that could finish in court and so on. It is very difficult to remove those kinds of officers, again, contrary to what we have heard.

In the case of my own constituency, the election officer there was appointed by the previous government in the redistribution that I believe took place in 1988. In 1993 there was a redistribution, so that means she was up for reappointment. And I recommended she be reappointed because she was an excellent person, and she is still there even though she was appointed by a government of a totally different stripe. I would suspect it's probably the same in a number of other constituencies as well.

On blackouts, I'd like to clarify for the committee, but also for the benefit of the media, how the blackout on polls would apply in the event of an election. Because even that unfortunately is not read too well or perhaps the bill doesn't make it clear enough. Although I don't think it's wrong, I think it's quite clear in the legislation once you read it.

The blackout applies to the last 48 hours. That means Saturday night, midnight. Effectively the only blackout we're talking about is a blackout on Sunday.

I had a reporter for a newspaper that doesn't publish Sunday come up to me and tell me what an injustice this was for his newspaper. I won't name the newspaper, but you can probably guess how many important newspapers don't publish on Sunday.

It's nonsense. It doesn't apply to any other day except the Sunday—in other words, the day immediately before the election. Even then, it only applies to the release of results of the new poll. Even on the Sunday, if you refer in the story to a poll that was done the previous Tuesday, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. So this is not something that's terribly onerous for a whole variety of people. It is indeed a very small measure to ensure the Canadian public is given the last word.

I'd be free to answer questions on any issue I've raised or any other issue for the next little while.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Boudria.

I want to advise members that we've been advised they have to make some changes to the room here at about 6:10, so could we go with something like 30-second questions? No can do?

Mr. White has at least one. Let's start with Mr. White and see what we can do.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you again for coming along, Mr. Minister.

Regarding the RO appointments, the CEO in his presentation used the word “essential”—it is essential that he be allowed to employ on merit for the ROs. So I was wondering if you could react to a proposal suggested to me that maybe as the present ROs retire, die, or through attrition we lose them over a period of time, the bill could incorporate a provision that as this happens the Chief Electoral Officer could begin appointing ROs on merit—forget about the rest of the staff, but the ROs.

Secondly, with respect to the number of candidates, the fifty-candidate rule, I would venture that as Parliament, if we sense something is wrong, we don't have to wait for courts to rule; we can fix it right away. It seems to me that the fifty number is rather arbitrary and hard to justify, frankly, in the light of the Molloy decision. So if the government couldn't accept the two-candidate threshold set by the Ontario court, wouldn't something a bit more logical like the twelve number be more appropriate, since it relates to the House and the number that makes a valid party?

• 1800

My last comment and question is with respect to electronic voting. You mentioned that we should consider, as a committee, the security, cost, privacy, public acceptance, and so on. I would mention to you, Mr. Minister, that the CEO has asked for permission to investigate and study the methods—that's all he wants—so that he can determine whether it's cost-effective, the security is in place, whether the privacy is there and whether there is public acceptance. With all due respect, I would also venture that this committee does not have the skills to do this. We're not in a position to do it. It's the job of our non-partisan Chief Electoral Officer and his skilled staff to be able to carry out those functions.

Again, I would ask you if you would not consider putting in the bill what the Chief Electoral Officer has asked for, just the right to investigate and test, and when he's satisfied that he can meet all these conditions, perhaps use it in a by-election or something like that.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, could we allow all of the interested members to make comments and ask their questions so that we can speed up the process? The Minister could come back at the end. Some questions and comments are probably going to overlap.

[English]

The Chair: Yes. I think that's a good suggestion and without objection. I didn't want to prevent Mr. White from getting his answers because he might well have a follow-up, but if there are questions that can be put succinctly, please do. I'll go to Mr. Bergeron just for questions, but going right to questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm going to do exactly as Mr. White has done, Mr. Chairman. If I may, I would like to comment on the points raised by the Minister.

First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for demonstrating some openness to the various comments made and for coming to the committee with certain proposals.

As for distinguishing between voters in rural regions as opposed to urban regions, I feel that it is a bit dangerous to make distinctions amongst voters. Your cautious approach in designating certain sectors and your desire that strict guidelines be applied to the designation process interest me. I think that we should examine this issue. Mr. Siegel of the Liberal Party said, in his presentation, that even in the region of Toronto, it can happen that individuals don't have the required identification and this type of recourse is required in order to identify an individual properly, all the while ensuring that this identification process complies with the guidelines.

As for the issue of trust funds, once again, I would like to thank you for the openness that you have demonstrated. You are right to point out that we don't necessarily know who wants to be a candidate. We know, of course, that candidates don't have the authority to issue income tax receipts outside of election periods, but we know very well that candidates create trust funds and deposit, when an election is called, an amount which appears in the election report as a sum coming from the Friends of Stéphane Bergeron Fund or the Friends of Don Boudria Fund. People contribute money to the campaign without anyone knowing the source of the trust fund. The committee has recommended that it is important to know where this money comes from for reasons of transparency, of principle, with which you're in full agreement.

As for the appointment of returning officers, aside from the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer made this recommendation twice and that all of the opposition parties sitting on this committee agreed with it, I would point out to you that a recommendation contained in the Lortie Report appears to tie in with what you were saying, but there is also a very important sentence in the Lortie Report that I would like to quote:

A cornerstone of public confidence in any democratic system of representative government is an electoral process that is administered efficiently and an electoral law that is enforced impartially.

This was taken from page 483 of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing. The Chief Electoral Officer express some fairly important concerns, particularly his inability to fire returning officers who are clearly incompetent. He runs into problems with such cases. I think that we should absolutely deal with this issue and establish some mechanisms that will make the process much more transparent and equitable.

• 1805

I would like to make one final comment, and this time my comment pertains to electronic voting, Mr. Chairman. I quite agree with you, Mr. Minister, that we must approach this issue cautiously and carefully, taking the time to analyze things properly.

[English]

The Chair: I should add a question mark to Mr. Bergeron's commentary, so it's at least interrogatory.

I'll go to Ms. Parrish for a quick question and then Mr. Pickard.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Very quickly, Mr. Minister, I like how you've responded to both our concerns and those of the opposition. I have serious problems, though, with the vouching. I think the vouching will have to be either all or nothing.

Despite Mr. Solomon's quaint story about somebody driving down the road on a tractor without any ID, I have a lot of Indian women in my riding who have never possessed ID. Their husbands take care of all those things for them. If you're going to allow it in one part of the country, you'll have to allow it in all parts of the country.

I think you will get a lot of presentations from MPs who have huge ethnic groups. It is very logical and a matter of course in their families for the wives not to have any ID.

I'd be very careful about that one. I know why you're doing it. I think we're trying to be all-inclusive here.

Mr. Don Boudria: I haven't done it yet.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Okay. I like Mr. Solomon's story about riding down the road on a tractor; it was very colourful. But when the guy got on his tractor and drove to the polling station, he would have needed to have a driver's licence in his pocket or he could have been pulled over. In a way, you're condoning illegal behaviour, and I suggest we shouldn't do that.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I believe, from what I heard, the Chief Electoral Officer suggested control over returning officers who are, for one reason or another, incompetent. I would suggest there probably should be a measure there. People can have strokes. People can have physical problems that may have to be addressed. I think, quite frankly, it is a legitimate concern.

Turning over power for turning over power is another question. But I believe we have to address and deal with his legitimate concerns where there may be incompetence, for one reason or another.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Minister, you have thirty seconds to answer those ten questions.

Mr. Don Boudria: I invite people to be patient for a couple of minutes, because the issues that have been raised are very important.

Mr. White raised the issue of the appointment of the returning officers, and reference was made to their appointment on merit. I would like to contest that and say that's in fact what is done now.

Some people would disagree, but the Lortie commission was quite clear in its report when it said a good job was done by the returning officers. There's no proof that things were otherwise.

[Translation]

I'm in complete agreement with the concept of impartiality which was discussed. We must ensure that people, once they have been appointed, remain absolutely non-partisan. This is very important. This is crucial to the integrity of the system. If we were to establish a procedure enabling either the government or the Chief Electoral Officer to dismiss these people more readily, and should the pressure to dismiss them not be very strong, the process would be tarnished. We must establish mechanisms for dismissing incompetent people, however, we must be careful; we must not make it too easy to resort to these measures.

[English]

Once you've examined the bill, if you think the removal provisions for a returning officer are not appropriate, we can certainly look at that.

There is a process for removal now. I draw your attention to page 16 of the bill, clause 24. It says the Governor in Council shall appoint a returning officer for each electoral district and may only remove him or her for cause, under subclause 24(7). Cause is defined as incapable, by reason of illness, physical or mental disability, or otherwise, of satisfactorily performing his duties under this act. In other words, there's quite a severe test to be proven in removing him, like removing a judge—or perhaps not quite as high as removing a judge, but removing a person of similar authority. I think it's important that there be a high threshold there so that nobody could apply pressure on these people.

• 1810

There are other tests here: failing to discharge competently their duties as a returning officer, failing to complete the revisions, and so on. In other words, if they don't know what they're doing and they don't do a good job, yes, they can be removed.

After the last election, I started measures to have four of them removed. All four eventually resigned on their own once they knew that I was going to start the procedure to have them removed. That's four across the country.

One was a case of a returning officer in the riding of a Bloc Québécois member. I consulted with the MP, and the MP confirmed that the person was totally incapable of doing the job or unwilling to do it correctly. We both agreed, as had recommended the Chief Electoral Officer. We commenced the procedure, and the person quit because they knew they were going to get fired anyway.

There were three more, which I believe were all in Liberal MPs' ridings, although I don't remember for sure. But I know one of them was definitely a case of a riding of a member of the Bloc Québécois.

Anyway, it doesn't matter who the MP is. If the returning officer is no good, it serves nobody, and the person is removed.

There are two or three more issues I want to raise with you. On the two versus twelve candidates, I indicated I can't comment very much on that. I'm of the opinion that the fifty-candidate threshold that is there now is the correct one, and that's the reason I've appealed. Until that appeal is dealt with, I will not deal with any other hypothetical number lower than the one that is there. I would encourage you not to do that either. Of course, you are masters of your own business.

On the Chief Electoral Officer studying electronic voting, I'm of the opinion that in the present act, and even in the new act, there is that opportunity for him.

You will remember that an MP raised the question about the Chief Electoral Officer engaging in the process of public education by having these simulated elections with our children in schools, together with the United Nations, and more particularly, the United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF, which is the group that is engaging in this exercise.

In my opinion, that mandate is broad enough to accommodate that. If it needs to be redefined a little bit to ensure it has a mandate to perform not tests in an election, but any kind of simulation or any other exercise like that, I'd be willing to entertain anything that is necessary to do that. However, I'm quite sure it's sufficiently broad in its existing mandate.

If I can have another one or two minutes, someone raised the question, and I might as well raise it now, about the returning officer breaking a tie. I understand that with some MPs this is a little bit of a contentious issue. I indicated to this committee that the last time it was used was in 1963. I have a little further information on how often it has been used since Confederation, how many times the RO has actually broken the tie: 1887; 1891, although after a recount it didn't occur; 1896; 1935; and 1963. That's only five times. Since Confederation, there must have been 100,000 people who were denied the right to vote because something was used five times.

Finally, all of us around this table, or most of us, will remember the case of Maurizio Bevilacqua and Mr. O'Brien in 1988, where after large numbers of recounts, the courts eventually decided for us that this was so close that no one could call the result and ordered a new election—except what you had was not an election two weeks later, as I'm suggesting in the bill. One of our colleagues who today sits in the House of Commons went through a process that lasted two and a half years. I ask you, is that better? Think of it. It's what some of us and what one of our colleagues have lived—and not only him, but all his opponents who ran in a similar election.

• 1815

I don't think the democratic process was enhanced by what happened there. I would invite you, before you are too severe against that proposal, to examine what in fact are the alternatives.

On the issue of the female vote, well, I'm still seeking your counsel. A member of Parliament, Madam St-Hilaire, has written to me as well. She has indicated that she rather likes the proposal I've brought, but she thinks it would be better if there were some type of threshold based on female elected people as opposed to female candidates.

As you know, I've brought to the attention of this committee the Lortie commission recommendation, and invited you to make a recommendation of your own, either that one or a different one. Someone has now offered another alternative suggestion. Put that amongst the other suggestions you already have and make a recommendation.

If your recommendation is that everything is swell, well, I'm certainly willing to listen to that, too, recognizing, however, that in elected democracies right now, we don't exactly have an outstanding record. We're at 21 in terms of number of females elected to our national Parliament. Countries like Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, Germany, South Africa, New Zealand, Argentina, Austria, Iceland, Mozambique, Seychelles, and so on all have a participation rate higher than ours. We should at least think about it a little bit more, I would suggest, before rejecting it out of hand.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, for addressing those. If other questions come up, I know your officials will be nearby.

Members, we'll see you in forty minutes. We're adjourned.