HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, May 14, 2003

»

1740

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

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Thomas Hall)

The Chair

»

1745

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. John Hollins (Chief Election Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario)

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

»

1750

Mr. John Hollins

The Chair

Mr. John Hollins

»

1755

The Chair

Mr. Michel Arsenault (Vice-President, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec)

¼

1800

The Chair

Mr. Martin Dubé (Director General, Parti Québécois)

¼

1805

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mr. John Hollins

¼

1810

Mr. Ted White

Mr. John Hollins

Mr. Ted White

Mr. John Hollins

The Chair

Mr. David McClure (Manager, Electoral Financing, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario)

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Michel Arsenault

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Michel Arsenault

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

¼

1815

The Chair

Mr. Martin Dubé

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)

Mr. John Hollins

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. John Hollins

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ)

¼

1820

Mr. Martin Dubé

Mr. Michel Gauthier

Mr. Michel Arsenault

Mr. Michel Gauthier

Mr. Martin Dubé

Mr. Michel Gauthier

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

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

Mr. David McClure

¼

1825

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. David McClure

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. David McClure

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. David McClure

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. David McClure

¼

1830

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

Mr. John Hollins

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Martin Dubé

Mr. Dick Proctor

¼

1835

Mr. Émile Vallée (Political Advisor, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.)

Mr. John Hollins

Mr. David McClure

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. David McClure

Mr. Geoff Regan

¼

1840

Mr. David McClure

Mr. Geoff Regan

M. Martin Dubé

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

Mr. Martin Dubé

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Martin Dubé

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Martin Dubé

Mr. Émile Vallée

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. John Hollins

Mr. David McClure

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. David McClure

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. David McClure

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. David McClure

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. David McClure

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

¼

1845

Mr. John Hollins

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Hollins

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Hollins

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Hollins

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Hollins

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Hollins

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Hollins

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Hollins

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Hollins

Mr. David McClure

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. David McClure

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Martin Dubé

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Martin Dubé

¼

1850

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Michel Arsenault

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Michel Arsenault

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Michel Arsenault

Mr. Jacques Saada

¼

1855

Mr. Michel Arsenault

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Martin Dubé

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Martin Dubé

The Chair

Mr. Martin Dubé

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mr. John Hollins

Mr. Ted White

Mr. John Hollins

Mr. Ted White

Mr. John Hollins

Mr. Ted White

Mr. John Hollins

Mr. Ted White

Mr. David McClure

Mr. Ted White

Mr. David McClure

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

½

1900

Mr. John Hollins

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Arsenault

The Chair

Mr. Martin Dubé

The Chair

Mr. John Hollins

½

1905

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. John Hollins

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. John Hollins

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Martin Dubé

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Martin Dubé

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Martin Dubé

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. David McClure

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. David McClure

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. John Hollins

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Martin Dubé

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Émile Vallée

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 042

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, May 14, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

»  (1740)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Let us begin.

    If our witnesses will excuse us for a moment, we have some housekeeping matters to deal with.

    Our order of the day, as you know, is Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing). This continues several weeks of hearings we have been having. The witnesses should know that we are on television. These broadcasts do not go out live, because the House of Commons is sitting, but they will appear on CPAC at some later date.

    Before we begin, colleagues, I want to advise you all that, as you perhaps know, Bill C-408, which is the private member's bill concerning the oath, has been referred to this committee. You should mentally add it to our workload.

    Second, we have received a written brief from the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario), the LPCO, and it is being translated. As soon as it is, it will be circulated.

    You'll also recall that we have written requesting written briefs to all the elected party presidents of the parties represented in the House of Commons. We have received a reply from Stephen LeDrew, who is the president of the Liberal Party of Canada, saying he would like to appear personally before the committee. You should know that. He spoke to me today, and I felt it appropriate that I tell you this.

    Rick Borotsik.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take any time from the witnesses, but based on that, are we going to be able to discuss this as a committee? Are we going to be able to extend that invitation to Mr. LeDrew?

    The Chair: It is my sincere hope that if we get the numbers.... We can't at the moment, because we don't have the numbers. We have the numbers to hear witnesses, but we don't have the numbers to discuss this.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, that's fair ball as long as we're coming back to it.

    The Chair: I simply want to get this on the record so it's out there with you all.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

    The Chair: We have prepared a list, which we have not quite completed, of all the witnesses you nominated. We've broken them down as to those who refused, those we've yet to hear from, and those who appeared before us. It would amount to 30 or 40. That will be circulated as soon as we've finished it.

    I think you all now have the work schedule. This is the schedule we've been keeping to, and as far as I am your chair, it's the one that in broad terms the steering committee agreed to.

    You can see that today is May 14, and we have our three sets of witnesses with us here today. Tomorrow is the minister.

    I have to say that normally the minister would come at the very end of our proceedings. He knows, I think--and there's been discussion in the House of Commons--that this likely is not the end of our discussions, but he's coming nevertheless. I'm not sure what form his presentation will take, but no doubt he's been following these proceedings with great care.

    So he is still on for tomorrow. You will notice, though, or perhaps you don't know, it's in our regular committee room. By the way, there's no political reason for that. I hasten to say it's not going to be televised, unless the commercial media ask to come, in which case they can come. But we were bumped from this room by a long-standing prior commitment.

    Thomas, this is correct, is it not?

    The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Thomas Hall): Yes.

    The Chair: So tomorrow's meeting is in room 112-N.

    Next week, as you know, is the break. Then, our schedule says, we begin clause-by-clause. I think it's quite possible that at the beginning of the week we return we will not be doing clause-by-clause, but I don't know that yet.

    What I have to say is, in the event that we are, we have to have amendments for the committee stage by next Thursday. If we got the amendments today--I'll just say this to you all--we could not use them for a week or so because they may have to be translated, or the staff will have to look at them for unintended consequences in the legislation, and that kind of thing.

    A notice will be going out--I am saying it now--that amendments for committee stage will be required by next Thursday.

    You all know that when it gets back into the House and we're debating the bill at report stage, there can be further amendments. Are you comfortable with this? Are there any comments on this schedule as it stands?

    Ted White.

»  (1745)  

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

    I just wanted to put on the record that I'm heartbroken I won't be here tomorrow morning. I have to go to Vancouver to attend a prior commitment, also booked for several months. Of course, it's perfectly unreasonable to expect the committee, I guess, to put off the minister until after the break. If that's not possible, I just want it on the record that I'm certainly not boycotting the meeting; I wish I could be here.

    The Chair: I appreciate that.

    One of the things--I had thought about it--is, as you know, that we almost can't get ministers on Tuesdays, so we certainly couldn't get him the first day back. So we're saying that.

    Rick Borotsik.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, to make a point I made earlier, I see on this calendar that clause-by-clause will be May 27, 28, and 29. I believe it's incumbent upon this committee to discuss whether Mr. LeDrew should be heard, whether Mr. Easton--our president--should be heard, whether the presidents of the other major parties should be heard. I don't know when that discussion is going to take place. Will it be tomorrow morning, Mr. Chairman, prior to or after the minister?

    The Chair: I would suggest that if we have the numbers, we might discuss it following hearing the witnesses, because as we all know, our witnesses are here waiting for us. We can do it tonight, and if not, it can be done tomorrow.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Fine, as long as--

    The Chair: And you did hear me say I think it is quite possible that we will not be doing clause-by-clause on May 27.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I would much rather hear you say it's very probable we will not be doing clause-by-clause on the first day back after the break, because that possibly would be the day we should be looking for other witnesses. It gives them a week.

    The Chair: Rick, if you will give me powers as dictator on other matters, I'd be glad to say that now.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Well, that's fine. Let's discuss it at the committee level.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Colleagues, are there any others? You understand, I think, I've just been trying to bring you up to date.

    I'd now like to welcome the witnesses--and witnesses, please excuse us for this. We appreciate all the witnesses being here today. Our witnesses are, from Elections Ontario--and as we all know, we've been particularly interested in the legislation in Ontario, in Quebec, and in Manitoba, so this will be great--John Hollins, who is the Chief Election Officer, and John, we welcome you here very much; and David McClure, who's the manager of electoral financing. David, it's good of you to come also.

    Then we also have, from the province of Quebec--and this interests us; we've had other representatives from Quebec--people who have worked with this legislation, which involves unions. That's the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec. We have Michel Arsenault, who is the vice-président, and Émile Vallée, who's a conseiller politique.

[Translation]

    I want to welcome you all to the Committee today.

[English]

    And we have Martin Dubé, who's directeur général of the Parti Québécois.

[Translation]

    Martin, welcome.

[English]

    The clerk has advised me that under Elections Ontario, we have Mike Stockfish from Elections Ontario also. Mike, I apologize to you; it's very good of you to come.

    You may or may not have been following these hearings, but the way we do it is that we have short presentations from each group--five or six minutes, if that's suitable for you; we're in your hands--and at the end of the three presentations we'll have questions and answers.

    I would propose to go in the order we have them on the agenda. It's Elections Ontario first--and John, are we in your hands?

    Mr. John Hollins (Chief Election Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario): Yes, sure.

    The Chair: That will be followed by the Fédération, and then they will be followed by the Parti Québécois.

    Mr. Ted White: A point of order.

    The Chair: On a point of order, Ted White.

    Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, for the additional witness we have here, Mike Stockfish, you didn't indicate his position. I wonder if we could find out what his position is.

    The Chair: John, perhaps either you or Mike himself could right that.

»  (1750)  

    Mr. John Hollins: Michael is the director of election finance and corporate services for Elections Ontario.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    John, we're in your hands.

    Mr. John Hollins: Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me.

    As mentioned, with me are Michael Stockfish, our director of election finances and corporate services, and Mr. David McClure, manager of election finances.

    Ontario has had election finances legislation in place since 1975. In 1999 the legislation was amended, and the overall responsibility for the Election Finances Act was assigned to the chief election officer. Through the administration of this legislation, the chief election officer helps to instill public confidence in the electoral process.

    The Ontario Election Finances Act is clearly directed toward enhancing transparency and accountability in Ontario political life. The act requires the registration of Ontario political parties, constituency associations, candidates in a general election and byelection, as well as leadership contestants.

    All of these political interests must register with the chief election officer before they can legally accept contributions or incur expenses for any election campaign or for any other purpose of a party, constituency association, or leadership contestant.

    The legislation also sets out limits on campaign expenses and political contributions to registered parties, constituency associations, and candidates, and imposes a timeframe for campaign period advertising.

    Every political party, constituency association, candidate, and leadership contestant is required to appoint a chief financial officer, who must ensure that records are kept, deposits are made, tax credit receipts are issued--except in the case of leadership contestants--and that audited financial statements are filed with the chief election officer.

    All documents filed with the chief election officer are public records open to inspection by any person upon request. Summary financial statements, along with the names of contributors who give more than $100, are posted on our website.

    To broaden the basis of political participation, the act provides some public funding for campaign expenses and audit costs. To assist the political interests in meeting the requirement for filing of audited financial statements, the following current maximum audit subsidies are available: up to $1,200 for a party return; up to $600 for an association return; up to $1,200 for a candidate return; and up to $800 for a leadership contestant return.

    The act also provides a subsidy for campaign expenses where the candidate has received 15% or more of the popular vote. The subsidy is calculated at 20% of the expenses, subject to limit. For 1999, the last general election year in Ontario, the subsidies were as follows. Subsidies for campaign expenses were: for candidates, a total payout of $1,358,000; for parties, $856,000. Subsidies for audit fees were: for annual returns, $201,000 for parties and associations; for campaign returns, $418,000 for candidates, and for constituency associations, $229,000. Subsidies for 1999, the last general election year, amounted to $3,062,000 in Ontario.

    Our review protocols are based on a philosophy of compliance management. In a non-election year we review approximately 500 party and riding association returns. In an election year we review approximately 1,600 financial statements.

    Our office completes a detailed review of all financial statements. It has been our experience that the majority of compliance issues that arise are not an intent to circumvent the legislation but are the result of errors and omissions.

    We deal with approximately 3,000 volunteer chief financial officers and appointed auditors in an election year cycle. The importance of the role of volunteers in Ontario's political process cannot be overstated. We truly appreciate the dedication and commitment of these volunteers, who are the foundation of the reporting process.

    We see our role as that of a mentor, teacher, and resource group to assist those many volunteers in meeting the requirements of the Ontario Election Finances Act.

»  (1755)  

    Through a fair and consistent application of this legislation, our office aims to ensure that Ontario electors have the utmost confidence in the integrity of the electoral process.

    My colleagues and I will now be pleased to answer any of your questions.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: John, thank you very much. I appreciate the words you bring to us.

    As I mentioned, we'll go on to the next witness, and then we'll continue collectively.

    Now I'll go to

[Translation]

Michel Arsenault, of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec.

    Mr. Michel Arsenault (Vice-President, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec): Good afternoon, and thank you for the invitation to appear before the Committee to discuss Bill C-24, which amends the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing).

    The FTQ is the largest central labour body in Quebec. It has 500,000 members and represents 35 different union affiliates. The FTQ essentially plays the same role as the CLC does in English Canada.

    I am accompanied today by Émile Vallée, who is a political advisor with the Federation. In addition to being Vice-President of the Federation, I am also the Quebec Director of the Syndicat des Métallos, known as the Steelworkers Union in English Canada.

    To begin with, we want to express our support for a bill that we see as an excellent initiative. We believe this will enhance the credibility of elected officials and change what is too often a common perception among members of the public, namely that money and people with money control politics.

    As you know, we have had two systems in place in Quebec since the late 1970s. We have one system whereby the number of votes won determines the amount of the refund to which candidates are entitled after an election campaign, which means that the different political parties have equal opportunities. At the same time, this encourages parties to pay close attention to content during election campaigns and in politics in general.

    I think it can be stated quite unequivocally that since 1977, the Quebec Elections Act and the Act governing the Financing of Political Parties have considerably cleaned up political mores in Quebec. From 1976 to 1985, Quebeckers elected the Parti Québécois. Then, from 1985 to 1994, Quebec was under the leadership of Robert Bourassa, of the Quebec Liberal Party. During those nine years, no change was made to the Act governing the Financing of Political Parties and this was never even discussed. Between 1994 and 2003, the Parti Québécois was re-elected twice, and there were no changes made during that period either. Finally, we recently had an election campaign which brought the Quebec Liberal Party back to power. I can tell you that during that election campaign, there was no debate with respect to the legislation governing the financing of political parties. We do not have the sense that the current government will amend the Act, given that there is general satisfaction with it and that it has succeeded in cleaning up political mores, as I explained earlier.

    As regards the bill you are currently considering, there are four points we would like to draw your attention to. The first has to do with the cap of $10,000 per individual. We see that amount of $10,000 as being a little high. In the Quebec legislation, it is $3,000. It is important to consider the public's perception, which I referred to a moment ago. Everyone is not in a position to contribute $10,000. Only 2 or 3 per cent, or perhaps even only 1 per cent, of Canadians can afford to contribute $10,000 to an election campaign. There again, only the most well-off in society will have that ability—hence the perception that it is the wealthy controlling governments in an underhand way. We are getting along just fine in Quebec with a cap of $3,000, and more middle class people are able to contribute to the different political parties.

    Our second point has to do with the cap of $1,000 per institution; it's this business of multiple branches. The legislation does not seem clear on this point, and that is of concern to us. A union such as the Steelworkers Union of Canada, for example, must have more than 2,000 separate locals. We often have one local per certification or locals with several certifications, that have been given one every time they were recognized at the federal level or in the various provinces. Does that mean that the cap would be $1,000 per local, or $1,000 for the Steelworkers Union as a whole, which has 185,000 members in Quebec?

    In Quebec, we don't have a cap of $1,000. Political parties are funded only by the people, by those who wish to do so, and then there is a distribution that occurs, as I was explaining earlier. We don't believe this provision of the Bill is necessary. Even if it were deleted, the Bill would still be valuable, in our view.

¼  (1800)  

    The third point we want to make does not directly concern the Bill; we would like to address the matter of how returning officers are selected. I believe that with this Bill, we have a golden opportunity to provide that returning officers be chosen by means of a competition, rather than political appointment, something that would generally enhance the public's confidence in the process.

    Fourth, there is the matter of third parties. Our view is that a union, central union body, professional corporation, chambers of commerce, and so on, should not fund political parties. On the other hand, I do think we should continue to have the right to defend our own interests and issues in an election campaign, just as we do throughout the other four years. We should be able to keep our right to defend our interests and keep our members informed during an election period, as we do the rest of the time. We should always be entitled to make our views known on the issues of greatest concern to us or on principles that we believe in.

    For example, I cannot see how we could accept a situation where a political party wanted to abolish the right to unionization, and yet, in the middle of an election campaign, central union bodies would not have the right to inform their members of the danger of electing that political party, given their principles.

    During the last election in Quebec, the FTQ issued pamphlets explaining the platform of the three different parties, without ever expressing support for any particular party. We also issued a 14-point election platform setting out what the FTQ expected of the next government. We believe that right should be maintained at the federal level as well, but without an opportunity for unions to actually fund political parties or take sides. That is what we did in the last election.

    Finally, I want to say that with all due respect, we believe that no organization should be gagged during an election campaign, because that would be an attack on the very principles of democracy. If unions, chambers of commerce and employers' associations one day no longer had a right to make their views known during an election campaign, that would be a serious violation of the rights of these associations and organizations, and of democratic principles.

    That is a basic summary of our position. We want to thank you once again for inviting us to appear. If you have any questions, Émile and I are available to take them.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Michel. That was a very interesting presentation. We have studied the Quebec system with a great deal of interest. I want to extend my thanks to both of you.

[English]

    Now, from the Parti Québécois, we have Martin Dubé.

[Translation]

    Mr. Martin Dubé (Director General, Parti Québécois): Good afternoon. I want to thank you for inviting me to briefly discuss Bill C-24, that deals with political financing.

    The party that I represent, the Parti Québécois, decided in 1977 to clean up—and that is indeed the appropriate term, as my FTQ colleagues noted—the mores and behavior surrounding the electoral process at the time. It had legislation passed, the Quebec Elections Act, that dictates the rules that are to be followed with respect to the election process. That has to do with voting, of course, but it also addressed the specific rules related to the financing of political parties.

    It was then that the principle of one person, one vote was adopted—something that did not always happen at the time. Some of the manoeuvring that went on could only be described as dubious. However, the process in Quebec is now highly credible and has the confidence of voters. The Elections Act comes under the responsibility of the Chief Electoral Officer in Quebec, a person chosen by Members of the National Assembly, which ensures that the incumbent enjoys strong credibility with voters as a whole.

    I believe you met Mr. Blanchet, and I imagine he must have made comments very similar to the ones I intend to make with respect to our election process and the system in place for funding political parties. In Quebec, only a voter is able to fund a political party. For a number of years now, businesses and groups have not had the right to contribute to political parties. Political parties can receive contributions from members and supporters—in other words, from actual people. To allow them to meet all of their requirements, they are also eligible for a government allocation proportional to the number of votes won in the last election. The various political parties also receive an amount of 50¢ per voter annually, to help them defray their administrative costs. In other words, there are two sources of funding for political parties in Quebec : a government allocation and contributions from members, activists and supporters.

    Since 1977, the maximum amount that each voter in Quebec can contribute annually to a party is $3,000. He can contribute more than $3,000, but he must spread it out among several different political parties. Once a voter's contribution exceeds $200, that amount becomes public. In a document produced annually by the Chief Electoral Officer, there is a listing of the names, addresses and ridings of these voters, so that this information is public and every one knows whether a person has made a contribution to a political party.

    The Chief Electoral Officer is in charge of a neutral organization that has a great deal of credibility. I agree with what representatives of the FTQ said earlier. The Chief Electoral Officer is responsible for a team of 125 returning officers across all 125 electoral districts in Quebec. These people are selected in a non-partisan way by means of a competition, a little like what happens in the public service. Their job is to serve the Chief Electoral Officer and ensure the impartiality of the election process in every riding. Once again, that illustrates the tremendous credibility associated with the election process in Quebec.

    It is very important for the Parti Québécois to defend the right of every voter to contribute to the political party of his or her choice, and to prevent specific corporations from doing so directly. You know why I say “directly”, because you have surely discussed this previously. We asked Mr. Blanchet, the Chief Electoral Officer, to ensure that people would not be able to do indirectly what they are unable to do directly. We don't want corporations reimbursing voters for the money they contribute to political parties. The report of the Chief Electoral Officer for Quebec should soon be submitted to the Advisory Committee, to ensure that everything is being done according to the rules.

    I believe the system in Quebec is a good system. I would even say that it is excellent. It is the envy of many administrations, and I can only encourage you to take your inspiration from our work in that area. I believe this would ensure the strong credibility of the entire election process. As far as I'm concerned, that is just as important in Quebec as it is in the rest of the world.

    Like my colleagues, I am not available to take your questions. I will be pleased to discuss any of the perhaps more technical aspects of the Quebec Elections Act with you, if you so desire.

¼  (1805)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Martin.

[English]

    We now proceed to the questions and answers. The way it works here is that our members get five or six minutes, and that includes the question and the answer. Sometimes the questions are long and then the answers have to be short. Sometimes the answers are long and then the questions have to be short.

    The list I have is Ted White, Carolyn Parrish, Michel Gauthier, Rodger Cuzner, Dick Proctor, Geoff Regan, Rick Borotsik, and then Jacques Saada.

    Ted White.

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

    On this first round, through you, I'll direct my questions first to the Ontario representatives.

    I wonder if any one of you three gentlemen have examined the proposed legislation that's before this committee for the federal equivalent. If so, have you come across any areas that you believe could be problematic for us, either from an administrative or some other legal perspective?

    Mr. John Hollins: I'd like to say that we've examined the legislation, but I think that would be a stretch of what we've actually done. We have read it over. We had discussions with regard to it. We're always looking at legislation throughout the world.

    From our position, we see that you're certainly looking at the constituencies. I think our comment would be that we feel very comfortable with administering the constituency process in Ontario. You seem to have a very good grasp of it.

¼  (1810)  

    Mr. Ted White: As an extension of that question then, do you really feel that a provincial experience is directly transferable to a federal situation where there is a wide diversity of population densities and a whole lot more parties than exist at a provincial level?

    Mr. John Hollins: I'd actually debate those points with you, because you have 11 parties and we have 11 parties. You have more jurisdictions, so you have volume. No, I think you'd have the volume issue, but I certainly think the technical aspects would be similar.

    Mr. Ted White: I have one last question. What percentage of the riding associations fail to file in any particular year? Do you have a feel for that federally?

    Mr. John Hollins: I'll actually defer this to David.

    The Chair: Mr. McClure.

    Mr. David McClure (Manager, Electoral Financing, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario): Sir, I deal more with the practical, day-to-day things. I can answer that question.

    For an annual filing period we would have some 15% who don't file on time and 15% to 20% who file on time. But within a short period after that there are two elements that come into play. One is that we notify them right away that they must file, and we've been in touch with them up to then. They're well aware of that. Within the party system itself there is a lot of discipline exercised. That initial gap, which may seem high, is closed very quickly, so that in any given annual filing year--not an election year, but an annual filing year--associations that we would deregister for not filing, actually not completing the process, would be in the number of six to eight out of almost 500 riding associations. So there may initially be a delay in hitting the exact deadline, but it's closed quite quickly.

    Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

    Turning now to Mr. Arseneault, do you really believe that corporations in Quebec have no influence on government decisions just because they can't make donations to government?

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Arsenault: I believe that the more money you spend supporting a political party, the better your chance of having it act on your priorities. I also believe that democracy is everybody's business and that the way that system works ensures a better balance than when large multinational corporations make contributions to a political party. There is an old saying in Quebec that goes: “Tell me who is paying you and I'll tell you whom you serve.”

[English]

    Mr. Ted White: I don't think there would be any argument from most people that we require balance in these things. Maybe the definition of balance could be a little different from case to case. But I wonder whether the people of Quebec are having a disservice done to them by having a ban on political donations from corporations.

    Anyone watching the proceedings in Parliament here in Ottawa would see regularly, including from the Bloc here, that we identify corporate donations, and there's either a perceived link or a real link to government favours. That's a very powerful disclosure that allows us to make those links and to reveal things in the House of Commons, which doesn't exist as soon as you take away that ability of corporations to donate. That's why I asked you the question.

    Don't you really feel there's more information available that reveals problems if you have corporations able to make donations?

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Arsenault: We have a democratic system here, and the primary goal of all large corporations is to accumulate capital. While I have no intention of serving up communist rhetoric here, we are part of a capitalist system where people do what they have to to get ahead. Very often the reality of “Tell me who is paying you and I'll tell you whom you serve” means that people… Elected officials must be accountable to the people, and to the large corporations.

[English]

    Mr. Ted White: Do I have time for a quickie?

    The Chair: Yes, briefly.

    Mr. Ted White: Martin Dubé, I have one question about the $3,000 contribution limit.

    That was established many years ago, and in mid-1970s dollars it was probably a significant amount at that stage. There may have been quite a lot of debate about how high it was.

    I wonder if you could estimate what that figure would be today if it had been indexed for inflation. Have you done any calculations on that?

¼  (1815)  

    The Chair: Martin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Martin Dubé: I have a Master's degree in Finance, but I don't actually have a calculator with me to update those amounts. I would say that the $3,000 limit was probably too high at the time, and that on the contrary, a cap of $3,000 may well be the right amount today. Perhaps it should have been lower at the time.

    Regarding the question you put to the Ontario representatives regarding the filing of party financing returns, I would just like to complete my answer by saying that in Quebec, the party that I represent is required to file 125 returns for 125 ridings. If we don't file a return, the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the Government cannot sit in the National Assembly. I can tell you that gives us a very strong incentive to file those returns.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Martin.

    My guess is it would be, as a rule of thumb, about $25,000 today.

    Carolyn Parrish.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): First of all, I'd like to compliment the staff of the Elections Ontario group.

    I was the chief financial officer for a provincial candidate in 2000. When you said you treated everybody kindly, and you assumed it was an oversight...I had two mistakes in mine. Whoever dealt with me was very patient. He could tell I wasn't trying to cheat.

    It is a good system. You do a really good job, even having found mistakes of mine, which I would never admit to.

    Do you have any knowledge at all of the rules that govern your municipal elections in Ontario?

    Mr. John Hollins: Yes, I do, because I have a municipal background.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: The thing I'm toying with doing is putting in two amendments, and after listening to the gentleman, whoever pays you, you account to, I may be going completely back.... One is to raise the union donations and the corporate donations to $5,000, and the other is to lower the individual ones to $5,000, but to bring in the trick you have in Ontario. You have a $5,000 donation per corporation, but they can't give more than $750 to each candidate. So they have to move it around in small amounts. Part of my amendment is to say that no individual donation can exceed $250, which is two fundraising tickets.

    Have you found a lot of difficulty and objection to that, because it's been in effect for at least one municipal election?

    Mr. John Hollins: First, I should give you my experience.

    My experience in 2000 was in the former City of Toronto, which was probably where you would see this the most. Council had the right to pass its own bylaw, although it couldn't exceed the $5,000, of course, or the $750. From that perspective, I thought it worked fine.

    From the perspective of council, they started to play with the formulas, on how much you would get back, based on certain amounts you donated. It became tricky to the point where we actually would refuse people and send them a refusal letter making them come in so that we could actually straighten it out.

    From the political perspective, no, I thought it worked very well.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'm from Mississauga. In Mississauga they didn't pass any rebate bylaws. You could give $750. You didn't get a tax receipt for it. You could only give $5,000 in the region of Peel in an election. It forced corporations and unions to package their money out in smaller packages.

    Coincidentally, that $750 was consistent for individual donations and corporate donations. That's what I'm looking at in my amendment. I don't like the fact that rich people control politics. I tend to be more offended by the fact that we allow an individual to give $10,000.

    I was interested to hear Mr. Dubé's response, that $3,000 was a lot of money back then and it was more reasonable now.

    It makes me feel very good that we're moving in the right direction.

    In answer to your question, I think this bill does the union as a whole. So $1,000 for a whole union is silly. It's better to get rid of it completely. When I hear you say that he who pays you controls you, or that's who you report to...perhaps I'm swinging right back to no corporate and union donations, and perhaps lowering the individual donations to $5,000 and capping them at $250 each.

    This was very interesting to hear from all three of you. I really appreciated your coming today. It was very good.

    The Chair: Thank you, Carolyn.

    Michel Gauthier, then Roger Cuzner, and then Dick Proctor.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Chairman, $3,000 in 1976 dollars are now worth $10,000 today. That's exactly the equivalent.

    My first question is for Martin Dubé. In Quebec, we believe that the limit of $3,000 is still adequate today. Can you tell us what percentage of individual contributions to your political party are in the $3,000 range?

¼  (1820)  

    Mr. Martin Dubé: In the Parti Québécois, it's a very small percentage; less than 1 per cent.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, since the percentage is less than 1 per cent, I'm sure you will understand why we intend to move an amendment to bring this down to a more reasonable level. The $10,000 limit seems excessive to me, particularly since this affects less than 1 per cent of the population, as Mr. Arseneault was saying. It's a well known fact that the $10,000 amount is not accessible to individuals, except perhaps to directors of a large corporation. That is another matter, but this is no better than the current provisions. Only an infinitesimal number of contributors are able and willing to give such large amounts.

    My question is for Mr. Arseneault. Representatives of several Canadian unions told us that if they were prevented from contributing as union organizations, they would have the feeling they were not participating in the political life and exerting some influence. But in Quebec, that is not allowed. Unions do not give a cent to political parties. I would like to know what you think of this position, which has been taken by one Canadian union, namely that such a system poses a problem for unions and effectively shuts them out of the process.

    Mr. Michel Arsenault: Unions in Quebec are not necessarily apolitical, in the sense that a day never goes by where the FTQ is not meeting with a politician. We influence governments in power in other ways than by making political contributions. We have regular meetings with the different parties, and particularly with the government in power.

    Union members also make individual contributions to various political parties. Unionists may not all support the same party. Our basic principle is that in a democracy, elected officials are accountable to the voters. So, through their taxes, the voter should be paying for these people to get elected. We are very comfortable with that system, as I said right at the outset. Since 1977, we have been living with both systems. Under the system now in place in Quebec, we do not make contributions and we hear no complaints from the various FTQ affiliates in that regard.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: Madam Chair, I would like to address another question to Martin Dubé of the Parti Québécois.

    At one point, we heard that there was some talk of amending the legislation in Quebec to allow corporations to make limited contributions. Those contributions could be in the order of $1,000, $2,000 or $3,000, as for individuals, or perhaps even as high as $5,000. Is that something that has support in Quebec? Is this what we are moving towards? In the Minister's bill—that the Bloc québécois supports, by the way—corporate contributions are limited to $1,000. However, we do not believe that corporations should be able to make political donations. To your knowledge, is Quebec considering accepting this sort of thing in the near future?

    Mr. Martin Dubé: My only knowledge of this goes back to my participation in the work of the Chief Electoral Officer's Advisory Committee. I personally believe that we should not move in that direction. There have in fact been discussions with respect to the idea of allowing certain organizations, in certain cases, to contribute to certain election campaign expenses, but not to actually fund political parties. In other words, these organizations would be able to defray certain expenses during the election process, but not actually finance political parties.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: Thank you, I have no further questions.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you.

    Mr. Cuzner.

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Hollins.

    I would like some clarification. There are caps on corporate donations to municipal or civic elections, but are there no caps for provincial elections, for provincial candidates?

    Mr. David McClure: Yes, there are. In the provincial election, any eligible contributor, and that's an individual, a union, or a corporation that is not a registered charity, can contribute $7,500 to a central party and $5,000, in total, to all the associations of any one party, at a limit of $1,000 per one association. During an election year they can contribute an additional $5,000 to all candidates of any one party, at a limit of $1,000 per candidate.

    Also, in an election year you can contribute an additional $7,500 to the central party during the campaign period, so in a normal year you could contribute a maximum of $17,500. In an election year it's possible to contribute $25,000 to all the various entities of a political party.

¼  (1825)  

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I'm sure you go through an annual review or at least regular reviews. How long has it been since the caps were reviewed or at least re-established?

    Mr. David McClure: They were last re-established, sir, in 1999.

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner: At that time would you have gone through a fairly extensive review where you would have looked at what's going on in Quebec and Manitoba and at the systems they've opted to go with?

    Mr. David McClure: I in fact can't directly report on that, sir. The legislation is...we administer it, but we aren't part of the establishment of the rates.

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Okay, let me ask you this. You make reference to the fact that the vast majority of concerns or problems that do arise annually are usually just mistakes in filing or auditing. Is there wilful wrongdoing in some cases? You say that's really not as great a factor. Would penalties be a deterrent in that, or is it an education process, or are there instances where you have to prosecute?

    Mr. David McClure: In the most formal sense of the word “prosecute”, there's only been one occasion, and that of course was the Patti Starr affair, as it was commonly known.

    There have been other situations that have involved the use of the OPP to investigate, the use of private investigators.

    Through a review process they reach a determination of whether in fact there is intent or whether there is simply a lack of knowledge, carelessness, or any of those normal elements that are involved in a volunteer being involved in the situation.

    It's very rare that we use the prosecutorial elements that are there in the act, that are available. As Mr. Hollins mentioned, our view is to work with people. It's part of a broader public education. We want to encourage people to participate, to feel they can participate without fear of a policing element involved. It's not seen to be a trend that's an ongoing problem.

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I guess the concern is that there has been a contention made that should we proceed with this legislation, there's a risk of driving corporate contributions underground, and corporations will look at other ways in which to support candidates. I guess what you're saying is, there's enough room within your legislation that corporations are confident in supporting candidates, associations, or whatever without having to look at other ways to get money into campaigns. I think that's what you're saying.

    Mr. David McClure: Corporations are very concerned about adhering to the rules. In my experience, they pay great attention to them.

    I'm sorry, I'm not quite following your point.

¼  (1830)  

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Again, I think one of the concerns raised by a number of witnesses is that should we pursue this and reduce the amount of corporate contributions, the money will still find its way into campaigns and associations. So the challenge becomes trying to attract that.

    But obviously you people don't really seem to have a problem with that, so--

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Cuzner, you're out of time. So, Mr. McClure, you don't have to answer that question.

    The next question is by Mr. Proctor.

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

    Mr. Hollins, you mentioned volunteers. A couple of weeks ago we had representatives from a number of the registered political parties here, several of whom seemed to be suggesting that filing and dealing with fundraising was too important to be left in the hands of volunteers.

    Have you looked at the legislation before us, and does it look that much more complicated than what is required of volunteers dealing with the Ontario legislation?

    Mr. John Hollins: It's actually a twofold question, the first part being that I probably haven't looked at the legislation enough to say we're identical.

    As you've heard, however, I think we're probably in a little bit of a weaker position, being the volunteer with a very complex job. I guess every year that we challenge things and society changes, the job becomes more complex.

    We believe our volunteers work well with us because they start the day they're hired. And we have a good relationship with the parties and work together with them. They offer an extension right into all of the constituency associations, and we do a lot of work with their CFOs. I think the relationship dictates the output; consequently, if they have a problem, they phone us. We don't get a lot of creative things from these people because they've asked us on the front end. I think there's a trust there, which has probably given us a level of comfort.... We even have that now with the corporations, who phone us to ask, “What are my limits? What can I do?” In other places, or in most places, I've heard that's unheard of, because the other person doesn't want to discuss it with someone with a striped jersey and a whistle. Their attitude is, “So you want to fool us?” But we don't find that; they seem to be working with us.

    I hope that answers it.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks very much.

    Mr. Dubé, I just have a couple of technical questions. I agree with you that you have an excellent system in Quebec, which we've admired from the outside for a very long time.

    When somebody contributes more than $200, his or her name has to be recorded. What is required at that point? Are the name and address required, or are there other identifiers required by law in Quebec?

[Translation]

    Mr. Martin Dubé: The name and address of donors, as well as the amount of the contribution made to each of the parties is listed in an appendix to the Chief Electoral Officer's Annual Report; this information is provided for each of the political parties that received contributions from these individuals. Every political party is responsible for filing a return with the Chief Electoral Officer.

    In the Parti Québécois, every year we file a return for each of the 125 ridings, as well as a province-wide return, for a total of 126 returns. The names of donors who contributed more than $200 are listed in the appendix to the CEO's report. Our responsibility is to provide specific information regarding the number of individuals who contributed less than $200. On average, $3,000 donations are rare; average contributions are approximately $100 per voter.

[English]

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Merci.

    I also have a question for Michel Arsenault. You raised the issue of third parties, Michel, and you were trying to draw a balance, saying they should be able to take a position in an election campaign and shouldn't be gagged, and that we have to respect the fact the political parties are there to contest the election.

    It's my understanding that in the recent Quebec election campaign there was a bit of an issue in the trade union movement. I'm not sure, but it may have been with the FTQ and the ADQ and your effort to respond to some allegations made by a political party. As I understand it, the government or elections officer ruled that you, the FTQ, could not do that. Could you just elaborate on what happened and what you think would have been a fairer outcome?

¼  (1835)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Émile Vallée (Political Advisor, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec): As Michel has already mentioned, the FTQ prepared pamphlets comparing the political platforms of the three parties; we also prepared an election platform—in other words, a statement of some of the FTQ's goals, which we started distributing to members of FTQ locals all across Quebec.

    The Chief Electoral Officer received a complaint that this constituted a violation of the political party financing rules, and he therefore asked for an injunction against the distribution of this material. The application for an injunction was heard, but the judge did not grant the application.

    In our defence, we referred to our right to freedom of expression. Furthermore, this material had been printed and distributed before the election campaign began. After that, the Chief Electoral Officer filed a second application for an injunction against another document that was simpler and summarized the FTQ's position. That application for an injunction was granted by a justice of the Quebec Superior Court. The ruling was made two or three days before the election, and for the time being, this is a dead issue. It is possible, however, that in the coming weeks or months, the Chief Electoral Officer will once again take action against the FTQ.

    The reason we got involved is that the political party in question was promoting regulations that are utterly inconsistent with the philosophy and objectives of the union movement. That is the reason why we took this initiative, to try and convince our members that this would be a bad policy.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you, Mr. Vallée.

    Next are Mr. Regan, Mr. Borotsik, Mr. Saada, Mr. Gauthier, and Mr. White.

    Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. Through you to the witnesses, my first question relates to transfers between a federal and a provincial riding association. I was looking over the bill again, and it occurred to me that our association is sometimes asked to give donations to a provincial riding association when there is a provincial election. I was asking myself whether or not you could do that under this bill.

    I'm wondering what rules you have in your provinces on transfers between levels, or between a federal and a provincial riding association, and what your views are on whether these should be allowed.

    Mr. John Hollins: First of all, whether or not these would be allowed isn't something we would speak to.

    As to whether or how it's done in Ontario, I'll defer to David.

    Mr. David McClure: There is only one opportunity for transferring money from a federal political group to a provincial political group, or vice versa. It depends on who is having the election, if you like. There's an allowance in the Ontario Election Finances Act for a transfer of $100 multiplied by the number of candidates a federal entity, for instance, is running. So if you had 100 candidates, you could make a one-time contribution of $10,000.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Is that from the federal party to the provincial party?

    Mr. David McClure: Yes.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: I'm talking about, let's say, the Halton West Liberal association, or whoever, wanting to transfer money to its provincial version. I'm talking about electoral district associations, not the parties themselves so much. In a local area, the way I foresee this working is that if the district association in Niagara, for example, wants to make a contribution to the campaign of the provincial district association--

¼  (1840)  

    Mr. David McClure: That's not allowed, sir.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Not allowed.

    What about in Quebec?

[Translation]

    M. Martin Dubé: From a federal riding to a provincial riding in Quebec, to my knowledge, that would not be allowed. If it were in the opposite direction—from Quebec to a federal party—I don't think that would be allowed either.

    Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): No, that is not allowed in Quebec, where only individuals are able to make contributions.

    Mr. Martin Dubé: In fact, it may be possible for some political parties to make these transfers in the form of a loan; in that case, it is not direct funding.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: I would like to hear Mr. Dubé's opinion on the level of public funding provided for under this legislation.

    Mr. Martin Dubé: I commented earlier on a limit of $3,000—rather than the $10,000 limit, if I'm not mistaken, that this bill provides for. I think the right choice would probably be somewhere in between.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: I was talking about public funding.

    Mr. Martin Dubé: Oh, you're talking about direct funding. Well, the amount in the Bill seems to me to be fairly significant. I personally feel it is important to counter the effect of abolishing corporate financing. It's a question of credibility; now voters trust the system, and the limits are fair to everyone. I think that's appropriate.

    Mr. Émile Vallée: I noticed, with respect to the $10,000 contribution, that an indexing formula would mean that this amount would increase over time. Unless I misread this, the indexing formula does not apply to the $1.50 amount given each party. It seems to me that if we do it for one, we should do it for the other.

[English]

    Mr. Geoff Regan: What is your view of the burden it places on electoral district associations, on local riding associations? Is that a reasonable burden, in your view? How is the burden provided by this bill compared to the burden in your provinces?

    Mr. John Hollins: From our perspective, it seems to match the burden we have in Ontario at this time.

    Mr. David McClure: If I can make one further comment, you would have an initial start-up period. You are obviously faced with a very large educational project in terms of working with volunteers. Once that is established, we have CFOs who have served for years and years. We do workshops; we're available.

    My only comment is, initially, you're going to have a lot of work to do, but you are going to reach a certain point where things are going, I would say, relatively smoothly, as they do for us.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: In relation to the amount of time you say it might take to get people ready for this, what is your view about the time? What's your experience? How long ago was it in Ontario that you implemented the bill, and how long was given then? Was it sufficient? What's your view of a sufficient amount of time for this?

    Mr. David McClure: Election finance legislation first came into play in Ontario in 1975. They initially did a lot of work through the parties. Remember, we had that access to go back to the parties, to organize events, to bring people in at annual general meetings, those sorts of events. I would have to say I can't really calculate either the cost or the time involved.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: You don't recall, for example, after the bill was enacted and proclaimed, that there were six months or a year, or whatever length of time, before it came into effect? Have there been major changes since 1975 when it was introduced?

    Mr. David McClure: There have been amendments through the years. The last major one was in 1999, when the contribution limits were raised and the former commission on election finances was dissolved and authority was transferred to the chief election officer of Ontario.

    I would have to research that, sir. I wasn't around then. I'm sorry. I would have to look into how they initially brought that into play.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: You weren't around in 1999?

    Mr. David McClure: I was around then.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Wasn't there a period of transition then, at that point? Was it a mediator, or was it a transition where there was notice, and people said, okay, we have to prepare for when this goes into effect?

    The Chair: Very briefly, David, please.

    Mr. David McClure: We have a standard system of sending out memos to chief financial officers.

    No, in 1999, when changes were made, it was a matter of simply informing them through the regular systems we use, sir.

    The Chair: Rick Borotsik, then Jacques Saada.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I welcome each and every one of you here. It has been a fairly arduous process trying to find out what's right and what's wrong with the legislation.

    Mr. Hollins, you mentioned that entities must register--parties, constituents, candidates, leadership. You didn't mention nominees, a nomination candidate. Are they included in the candidates? If a party is running a nomination in a provincial riding and there are five people running for that nomination, does each one of those candidates for the nomination have to register?

¼  (1845)  

    Mr. John Hollins: No. We don't deal with the party end of it; the parties police themselves.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: So nominations are not included in this legislation.

    Mr. John Hollins: Not in Ontario.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: They are included in our legislation, and I personally think it is going to be a logistical nightmare, particularly when some candidates may well spend only $100 or $200. We are also, in this legislation, demanding they have accountability for the moneys they expend, which may well mean a chief financial officer--if you will--or an official agent, which may be difficult.

    I know you didn't draft the legislation politically, but can you tell me why you left nominations out of this legislation?

    Mr. John Hollins: Actually, we deal with it directly, and it says we don't do it. It's not like they left it out; they dealt with it, and they said you don't do it.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: You also said--and I'm intrigued--you have corporate donations and a corporation can donate $5,000, in lots up to a maximum of $1,000, to candidates in different constituency associations, correct?

    Mr. John Hollins: Yes.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: What kind of accounting system do you have? If a corporation wants to donate to seven, in $1,000 lots, how do you find that particular donation?

    Mr. John Hollins: Within our administration we track all of the donations. We use technology that identifies them for us.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: So if they gave $1,000 to seven or eight, it would be registered. You'd come back and you would have a central data processing system that would bring it together and red flag that particular donation then?

    Mr. John Hollins: Exactly.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Does that happen? Has it happened?

    It could happen by mistake, by the way, because I'm sure some corporations don't really know how many they give out.

    Mr. John Hollins: As I mentioned earlier, we do have some errors and omissions, and we work to clarify where they are and rectify them.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: You also said there were 11 parties. Every riding association has to be registered, but obviously not all parties run in every constituency. In your experience, have you found some of the smaller, minor parties have a more difficult time finding CFOs in particular riding associations?

    Mr. John Hollins: I think it's the bigger picture. It's probably the way they...I'm making an assumption here. They probably don't do it, for whatever reason, so we don't have them in every particular area. But if they get the CFOs and they have a constituency association, they're the same as everybody else's; it doesn't differ among the parties.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: If one of those CFOs is an accountant in a corporation--and I know it's a volunteer position--could that conceivably be seen as a corporate donation to that particular riding association? On a volunteer basis, would you put a value to that?

    Mr. John Hollins: So you want to know whether or not we rent out a service.

    David.

    Mr. David McClure: No. All the appointees who are registered with the association, through history of election finances, have been considered to be voluntary.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is there a value placed on that?

    Mr. David McClure: No. An association could--and some do--pay honorariums, because there is a lot of work involved. But generally, no, we don't look at that as a contribution.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: My last question, if I may, Mr. Chairman, is to Mr. Dubé.

    Mr. Dubé, in your party, the Parti Québécois, do you have fundraisers, dinners, for example, where people will pay $200 or $300 to come to the dinner? Do you have any of those types of fundraisers?

[Translation]

    Mr. Martin Dubé: Yes, we do organize some activities of that nature, and ministers regularly attend. As you say, the amounts paid range from $150 to $200 or $250.

[English]

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: All of those ticket sales, at $150 to $200, are to individuals. There are no corporation cheques written for those dinners?

[Translation]

    Mr. Martin Dubé: No, there are no corporation cheques, and we issue a receipt for every donation. For example, one person may reserve ten seats at a fundraiser where every seat costs $100; while that individual can write a check for $1,000 to cover all ten seats, a receipt is issued for each individual donation. That is all laid out in the return that we file with the Chief Electoral Officer at the end of the year.

¼  (1850)  

[English]

    The Chair: Okay.

    Jacques Saada.

    Then, by the way, I'm going to go to Ted White, Michel Guimond, and Dick Proctor. I'll go down the opposition side.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you very much for your presentations. I have two questions, one of which I will ask later. I don't know whether I should be asking you these questions, or whether I'm not simply sorry that I didn't put them directly to Mr. Blanchet, who appeared before the Committee.

    My first question is one of principle. A number of witnesses, including yourself, Mr. Arsenault, have referred to the democratic principle of “one person, one vote”. Of course, no one is challenging that, but how does a corporate or a union contribution in any way violate that principle? We're not only talking about election campaigns or elections; we're talking about politics in general, including elections.

    Mr. Michel Arsenault: Let's take the example of our neighbours to the South, the United States. As we all know, election campaigns are extremely costly. Are the American people interested in politics? In the last presidential elections, less than 50 per cent of Americans actually voted. You practically have to be a billionaire to get yourself elected President of the United States, or have a lot of billionaire friends to support you. I personally believe that that completely kills people's interest in politics. Under a democratic system, politics is everyone's business. The principle of “one person, one vote” puts everyone on an equal footing.

    In both Quebec and Canada, all citizens should be first-class citizens; there shouldn't be some people who are first-class citizens, and ordinary people who are second or third class citizens. Large corporations are part of the first class.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I suppose you could argue it this way. What corporation funds a political party between elections? If the individual, candidate or political party makes a decision that is consistent with what that corporation is seeking, but inconsistent with what the population wants, then they won't get elected. So, the ultimate decision-making power rests with individuals, each of whom has a vote. I really don't understand the connection you are making. I say that quite sincerely, because other witnesses have made the same argument, but were unable to establish a direct connection. You made a connection between the funding provided by corporations or unions and the public's loss of confidence in politics, which translates into a lower rate of participation.

    I put that question directly to many witnesses, and no one has been able to prove scientifically, with parallel lines and curves, that there is a direct relationship between the two. In my opinion, that is quite understandable, because there are a lot of factors that come into play when selecting a political party or when a voter is choosing who or who not to vote for. Blaming the low participation rate on corporate contributions strikes me as very attractive in terms of the rhetoric, but in concrete terms, do you have anything that would provide tangible evidence of the connection between the two?

    Mr. Michel Arsenault: It's a question of perception. I have to say that in my own union in Quebec, I was elected based on the principle of “one member, one vote”. We have always applied that rule. When I run, no one other than union members can contribute to my campaign. The reason we do that is the perception some people might have. Not only must there be honesty, but there must be the appearance of honesty as well. So it's a question of perception. That is the rule we consistently apply in our union.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure that is really the answer I was seeking, but I respect that answer. I understand what you mean and I agree with the principle.

    Mr. Michel Arsenault: Could I ask you a question? If you were a union member, what would you think of a union leader who had managed to get elected thanks to large corporate donations?

    Mr. Jacques Saada: What I'm saying is that political life, which is in fact community life, continues between elections. If businesses can make a contribution to community life, be that in the area of sports, recreation, culture or anything else, why would it be so bad for them to have an opportunity to contribute to the political life of the community? I'm certainly not challenging the principle behind the voting process.

    If, for example, there is an election in 1980, I am allowed to receive a contribution in 1981. The next election will only take place in 1984 or 1985. How can you possibly make a connection between the so-called corruption of the process and the fact of having received a political contribution?

    I also have a second question, and I want to be sure I don't lose my opportunity.

¼  (1855)  

    Mr. Michel Arsenault: Well, I would like to answer that question.

    The Chair: The chair will still be here.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    My question is really a practical question and it is addressed more to Mr. Dubé.

    In 1977, the legislation passed in Quebec systematically eliminated corporate and group contributions. What kind of transition period was there? What steps were taken to ensure a smooth transition between 1977, just a few months after a provincial election, and the next election, which took place in April of 1981, if memory serves me?

    Mr. Martin Dubé: Because I did not have the right to vote when those two elections occurred, I don't feel comfortable trying to answer those questions. I don't really have an answer to your quite technical question about the transition period. When the legislation was adopted, it had the support of all the political parties represented in the National Assembly. It seems to me that it was perfectly normal for things to proceed smoothly.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I think it would be worth putting that question again to Mr. Blanchet, perhaps in writing, Mr. Chairman, so that we can understand how that worked and whether or not there was a transition period between the time the legislation was enacted and its enforcement at the riding level. I would like to get this information because I believe the transition question is one of the issues we will have to resolve. I am interested in Quebec's experience in that regard.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Jacques.

    Are you okay?

    Martin, ça va?

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Dubé wanted to add something.

    The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry.

    Mr. Martin Dubé: Yes, I wanted to add something.

    The Chair: Yes, go ahead, Martin.

    Mr. Martin Dubé: I just wanted to say that I think the $1.50 amount is a good idea. This could be a transitional formula used in the short term that could eventually be re-evaluated.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Ted White.

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

    Actually, Mr. Proctor really asked the question I was going to ask of you, Monsieur Arsenault, about the third-party advertising.

    I do want to congratulate you and your organization for fighting for the right for freedom of expression during elections, for the right that voters have as much entitlement to be involved in the election as do the political parties. So I want to encourage you to keep up that fight. Getting rid of those gag laws is something the leader of my party has fought for, for many years, through the National Citizens' Coalition. So I hope you'll stick to it and help us to get rid of them.

    My question now goes back to Mr. Hollins.

    In the Ontario situation, about 20% of the election expense is refunded. Is that correct? Can you feel any political pressure out there for that to be increased, or do parties get enough money back from that to be able to operate?

    Mr. John Hollins: I feel absolutely no political pressure at this time, Ted. I can't get people in the room to discuss this, if that helps, at this point in time.

    Mr. Ted White: Well, actually it doesn't, because now I don't know whether.... Have you heard any rumours?

    Mr. John Hollins: No.

    Mr. Ted White: There's nothing?

    Mr. John Hollins: Nothing.

    Mr. Ted White: There seems to be satisfaction, I think.

    Mr. John Hollins: I think if that's the measurement of satisfaction, then yes, we have it.

    Mr. Ted White: Now, David McClure, during my earlier questioning about the number of riding associations that failed to file, you indicated initially it may be 15% to 20%, and then that gets down to perhaps 6 to 8. Was that a percentage, 6% to 8%, that get deregistered?

    Mr. David McClure: No, sir, that's an actual count of associations. It's 6 to 8 out of 500 that are deregistered for not filing.

    Mr. Ted White: Excellent.

    My final question then is, what percentage of the overall budget is required for the staffing and support services for the part of your organization that registers riding associations and polices the filing of returns? Do you have any feel for what percentage of your overall budget is consumed by that activity?

    Mr. David McClure: I'm going to have to apologize, actually, Mr. White. We are in the throes of change in Elections Ontario, and I'll give you an idea of it.

    I actually came here two years ago when we had a permanent staff in elections of 21 people and in election finances of 6. We just had approval for that to change to a joined force of 61.

    So if you want me to look forward and say, from the budget looking forward, what percentage is electoral finance, it'll be one-tenth of our office cost, approximately, and that's an administrative fee, essentially salaries.

    Mr. Ted White: That's all. Thanks.

    The Chair: Witnesses, you should know that the bell and the light is the House of Commons closing. It isn't a fire alarm or anything of that type.

½  (1900)  

    Mr. John Hollins: So don't run for the doors.

    The Chair: That's right, exactly.

    Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was pleased to hear my colleague, Ted White, who represents the Canadian Alliance, a right-wing party, commend the FTQ for fighting another right-wing party, the ADQ.

    Mr. Chairman, I have to apologize to you and to all the people who made presentations. Since I don't have the gift of ubiquity, I was unfortunately unable to hear those presentations, since I was attending another committee that began at 4:30 p.m. You may already have answered my question. If that is the case, I will read the “blues”.

    I have questions for each of the groups that are with us today. When we ask our questions one by one, we end up being interrupted by the Chairman and may not be able to question one group or another. The Chairman is more reluctant to interrupt witnesses.

    My first question is for the representatives of the FTQ. With other witnesses, I have raised the fact that there are problems with the $1,000 amount set for contributions from different branches of companies or different locals of a union. I imagine that your legal services have looked at this. I understand that local 2782 of the plumbers' union is independent of local 2240, for example. The way the Bill is currently worded, is there sufficient protection here to avoid that kind of thing happening? Have you looked at this?

    My second question is for Martin Dubé, Director General of the Parti Québécois. As you know, this bill provides guidelines with respect to leadership races. In the Bloc québécois, we have deplored the fact that the current Liberal leadership race falls between the cracks. Unfortunately, we'll have to live with that. I raised this with the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Blanchet. I understood him to say that you are a member of the Party Advisory Committee chaired by the Chief Electoral Officer. Do you know whether there is any intention to look at this in relation to the Quebec system? Mr. Blanchet told me that since 1977, there haven't really been any leadership races, except in 1985, when Mr. Lévesque left the party. The Parti québécois will probably have one one of these days. Is there any intention to add leadership races to the Quebec system?

    My next question is addressed to the Chief Elections Officer for Ontario. The Bloc québécois is intending to move amendments regarding the appointment of returning officers. At the present time, these positions are political rewards handed out by the government in power, meaning that you can end up with some real idiots or incompetent people in those jobs, whose only real qualification is that they belong to the party in power. In some cases, not all, we might have preferred… I would like to know how the process works in Ontario as regards the appointment of returning officers.

[English]

    The Chair: Please give very short replies to the three questions. We want to begin with the affiliate's point. Michel, that would be you.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Arsenault: With respect to the $1,000 amount, when we got here, that really wasn't clear in our own mind. I cited the example of the Steelworkers' Union, a union affiliated with the FTQ which I am very familiar with. The Steelworkers' Union has 2,000 locals and 185,000 members all across Canada. It is a little ridiculous to allow for a contribution of only $1,000 for the entire union, and yet a contribution of $1,000 per local would be very onerous. Our position is that this provision is not necessary, and we are asking that it be deleted. Take that out of there; there is no need for it. We don't have such a provision in Quebec nor have we since 1977, when the Act governing the Financing of Political Parties was passed, and we have never had a problem.

    The Chair: Martin, could you answer the question about changes to the system in the province?

    Mr. Martin Dubé: That was not on the agenda of the most recent meetings of the Advisory Committee chaired by the Chief Electoral Officer, and I don't believe it will be on the agenda of future meetings either. Because there will be one in Quebec in the near future, it may be put on the agenda, but for the time being, this is not something the Advisory Committee is looking at.

[English]

    The Chair: And the question of the returning officers in Ontario....

    Mr. John Hollins: The returning officers in Ontario are appointed by the government.

    There is a little thing I should mention. In the case of a tie, the returning officer breaks the tie.

½  (1905)  

    The Chair: Michel, do you want more on that?

    On the question of returning officers, I thought your question was more to do with the appointment.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: My question had more to do with the fact that the appointments are made by the government. I gather that, unlike Quebec, there is no advertising in the newspapers or competitions organized where candidates' skills are evaluated. I guess the government in power reserves the right to appoint the people it wants. Is that correct?

[English]

    Mr. John Hollins: Yes, that's correct.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: As Chief Electoral Officer, do you agree with Jean-Pierre Kingsley, who has said publicly that he would be in favour of adopting the Quebec system for selecting returning officers, if the government were to decide at some point that it wanted to change the legislation? What is your opinion? Do you think the system you have currently is better than the Quebec system?

[English]

    The Chair: John, of course, if you think that's a political question, you're entirely entitled not to reply.

    Mr. John Hollins: I have not taken the stance with Mr. Kingsley, if that's the question. Second, I quite enjoy my career, so I already have the second question.

    The Chair: That's right. That's honest.

    Dick Proctor.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

    I want to ask the question about thresholds on the $1.50.

    Before I go to that, I want to be clear from Quebec and Monsieur Dubé that, as I understand it, for the smaller parties to qualify in Quebec for public financing, they have to field 12 candidates in the election campaign. Is that a fact? Do I have it right?

[Translation]

    Mr. Martin Dubé: I believe so. They have to obtain 15 per cent of the popular vote in the various ridings to be entitled to a refund of their expenses. I don't know whether that answers your question.

[English]

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay, actually it does. In other words, if they don't get 15%, they're not entitled to any public financing?

[Translation]

    Mr. Martin Dubé: They are not entitled to a refund of their election expenses, but they can receive their share of the government subsidy, which is the total amount of the 50¢ contribution per voter.

[English]

    Mr. Dick Proctor: That's what I meant. So regardless of how many or how few votes they get, as long as they qualify with the number of candidates, they're entitled to receive some money through public financing.

[Translation]

    Mr. Martin Dubé: Yes, that's correct.

[English]

    Mr. Dick Proctor: I think you're answering in the affirmative.

    What is the situation in Ontario, Mr. Hollins, with regard to that, the minor parties?

    Mr. David McClure: To be eligible to receive the 20% of expenses, subject to limit, which is the subsidy, you must achieve 50% of the popular vote.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Right. So Ontario doesn't have a system where there's any financing, like this $1.50 that's being proposed in this legislation. So it doesn't apply?

    Mr. David McClure: No.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay.

    Then let me come to the second part of that, which is the $1.50.

    I thought I heard Monsieur Dubé say he thought that was about right.

    Having looked at the legislation, I'd be interested to know what Ontario and what the FTQ think. Does that $1.50 per vote, per year, in lieu of moneys from corporations and trade unions seem a reasonable amount? Is it too high, too low?

    Mr. John Hollins: I have absolutely no basis to have an opinion on that.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Right. I'll come to the FTQ in a moment.

    Is the amount in Quebec now 50¢?

[Translation]

    Mr. Martin Dubé: Yes, it is currently 50¢ per voter, but that money is redistributed among authorized political parties based on the number of votes they received in the last election. There are approximately 5.5 million voters in Quebec; so, that amounts to about $2.7 million, which is redistributed in proportion to the percentages obtained.

[English]

    Mr. Dick Proctor: And this question is for the FTQ. Does the $1.50 in lieu of money from corporations and trade unions seem like a reasonable amount of money?

    Mr. Émile Vallée: It seems reasonable.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay. That's all.

    The Chair: Colleagues, on your behalf, I'd like to thank our witnesses today.

    We had, from Elections Ontario, John Hollins, Dave McClure, and Mike Stockfish; from the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, Michel Arsenault and Émile Vallée; and from the Parti Québécois, Martin Dubé.

    Gentlemen, we genuinely thank you very much.

    The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock in room 112 north.