STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, November 15, 1999

• 1901

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): Seeing a quorum, I'll call the meeting to order.

Colleagues, we're continuing our review of Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act. Tonight we have three groups of witnesses: the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and the National Firearms Association.

Welcome to our witnesses, and thank you for attending. We look forward to your submissions.

The format we've used successfully in the past is to ask each group to present for approximately ten minutes, and following all the presentations we'll engage in kind of a roundtable series of questioning from all the parties represented here.

If that's acceptable, I'll follow the order that is shown on the agenda, starting with the Canadian Labour Congress, then moving to Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and then National Firearms Association.

From the Canadian Labour Congress we have Nancy Riche and Pat Kerwin. Would either one of you please begin.

Ms. Nancy Riche (Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress): I'll start, and I'll certainly share my time with Pat. As we decided walking up here, there are certain areas we each feel very passionate about, as I'm sure do all Canadians who are following this. So I will try to run through some of the areas briefly, and then Pat will also speak. Pat is the national director of the political action department at the CLC.

I didn't want to start there, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to: We're very keen to get involved in some discussion around proportional representation, or even a fixed election date. However, we do feel that this committee probably can't deal with it in the time allowed. I hate to start a brief by saying set up another committee, but we are suggesting that a committee of the House be charged with conducting hearings and studies on important matters such as proportional representation and the fixed election date.

I'd also like to see a lot more Canadians involved, because surely the basis of an election act is to see democracy played out in its fullest sense, and that everybody—with a few exceptions—has the right to vote, to be a candidate, to be involved with a party, and all the things that we actually do right now. So we think something as big as a change from first past the post to proportional representation needs broader discussion, for sure.

We're concerned about the permanent voters list and how bad it is. I know Pat will want to add to that, because he certainly hinted in the most recent Ontario election that the potential for fraud is unbelievable, particularly if you take in Ottawa, student housing and group homes. In fact, one of the places where he did canvass, 12 voting cards had been delivered to that place and none of those people were living there any more. So we think we have to have a look at that, and we would recommend that Elections Canada undertake enumeration in all polls where there is significant turnover residence. In some places I think that will be very clear—that is, students, group homes—and in other places it won't be so clear, and we haven't quite come up with a plan to define significant turnover or how you would actually find that out.

• 1905

On the issue of meeting the 15% for rebate, we would suggest that it be eliminated and that it would be refunded totally, regardless of the percentage of votes.

We also agree with the Libertarian Party, in that a $1,000 fee is just too high for candidates. It really is making a statement that anybody and everybody can easily find $1,000. For sure and certain, I know that not to be true. You're certainly saying that people who are on social assistance or unemployment insurance can find $1,000 easily or have supporters who can give them $1,000. We think that should be reduced to about $200 and the 15% threshold eliminated.

Pat can pick up other parts, but I want to talk a little bit about the broadcast and how that works. For a long time I have believed that to be one of the most unfair aspects of the Elections Act. The suggestion that because you got a certain percentage of the vote in this election allows you to have more broadcast minutes than the party that didn't have that number is totally unfair. When the governing party decides to call an election, they are in fact saying we are all now equal, we are now going to run, and the best candidates will get elected, whatever the turnout is. To suggest that the party in the previous election that got the highest percentage therefore has the benefit of more broadcast time is, to me, totally discriminatory against other parties.

In fact it hasn't worked. In 1993, of course, the Progressive Conservative Party would have had the highest number of minutes, and it didn't mean a thing at the end of the day in the results of the election. The same thing could be said on the other side for Reform, who probably had a small number of minutes but in fact elected far more. I really think that needs to be looked at.

When the smaller parties talked about it, they said the broadcast arbitrator always gave a few more minutes to the smaller parties, so they have clearly played around with it. So I think that's important.

On the thing that has been floating around about getting more women to run, we think there are many ways to help women enter politics, not the least of which is an understanding of women's lives and the kind of work they do. If we did a survey, I'm sure we'd find that most men who have been elected are generally professionals—lawyers, doctors, teachers, and so on. Quite often women are not in that sphere. Generally speaking, they are lower-paid. So we have already set up a situation in which the group or the gender in our society that is the lowest paid, that also has most of the responsibilities for home, for children, and for elder care, are probably in the lowest-paid jobs. It makes it difficult for them to run. Maybe we should be looking at child care expenses, elder care expenses. If we go with the full rebate back with less than 15%, then that will be helpful.

In the New Democratic Party—and you probably know I have some connection to it—we've actually had a fund for a long time, and other parties have followed that example. We have the Agnes MacPhail fund, and I think the Liberals have another fund, the Judy LaMarsh fund. So every party has recognized that there are certain barriers to women running for election that are not faced by men. I think the committee should be looking at those kinds of things.

I think you might get into some problems with just giving back a lot more. Besides that, we have real problems with the nomination. We could still do all that, the big machine can come in, in any party, quite frankly, and we can put the big front on that we're doing stuff for women and the man wins the nomination, and even though the party appears to look good and as if they care, in fact it doesn't happen.

I hope I haven't gone too far. Pat can pick up some of the other things.

Oh, I should talk about third parties, especially next to my friend here from the National Firearms Association. Our recommendation is that there be zero, absolutely zero, for third-party financing for organizations. We would support that individuals who had a particular issue or a certain cause could spend up to $500.

• 1910

To take us back to the free trade debate, one party in the 1988 election supported free trade. The other two parties were opposed to it. When the advertising blackout came 24 hours before, a third party, called the Free Trade Alliance for Jobs, or whatever they called themselves—I remember that Tom d'Aquino and Peter Lougheed co-chaired it—put full-page ads in every single newspaper in this country. There was no time for any other party to rebut. In fact, it was very thinly veiled that this was big advertising for one party.

If organizations and groups want to get involved in an election, we have a thing called parties. You can get involved with a party; you can form a party. In fact, the National Citizens' Coalition could become the National Citizens' Coalition Party. We have established a procedure in this country that legitimate parties run for election. Candidates who belong to those parties, and I guess some independents, can run. If third parties want to get involved with the party that supports their position, they have all sorts of ways of doing that; there are no limits. I know you're suggesting $150,000, but with the National Citizens' Coalition... I don't want to keep using them; I could use the National Firearms Association. Every chapter could then spend $150,000 and we could—

A voice: You do have your FACs; you're in the right.

Ms. Nancy Riche: Let's talk about gun control before the evening is over.

In fact every chapter could have $150,000 and we could be talking oodles of money that really starts to skew the whole process. So we are strongly recommending that there be zero amounts on third-party advertising.

Mr. Pat Kerwin (Director of Political Action, Canadian Labour Congress): There are a couple of other major points you're looking at.

On the question of political parties, where the Communist Party took the case to the Supreme Court, our recommendation is that we would follow the judge in that. A party could put its name on the ballot if it had two or more candidates. Actually, I thought the Communist Party itself was quite reasonable on this, looking to have a higher threshold. We would support Mr. White on this one, that if you have 12 people under a banner, you should be a registered party eligible for broadcast time, and so on.

So it goes along with our philosophy, which Nancy outlined, that if you want to get involved in politics, the way should be open to you, with not a lot of barriers there, in order to form your party, and at the same time we tell you you can't spend money.

The last thing, which I know a number of people have raised over the hearings, is on who should be able to contribute. The Quebec model is the way a lot of the people summarized this. This is something we would be willing to discuss with a committee set up by Parliament. We aren't advocating that today. Our Quebec members feel quite happy with the Quebec law. Those outside of Quebec have preferred a more direct involvement, but it is a subject on which I think we would be willing to engage in discussions. I think what we were worried about is that we would pass a law that sounded very good, and then each political party would immediately try to find the way around that in order to get the resources to win the campaigns they wanted. So I know it has been raised a number of times.

We've put a number of tactical things in here, such as on by-elections. The stupidity tonight is that here in Ontario the polls stay open until 9:30 because one other by-election is happening in Saskatchewan. To me, that seems a bit ludicrous. We should have 8:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. for by-elections, no matter where you live.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll move then to Canadian Taxpayers Federation, with Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Walter Robinson (Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation): Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. As federal director of the CTF, it is indeed a great pleasure to appear before your committee this evening.

[Translation]

My presentation this evening will be in English, however, I will attempt to respond to your questions in the language of your choice.

[English]

Later this week we will forward to you a detailed critique of Bill C-2 that lays out our objections to various clauses now proposed in the legislation. This evening I will confine my remarks to the issues of citizen and citizen advocacy groups spending limits, certification of political parties, election reimbursements, and emerging issues not addressed in Bill C-2.

Allow me to digress. The term “third party” is pejorative to me and personally offensive. Participation in the political process is essential and is just as important for those who place their names on a ballot as for those who choose to promote or oppose parties or candidates through all legal means possible. Elections that engage the nation in vibrant and compelling public policy debates are surely a sign of a healthy democracy. Indeed, such citizen engagement both inside and outside our parliamentary system is essential if our democratic traditions are to be upheld and strengthened. Yet the changes advocated in this bill with respect to citizen and citizen advocacy group advertising, clauses 349 to 362, run contrary to this democratic ethos and serve to weaken the body politic, not strengthen it.

• 1915

To recap, citizen and citizen advocacy group spending limits stem from the 1974 revisions to the Elections Act, based on the view of members of Parliament of the day and elections experts that election campaign participation should be limited to official parties and candidates.

In summary, and in disgust, what an offensive, arrogant, and contentious view of the democratic process. Twenty-five years later and after repeated court interventions, this government is once again attempting to stifle democratic participation in election campaigns by citizen advocacy groups, labour unions, chambers of commerce and the like, right down to the local 4-H club, or local neighbourhood association.

Let's be very clear: while a $150,000 spending limit for citizens and citizen advocacy groups may seem generous, it works out to a mere $498.34 per riding if applied across all 301 ridings in this country. In communities such as Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, even in Red Deer, a local group can't even buy a single quarter-page ad in the weekly community newspaper for this paltry amount. On the other hand, a political party that maximizes its national spending limit of 62 cents per elector and spends the allowable limit in all 301 constituencies could spend upwards of $25 million, as compared to the limit of $150,000 for citizens and citizen advocacy groups. Such a situation is hardly fair.

The main arguments for spending limits on extra-parliamentary actors is that access to big money could influence voters. Contrary to the architects of this proposed law, we do not believe that voters are stupid, and recent experience shows that excessive spending does not necessarily influence voting intentions. During the 1988 election, free trade supporters outspent those opposing the agreement, yet a majority of Canadians voted for political parties opposing the FTA.

In 1992 the yes side for the Charlottetown Accord outspent the no side by a factor of thirteen to one. Yet the no side still prevailed in a majority of Canadian provinces and the accord was defeated. In 1993 the federal PC Party and its candidates spent some $20 million for the great electoral success of two seats. And earlier this year organized labour and other groups spent millions of dollars in an effort to oust the Harris government from office in Ontario. The result was Mr. Harris and his party were returned to office with a greater majority vote than their 1995 first victory. No credible academic evidence on the face of the planet will support the contention that big money buys elections. Indeed, as shown above, recent Canadian experience points to the opposite conclusion.

But there's no discounting the fact that advertising costs money, and the provisions restricting extra-parliamentary participation in the election process effectively amount to censorship. If limits are to be applied, they should be similar to those applicable to parties and individual candidates. Alternatively, if you are going to restrict something, restrict contributions, not spending.

In addition, the reporting and disclosure requirements in this section of Bill C-2 will ensure that politics truly becomes the domain of the rich and well connected, given the battery of lawyers and accountants who will be needed to meet all reporting and filing provisions. Indeed, this document, Bill C-2, in general can be viewed as a huge impediment for meaningful participation by citizens in the electoral process.

In the 1996 B.C. election, our experience shows that we had to retain a lawyer full-time just to ensure we were always complying with the provisions of the province's elections act, many of which have been echoed in proposed changes in Bill C-2. Ordinary citizens or smaller and less well-financed groups may not have the resources at their disposal to engage such professional help, again proving the point that the act limits participation instead of encouraging it.

Turning to the issue of qualifying for party status, clause 370, we believe that the requirement to field 50 candidates entrenches the existing party structure and stifles participation by other voices in the election process. It is here that I find myself agreeing with my colleagues from the CLC. Moreover, it is inconsistent with the requirements to achieve official party status here in the House of Commons. We propose that this number be reduced to 12 to be consistent with the party provisions that are applicable here in the House today.

While some may argue that lowering the threshold would lead to a multitude of parties contesting elections and no doubt lead to fringe parties sometimes promoting extreme views, it is the right of these parties to be heard. And, again, we have great faith in the electorate to discern between the serious and the frivolous parties and candidates. We need look no further than New Zealand or Germany, where 35 or more candidates and parties may be on the ballot at a single election, yet voters do not complain that the choice is either burdensome or overwhelming. They make fundamental democratic choices.

Now let us address the issue of candidate reimbursements. The tax system already provides generous provisions for those who wish to contribute to political parties and/or campaigns. Indeed, it has always struck us as perplexing that the tax system allows a 75% tax credit on a political contribution of $100 while the same amount donated to the United Way or the local AIDS hospice or the local chapter of the cancer society merely warrants 17% tax credit treatment. And now the government wishes to raise this limit for 75% treatment to $200, in clause 560 of the bill.

• 1920

I wonder if the irony of this situation resonates with any of the members here on the committee this evening. We give more importance to the political system than we do to philanthropic activities in this country.

On top of this, election reimbursements represent another barrier to meaningful and new participation in the electoral process. CTF analysis reveals that after the 1997 federal election 1,672 candidates filed reports, and a record number, 801 candidates to be precise, were eligible to receive campaign reimbursements. In fact, taxpayers forked over $16.5 million to these 801 candidates, for an average grant of $20,600. This represents an 11% increase from 1993, when 714 successful and defeated candidates received $14.8 million from taxpayers for an average grant of $20,800.

The argument in defence of these subsidies and reimbursements is that they are necessary to help out people who could not otherwise afford to run, leaving politics, yet again, only for the well-to-do. Again, the opposite is actually true. In 1993, of the 714 candidates who received reimbursements 710 of them ran for one of the five major parties—Liberal, Reform, Bloc, NDP, or PC—and in 1997 only two candidates of the 801 who received reimbursements fell outside those five major parties.

This practice also encourages candidates to run deficits, knowing that taxpayer-funded reimbursements will put their campaigns back into the black. In the current Parliament, 123 of your colleagues ran campaign deficits in 1997. These reimbursements reward fiscal irresponsibility and also provide huge war chests for campaigns that run themselves in the black, again skewing the playing field for the next electoral cycle.

We believe that the practice of candidate and party reimbursements should cease, given the very generous tax treatment already available to political actors.

On other matters, clauses 24 and 183, we believe that the CEO should be given the power to recruit and appoint returning officers and special ballot officers, as compared to the current practice, which encourages patronage within the electoral system.

Furthermore, this committee should give thought to mechanisms or clauses within this act—again, agreeing with my colleagues from the CLC—that allow the Chief Electoral Officer to study the merits of other voting systems, such as proportional representation, mixed member proportional, transferable ballots, and the like. Such research would prove invaluable should Parliament wish to engage Canadians in a debate about reforming our archaic first-past-the-post voting system.

Finally, we are fundamentally disappointed with the lack of emphasis placed upon empowering the electorate through the use of new media to facilitate the voting process or broaden voter participation. While we stand at the threshold of a new century, we are still wedded to a system rooted in the voting traditions of the 19th and 20th centuries. Surely this committee should give some thought to the use of new technologies in the voting exercise.

Mr. Chairman, we believe there is great room for improvement to this legislation and we submit our ideas to you for consideration.

Citizen and citizen advocacy group spending limits as presently envisaged, and restricting participation of the widest array of political parties possible, do a disservice to an electorate already skeptical of Canada's institutions of government.

Allow me to close with some appropriate words from famed Russian novelist and dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who incidentally won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1970. Thirty years ago today, on November 15, 1969, Solzhenitsyn penned a letter to the writers' union in Moscow in which he wrote:

It is time to remember that the first thing we belong to is humanity. And humanity is separated from the animal world by thought and speech and they should naturally be free. If they are fettered, we go back to being animals.

Mr. Chairman, let us treat voters as intelligent humans, not animals. Let us trust their judgment and capacity to choose and let us wholly understand that the legitimacy of any government's mandate comes from Canada's 19 million voters. Let them speak loudly, freely, and as often as they so choose.

[Translation]

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions.

[English]

The Chair: I want to thank you very much for that submission. I can't help but point out that you stuck within the ten minutes and you were very succinct. You can make a presentation on any committee I sit on any time you want.

Mr. Walter Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Now we go to Mr. Hinter for his presentation. Mr. Hinter is a coordinator with the National Firearms Association. Mr. Hinter.

Mr. Jim Hinter (Coordinator, National Firearms Association): Good evening, Mr. Chairman and committee members. Thank you for inviting us here tonight to speak to this. It's always pleasant to come to Ottawa, to this cold north wind, when it was 15 degrees and warm in Calgary, where I'm based.

• 1925

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): It's actually snowing outside right now.

Mr. Jim Hinter: Wonderful.

Before getting started, I'll give you a brief sketch of Canada's National Firearms Association. We're a Canadian organization, and we have members from coast to coast to coast. Right now we have over 100,000 paid-up members, and it continues to grow. So far this year we've grown by 15% across Canada.

When I looked at Bill C-2 I thought to myself, after reading some of the information I got, imagine living in a country where a person can be convicted of a crime and heavily fined without a trial just for expressing his opinion. It sounds to me like one of those third world dictatorships we occasionally hear about in the news. But that situation happened here in Canada, specifically in British Columbia, to an accountant. To me, it demonstrates very clearly what can happen with third-party spending regulations as proposed in Bill C-2—or what's said on the street is a gag law.

The National Firearms Association doesn't believe it's a government's role to limit the rights of individual Canadians or groups of Canadians to express their own opinions or causes. To do so, frankly, will only increase the growing distrust of big government across the country. I find it truly sad that some parliamentarians—although obviously nobody at the committee here—would feel that citizens in our land are so devoid of free thought that they would buy into an advertising campaign from any organization or any company.

We can hold the Charlottetown Accord up as an example of people refusing to buy into advertised positions. The experts in Canada told Canadians on radio, on television, in their newspaper editorials, and in ads that our country would not survive unless the yes side won. The yes side spent thirteen times more than the no side. Ordinary Canadians studied the issue and carefully voted no. We're still in Canada; the people were right.

The real issue here, to me and to our organization, is a choice between government deciding that they, rather than the people, know better how the people should live their lives. The people of Canada are the real stakeholders here. We could let a legislation package like this pass without comment. We could watch the people do what they've often done, and throw a government out. People have done it before and they'll do it again. But in studying this bill, we see the provisions that are similar to those already defeated in Quebec and Alberta, and provisions that are before the courts in British Columbia as we speak.

The matter is, it appears that governments are more interested in enacting laws to restrict the freedom of Canadians to express their opinion publicly in a substantive manner in an election campaign.

To make my friend here happy, we will talk very briefly about the issue of firearms.

The federal government claims the public opinion surveys demonstrate widespread support for the new firearms legislation. If that were the case, then there's nothing for the federal Liberal Party or the federal government to fear from having that legislation face challenges in the court of law or in the courts of public opinion.

The National Firearms Association would suggest the true test of any legislation is, number one, will it achieve any goals that Canadian citizens actually want? Number two, can it achieve those stated goals within the financial parameters claimed? Third, is it effective in achieving the results claimed? We would assert that the new firearms legislation won't pass any of those tests. We've offered an alternative, and putting the government of the day to the test on that issue is not one that we will limit to a federal election campaign. The act is flawed. It will fail the tests.

Bill C-2 contains several flaws. I'll point out one small area, pertaining to third-party spending. There are others. We represent over 100,000 members across the country. If we were to print and distribute copies of an election voters guide across the country, just to our members, we would rapidly be approaching the maximum spending limit proposed in the bill. If we were to produce that same voters guide in our regular monthly magazine, it would be editorial content. Point-blank, from our legal opinions—and we've had three from various lawyers—our magazine falls outside the regulations. In fact, any organization that produces a regular publication would also fall outside this act.

• 1930

If the government and Parliament, however, were to determine that our magazine did not fall outside of the act, then conceivably each magazine, newspaper, and broadcaster in Canada could fall under the same provisions of this act and be restricted to spending limits of $150,000 or $3,000 per riding. One would have to figure that their limit would be based on the cost, in terms of column inches or air time, of similar advertising.

Now, some editorial writers and radio talk-show hosts across the country—and maybe even their readers and listeners—might find not talking about an election a welcome change. One doubts that this is the actual intent of Bill C-2, but if it can apply to one aspect of the media, it applies to all. Unless censorship of all Canadian media during an election campaign is the goal of this legislation, it can't meet its stated goal.

I'd point out further that despite the sheer determination of generations of newspaper editorials, even the best editorials don't affect elections. In 1993, and again in 1997, the Sun Media chain endorsed the federal Progressive Conservative Party, but we're not seeing a federal Conservative Party in Canada. It's probably disappointing to newspaper editorialists that they're not as powerful as they'd like to think they are.

A voice: Us too.

Mr. Jim Hinter: Democracy is a system of government in which trust in the people, the voters, must be paramount.

As politicians, there may be times when you feel your decisions will have more insight and more depth of knowledge behind them, but if you cannot get the people to support you at the polls, the people are still right.

Given the choice between trusting the people or trusting big government, we will trust the people, and we believe most Canadians will agree with that.

Why does it appear that proponents of the restrictions on third-party spending in Bill C-2 appear to be trusting big government rather than the people?

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hinter.

Now we'll go to questions. We'll start, as usual, with the official opposition, for a five-minute round. Mr. White.

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

My first question is to you, Nancy, because you mentioned the electronic voters list and problems that you felt existed with it. In particular, you gave an example of a students' residence where maybe 12 received cards who didn't live there any more. You suggested that going back to enumeration might be a better way to do it.

In terms of enumeration, do you not recognize that it's possible to have a lot of fraud in that as well? People don't actually have to produce any identification at all. They don't even have to prove that they live at the place they happen to be at when the enumerator calls. Would you recognize that there's also a problem with the enumeration as it stands?

Ms. Nancy Riche: I'm giving this one to Pat.

Mr. Pat Kerwin: Yes, there can be problems with the regular enumeration, but the problems in Ontario were so extreme. Literally, you couldn't even get people off the list who were no longer there because the law said that person had to ask to be left off the list and that person wasn't around any more.

Other witnesses here have said there are going to be no problems. We just feel that with the election period being fairly short, we should get in there and make sure there are no problems rather than trying to find out with three weeks to go in the election that this building here or this group home has a lot of people there.

For the one I went to, there were 12 names on the list and literally not one of them lived there any more. So whoever was in charge of that building could easily have picked up the 12 cards and made sure his or her friends got them to vote with, because the person at the election booth would have just used them to vote.

Our view is that we want the lists to work well and I just am not quite convinced that they do that.

Mr. Ted White: I would urge you, as I've done with other groups who've come here to give us their concerns about that electronic voters' list, to get in touch with Jean-Pierre Kingsley and talk with him about that. He's aware that there were problems in Ontario. I think he feels confident that those problems are addressed. He does have the discretion to target enumerations where he feels it's necessary, so I would really urge you to get in touch with him in that respect.

• 1935

I have a couple of comments in terms of the presentations.

For the Canadian Labour Congress, I would urge you to perhaps take heed of some of the other testimony that's come in on third-party spending. The way the Reform Party looks at it, elections are for voters, not for the parties.

I know that's a little different from the way the government looks at it. We actually don't feel there should be restrictions on third-party advertising. We're not afraid of the Canadian Labour Congress spending a lot of money to try to defeat us. We actually believe that if this place followed the will of the constituents and MPs voted the way their constituents told them, you guys would all go out of business anyway because we'd be doing what the people wanted and there would be no third-party spending.

I would encourage you to take a look at it from a slightly different angle. If elections are for voters rather than for parties, you need to have third-party spending, because the government has a tremendous advantage. Not only does it know when the election is going to be called, but as Mr. Robinson pointed out, they can spend $20 million easily and they have a tremendous advantage over the smaller parties and the individuals who want to run.

That's why you find us in agreement with you on things like the candidate deposit, which we feel should be lower, and facilitating smaller parties.

When we look at the 12-candidate rule, for example, or a 50-candidate rule, it's our opinion that the party name should be on the ballot for the benefit of the voters, not for the benefit of the party. I know the government looks at it as though it's for the benefit of the party, but we look at it as a benefit for voters, for voters to be able to see who they're voting for.

There are many areas that we do agree on, and I think that maybe with a little more discussion you might agree with third-party spending.

Ms. Nancy Riche: I'm going to be very clear: we won't.

Just because I'm stuck in the middle here between the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the National Firearms Association, with its Point Blank magazine, it doesn't mean we would change. I absolutely fundamentally disagree with you.

Elections are for voters. Right. But the people who run our parties and the firearms group and the taxpayers group can spend millions leading up to an election to get people to change their minds, to decide how they're going to go. Then, come election time, Reform can carry their banner. You know, if Reform has the courage of its convictions to support guns all over the place in this country, then come out and say it, and then the firearms people have a party representing them.

We at the CLC do not spend millions of dollars on third-party advertising. No, we do not. We give our money to the party we support.

I would encourage the firearms people to probably give to Reform. Where else? You can give to Reform. Maybe you'll elect a government, you two guys on both sides of me.

But you give it to the party. Of course parties are for voters, but every voter is not running. People have made a decision to be a candidate for a particular party.

I'm not electing the firearms organization. I'm voting for a party. I will not vote for the party that supports what this organization stands for.

Mr. Jim Hinter: I'm soon going to feel real hurt here.

Ms. Nancy Riche: That's how it works. He's not going to vote for my party either. This works. It balances out. We cancel each other's vote.

But I won't agree with you on the third party.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): I thought the NDP opposed our gun control legislation.

Ms. Nancy Riche: I'm not speaking on behalf of the party. You didn't see my piece in the Ottawa Citizen at the same time, and I was president of the party.

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, do I have any time I can assign to my colleague here?

The Chair: No, that's it. That was a good quick five minutes—close to six.

We'll go to Mr. Bergeron for a second round.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): I have paid close attention to the different presentations, among others the one by the CLC, as regards electronic voting. You have raised some new concerns in addition to the ones I already have with respect to electronic voting.

Moreover, I'm always surprised when different groups in favour of eliminating third-party spending limits invoke court decisions, when court decisions recognize the need to impose third-party spending limits. Some even go so far as to say that the spending limit should be below what it is for political parties.

In that regard, I'm also quite open to the CLC's recommendations on third-party spending limits, even more so because they reflect the spirit of the Quebec Loi sur le financement populaire des partis politiques, which states that only individuals are able to invest in election campaigns.

• 1940

I am somewhat open to the idea of allowing third parties to participate in a campaign, if very clear and specific spending limits are in place, but I am very open to the idea of not allowing third-party expenditures and restricting participation in the electoral process to individuals, for the same reasons that led Quebec to adopt its legislation on the financing of political parties.

That leads me to the question I would like to ask you. As part of the debate on individual contributions for political parties, you say that on the one hand, you support limits on contributions to political parties and that on the other hand, you feel that only individuals should be allowed to contribute to political parties. You say that the CLC is willing to enter into a public dialogue about the possibility of moving to a system that has elements of the Quebec model. You point out that your membership in Quebec is quite happy with the legislation there. However outside of Quebec there has been a desire for more direct involvement.

I would like you to tell us more clearly what is meant by more direct involvement and a system that has elements of the Quebec model as regards contributions to political parties.

[English]

Mr. Pat Kerwin: In terms of more direct involvement, outside of Quebec, a number of our local unions actually affiliate directly to a party; they pay affiliation fees to it, unlike those in Quebec. So that's the much more direct involvement. They send delegates to conventions as local unions affiliated to the party, etc. That model outside of Quebec has been followed in a number of places. That's the best example of the more direct involvement.

We want to undertake this discussion very carefully, because one of the big concerns we have is that the government, Parliament, could pass a law that sounds very good on paper, but immediately, in my view, all political parties would then start to find a way around the law, if it was too strict and too pure. I've been working in politics for a long time, and I know parties are always saying they need to spend money. They go to the people who are able to raise the money.

So we have to be very careful. That's why we raise in another part of our brief the possibility for public support for parties, perhaps on the New Brunswick model, where they give so much per vote the parties get. We have to move slowly in this place and think it through, not just say it's good to have nobody else contribute but individuals, and then we wake up to you as politicians particularly saying “I have to get re-elected. How am I going to do this?” And then, well, if you just do it on the side, people won't notice. Well, in Italy they did that, and they're in jail.

Ms. Nancy Riche: I'd like to add to that.

Certainly the CLC contributes a great deal of money to our political party, the New Democratic Party, all within the legislation, and supplies people and that sort of thing. It comes nowhere near the corporate contributions to the other parties—nowhere near. We can't come near to competing. At the federal level of the New Democratic Party, we do not accept corporate contributions; we only accept contributions from individuals and from the labour movement. And we save our money over the election period to actually give to the party.

It really is time to look at strong public support for elections. I don't think we're anywhere near the United States, but we could be walking down that road. If we allowed third-party advertising to have no limits, as Mr. White and the two gentlemen who are here appearing tonight have said, then we're walking down a road where you can buy the votes. That's not where we want to be. That's not where we've been in Canada.

I can be as extreme on my side as you guys have been on your side in terms of this third-party advertising, so don't shake your head. I've heard some incredibly extreme comments tonight about third-party advertising, all based on the fact that unfortunately, somehow or other, we don't trust the candidates or the parties that are running. Somehow or other, we, the firearms group or the taxpayers group, have to go out and spend millions of dollars, because the parties and the candidates...

Look, if you want to get in there, run. Form the national taxpayers' federation party, form the firearms party, and get in there, as all these people sitting up here have had the guts and the courage to do.

Voices: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Ms. Riche, I repeat that I fully agree with you on the issue of limiting third-party contributions. I feel, a bit like the court decision indicated, that if, for the good of our system, we must establish a limit on spending for political parties that are directly involved in the process, as well as for candidates who are putting their necks on the line, we should absolutely impose spending limits that are lower than limits for parties and candidates on those people who have no public accountability.

• 1945

I will remind you of the question I asked. You were saying that the CLC is prepared to enter into a public dialogue about the possibility of moving to a system that has elements of the Quebec model. I would like you to be more specific with respect to what elements of the Quebec model you would like to incorporate in the Canadian model.

[English]

Ms. Nancy Riche: We look at it from our own perspective. Certainly the Quebec Federation of Labour continuously tells us we're wrong in tying ourselves to a particular party, and that during each election, we should review where each party is.

The other thing is the contributions. There's a limit on individual contributions. They can only come from residents of Quebec, and they are individuals, as opposed to corporations and organizations. Again, some of our folks would say that because we give as an organization, that would be taking a lot of money away. I think it forces the parties to go out and talk to individuals and get that individual to send it. It's more engaging of the individual, the voter who votes. They pay their money and support their party.

I do reiterate what Pat said: it's always fraught with loopholes. If you say it's an individual $1,000, does some corporation give every employee $1,000 to contribute to the party of their choice? I don't know. I haven't seen that kind of evaluation of the Quebec model. But I agree with that.

That's not where we're at. I think you may see some discussions around that in Manitoba in the not-too-distant future. Certainly the premier has raised this before.

It moves us to where we should be. The state should finance elections. I used the word “state” just then because I knew the Reform would like to hear me say that.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Nancy Riche: I really think elections should be publicly funded. I do.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Ms. Parrish, five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would just like to make a comment.

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry; we're at 8 minutes and 28 seconds. I think we have been quite generous.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would simply like to point out that in the French version of the CLC brief, reference is made on page 5 to a scrutineer, but I think the word that should be used is returning officer. I simply wanted to make that clarification, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: As long as I don't get bumped completely, I'm giving my spot to Mr. Knutson.

The Chair: We'll recognize you later; that's fine.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Not much later, next.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson for five minutes.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Thanks.

Madame Riche would prefer that all elections be state-financed. Mr. Robinson, I take it your preference would be that elections be entirely privately financed, with no tax rebates of any form and no tax deductions.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: The rich will inherit the earth.

Mr. Walter Robinson: Apart from Ms. Parrish's editorial comment, which I'll get to in a second, Mr. Knutson—

Mr. Gar Knutson: No, it's not part of my time!

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Walter Robinson: There's no doubt that democracy is a painful and tedious exercise and that the state has a role in ensuring the infrastructure of an elections process, but it's a necessary exercise, given some of the demands we have on our time. There's no doubt that the state has a role in financing the infrastructure of an election.

Mr. Gar Knutson: That was just a preliminary question, so—

Mr. Walter Robinson: Just let met add to that, if I may, since I do have the floor.

The issue here is, as we pointed out in our presentation, the rebates serve to entrench the five established parties. They don't encourage outside party participation. The experience of the last two elections and previous elections clearly shows that.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The point I was getting to is, if there were no tax rebates, would you propose unlimited campaign spending? Would you believe in spending limits at any level?

Mr. Walter Robinson: From a principle point of view, no, I don't believe in spending limits at any point, because as we've seen with the amounts spent, voters are not stupid. Slick campaigns, multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns, and the fact that the CLC gives millions, or hundreds of thousands, to one political party are things we should recount in here. They are not pristine and pure in this entire environment.

I wish I had the CLC's money to spend on campaigns. It would be very interesting.

Mr. Gar Knutson: So you believe in no spending limits at all?

Mr. Walter Robinson: But if you are going to have limits, apply those limits equally.

Let me provide you an example. In a Toronto riding, there could be four major party candidates. There's a military base there. I want to answer your question, because it's important to illustrate the point. There could be four candidates there who all support nuclear weapons on the military base, yet the local neighbourhood association doesn't want it. This is a hypothetical example, but it could happen. That local neighbourhood association, by virtue of the legislation, is confined to spending $3,000, which may buy them four quarter-page ads or a good flyer run of 15,000 flyers in a constituency of maybe 100,000 voters, where four political parties, between them, could have spending limits of upwards of $320,000.

• 1950

That's not a fair playing field. If you're going to apply limits to third parties, my proposal to you is to say okay, Taxpayers Federation, if you want to play in this constituency, here's the spending limit to which each of the other candidates are limited.

Mr. Gar Knutson: My narrow question is, do you or don't you believe in limits?

Mr. Walter Robinson: In a perfect world, we don't believe in limits, but we understand that you and the elections process will probably apply them, so they should be applied equally.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Right.

There's no doubt, as I said in my presentation, that in a country such as ours, 19 million voters, covering the second-largest land mass as a country on the face of the planet, you need to spend money to communicate with people just to put your idea out there.

Is there evidence that spending money affects voting patterns?

Mr. Walter Robinson: Not at a national-provincial level. We've just given you some anecdotal evidence. We've searched the literature to find academic literature that says this amount of spending, in a free and open democratic society—and don't get me wrong, because this bill has some very good provisions in it—doesn't influence outcome.

Mr. Gar Knutson: When you spent money in one of the Halifax ridings, for example, saying people shouldn't vote for Geoff Regan in the last election, you would do that in anticipation that it's not going to affect anybody's voting decision.

Mr. Walter Robinson: We did not spend money in the last election in a Halifax riding. You must be confusing us with another organization, just for the record.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It was about the pension. Weren't you the organization that ran ads—

Mr. Walter Robinson: No, it was not us. We did not run any ads in the last federal election campaign, because we were without a federal director.

Ms. Nancy Riche: It was the National Citizens' Coalition.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I see.

Let me then ask you—

Mr. Walter Robinson: That being said, the ability to put an issue on the agenda, to communicate a point of view, is a constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. Until you can show me that exercising that freedom of expression violates somebody else's freedom of expression under the charter—hate literature, for example, or something of that nature—you should not be limiting it.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It's a valid point.

Let me go back to the spending, if I still have time for one last question.

If we have no spending limits, and Mrs. Dole in the United States says she's withdrawing from running for President of the United States because she doesn't have enough money to run the campaign—and it's not that she thinks her ideas aren't good enough or that she doesn't have anything to offer substantively—then does that worry you at all, to think that this might creep into here without some spending limits?

Mr. Walter Robinson: Not whatsoever, because if that were the case, we wouldn't have the Bloc Québécois or the Reform Party sitting in Parliament today. They would say, well, all the established parties have all the money, so we cannot put our ideas and convince the people of the merits of our ideas. That argument is fallacious.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Look, the Reform Party and the Bloc ran in a system where there was spending limits.

Mr. Walter Robinson: Yes, they did, but they had no money, no advantages of incumbency, and none of the free broadcast time Ms. Riche speaks about, which, again, is fundamentally offensive in the Elections Act. We believe if you're...

It's about ideas. Election campaigns are about ideas. People will be convinced of your ideas if you can put them out there.

There is no doubt, as I said in my presentation, that in a country such as ours, 19 million voters covering the second-largest land mass of a country on the face of the planet, you need to spend money to communicate with people, just to put your ideas out there. But again, the evidence suggests... It's contrary, actually, to the belief that more money influences the result. Actually more money, as Mr. Herron laughed when I pointed out the history of the Tory party in the 1993 election, didn't buy seats. People weren't convinced of the ideas. They were convinced of your party's ideas.

The Chair: Thank you. I don't think Mr. Herron was really laughing. In any event, we'll recognize Mr. Herron for five minutes, and then Miss Wasylycia-Leis.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I'd like to thank the individuals for their presentations that we've had today so far.

Ultimately, we're trying to augment a bill, and there are some particular aspects of the legislation people have differing opinions of.

One of the things I have seen to a large degree is around what people will call third-party or outside contributions. I'm going to go into the firearms debate, the previous bill known as Bill C-68, now the Firearms Act itself.

• 1955

In the course of a campaign, a lot of people in the campaign are concerned about different issues. Some may be concerned about post-secondary education. Some people may be concerned about the size of the national debt, as I am. There may be some local issues in terms of environmental issues, as you see in Windsor—St. Clair in terms of cross-boundary pollutants.

So on a particular issue such as the fire registry, when you look at it, what got lost in a lot of the debate, particularly here in Ontario, was, well, if you're against the registry, then you are against gun control and you don't want to deter the criminal use of firearms. That's what became the debate, to a large degree.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that without a third-party involvement, as in your case, to be able to say that registering long guns for deer hunters, duck hunters, and farmers is a totally different game altogether from having provisions that would deter the criminal use of firearms—for instance, severe minimum penalties for the criminal use of a firearm in the course of a crime or whatever—candidates can be lost, working on about nine or ten different issues, and one issue can be put to the side.

My question is, if we limited third-party contributions, would you think that would actually prevent you from being able to talk about your particular issue?

Mr. Jim Hinter: I think it could. You've expressed the issue very clearly.

To surprise my friend here and probably some of the other committee members, our organization is actually proposing a gun legislation package that would be stronger than Mr. Rock's Bill C-68. We've presented copies of it to every member of Parliament in the House. We've presented copies of it to every member of the Senate and everyone in the media. I have a copy for you to take home.

Ms. Nancy Riche: And I want one.

Mr. Jim Hinter: Now, getting that issue out, because it is something that some study has been done on... I mean, if we were to take a binding vote right now and say “Are you in favour of gun control, yes or no?”, every hand in this room had better go up.

Ms. Nancy Riche: On which one, yes or no?

Mr. Jim Hinter: Yes, that we should have gun control, because that would make sense. If you're against gun control, what you're really saying, then, is that you want a 14-year-old child to go to school, drunk, with a .38 loaded in his pocket. A tragedy would happen.

That's not where we come from at all. Getting that message out is important, because it is an issue that is very easily blurred.

Ms. Nancy Riche: Excuse me, but I have to jump in. Can I jump in? We're the witnesses, after all.

Look, this discussion somehow centres around the fact that the only opportunity these organizations have to get their message across is during an election campaign, but there is absolutely, totally, no restriction. You can spend billions. Nobody in this country will deny your freedom of speech from now until the next election.

We do. We have not stopped for one minute our campaign on unemployment insurance and what the Liberal government has done to it. We will not stop on that campaign. We're not waiting for the next election to be called to give a whole bunch of money to the NDP or to run ads around UI.

People have the opportunity. Somehow or other you're suggesting this is tying your hands because you can't spend millions of dollars during an election campaign. That is totally wrong.

Mr. John Herron: I guess the second example I would like to use, Mr. Chair, if I may, is that in the 1988 election, that was utilized a fair amount. A lot of people believed that election could be translated into two words—free trade.

To a large degree, that's actually true. Perhaps you can remember the debates. The Prime Minister of the day lost the debate on the free trade issue. What happened was that people started looking at it, saying, okay, who is this Turner guy? Who's his finance minister going to be, or his health minister? Eventually, at the end of the day, they didn't think the Liberals were ready to govern as well.

In terms of an issue, I can look very clearly at 1999 right now and be able to say that we now have annually about $260 billion in trade with the Americans. Prior to 1988, our trade with the Americans was around $80 billion on an annual basis.

• 2000

Ms. Nancy Riche: Is this support for third-party advertising?

Mr. John Herron: The point is that I believe that maybe the third-party advertising that took place in that election campaign started getting people more focused on the actual trade debate itself. Canada is an export-driven, energy-intensive country. If we had lost that debate as a country, if we had voted against free trade at that point in time—

Ms. Nancy Riche: The Liberals supported it after they got elected.

Mr. John Herron: Exactly.

Ms. Nancy Riche: It makes no difference. Both parties supported it.

Mr. John Herron: But tying it to the Americans would have had very negative implications on our country's competitiveness.

I actually give a lot of faith to Canadians in terms of being able to actually form their voting decisions. The fact is that I think being exposed to third-party intervention at that time was actually largely responsible for the buoyancy that we have in our economy right now. If free trade had died, I believe we would not be participating in the record period of growth that we have today.

I guess my question is to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Would you actually consider that a very distinct example of where a very positive role has been played with third-party intervention?

Ms. Nancy Riche: No, not according to your brief.

Mr. Walter Robinson: No, I wouldn't say it's positive or negative. People presented a position, and Canadians made a decision at the end of the day. Again I point out that, yes, the government may have been re-elected, but a majority of Canadians voted for two parties that opposed the accord. The point is that the third party did not influence the voting decision.

[Translation]

Allow me to clarify for Mr. Bergeron that by adopting the Quebec model and reducing the role of groups like ours or the National Firearms Association, we are accomplishing exactly the same thing as at the union level. A taxpayer should be entitled to give money to a political party or to a group that has a very well- defined role in an area that is the subject of a public debate.

[English]

When you say to people that they can only give money to political parties, you are saying to citizens that they must support a political party, that they must give money, that it's the only way they can act in the democratic process. That is wrong, because people will support groups that do not support political parties, like ours. I'm not a member of any political party, nor is my colleague or any of our board of directors. People do wish to support or go against issues. That is their right to do so.

If I can take umbrage at one thing that's been repeated here by Ms. Riche, it's this whole thing of “Well, if you feel so passionate about the issue, put your name on a ballot.” That's utter crap. Since when does this place have sole dominion? Since when do the 301 elected members and the 108 or so non-elected members in this place have sole domain over the providence and wisdom of the public debate of this nation?

I would dare any MP here to turn and say that if a constituent disagrees with you, he should put his name on the ballot and run against you. You would never dare say that, and you should never dare say that to somebody who comes to you with a contravening opinion. It is their right to hold it. You can debate it passionately. You can agree to disagree. But to turn and say “Well, if you don't like it, put your name on a ballot”... People have the right to remain outside the parliamentary system should they so choose, and to exercise their franchise as guaranteed under the Constitution. That is an offensive thing to say, and I wouldn't want to see that in a transcript of anybody's householder in any riding in this country. Your voters would definitely turn against you. It's offensive.

Ms. Nancy Riche: I'm sorry you're so offended. Excuse me, but third-party advertising during an election campaign is involving yourself in the parliamentary system. You're not outside, so don't pretend here that you're standing outside somewhere. That's bullshit, and you know it.

The Chair: Okay, the level of invective is increasing.

I'd like to go to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, but I'm going to give Mr. Hinter the last word for a short intervention before we go to the next question.

Mr. Jim Hinter: It seems to me that one point that is being missed here is that of the millions of dollars we're having attributed to us to spend, and given all the power that the National Firearms Association has, I respect how much you respect us. Thank you. But the reality is that our money that we use is something that's missed here. It's after-tax dollars donated by ordinary Canadians choosing what they do.

As an example, we just did a membership survey. Of the members of our organization who took part in the survey, 52% are already members of a federal political party, and 53% of them joined our organization for public education and political action. They're using their after-tax dollars, while the political parties are using our tax dollars effectively, because the donation gets made and the rebate gets made.

• 2005

The idea of having a political party formed has been done in Australia by the firearms association down there. It's called the Australian Shooters' Party, and it is starting to make an impact.

Ms. Nancy Riche: I thought they were drinks.

Mr. Jim Hinter: That's shooters in your party perhaps, but I don't know.

The bottom line is that if Canadians are spending after-tax dollars and are not asking for anything from government—we don't ask for a dime, nor do we get it—

Ms. Nancy Riche: We don't either.

Mr. Jim Hinter: —that issue right there says that it's a freedom issue in terms of Canadian people spending their money as they see fit.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis for a five-minute round.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you.

I'd like to stay on this issue of third-party advertising, because I still don't quite get the position of both the Firearms Association and the Taxpayers Association. It seems to me that both of you have used words to the effect that you oppose limits on third-party advertising because voters aren't stupid—I think I heard those words—and big dollars don't influence voters. Based on that logic, it seems to me that you would then surely support absolutely no third-party advertising. Why would you need this kind of latitude to spend what you need, what you want, in order to make your point of view? By that logic, surely there would be support from these associations for complete restrictions and limitations on third-party advertising. That's the first question.

My other question is on the same topic, and it's to Nancy of the CLC, who I think has put the position very well in terms of what this means for democracy, what this does in terms of creating a level playing field so that all Canadians can participate, so that voters are at the heart of the process, and so that our system is truly mindful of our party system and seeks to enhance that system, not destroy it.

The bill now only puts limits on third-party advertising. It doesn't do what you are calling for, which is to eliminate all third-party advertising. So my question, Nancy, is if we could live with this. Is it workable, or is it tantamount to creating enormous problems down the road as it now is worded?

Mr. Walter Robinson: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, thank you for your question.

If I'm to follow your logic through to its ultimate conclusion—and this is likely a first-year, slippery-slope logic issue in university—then nobody should advertise and we should just hold the election tomorrow. Nobody should advertise because it doesn't influence the outcome.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You're the one who said you don't need to advertise because you're not trying to influence any voters, so you explain that logic.

Mr. Walter Robinson: Then allow me to finish.

If you're going to follow that logic through, then parties shouldn't participate in the process either. What we are saying is that—

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: We're talking about political parties as the heart of the electoral system.

Mr. Walter Robinson: I have a fundamental difference of opinion. Voters are the heart of the electoral system. That is where we fundamentally disagree.

A voice: Hear, hear.

Mr. Walter Robinson: I will get to your question to Nancy, because what you've asked Nancy is an extremely important question as well. But the issue here is that it's a first-year, slippery-slope logic argument to ask why I am opposed to the limits if I've told you advertising doesn't influence things.

I'm opposed to the limits, because to put your message out there, to make information available so that voters can say they will choose between such and such, is like going to the supermarket. You just don't have one box of cereal, you have a variety of cereals. The package really doesn't influence your outcome, but that choice is yours in a free and open democratic society. It's guaranteed to you under the Constitution.

To turn to this issue that you've asked of Nancy—because it's extremely important—Mr. Boudria commented that this is “fair, accessible and transparent”, when he tabled this law last June before the House prorogued. I have his comments here.

How is it fair that a political party can spend 62 cents per elector—with 19.6 million electors, it can spend $12 million at a national level—and can in turn spend, on average, another $62,000 per riding, based on an average of 65,000 electors per riding if you take the 19 million divided by 301? You get $2.07 for your first 15,000 electors, $1.04 for your next 10,000 electors, and an extra 52 cents for each successive elector after that. How can that political party turn and say that in that context, that neighbourhood of $25 million that each political party could spend, it works out to about 96 cents per vote, or something of that nature, and then you turn to the third-party spending limit and tell a single constituent they can only spend five cents an elector? It is effectively censorship. I can't buy a newspaper ad of a quarter page in Red Deer... I'm not talking about Toronto or Vancouver or Montreal. Red Deer is a typical small urban and rural constituency that dots the landscape in this country, dots very many of the constituencies down east. To say you're effectively shut out is censorship, and that is wrong.

• 2010

Mr. Jim Hinter: I'd like to address that a little bit.

One of the areas here, which has been covered under some of the previous groups that have appeared before you, would be an election date. The only people in Canada who know potentially when an election will be held are the prime minister and the government of the day. Organizations under third-party spending... The media will guess on it, and the opposition parties will do research and hope on it. We do research on when we think an election will be held. But the reality is that you could be doing something, an election could be called, and wham, you're outside the limits, even if you didn't intend to be. It's quite simple. I mean, you could be doing an education campaign on something that would be deemed to be covered under this.

So without having some format, even if you wanted to consider spending limits during a campaign, you would also then have to say set election dates. I don't think... That's an issue that should perhaps be looked at, because I think it's an important part of the democratic process.

We had a situation with elections—for example, the one in Manitoba, with the flood affecting that part of the riding. I do a lot of travel in small places in western Canada that you probably can't find on a map, in fact most of them aren't—little places like Senlak, Saskatchewan, which lies about its population so it can have a school, or Morse—places that have a very, very small population. I've travelled all through rural Saskatchewan, and when I got to Ottawa, people were asking me if this farm crisis is real. Obviously that message isn't making it out.

It's an educational process that has to happen to help make an informed choice. If you're worried about having... If we're wrong, totally wrong, and if Walter is wrong, or any other third-party group, let us go beat our heads against the wall. We'll feel good for a while, maybe. But if we're right, shouldn't that right opinion be out there in democracy?

And finally, what you have to look at with the process is that when you start a limit... Unfortunately, with governments it seems when you have one little limit, when you start breaking one right down, all other rights can fall after it.

Right now we have a number of such areas in our country, and this is one of them. If you don't have the right satellite dish company, you can have it seized by the RCMP. You can get a fine of $5,000 if your signal isn't coming from the right company. That's an issue that ties very closely to this. But you'd need set election dates, because otherwise you could have something happening, and then what happens is you've exceeded it.

Ms. Nancy Riche: Your question was whether or not we could live with $150,000. I want us to be really careful here when we talk about rights—what are rights and what are not rights. Regarding the limit of $150,000, it's not clear that it's $150,000 for each company, or anything that's defined as an organization throughout the country, for every chapter of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, as defined as an organization. And we're not talking $150,000. So we're very concerned about it, because it's not clear. We're then talking millions.

I'm really concerned when somehow or other the ability to spend millions of dollars on an election campaign becomes a human right, when in fact human rights in this country are far greater than that. The right of someone to go to bed with a full stomach is far more than what we're talking about here. So let's not get carried away that what we're talking about here is... I didn't read one thing in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that said there should be third-party advertising.

• 2015

However, it's really important to state that there is no violation of freedom of speech here, that every single day up to the election campaign you can spend $150,000. My guess is that you guys have spent a pretty penny in all those tiny communities in rural Canada on support for your position on guns. And that's absolutely fine with me. You absolutely have that right.

Then we call an election, and it's a different ball game. Support the party that supported you. Give them the contributions. There are limits on that. And that makes sense. It becomes fair.

Mr. Jim Hinter: Nancy, would the CLC be willing to take a limit of $150,000 to contribute to a political party?

Ms. Nancy Riche: We're not talking contributions to a political party. We have our limits on contributions to political parties. It's there in the law, and we are within the limits. That's not what you're talking about. We're talking about you doing third-party advertising with absolutely no spending limits. We're talking about an electoral system that elects people who belong to parties to form the Parliament. Now, we support that system. Maybe you guys don't. I have no idea, because I haven't heard much support of government, political parties, or anything here tonight. All I hear is about support for you to get your thing out, and spend countless millions of dollars on it. I'm ready to support the candidate who's running for a party. That's what it's all about.

The Chair: Okay—

Ms. Nancy Riche: Sorry.

The Chair: There are lots of good answers. Just to clarify, the limits in the statute apply to spending, not to speaking—for what that's worth.

Ms. Nancy Riche: I never heard there's a limit on speaking.

The Chair: Also, there was a reference earlier by Mr. Robinson that a third party wouldn't be able to afford or place a quarter-page ad in Red Deer. That must be an awfully expensive place. The limit per riding proposed in this bill is $3,000. What Mr. Robinson has done for the sake of discussion, of course, is divide the $150,000 national limit by the number of ridings to come up with $491. Even with $490, I could buy a fairly decent ad in my local paper in Scarborough. But we take his point, and his mathematics.

Mr. Walter Robinson: For the background of the committee, we will submit research to you tomorrow that shows that is factually inaccurate in your riding.

The Chair: What is inaccurate?

Mr. Walter Robinson: That you can buy a quarter-page ad in a weekly newspaper in Scarborough. We will submit that information to you tomorrow. We have it in our office.

The Chair: Yes, I can buy a quarter-page ad for $491. You don't think I can?

Mr. Walter Robinson: According to our research, you can't, and we called publishing groups across the country.

The Chair: Then inflation's the monster here.

Mr. Walter Robinson: It's $15,000 for a full-page ad.

The Chair: I'm going to go to Mr. Anders for a five-minute round.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Chairman, on a point of procedure, we've had two opposition sets of questions.

The Chair: Now you're dealing with the chairman's math. Mr. Anders for five, and then Ms. Parrish for five.

Mr. Anders, please.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question for my friends with the Canadian Labour Congress. Would you advocate to Jehovah's Witnesses, Hutterites, or Mennonites that they should run people for political office if they don't agree with the government's position?

Mr. Nancy Riche: Be careful now, don't put words in my mouth, as you like to do, Rob.

What I said was that if you want to get involved in the political process—and if those religions allow people to get involved with the political process, if it's not against their religion—then in fact you can select the candidate or the party that you choose. When I was responding to Mr. Robinson, I was talking not of a religious body, but of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. That's slightly different. None of these religious groups that you name are in here calling for unlimited amounts of money for third-party advertising, so don't mix it up; don't play with this.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mrs. Riche, I would put forward to you that—

Ms. Nancy Riche: That's Ms.

Mr. Rob Anders: Ms. Riche, I would put it to you that Jehovah's Witnesses, Hutterites, or Mennonites would not want to run, nor would they think that this place has the sole dominion on debate in this country or that they should be forced to be part of it.

• 2020

As well, I know Jehovah's Witnesses who are affronted by the fact that they have to fund, through their taxpayer dollars, any of us in this place, and I think they have every right to be able to be free and exempt from taxpayer funding for any of this business. That's their choice, and I think it should be their choice; they shouldn't be forced into funding it as they currently are. Some would wish they funded it even more than is currently going on, and I think that is a violation of human rights.

In terms of supporting a party that supports you, Ms. Riche, during the election campaign in Ontario where Bob Rae faced off against Mike Harris, there were labour unions that chose to take umbrage at the New Democratic Party and chose to fund campaigns opposed to the New Democratic Party because they did not believe Bob Rae was representing them. Now, in that circumstance, do you know how much labour unions in Ontario spent collectively, opposed to the New Democratic Party in Bob Rae's re-election?

Ms. Nancy Riche: No.

Mr. Rob Anders: Okay. Would it be safe to assume that labour unions in Ontario and collectively across the country spent more than $150,000 against Bob Rae in that election?

Ms. Nancy Riche: I don't know.

Mr. Rob Anders: I think you probably—

Ms. Nancy Riche: I'm not involved in provincial election campaigns; I honestly don't know.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Kerwin, would you know?

Mr. Pat Kerwin: The question is grouped, though, over the whole spectrum probably in terms of candidates. That might be a fair thing to say in terms of everything that was done, yes.

Mr. Rob Anders: I think it would be fair to say that probably labour unions in Ontario collectively spent more than $150,000—

Ms. Nancy Riche: So what's your point—that therefore we should have a different view here tonight?

Mr. Rob Anders: No, what I'm saying is there are going to be times when even labour unions that I know have a long history of affiliation with the New Democratic Party are going to take umbrage with a party in this place.

Ms. Nancy Riche: Absolutely.

Mr. Rob Anders: And as a result, whether it be a labour union, whether it be any third-party advocate that I can think of that is not a political party, if there are going to be times even when the Canadian Labour Congress or some Ontario union or collection of Ontario unions decide they don't like a New Democratic government or the New Democratic Party, and they want to spend money, I think to limit yourself in the way this legislation will, so the Canadian Labour Congress or some other affiliation of unions or unions individually have to fund their money through the NDP, is a real mistake.

There are going to be times when you're going to have a New Democratic Party government that you're not going to agree with and see eye to eye with on all issues. And there are going to be times when those labour unions either collectively or individually are going to want to spend more than $150,000. I don't know why you would want to link yourself directly with the NDP, lock, stock, and barrel, for the rest of the life of labour unions in this country, as the way to get your point across to voters.

Mr. Nancy Riche: It's not the only... You can think that. You can be upset about that. We may get upset with a New Democratic Party in government, absolutely, and then we would do what I've been talking about all night. We would either select another party that we wanted to support—now, I'm not speaking for Ontario unions, I'm speaking for me, so the question is of me and the CLC—or we'd sit on our hands in that election. Or we'd form a new party. And if you think that wasn't thoroughly discussed in Ontario, is still being discussed in Ontario, because we didn't feel any other party was... Certainly in the House, I'm not sure...

There are some parties in the House that clearly, the labour movement as a whole, as a collective body making a decision in a board, would never, ever support...you know of what I speak. But we have talked about forming a new party. We talked about forming the Labour Party.

Exactly consistent with what I've said tonight, no, I do not agree with the third-party advertising. Our recommendation is zero. To frame it in such a way that at some time we'd like to do it and what I find abhorrent then will be okay, because I want to do it, is really quite offensive to our position on this. We're opposed to it for anybody, including labour unions.

The Chair: I can't let you put another question because it's six and a half minutes. In fairness to other colleagues, we'll keep going.

Ms. Parrish for five minutes.

• 2025

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'm going to try to be as quick as I can.

First of all, before we even get started, I want to get it on the record that I believe in lower limits for everyone. Last election I spent $16,000 and had signs up for seven days, and I got 68% of the vote. We have a mayor in my city who has never campaigned in her life, from her first election 25 years ago. She has 91% of the vote, has never put out a pamphlet, never made a comment, never knocked on a door.

So I agree with you, Nancy. I hope you don't mind my calling you Nancy. All other parties have 365 days and three or four years between elections. They can dump billions of dollars into advertising if they choose to.

I would like to go one step further. The spending limits we're talking about are strictly on advertising. Those groups can send out armies of people knocking on doors. They can go and do whatever they want. This is strictly an advertising limit.

Our limits are much more stringent. If I buy hot dogs for people who are delivering flyers for me, that has to go into my campaign limits. So let's talk about this for a second. I don't have unlimited spending limits. I don't have anywhere near the limits a lot of people would like on actual advertising.

So this law is not bad as far as I'm concerned. I'd like to see all the limits lowered, and I'll go on record with that. I put my money where my mouth is.

The other thing is, in a former life I was chairman of a school board. What happened there was third-party groups, we're calling them, or single-interest groups...

I know you guys are worried about taxes, but that's your interest.

You're worried about guns.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Nancy Riche: —

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, I know. I think you're a riot. I'm almost ready to convert to the NDP, so keep an eye on me here.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Anyway, the thing that fascinates me about single-interest groups is this. We have to put together a platform—all parties do—and we put a platform together that covers a broad spectrum of issues. Then single-interest groups can come in and just aim, if you'll pardon the pun, at one item on that platform. You can have 60 interest groups taking aim at 60 positions, each spending a pile of money on it, and we're all running in circles.

A voice: So what?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Well, yes, so what? I would suggest they spend the 365 days and three years between elections doing exactly that.

Mr. Hinter said he doesn't think it pays to advertise anyway. I quoted him.

You talked about the no vote. I think it was a little unsophisticated. I think people were telling Mr. Mulroney to get lost. I think that's why they voted no in that referendum.

My concern too is that truth is often a victim in advertising here. There are no regulations that say what you print has to be the truth. With a little exaggeration, you can take 81% approval for gun control and flip that right down to 67%, with the right sorts of half-truths.

I did have a question here. I know you say you have 100,000 members in Canada. I also happen to know that with the hunters and anglers association and many of the other groups that are semi-loosely affiliated with you, there's a strong American influence. I happen to know someone who works for one of the anglers associations, and a lot of their directives, their budgets, and the money they spend actually comes from the States, which is a much bigger army of people down there.

So if the limits weren't set at around $3,000, what would stop large American influences from coming in through these organizations and taking a good whack at a little, tiny country like Canada, with 30 million people—300 million taking a really good shot at us?

Mr. Jim Hinter: I'm glad you raised that.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I knew you would be.

Mr. Jim Hinter: The other day we were doing a little bit of membership surveying. Of our 100,000 members across Canada, guess how many are Americans? Take a shot.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No, no, no. Let's talk about gun associations for North America.

Mr. Jim Hinter: In our organization, which I can speak for, we have 28 American members. None of them are businesses. We receive no funding from any American organization, period. In fact in the United States, the National Rifle Association, by their constitution, is forbidden to do work outside of the continental United States, Hawaii, and Alaska.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: All right, let me interrupt, because the hunters and anglers association is loosely affiliated with American and Canadian. They have the same objectives as you, to a certain extent. What would stop them from taking hunting and angling money from the States and importing it into our election system?

Mr. Jim Hinter: First of all, it would be the constitution of the NRA in the States. I'm an NRA member. I get it because they make a hell of a good magazine. I can't vote in anything the NRA does. I can't vote in an NRA election.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Can you send money to the organization?

Mr. Jim Hinter: I could if I were so inclined.

• 2030

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: And the money you pay for your magazines, does that not go into a general pool fund down there?

Mr. Jim Hinter: It comes to $35 a year Canadian, for which they have to ship a magazine across the country, and based on publishing costs, I doubt there are more than a couple of dollars left.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: But you're talking about your specific organization. I'm asking you to go beyond that. Do you believe there's a possibility for like-minded people, American and Canadian, in several like-minded organizations to have a shady line between where the money is going and who's—

Mr. Jim Hinter: There could well be, and it's happened on other sides. Look back at the Pearson era, when a number of advisers were coming across from the United States to consult, work, and help elect Liberal governments.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: So you say it's possible.

Mr. Jim Hinter: Anything is possible. Absolutely anything is possible.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No, Walter, don't get excited. I haven't asked you a question, and I don't want your response.

Mr. Jim Hinter: Poor Walter.

Mr. Walter Robinson: I've signified to the chair that I'd like to make an intervention.

Mr. Jim Hinter: Intervener status, I guess.

That's an interesting point, but the reality is most of the American organizations... For example, Ted Nugent in the United States has a huge boycott of Canada going on right now. He refuses to spend so much as a dollar in Canada. He won't tour. He's an old rock-and-roller, and he has a group called Ted Nugent's United Sportsmen of America, I believe.

Ms. Nancy Riche: And he's boycotting Canada?

Mr. Jim Hinter: He's boycotting Canada.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Boy, we're feeling the pain.

Ms. Nancy Riche: Oh, my gosh!

Mr. Jim Hinter: Well, quite frankly, an awful lot of outfitters across Canada are not getting the American tourist dollar coming across, because of the program he's done. So it can hurt. In many cases perhaps it's gone into the negative side more than anything else.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close out my remarks by saying I am, from a previous life, very concerned about single-interest groups being given the money and the power to focus on a hundred-point platform and just take shots at one piece of it.

So I believe this legislation is good. I would like to see all the spending limits dropped, and I could function quite nicely in a much smaller spending limit. This is a start. It's a good piece of legislation. I have a few little problems with it, but not in this respect.

But I must tell you, this has been a very stimulating evening. You guys and lady have done a great job. I really enjoyed this.

The Chair: Okay. There are undoubtedly some more questions here. I just wanted to ask Mr. Robinson a question.

In advocating no spending limits or limits for third parties equivalent to those limits that are imposed on candidates, would your view prevail in the following scenario? This is a hypothetical. Let's assume that I as a person were to run again in my riding. Let's say there were five or six well-off individuals who over the years had come to dislike me intensely.

Mr. Rob Anders: I can see that.

The Chair: It could easily happen, as Mr. Anders points out.

Say I run in the next election as a Liberal, and each of them separately decides they're going to knock me off, to use the jargon of the street, and each of them invests $50,000 to defeat me, and they invest it in advertising: “Don't vote for Mr. Lee. Mr. Lee is an idiot; we can prove it”, etc. If I take the six people times $50,000, and if they're putting up signs and buying billboards and radio time and all kinds of things, that's $300,000 being bet in a horse race against me.

I as a candidate can spend my $50,000, and the other parties who have candidates will be able to spend their $50,000, but don't you think that's a little unfair to me, as one candidate? This could happen to any candidate. Individual single-interest groups, or third parties, as we call them, can simply spend in concert—or in this case it's not in concert—either for or against a candidacy, whereas each individual candidate and party has their own specific spending limits. Don't you think that's a little unfair?

Mr. Walter Robinson: That's a very valid question, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for questioning me, because I'll be able to deal with some of Ms. Parrish's comments.

Voices: Oh, oh!

• 2035

Mr. Walter Robinson: To get to your issue, if I look at the election expenses returned last time around, you ended up with the election reimbursement of a surplus. According to Elections Canada, you're starting at ground zero with at least $29,000 in the riding association's bank account. You've indicated to me that you have wind now that these five, well-heeled individuals dislike you—and in my experience this evening, Mr. Lee, I don't dislike you—and want to run you off the political map.

This is a contest of ideas and issues, and you're going to stand on your voting record and on your service to the constituents. You've also had the benefit over the last four years of taxpayer-paid householders.

To address one of Ms. Parrish's points, there's nothing to stop untruthfulness in advertising in a householder. Indeed, in a householder you're going to be communicating to your constituents, which is your right and responsibility as a member of Parliament, the good things you believe your government has been doing—I could question whether or not that's truthful—and as well your voting record on issues. You're also communicating that in a very non-partisan manner because the rules of this place say you can't put the Liberal logo out there. You can't say Jean Chrétien is the best prime minister since sliced bread, and I hate Preston Manning. You can't do that.

So you've already put your best foot forward. So I would contend, Mr. Lee, that you already have a great advantage over your opponents who may be running well-heeled campaigns against you.

It's a matter of we don't believe voters are stupid. The free trade election and the Charlottetown referendum proved that.

It's precisely the scenario you pointed out with regard to the Ontario election where the unions wanted to knock off one cabinet minister. They knocked off by that much Mr. Johnson, the former Minister of Education, from the provincial riding of Don Valley east or west, which is the same for the federal riding. That was more in anger. As Tory people will tell you, they lost the vote on the ground, not due to advertising.

At the end of the day you know that it's getting out your vote. So I disagree with the hypothetical situation in terms of you will stand on your record, and you will stand on the fact that you already have these taxpayer-funded advantages of incumbency, which most political science experts, such as Mr. Stanbury at UBC, and others say give you anywhere from a 3% to 6% incumbency advantage. So I disagree with the issue.

The Chair: Let me just say, then, that if you've gone that far, your logic obviously wouldn't apply to a non-incumbent, for example, my NDP opposition in my riding, which wasn't an incumbent and which wouldn't have had all the advantages you've listed. So your logic—

Mr. Walter Robinson: That speaks precisely to the fact of getting rid of taxpayer reimbursements.

The Chair: But your logic that there are all these advantages for incumbents would not apply to non-incumbents. The NDP candidate would stand out there cold and alone with the $50,000 limit, if they can raise it, and would have to face $300,000 of ugly, negative advertising from six people who happen to have a few bucks. Do you have any comment on that scenario?

Mr. Walter Robinson: The NDP candidate will stand on his or her merits and on the platform of his or her party and will take their lumps as they may.

If I may add, Ms. Riche and Ms. Parrish talked about it in terms of our group can spend millions before an election. So can governments—and they do. They do offensively and arrogantly. If that influenced the outcome, then Mike Harris would have been running at 95% before the last provincial election, and Glen Clark, before he resigned, would have had a public approval rating of about 110%, because in the province of British Columbia, as Mr. White well knows, the chief electoral officer might as well be a minister of the cabinet.

The issue is stand on your merits. Campaigns are about ideas. You want to communicate those ideas to people, but people will make their own judgments. We fundamentally believe voters can discern. They've shown that in other jurisdictions throughout the world. We would just wish that this government and this committee would look at the experience in other jurisdictions throughout the world, for example, in New Zealand, to see that when there are 35 parties on the ballot, people make the distinction between who is frivolous and who is not. When people run advocacy campaigns for or against a candidate, the candidate still stands on his or her merits.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Nancy Riche: This guy makes a really good argument against third-party advertising, I must say. He's very good.

The Chair: Your chairman has a little difficulty. Usually the chairman doesn't involve himself in too much questioning before members have exhausted their curiosity. I know Mr. Hinter indicated he wanted to say something. If you do, I'd ask you to keep it very short, because I do want to recognize members for more questioning.

Mr. Jim Hinter: From the standpoint of our organization, where we've had what could be considered a massive negative campaign with regard to the Firearms Act, you guys have done us a favour. You've united us.

• 2040

The Chair: What do you mean by “you guys”?

Mr. Jim Hinter: The government of the day.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Jim Hinter: If I were running in an election and six big groups decided to spend $50,000 apiece and come after me, to be honest, I'd kind of enjoy being the underdog. Look at the situation in the United States, where they're finding that attack ads don't work. They actually have the opposite effect to what they're intended to do.

Ms. Nancy Riche: I don't know if Dukakis would agree.

Mr. Jim Hinter: He's not here to agree.

Ms. Nancy Riche: He's not here, but he got beaten.

Mr. Jim Hinter: You raised the issue about Elizabeth Dole.

The Chair: Are you willing to give a written guarantee on that?

Mr. Jim Hinter: On what?

The Chair: That negative advertising doesn't have any effect.

Ms. Nancy Riche: I hate negative advertising.

The Chair: Anyway, thank you.

Mr. Jim Hinter: But Canadians do.

Ms. Nancy Riche: No, they don't.

The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Kerwin for 20 seconds.

Mr. Pat Kerwin: I think Mr. Casey was right on when he said that if you don't limit third-party advertising, then individual candidates as well will not have to have limits.

We see the results in the United States with these huge campaigns. In fact, the Canadian political situation turns over a lot more rapidly in terms of MPs. I like that. But compared with the United States—and the Lortie commission did this—where the incumbents have this huge advantage and raise all kinds of money, the system becomes such that people just drop out. They don't vote.

The Chair: I'd be willing to take only one question from any of the members who had a question.

Ms. Nancy Riche: Does this committee still go on if all the Liberals leave?

A voice: I was just asking the same question.

Mr. Walter Robinson: The House functions that way.

The Chair: I'll recognize Mr. White for one question.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you. I have a question for Walter.

With regard to the government's position that the Libman decision is justification for this, I disagree with them. I think basing a decision like that on a referendum-oriented case in Quebec is not a good way to go. I'm quite confident that this law will be struck down again after it passes.

I think the government has gone about it the wrong way. It would have been better to try to get some agreement with groups such as yourselves on where we could position ourselves. I just want to explore that. I believe we are inevitably headed down the road where there will not be spending limits on candidates. Without passing judgment on whether or not that's a good idea, I think that's eventually where we're going to end up. Gradually, those things will be knocked down, and we'll end up with no spending limits. I would have preferred to have approached people such as yourself and to have said how can we work this so that everybody feels it's manageable?

I'd like to pursue your idea of spending within one riding, that each candidate can spend say $60,000, and there are five candidates there, so that's $300,000. Would you advocate that every special interest group that comes along can spend $300,000, or are you saying that whichever interest group gets in there first can spend the $300,000? Can it be spread out? It's a really complicated situation. How would you sort that out?

Mr. Walter Robinson: I did not advocate saying that if there are four candidates in Scarborough—Rouge River, for example, and they each have a limit of $65,000, working out to $260,000, they should be able to spend $260,000. I said treat us like candidates if you are going to impose those limits. Keep in mind that our courts have said that maybe limits are justifiable to a certain degree. There is that bias in the courts. That's why I said treat us like candidates and say you only have $65,000 in this riding

Mr. Ted White: Do you mean any number of candidates with $65,000, or would it be limited? That's my point. If there are five candidates there already, and you come along and get your $60,000, Jim comes along and gets his $60,000, and the CLC decides they're going to get into the act so they get their $60,000, can that—

Mr. Walter Robinson: They're allowed to spend that. Are you asking if that can go on ad infinitum?

Mr. Ted White: —only go to the limit equivalent to the other five candidates, or could there be an infinite number of special interest groups spending $60,000?

Mr. Walter Robinson: It could be an infinite number of special interest groups or common interest groups.

Mr. Ted White: Okay.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Just on that note, I say God help us if we ever evolve toward a society where we have no spending limits on candidates, on political parties, and on third-party advertising.

I think the point that has to be addressed tonight is how we create a level playing field so that we can encourage more people representing the diversity of this country into politics and into Parliament, where we clearly have an imbalance.

• 2045

I would like to ask a question of Nancy, who raised this from the outset. How can we, through this act or any subsequent measures around reforms to the Election Act, ensure that more women get into politics, that Parliament reflects the diversity of this land, and that we avoid exactly what Mr. White is talking about?

Ms. Nancy Riche: On women, we state in our brief that we have to try if we believe—and I do believe—that there are certain barriers to women running. We may disagree, but if you look at the facts, it is easier for a man to run, because currently in our society women still have the responsibility for child care, for elder care, and for maintaining a home. A number of married men here in Ottawa are living in bed-sitting rooms while their wives are back home in the riding looking after the home front, looking after the kids.

I'm not suggesting that any man in this room is saying that is the way it should be. But if we appreciate that there are certain barriers to women running, then we identify them and we remove them. If one is the $1,000 deposit—and you can easily do the work to find out if that's a barrier—let's remove it. If we find that child care is a barrier, let's find a way to pay for the child care.

Of course—since everyone else got in their little pieces tonight—if the government would bring in the national child care program, we wouldn't have to worry about child care. It's also elder care, as we know the statistics are showing, for which women are more and more still responsible.

So we remove the barriers. Part of the problem when we talk about women running and wanting women to run and making up the balance is that there's a whole lot of women who want absolutely nothing to do with you guys. Right? There are women out there who are saying, why would I want to get into that?

Perhaps we have to look at a different kind of Parliament. Maybe we could start with campaigns being totally publicly funded. That doesn't pit you up against the guy who has hundreds of thousands of dollars for a campaign. Everybody would be running on the same amount; the government would provide the same amount of money for every single person and there would be no third-party advertising. Then, I think, we would be talking about equality.

If the parties made an absolute commitment to it, because it starts, after all, with...I think a lot of parties have put some stuff into place in terms of money, but I'm not sure that any party but the New Democratic Party has actually put affirmative action policies in place. Having been part of that, I have to tell you that affirmative action policies are not easy. It's not easy to be able to do that kind of nomination; we do this at the nominations level. If each party got committed to that, I think we would see some sort of difference.

But it has to be open too. Right now, I don't think it is. Judy can speak to it better than I. I don't think this place is open to women. I've been to enough press gallery dinners.

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: There has been some debate tonight about money spent during the writ period and money spent pre-writ or in non-writ time. For those unions that ran campaigns counter to the NDP in Ontario in that provincial election about which I asked questions previously, did they choose to spend the majority of their money during the writ time?

Ms. Nancy Riche: I'm here to speak about the federal jurisdiction. I honest to God don't know. I was not involved. Pat might know.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Kerwin, do you know?

Ms. Nancy Riche: I'm not sure there was that much spending—

Mr. Pat Kerwin: When I answered your question and said yes last time, I was talking about third-party advertising. I was talking about people who actually went out and got people to work for a candidate other than the New Democrat. They actually went out and supported other parties' candidates. They worked in the party system, but not for the New Democrats. So for the money, I said last time...the $150,000, I agreed that was probably what was spent. I didn't mean that was spent as a third party. Some of it probably was. Obviously the point you want to make is that people want to advertise closer to the point.

Mr. Rob Anders: But you—

Ms. Nancy Riche: Listen, Rob...Mr. Anders. Even if I said yes, that they spent millions and that they did this, what's your point?

Mr. Rob Anders: My point—

Ms. Nancy Riche: We presented our position in this brief. Because some unions may have done something in a provincial election, that's not going to get me around to agreeing with your position on third-party advertising.

Mr. Rob Anders: My point, Ms. Riche, is that labour unions, third parties, political parties, all of us involved in this election process choose to spend money at times when we are closest to the voters making a decision, at E minus whatever it happens to be, maybe E minus seven days—the election minus seven days—maybe E minus two days, maybe E minus two weeks. But we all know that people are paying attention during a writ period and that the most crucial period of time is that few weeks heading up to an election, when the voters are tuned in, when they want to hear about the issues and are paying particularly close attention to the issues, and when the swing vote, those people who aren't committed, like you and I are, to who they're going to vote for in the upcoming election, is going to be tuning in and figuring out who they're going to cast their ballot for.

• 2050

Ms. Nancy Riche: I hope they listen to the parties, not the Taxpayers Federation.

Mr. Rob Anders: I think you'd recognize, Ms. Riche, that even unions think that is a very valuable time period, that it is when freedom of speech is most precious and when having your say and getting your communication out to voters is most important. To restrict it at that period of time is to do the greatest damage and censorship to freedom of speech for the purpose of elections.

Ms. Nancy Riche: There's no one stifling anybody's freedom of speech. There's no one stifling anybody's democratic right to vote. Unlike Mr. Robinson over there, we do not think democracy is painful and tedious; we actually think it's not bad. All of our 2.4 million members vote as they wish. A lot of them don't vote for the party we would like them to vote for, so we live with that.

We do not do third-party advertising during an election campaign. We don't do it. Take our money that we've saved over the period... And it's a substantial amount, not as much as it used to be, but it's substantial, and it could be... Just so you know, we collect two cents per month for every single member in the CLC, to be used for the New Democratic Party in this country. It's two cents per member per month: you can figure it out. We have 2.3 million members.

When the writ's dropped, we give the party the money, because we've made a decision, which is what I'm suggesting others do. We believe in the system. If we didn't support any party, we could spend those millions on third-party advertising. For what? We support a party and we think people should... We also contribute to the party by releases, by people who go to work like you have people who go to work on your campaigns—all within the spending limits as laid down by the law.

Yes, I believe in E minus seven. That's certainly crucial. That's when I want to hear from my party and that's when I want to hear from Reform. I don't want to hear the Taxpayers Federation telling me to vote Reform; I want to hear Preston Manning telling me why I should vote Reform. I want to hear Jean Chrétien or the candidate in my riding telling me why I should vote Liberal. It sure is crucial, and that's when I want to hear from the parties, not the firearms group, thank you very much. I want to hear from the political parties.

I'm not going to vote for him. He has no accountability. He has nothing. I'm voting for a candidate running for a political party. At E minus seven, I had better bloody well start to know where the party stands on the issues of concern to me. I'm not going to get them from these third parties; I'm going to get it from the parties.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Nancy Riche: It makes no difference to me what you say, Rob. I'm still going to vote NDP.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: The process of conversion continues.

Your chair is prepared to wrap up now, seeing no other questions at this time.

I want to thank our three groups of witnesses and the people who have accompanied them. It's been a very interesting evening. We've covered a lot of issues and we thank you very much for your input.

We'll adjourn now.