[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, October 3, 1995
.1108 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Order, please. On today's agenda there are two less important items and one more important one. If you're all agreed, we'll start with item 2 on our agenda. Mr. Ringma has a motion.
[English]
Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): Mr. Chairman, I propose very simply that the membership of the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business be modified to have Darrel Stinson replace Ken Epp as the Reform member on that subcommittee.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: The second motion is that pursuant to section 22 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act the House may grant an extension for consideration of objections filed to the proposed electoral boundaries. There's been some discussion about the possibility of obtaining such an extension.
I've instructed the clerk to prepare a draft report to the House in accordance with the motion on the Order Paper that would extend the deadline to November 30. I suggested that date because we're not sitting next week and we will not be sitting the week of November 13. Our original date was November 3. That's the date prescribed in the legislation. Is Thursday, November 30 acceptable to members of the committee?
.1110
My suggestion is twofold. We could then adopt a motion extending the time for the subcommittees to report by an additional week, so they would not have to work next week. They could then prepare their comments, if any, on the material they've heard, because some of them will not complete their hearings until Thursday.
We could give them an extra week, which would get the material back into our hands on October 23. We could start our deliberations then. It would give us two weeks of possible deliberations, then a week off, and then a week to finalize our report.
I'm in the committee's hands.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): In the French text of the motion, the word proroger is used to ask the House to extend the deadline. This word means ``abolish''.
The Chairman: To extend.
Mr. Laurin: If I understood what you've just said, that is different from the motion as written.
The Chairman: It should be ``to extend''.
Mr. Laurin: Oh, well!
The Chairman: I thought of the same thing when I read the motion with you a few minutes ago. Maybe it's a spelling error.
The Clerk of the Committee: No, I believe the term is appropriate. We'll check it out.
[English]
The Chairman: Is that date agreeable to everyone?
Mr. Ringma, do you want to move this motion?
Mr. Ringma: I'll move it. I understand from feedback I'm getting from subcommittees that they're fairly pressed to try to keep up with things, so I think it's probably a practical motion. I so move.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Mrs. Catterall, would you like to move that the subcommittees be granted an extension to October 23 to complete their work?
Mrs. Catterall (Ottawa West): I would be pleased to so move.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Mr. Frazer.
Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): Mr. Chairman, I presume you've done some studies. What effect does this have on the coming into force of these provisions if they're approved?
The Chairman: The effect is to delay it to a date at least 30 days after November 30. It's extended about a month.
My recollection of the process is that we will deliver our report to the Speaker on or before November 30, who will transmit it forthwith to the Chief Electoral Officer. He must transmit forthwith to the commissions. The commissions then have 30 days to study the recommendations and report of this committee. They then must deliver to the Chief Electoral Officer a draft representation order, which he must transmit forthwith to the Governor in Council, who has 5 days to proclaim it.
It's a 35-day period, but there might be a slippage of a day or two, I assume, while the deliveries take place. If our report is tabled on November 30, I would expect we might have new boundaries by January 15, 1996, to be enforced one year after that.
Mr. Frazer: Thank you.
The Chairman: That's assuming Bill C-69 is not adopted in the meantime.
Mr. Ringma: For complete clarification, it recharged the whole process, including what Elections Canada's obligation is under the law.
The Chairman: Yes, by 27 days.
Mr. Ringma: Yes. Thank you.
The Chairman: That assumes this report is adopted by the House. I'll table the report tomorrow afternoon, and we'll move concurrence as we see fit.
Our first item today is a presentation by the Chief Electoral Officer.
We welcome you back to the committee, Mr. Kingsley.
Monsieur Girard and Madame Vézina, we're delighted that you're here.
I understand you have a presentation on Bill C-319, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (reimbursement of election expenses).
I dealt with other business first because I wanted our colleague, Mr. McClelland, whose bill this is, to be here. I understand he is tied up in the House at the moment. I hope he'll get here soon, but I think under the circumstances we'll have to proceed.
.1115
Mr. Ringma, did you want to address the committee?
Mr. Ringma: Yes. I simply want to clarify for the committee that Ian McClelland is not able to be here because he's speaking to Bill C-64 at the moment. I thank the committee and Mr. Kingsley for their indulgence.
The Chairman: We're sorry he's unable to be present.
Mr. Ringma: He'll be back as soon as he is finished on Bill C-64.
The Chairman: Mr. Kingsley.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the committee.
[English]
There are many new members of the committee who I've had the first opportunity to meet this morning. I'm very pleased to have done so. I look forward to continued excellent rapport with the committee, the committee members and subcommittees as you strike them, and as you invite us to partake in the deliberations. Elections Canada is always available to assist the committee and the subcommittees in consideration of any matter relating to electoral laws.
[Translation]
I intend to address you at first in French and I would ask you to allow me to introduce the officials accompanying me today. You mentioned their names, Mr. Chairman. They are Ms Vézina, Director of Elections Financing, and Mr. Jacques Girard, a member of the legal profession and our Director of Legal Services.
I would like to thank the committee for allowing me this opportunity to share with you my thoughts on Bill C-319, which proposes to amend the Canada Elections Act with respect to the reimbursement of election expenses to registered political parties.
I have had the opportunity to examine the testimony before this committee of this bill's sponsor, Mr. Ian McClelland, the member of Parliament for Edmondon South-West. I have also reviewed the discussions held on this subject by the committee last week.
I understand from your exchanges that, in addition to Mr. McClelland's proposal, various other options have been discussed. We, therefore, have endeavoured over the past few days to translate each of these options into specific terms. The result of our work appears in the documents that have been distributed to you in the black binder.
I also find that there is a consensus among the members of the committee on the need to limit the privilege of obtaining a reimbursement of election expenses solely to those registered parties that receive a minimum level of popular support.
Before reviewing with you the various tables we have prepared, I believe it is important that we place the purpose of Bill C-319 in a broader context.
As is stated in its accompanying summary, this bill would effectively allow only those registered parties that have received 2% or more of the total number of votes cast in an election, and that have spent more than 10% of their election expenses limit as calculated under the Canada Elections Act, to be elligible for a 22.5% reimbursement of those expenses as provided for in the Act.
As you are no doubt aware, registration entitles a political party to certain privileges, including the ability to issue income tax receipts for contributions received, to receive paid and free broadcast time during an election, to have the party name appear on the ballots and, of course, to obtain a partial reimbursement of its election expenses.
In return, registered political parties are subject to certain obligations. These include the obligation to produce election expense reports as well as annual financial reports.
In addition, and this is a requirement we must keep in mind, a registered party is required to field candidates in at least 50 electoral districts during a general election in order to obtain and maintain its registration.
I believe it is important to remind you of this requirement, considering the discussions you have had on the possibility of linking the reimbursement to a party's provincial or regional performance, especially given that only two provinces - Ontario and Quebec - have more than 50 seats.
I wish to point out in passing that the requirement to field at least 50 candidates is currently being challenged before the Ontario courts by the Communist Party of Canada.
.1120
[English]
To be nominated, each candidate must also provide a deposit of $1,000, as you know. This means, therefore, that a party or its candidates must have at least $50,000 at the time of a general election to obtain or maintain the party's registration, at least at the start of the electoral period.
I'll remind you, as you well know, that 50% of this deposit is automatically returned to any candidate who submits the reports required by the act. The balance is refunded previously if the candidate has obtained at least 15% of the votes cast in his or her electoral district. So strictly by adhering to the law, no matter what the electoral performance, there's a $500 reimbursement that goes to the candidate, which reduces that $50,000 to $25,000 for a party or the conglomerate of its candidates.
Furthermore, it is important to note that to obtain registration a political party must, along with other things, submit with its application the names, addresses and signatures of at least 100 electors who are members of the party. The committee eventually may wish to review the requirements of the Canada Elections Act in this regard, since, to say the least, the threshold of 100 electors is very low and does not constitute a reliable indicator of popular support for a new party.
I note also that Bill C-319 maintains the requirement currently in the Canada Elections Act that a political party spend at least 10% of its allowable election expenses to be eligible for a reimbursement of those expenses. I respectfully question the relevance of maintaining this requirement. Both the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing and a number of academics have challenged its validity. Personally, I concur with their opinion that this requirement should be eliminated, since it appears to follow no logic except perhaps to reward the ability to spend, which no system should encourage. The possibility of eliminating this requirement was in fact suggested by the chairman of the committee last week.
These are the key points I wish to raise today. I now invite you to review the documents that are before you. You will notice we've taken the various scenarios put forth by the committee members last week and applied them to the results of the 1988 and 1993 general elections; I will add, except for table 10, where the 1988 data would have required very special effort and I thought the 1993 experience was sufficient to demonstrate the case.
You will also find in table 10, as I was saying, the application of a formula for reimbursement by which a party must obtain at least 5% of the votes in the electoral districts in which it has fielded candidates in order to qualify for a reimbursement, regardless of the amount of the election expenses incurred. This formula, which is the result of considerations sparked by the introduction of Bill C-319, was presented last week, albeit with a slightly lower threshold of 2%. I think it was Mr. Duceppe who introduced that notion. It is my opinion that this approach better meets the general spirit of the Canada Elections Act and the goal of Bill C-319, since the reimbursement to new parties would be based on their performance in those electoral districts where they have decided to field candidates; in other words, where their chances of success are deemed by them to be greater.
Before I conclude, please allow me a brief comment on Bill C-319 as drafted. The proposed bill in effect - and I couldn't have timed it better, obviously - requires that a party obtain at least 2% of the votes cast in an election in order to qualify for reimbursement. Yet section 241 of the act, which deals with reimbursement to candidates, refers to ``valid'' votes cast. Perhaps it is only an oversight, but I believe for reasons of consistency the basis for reimbursement should be the same for both parties and candidates; that is to say, valid votes cast. The attached tables in the binder illustrate the differences between the two approaches.
You'll find that in tables 11 and 12, if memory serves me correctly.
In closing, I trust the data provided will be useful to you and they will assist you in reaching a consensus and determining the criteria for reimbursement.
.1125
I wish to thank you for your attention and assure you that my colleagues and I remain at your disposal for questions and any further consideration of this important measure. Merci.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Kingsley. The charts that are attached to your presentation are obviously quite comprehensive; it's going to take a little while for members to file through the volume of data that is contained in these charts.
Perhaps I could ask a question for clarification. In table 1 you show the net reimbursement paid to each of the parties and then you have it broken down per valid vote obtained. I presume that is a simple division process you've engaged in there.
It shows that, for example, the Natural Law Party of Canada got $8.41 per valid vote, while the Bloc Québécois only got 22¢ and the poor Reform Party only got 13¢ per valid vote obtained. That's in part because of this requirement that you spend 10% and in part because you pay 22% of all expenses incurred. So if a party spends big, they get more money back whether they get the votes or not.
Mr. Kingsley: That's right. Hence the importance of the royal commission's scenario, which you have before you in table 4.
The Chairman: It shows how much less those parties would have gotten and how much more the Reform and the Bloc and the Liberal Party would have received had it been paid out on a per-vote basis.
Mr. Kingsley: Right. We provided that table based on different amounts that could be reimbursed: 10¢, 25¢, 50¢, and 60¢, 60¢ being what the royal commission recommended for parties. It does introduce an element of what I would call the ``great equalizer'' in terms of reimbursement, when one considers that the limit would also be tied to 50% of expenditures of the party. So there's less of an inducement for the party to spend, considering that the reimbursement will be made on a per vote basis.
Each formula has its advantages and its drawbacks, and it may be that it will be a permutation or a combination of the various elements that are before you. I agree with you that this material, even though we've colour-coded some of it, will require some time for the committee to digest, so it may not be possible to arrive at a conclusion today.
The Chairman: That's great colouring. It's very helpful.
Mr. Ringma.
Mr. Ringma: I'd like to pick up precisely on Mr. Kingsley's last words. I think the committee very much appreciates the work that Mr. Kingsley and his office have put into this presentation here, and I think it's going to take us some time to digest it. So as it cannot be wasted, I do hope we'll have the opportunity to go away, think about it, study it, and perhaps have Mr. Kingsley and company back on a further occasion.
The Chairman: I'm sure that can be arranged, Mr. Ringma.
There is quite a volume here. It's clearly set out, but it may take awhile to get through.
Mr. McClelland, I think you had a question.
Mr. McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Yes, thank you.
Thank you for this very comprehensive presentation. During the course of the past week since this was introduced to committee, I've had a number of representations speaking from a number of different perspectives. May I get your thoughts on a couple of the ideas that have been brought to me?
One is about the percentage, whatever we use, whatever percentage we come up with. We had looked at a modification where it would be 2% of the valid votes cast nationally or a higher percentage to accommodate a regional party or a smaller party. Originally we thought of 5% in any one province, but because of the requirement to field 50 candidates, that wouldn't work. So the suggestion was made that it be a percentage of the valid votes cast in an election in which the party ran candidates.
.1130
Mr. Kingsley: On chart 10, sir - I just finished making that point as you were walking in. We have developed a chart that establishes 5% as a threshold in those ridings in which the party fielded candidates. I've signified that this is certainly one important test, and it's also one that introduces with it an element of fairness towards those parties, because obviously a party will tend to favour presenting candidates in those ridings in which it has a chance.
By establishing the threshold at somewhere around 5%, one is not deemed to be unfair. One could argue about the percentage, but at least the idea is there. You're taking into account that there are 295 ridings - soon to be 301 ridings - in this country, and the minimum remains 50. You don't get caught having to gauge it to more than one province if a party presents candidates in more than one province, or in more than one region if they present that, but in those areas where there are not 50 ridings automatically. Only Ontario and Quebec afford that chance, as I was saying.
Mr. McClelland: That satisfies the concern raised by Ms Parrish at the last meeting.
Another question that has been brought to my attention is there seems to have been some consensus that a rebate per vote received makes a good deal of sense. That idea seems to be percolating and finding general favour.
The question is how do you go about determining what that should be? Should it be $50 or should it be 50¢?
A suggestion that has come to mind is that in each election, circumstances will allow the parties that are running to spend x amount of money. That will be defended by circumstances, and those circumstances could change from election to election.
If the amount of money to be rebated - if it were to go on a per vote cast - were determined on a basis following this scenario, we would maintain the same standards. It wouldn't be rebated on 100% of the money spent; it would be rebated on 22.5% of the money spent. But the political parties would not have to spend 10% in order to be eligible. There would be no minimum threshold of money spent, because that would have been satisfied by the 2% or 5%.
Then the number of valid votes cast would be divided into the cumulative total of the moneys that qualify for reimbursement - the total - and then that would be the number reimbursed per party, so it would be proportional.
The scenario would be that if a political party were to meet the threshold in votes cast, which would show it had some favour in the population at large, then -
We'll use the scenario of one of the smaller parties, but one that still made the threshold. Their rebate for votes - the money they would get back - would be exactly the same per vote as the amount for the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the Reform Party or any other. We would have, then, a means of determining what the money that comes back should be. It would be based on how much the political parties put into the pot to start with.
Mr. Kingsley: In the tables we've prepared we've elaborated the scenario that the royal commission recommended. I think you will find it comes close to what you're talking about in that it hits all the points you've mentioned. We prepared it in accordance with their recommendation at 60¢, but we also prepared it in accordance with 50¢, 25¢ and 10¢ so you could see what would happen to the money.
They've also established that the amount reimbursable would not exceed 50% of the party's expenditures. They've stipulated it as so much per valid vote -
Mr. McClelland: But not to exceed -
Mr. Kingsley: Not to exceed 50%.
Mr. McClelland: That would really make sense.
.1135
Mr. Kingsley: In terms of public moneys that are spent, what they demonstrated was this is in the same ballpark as what is now being spent to sustain party efforts at election time - slightly less, if I remember correctly, but in the same ballpark, at 60¢.
Obviously some indexing formula would have to be foreseen, but there are now a number of indexing formulas under the statute. One could just subroutine it in there under the statute and say that it is subject to that same clause, so that yearly there would be an indexing based on the cost of living.
The scenario is in the charts there.
Mr. McClelland: My point is that we wouldn't be putting in a cost of living, which would be to legislate in an inflation factor. My point is that the rebate would be directly associated with the amount of money the political parties put into it to start with. If all of the political parties decide that they're not going to spend any money on national advertising or whatever, then there won't be anything.
You'll have to look at it. It might favour the smaller, emerging parties over the established parties. That's something to keep in mind. I can't see how it would not favour the emerging parties, but this is where the new ideas percolate and this is perhaps an area we would want to put some effort into sustaining.
Mr. Kingsley: This would require more scenarios than are here, but we would be willing to undertake something like that if it were useful, so that we could give flesh to this.
Obviously one would also be thinking in terms of that threshold of popular support as expressed by the votes, whether it's 4% or 5% of the ridings in which a party has sustained candidacies. Or, if you still wish to retain it regionally or provincially - which creates a problem, but if you wish to do that, it's entirely the call of Parliament - then we would work at that as well.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): I'm a little bit concerned that we're getting - I don't want to say ``hopelessly complicated'', even though that's what I'm thinking at this point.
I, for one, thought Bill C-319, with a possible minor amendment of the kind we had discussed at the last meeting, would perhaps be acceptable. But if we get into something that is much more complicated, then my feeling is that it will never see the light of day.
I think there is a problem with the legislation as it stands.
We're familiar with the abuse of the last election. To that extent, it needs to be repaired. I like Mr. McClelland's bill, but if we change it beyond recognition, my fear is that it's not going to go anywhere.
I just inject that proposition at this point so that hopefully we will recognize that the bill will not cure all injustices, but at least it's going to plug up a loophole that we recognize as being there now. If there's a way in which we can do that with all-party agreement -
I thought the formula we conceived the other day enjoyed the support of the Bloc Québécois, Mr. McClelland's party, the third party, and the government side. It seemed to be viable. But once we get into something much more complicated and attempt to put into the bill formulas that were brought in as part of the royal recommendation proposals and so on, where there is no element of that in the present bill - in some cases, granted, there is - I think we're heading nowhere.
It will probably end up by falling off the end of the Order Paper, as so many other things do, and I'd hate to see that. I think this thing has merit.
If we can keep it simple, then it will show in a very tangible way that this committee and a private member's ballot item can make it into legislation, and that's a swell idea as far as I'm concerned.
.1140
At the risk of repeating myself, if we go in too deep we are not going to achieve that. That's my worst fear.
The Chairman: Did you wish to respond?
Mr. Ringma.
It was more of a comment than a question.
Mr. Ringma: I would like to build on Mr. Boudria's assertion.
Don, is this the sort of thing that if taken back to our caucuses will complicate life even more? Is it the sort of thing we should determine to settle here? Should whatever progress we can make with this bill be settled in this committee? Are we the ones to determine how far we can or cannot go with it?
The Chairman: As well as that, it is very important that some of this material be taken to the parties themselves. My experience in these matters in the last Parliament was that while members may have views, party staff will also have very strong views on these matters, particularly when it comes to money. It is worth drawing this to their attention and getting comments.
I agree with Mr. Boudria. The committee is under some constraints, and as your chair I can't accept amendments to the bill beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House, since it has now received approval in principle.
On the other hand, this committee is charged with electoral matters and could do a report to the House, including a draft bill, recommending the bill to the House. Obviously, the government could then take the step of moving concurrence in the report or agreeing to concurrence in the committee's report and taking it as a direction to bring in a bill.
I think the committee has that power under the new rules and, even without a reference from the House, to draft and bring in a bill, although I am not sure the government adoption will have the same effect. Certainly we could proceed by that route and ask for such a bill.
The possibilities here are, if not endless, at least great. There is no question in my mind that at some point we will, as a committee, have to deal with the question of election financing in one way or another. The question is how much we put into the package.
I raised the issue about a year ago informally and was told that since there would not likely be any consensus on this issue, it was not worth pursuing. We have been occupied with other matters and I have not pursued it, but I am quite prepared to do so given the interest in the subject and generated in part by this excellent material that we now have, and by your bill, Mr. McClelland.
There are opportunities open to the committee. We don't have to decide this today. I think the appropriate thing to do at this point is to go back and seek some advice, and then come back to discuss it at another time. I am in the committee's hands.
Mr. McClelland.
Mr. McClelland: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I see a good deal of wisdom in what Mr. Boudria said. It could be that we started out to design a horse, we put it into committee, and we now have a camel with many humps. However, these many humps are a result of people bringing some very valid arguments to the table.
Perhaps what we should do is take the basic input by adding the provision for regional parties, or the 5% as suggested by the Bloc, of the number of votes cast where there were constituents and that sort of thing, which has already been explained, and leave it with the 2% threshold nationally, with the intention to revisit the whole question in committee. We could then come forward with another bill to determine how this sum of money would be arrived at, and not make it too complicated now. I would feel very comfortable with that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Mr. Kingsley.
Mr. Kingsley: To comment further on what Mr. Boudria was saying, our purpose in preparing the tables was to answer the committee's request that we provide tables on everything. Obviously, some of those tables indicate how complex some of the formulas can turn out to be.
We saw the advantage of a straightforward bill and that is why I restricted my comments in my introductory remarks to one slight change, as well as to agreeing with the comment the chair made that the 10% requirement for spending should perhaps be removed from any consideration because there does not seem to be any consistency with any aspect of the legislation. It's the only place where we have such a test. So that's what I attempted to do in my presentation this morning.
.1145
The Chairman: Unless somebody has some other procedure to suggest for this, it appears there may be a consensus to have the bill amended along the lines that have been suggested, eliminating the 10% requirement and fixing the regional or provincial percentage and the national percentage. I think those are the changes.
Could Mr. McClelland meet with parliamentary council to have the necessary amendments drafted to the bill and get the opinion from the council and the clerk that the amendment eliminating the 10% is in order? I think the rest would be in order. We want to make sure the 10% is within the scope of the bill. If that's satisfactory and we get those opinions, I think the committee could deal with this at a subsequent meeting and report the bill to the House as amended.
Mr. Boudria: I have just one other suggestion. Perhaps one person within each caucus represented in the House could consult his or her respective political party, because it does have an impact on them.
The Chairman: I think it's important to do that.
Mr. Boudria: Perhaps you, Mr. Chairman, would want to do it for our caucus.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin could perhaps contact his party, because it is not only... Of course, this measure involves parliamentarians, but it also involves our respective parties. Therefore, I feel it would be wise to consult them. At the next meeting, we will have the opinion of our respective parties as well as the bill as amended.
Mr. Laurin: Could we provide responses on the same issues? I would like us to agree on the issues that we are going to put to our parties. Are we going to consult them on all of the proposals that have been studied here or just on one of the proposals?
The Chairman: The legislative counsel and Mr. McClelland will prepare a new draft bill, and this draft will be brought back before the committee. May I suggest to you Mr. McClelland that he provide us all with copies of his new draft before introducing it in committee, perhaps the week after the fall adjournment?
Mr. McClelland: After the week break?
The Chairman: Is that okay?
[English]
So we will have a written proposal that could be shown to the parties before it's considered in the committee. My own guess is the committee could have other business before it when we come back right after the break at our first Tuesday meeting.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Could we get an idea today, at least verbally, as to the content of the motion he plans to make?
The Chairman: Mr. McClelland can explain it now.
[English]
Just explain what the new bill will say.
Mr. McClelland: The new bill will be very simple, as I understand it. It would either maintain the 2% threshold nationally or 5% of the valid votes cast in the total of the constituencies represented by that party. It wouldn't have to be both; it would be either/or.
Mr. Boudria: Or it would be wherever the party fielded candidates. It doesn't mean represented in the sense that it elected them.
Mr. McClelland: No, it would be wherever they fielded candidates. Good point.
We would remove the 10% requirement that is now in the bill, and retain the 22.5% reimbursement. The effect will be to remove the bonus for spending money and apply the bonus for receiving valid votes.
.1150
The Chairman: Mr. Laurin.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: It says: ``2% and or 5% in the provinces''. Does that mean that the ``and or'' will be open for discussion at a subsequent meeting?
The Chairman: Oh, yes.
Mr. Laurin: We can't include both. It will be one or the other.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Laurin: Saying ``2% and 5%'' means that both requirements will have to be met.
Mr. McClelland: No, no.
Mr. Laurin: Saying ``2% or 5%'' means that one of the two requirements must be met.
[English]
Mr. McClelland: No, it's either 2% or 5%.
[Translation]
It is not necessary to have 2% and 5%. It's necessary to have 2%.
Mr. Laurin: So the idea is to introduce a bill which will require 2% at the national level or 5% in the provinces or the...
Mr. Boudria: No, no; 5% in the electoral district where they field candidates.
Mr. Laurin: Electoral districts where they field candidates. Yes, my understanding is that it is based on electoral districts.
Mr. Boudria: For example, if a regional party decided to run candidates only in Eastern Ontario and in Western Quebec, it would work. If it were only in Quebec, this would also work.
Mr. Laurin: That's right.
Mr. Boudria: So they must have 5% in the electoral districts where they field candidates. That would avoid the problem we had the other day with regional parties, etc. The regions could overlap provincial boundaries, and that whole problem could be avoided. That's what I like about this suggestion: 5% in each electoral district where they field candidates.
Mr. Laurin: But that would in no way change the requirement to have 50 candidates to be recognized as a party.
Mr. Boudria: That is another issue.
Mr. Laurin: That would remain as it is.
Mr. Boudria: It's another issue.
Mr. Laurin: The party would not be elligible if it only fielded 10 candidates in a province.
Mr. Boudria: No more so than it is at present.
Mr. Laurin: That's correct.
Mr. Boudria: It wouldn't change. Today, a party can field 100 or 125 candidates, barely win 0% of the votes and be elligible. A party can even claim not to want to win votes and be elligible for subsidies from taxpayers. It has already happened. The party had no intention of winning votes. In some ridings, its candidates said they did not want to win votes.
Mr. Laurin: Okay, it is clear.
The Chairman: It is clear?
Mr. Laurin: Yes.
The Chairman: Good. We will have the draft soon and we will be able to study it before starting to consider amendements in committee.
[English]
Mr. Kingsley: Just before you wrap up the session, I wanted to mention that when I said Elections Canada was available to assist the committee, that also applies to anything in terms of the drafting. Without getting into any formal participation on our part, we would be more than pleased to just look at it in case there's anything outstanding.
The other thing I wanted to say is that the binders in front of you are limited editions. There are only two left and they both fell on the floor. So hang onto your binders, please. We've noticed that after we have presented material to the committee, people come back to us and ask for another copy because something happened to the previous one. We're trying to limit this, so the expenses are strictly the ones we've met so far. I'd appreciate your cooperation in that respect. Obviously if there's much need for more in order to let parliamentarians know about this, we'll be happy to prepare them. Thank you.
Mr. Ringma: Would you autograph mine?
Mr. Kingsley: It would be an honour.
.1155
The Chairman: I think that concludes the business for the day. I declare the meeting adjourned.