Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Issue 12 - Evidence, March 30, 2000

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-2, respecting the election of members to the House of Commons, repealing other acts relating to elections and making consequential amendments to other acts, met this day at 10:55 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: I see a quorum, senators. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is now in session to continue hearing the testimony of the officials from the Privy Council Office.

Yesterday, we left off at clause 349. I will ask senators to leave all questions until the end of the presentation.

I am not sure when the minister will arrive.

[Translation]

Ms Isabelle Mondou, Counsel, Legislation and House Planning, Legal Counsel, Privy Council Office: We were talking about financial management, the amendments to financial provisions in the bill, the reference to Part 18, and the other sections. In the other sections, merging parties are authorized to keep their assets. Previously, two registered parties that wished to merge had to remit their assets. Under the new bill, they will be authorized to keep such assets. This is covered in sections 400 to 403.

[English]

The Chairman: Is this covered by clause 403?

Ms Mondou: No, it is a little further.

The Chairman: Please tell us each time which clause you are on.

Ms Mondou: Unfortunately, we do not have the number for this one in our presentation.

[Translation]

Ms Mondou: There is also the Ontario Court ruling in the Figueroa case, where the Communist Party contested some provisions of the act. Under that ruling, a provision of the Elections Act was deemed invalid. Under that provision, the $1,000 that candidates were required to deposit in order to run had to be reimbursed in full when they submitted their report. Previously, the candidate would be reimbursed $500 of that $1,000 when submitting his report, and was reimbursed the other $500 only if he obtained 15 per cent of the vote. Now, under Bill C-2, a candidate who submits the reports is reimbursed the full sum of $1,000.

My colleague will find the section on reimbursement of the $1,000 nomination deposit, which is the result of the Figueroa ruling. I will continue with provisions on the suspension of parties. These are covered under sections 382 to 390.

[English]

The Chairman: Are we going backwards?

Ms Mondou: Yes, I am afraid we are.

It is a whole new regime. Under the current legislation, when you cannot nominate 50 candidates, you must liquidate your assets. Under this new regime, if you respect certain conditions, you will be allowed to keep your assets. You need not liquidate everything if you do not meet the 50 candidate threshold. Clauses 382 to 390 deal with that.

I apologize that we did not note the section for this one.

Senator Beaudoin: You mentioned the Figueroa case, but you did not elaborate on it.

Ms Mondou: It is a decision of the Superior Court of Ontario. In fact, the Communist Party was challenging some of the provisions contained in the Canada Elections Act. They were challenging the fact that you must nominate 50 candidates in order to be a registered party. These provisions were struck down by the court but the government is appealing the decision. You will find these provisions unchanged in Bill C-2, pending the appeal. The appeal was heard in March and we are awaiting the judgment.

I will turn now to clause 560 which concerns financial provisions. It is at the end of the bill where there is reference to the tax credit. Parties can issue tax credits. The bill raises the threshold for the 75 per cent cut-off. If you make a contribution of up to $200, you will be reimbursed 75 per cent. You used to be reimbursed 75 per cent for a contribution up to $100. Thus, the threshold is raised to $200.

The Chairman: If I may break my own rules here, I understand that in Ontario right now the Ontario Elections Act has raised it to $300.

Ms Mondou: It varies from province to province. They all have different thresholds, depending upon when they last updated their legislation. Ontario does have a higher threshold. In other provinces, however, it is lower. This provision is in the middle, between the two.

I cannot apologize more, but, again, I do not have the clause number beside the presentation. It is somewhat out of order.

According to another provision, there must be disclosure of the name and address of the donor when a contribution is made. If you receive a contribution of over $200 from any donor, you must disclose the name and address. It used to be $100. That is another threshold that has been raised to off-set the impact of inflation because these numbers dated back to 1974. That provision was added at the report stage. In respect of a numbered company, in addition to the name and address, you must also provide the name of the chief executive officer or the president of that company. It was felt necessary to increase the transparency because sometimes, because it was a numbered company, disclosure of information about the company was not available That is also a new provision.

Next is clause 410. Under the current act, when you produce your report you must provide a voucher, which is basically proof that you have spent the money, for any amount that you spend over $25. This amount is raised to $50. Again, this is to off-set the impact of inflation.

In the same paragraph as clause 467, the fees for the auditor of a candidate have been raised. The amount used to range between $100 and $750. It now ranges from $250 to $1,500.

At clause 433, the CEO will be allowed or empowered to authorize the late filing of a report in the case of registered parties. That was done for candidates recently, in Bill C-114. It was to allow for a case where, for example, a candidate wants to give his report but, for some reason, the official agent is not available and cannot meet the deadline set by the act. He can now go to the CEO and ask for an extension. Previously, he had to go directly to a judge to request an extension. Some felt that was an onerous provision. The bill includes that provision for candidates, and now Bill C-2 includes that provision for registered parties as well.

There are many new requirements for parties to have more complete reports. The report containing the financial report of political parties will now be less complete than the one for candidates. This will be modified to have the same requirement. For example, at clause 424 there is a list of all items that a party must include in its financial report. Many items were already included, so I will point out only the new provisions.

Parties must now provide in their annual report a statement of assets and liabilities, as well as a statement of revenues and expenses. They must also include any condition of loans that they have. Additionally, they must report on every transfer of money between the party and its local association or between the party of a candidate or a trust fund. Any transfer of funds must now be reported. They must also produce a statement of election expense for each by-election. Previously, all the amounts spent for elections that took place during the year would be included in the annual report.

There is another new requirement for the trust funds of a party. If a party has a trust fund, the candidate must produce a specific report just for that trust fund, which will contain the same information as for the party. It will be attached to the report of the party. This means that a registered agent and an auditor will have to perform that task.

Senator Beaudoin: Are you referring to clause 424?

Ms Mondou: Yes, and clause 428 relates to a trust.

Clause 451 contains the reporting requirements for candidates. These are also slightly modified. For example, if a candidate buys something but, after 18 months, decides not to make a claim for the money for that good or service, then it becomes a contribution. Therefore, it should be registered in the report as a contribution. This was done to avoid some strange items being omitted from the reporting requirement.

There is also a requirement for a candidate to produce a statement of his personal expenses. Candidates have the right to spend a certain amount of money as personal expense, and they must produce statements for that.

Candidates must disclose the name and address of contributors who made contributions over $200 as opposed to $100. We have already mentioned that the threshold has been raised. However, more important, if a trust fund is created or established for the election of candidates or to support the election of a candidate, when this trust fund gives money to the candidate, they must do more than just hand over, say, $50,000, from the trust fund. They must report the name of every person who gives more than $200 to the trust fund. There will be a list of the original donors. That is completely new.

The Chairman: What clause is that under?

Ms Mondou: That is paragraph 451(2)(h).

Below that it talks about the numbered company, to which we referred earlier.

There is also a requirement that, if a candidate receives a contribution and returns it in part or in total to the donor for any reason, whether because he or she does not want to accept a contribution from that person or because it is a contribution from a foreign country, it must also be reported in the report of the candidate. That is a new provision.

Clause 409 is a specific provision to clarify that expenses for the care of a person with a disability or for a child are reimbursable expenses. That is new. There was a provision before in the act, but it was unclear. Some people were allowed to include their child care expenses and others were not. It is now clear. That clause is important for female candidates, in particular.

There will be a requirement for the Chief Electoral Officer to publish, when the candidate has disposed of his surplus, where it went and what amount was disposed of. That is clause 474. That will make the system more transparent because every one will know where the surplus goes and the amounts involved.

I will now touch briefly on enforcement, which is part 19 of the bill. I will not go to specific clauses, but I will explain basically what was done. We alluded yesterday to the plan. One thing I would underline is that all the clauses have been looked at to ensure that the penalty is appropriate for the seriousness of the offence. As well, there was a review of what are called illegal and corrupt practices in the Canada Elections Act. When you are guilty of a corrupt or illegal practice, it is very serious. Under the current legislation, you can lose your right to vote. You can lose your right to sit in the House of Commons and you can lose your right to be a candidate. These have been reviewed to ensure that only the really serious offences will be considered corrupt and illegal practices. In addition, under Bill C-2 there are no longer any circumstances under which you will lose your right to vote. You can still lose your right to sit as a candidate or to sit in the House of Commons, but you will not lose your right to vote. That was found to be such a fundamental right that one should not lose it under any circumstances. I am now speaking about subclause 502(3).

Mr. Michael Peirce, Counsel, Director, Legal Operations, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office: Honourable senators, subclause 502(1) sets out illegal practices. Then at subclause 502(2) corrupt practices are addressed. Subclause 502(3) outlines the consequences of being convicted of a corrupt or illegal practice.

Ms Mondou: These sanctions apply for five years in the case of an illegal practice and seven years in the case of a corrupt practice.

There is also a new mechanism for the Commissioner of Canada Elections. You may or may not know that function. He is the person responsible for the enforcement of the Canada Elections Act. He is appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer but is independent from the Chief Electoral Officer. The commissioner can take any action before the court if the act is not respected or enforced.

The Chairman: At this point, we will suspend our witnesses. I should like you to know that you will need to return. Before you come back, I should like a listing of the important clauses, the ones that are new or altered in this proposed legislation, in some kind of a logical order, please, so that we might follow your presentation more clearly. Please include the clauses that you have already spoken to and the ones that you will be speaking to next Wednesday.

The Chairman: We now have before us the Honourable Don Boudria, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. I would ask him to proceed.

The floor is yours, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Don Boudria, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons: Honourable senators, with your permission, I should like to speak to you for a few minutes on Bill C-2, which I am offering to Parliament. After that, I will answer your questions.

[Translation]

I am very happy to be here today to speak on Canada's new Elections Act, Bill C-2. I believe that yesterday you attended an information session by Privy Council officials. The session continued this morning. I have just heard that additional information will be provided at a meeting to be held in a few days.

Madam Chair, I hope that we all recognize that our electoral system is a model for many democracies around the world. Our elections legislation is based on principles of fairness, transparency and responsibility. We have frequently sent experts to other countries. Just yesterday, I received a letter from a Croatian group asking me to speak on our electoral system. We have sent observers to Croatia.

The principles I have just enumerated have been a part of Canada for many, many years. They are applied by the vast majority of Canadians, and I must say by all the political parties I know. They constitute the very foundation of our elections legislation.

The provisions in our main Elections Act have been in place for over 30 years now. In addition, some provisions in place for over 100 years, in other acts, have been included in this new bill.

[English]

One interesting case I always cite is the fact that one act we are repealing and incorporating is called the Disfranchising Act. "Disfranchising" is not even a word any longer. It is the name of a valid statute in Canada that was used the last time, I believe, in 1893. The Disfranchising Act will be modernized and, of course, it is incorporated in this bill.

[Translation]

Some of these statutes are obsolete, while others had to be brought into compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and since 1970 others had to be modernized in order to take technological changes into account. For example, today documents cannot be faxed to an election chairman. This is prohibited under the legislation.

Some aspects of the act, which were deemed invalid by the courts, must also be reviewed. This includes suspension of parties which did not run the required number of candidates or did not comply with election spending limits on third parties and the prohibition on polls and publicity.

Bill C-2 is founded on our tradition, and modernizes those aspects of the legislation that need to be modernized. It also takes into account comments heard during consultations with members of Parliament, academics in many of Canada's post-secondary institutions, the Chief Electoral Officer, and my counterparts in the United Kingdom.

The groundwork for this bill was already begun 10 years ago. We cannot be rushing the process or going too quickly, since we have been engaged in this exercise for 10 years now.

At the time, the Lortie commission submitted a detailed report and continued with its work. In 1993, the Elections Act was amended. The special House of Commons committee, know as the HAWKS Committee, published a number of reports. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs also tabled a report in 1998.

The main Elections Act is almost 30 years old, and some related statutes are even older. The Elections Act contains a number of outdated administrative provisions that in some cases are inconsistent and need to be reviewed.

I will highlight some of the changes proposed in the new bill. At present, the returning officer does not have the right to vote. And why not? He is prohibited from voting on the grounds that his vote might break a potential tie. This prohibition is clearly in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is unnecessary.

There have only been five tied votes across Canada ever since Confederation. Yet in 300 ridings across the country and at every election, 300 people are prohibited from voting. The last tied vote was 37 years ago.

If the 1988 election is anything to go by, I would say that if the result of a vote showed a tie or a near-tie, the courts would require a new vote. That is what happened with Mr. Bevilacqua: after a number of legal recounts, the court asked for a new vote. In my opinion, the provision which prohibits returning officers from voting is completely outdated.

Secondly, there are no provisions on the verification of nomination documents. That was a surprise to me. Madam Chair, I know that you have been involved in the process for a long time. When the election chairman receives a list of people supporting a given nomination, we assume that there are genuine voters on that list.

During the 1997 election in Fraser Valley, the current member, Chuck Strahl, was running against a candidate called Sa Tan.

[English]

This candidate -- Sa Tan as he called himself -- had names of every weird concoction you can imagine listed as people supporting his candidacy, and his name was allowed to go on the ballot. Only then was it brought to everyone's attention that there was no mechanism to review whether, in fact, those who had nominated the candidate were actually people who existed. Obviously, that has to be fixed.

[Translation]

Bill C-2 will allow electors in physical danger to indicate their former place of residence, rather than their current place of residence. The establishment of a permanent register of electors created a problem. All shelters for battered women appeared on the register, which showed the names and addresses of victims.

Some people of course know where these shelters are, but they certainly do not know which particular battered women are living in which shelter. But since the register showed the residence of each victim, the people those victims were fleeing from could find them fairly easily. The bill has introduced a form of exemption to protect those victims.

In any case, I believe that door-to-door canvassing should be prohibited in such shelters, for the same reasons. Those are the provisions of Bill C-2.

[English]

In the last election, polls in Saskatchewan -- I am thinking of Senator Andreychuk here -- closed later than polls in British Columbia and Alberta. Of course, that was totally unwanted. Not long before we had put virtually the entire country, although there is a small variation, on uniform poll closing hours so that the people in Western Canada could feel, and legitimately so, that their votes were worth the same as the votes elsewhere. Obviously there was something wrong with the way it was done because we ended up with polls in Saskatchewan closing later than polls in British Columbia. That was on account of the issue of daylight saving time in Saskatchewan, with which you will all be familiar. There are corrective measures in this bill to fix that, to make it right.

Staggered hours would still remain where several by-elections are held in more than one time zone. However, we also found out, with this change we made to the staggered voting hours, that when there was a by-election in only one time zone the polls were closing at sometimes very late hours or very early hours for no logical reason. The most recent example was the by-election in Sherbrooke, where polls closed at 9:30 p.m., for no reason. Elections were not being held elsewhere in Canada; there was just that one by-election. There will now be a measure in place so that in the case where there is only one by-election, or at least by-elections in only one time zone, polls will be open from 8:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.

These are administrative matters, but they are important issues when dealing with the voting public; they are things that the voting public can perhaps relate to more than other things.

Bill C-2 would also allow the display of election signs in apartments or condominiums, subject to reasonable size and placement. The Chief Electoral Officer would issue a bulletin to that effect. The difficulty we have, of course, is that it is increasingly a right of democratic expression in Canada to place signs indicating which candidate you want to support in an election. On single-family homes, that is usually fairly easy, but in condominiums it can result in problems. Sometimes a condominium corporation passes a rule preventing it or, even worse, in the case of apartments, the landlord decides unilaterally that it will not be done. This bill would protect that right for citizens.

Bill C-2 would also allow candidates to enter apartment buildings and other multiple-residence buildings during reasonable hours. That provision existed already except that there was no penalty for not complying. A candidate could show the landlord that he had no right to stop him or her from entering the building but if the landlord still insisted on preventing a candidate from entering a building to solicit support and to introduce himself to the citizens whom he hoped to represent in the Parliament of Canada, there was nothing the candidate could do about it because there was no punitive measure other than using injunctions. By the time you get an injunction -- and you are familiar with the tests involved there -- the election is long over. If you have lost, there is no point and, if you win, there is no point in suing one of your constituents. Obviously, that was totally ineffective.

The bill would also require public authorities to give reasonable notice before removing an election sign. This is an important issue, particularly in parts of the country where there is tremendous zeal on the part of cities or others to remove a lawn sign in front of a house if it is deemed to be an inch inside on the street part of the front lawn, as opposed to on the homeowner's property. We have seen that, in some places where civic authorities did not particularly like a political party, the signs are removed rather rapidly.

The Chairman: Particularly if they are on steel stakes.

Mr. Boudria: Senator, I think you have understood the provision very well. We want to have proper notice given so that the candidates can remove them. Of course, there will be an exception when the election sign constitutes a hazard to public safety. In other words, if someone puts a sign in front of a stop sign, no one need give reasonable notice. It can be removed first and questions can be asked later.

There would also be some changes to modernize financial reporting. Registered parties would be required to provide more detailed information on their financial situation -- information about their assets and liabilities, details of loans or securities, transfers of funds to candidates and to local associations. This issue was raised at the committee in the House of Commons. Some of those measures were in the bill initially and some I added as a result of representation from MPs from all sides of the House in order to provide the greater transparency that I am sure we all want. Registered parties would be required to provide an audited financial report for each of their trust funds established for an election. Again, there was an allegation of an alleged "black hole." I think that was largely overstated but, nonetheless, there will be greater transparency there.

The names and addresses of the original donor of any contribution over $200 made through a trust to promote the election of a candidate would also be disclosed. In other words, you cannot give money to a trust and direct the trust to give the money to a candidate to hide who is actually giving the money. If the transfer is over $200, you would have to trace back to the original donor. Again, that is for greater transparency.

An amendment was brought at report stage in the House of Commons by an opposition member. I am grateful for his contribution. Numbered companies will be required to disclose the name of their chief executive officer or president if they make a contribution of over $200, the kind that will be publicly disclosed. Again, that is a normal and proper thing and no one had even thought of it until it reached that stage.

The bill would expressly include child care expenses and expenses for the care of a dependent as personal expenses of a candidate for which they are reimbursed. Madam Chair, you will probably know that, in some constituencies, child care expenses had been accepted by the returning officer but there was no rule about it. Now, this right will be protected. It is available to everyone but I think it will be a feature particularly appreciated by women candidates. For obvious reasons, it will be of interest.

A number of changes have been made to the Canada Elections Act to offset the impact of inflation over the past three decades. The minimum amount for disclosure was $100. The bill will increase it to $200. This is still, of course, lower than what $100 represented in 1974. You would have to put it at around $275 to give it the equivalent. Also, this amount is equal or still lower than the amount established by the majority of provinces and territories, including Alberta, which is $375. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island and the Yukon have $250 as the public disclosure threshold. Quebec has $200, which we have as a mirror image in the proposal before you. The $100 value was established in 1974 and had never been modernized since.

For the same reason, the 75 per cent tax credit cut-off for contributions will be increased from $100 to $200. Again, this is to offset partially the impact of inflation.

To respond to technical concerns expressed by experts, by candidates and by political parties, spending limits will be adjusted using the revised list of electors, which will result in an increase in the limit. Let me describe that to you, honourable senators.

The permanent voters list is available on day one of the campaign. Others names are added later. In a constituency where several new subdivisions were added after the first day, the amount a candidate was allowed to spend would not increase proportionately because there was no new enumeration. Now the revised lists will be used to set the limit, provided that that results in an increase. Obviously, if the candidate has already spent the money, you cannot change the threshold by lowering it, so it will be the greater of the two.

On another note, an Ontario court struck down provisions regarding the liquidation of assets for political parties that lose their official status. You may be familiar with the case of the Communist Party. The bill responds to that decision by allowing registered parties that failed to field the required number of candidates during the previous election to retain their assets subject to certain conditions. I can describe those to you when I am asked questions later. It provides also for the full refund of candidates' nomination deposits.

As you know, the nomination deposit is now $1,000. You get $500 back when you file all the papers and you get the other $500 back only if you have 15 per cent of the vote. The Lortie commission recommended doing away with that and having a flat $1,000. Of course, the Ontario court now in this case regarding the Communist Party said that that was really excessive and unconstitutional. We have responded to that by doing what the Lortie commission recommended some years ago.

Other provisions in the bill respond to court decisions. For example, our electoral regime currently includes limits on spending for candidates and for political parties, which is normal. We previously had limits on third parties. It seemed to me that, in a democratic society, if one's spending is limited when one is saying, "Vote for Don Boudria," then spending should also be limited for a campaign saying, "Vote against Don Boudria." Otherwise, there is something that is not normal in the law. Also, there are laws in this country that say that, if someone spends money to promote another's candidacy, the funds must come from inside Canada and must be publicly disclosed.

Because of the overturning of that decision in Somerville, third parties have no limits right now. There is also no disclosure and the funds need not come from inside this country. Funds could come from foreign governments or from organizations outside the country that are less than wholesome. I think you get the picture.

The recent Supreme Court decision in Libman endorsed the principle of setting third-party spending limits. The Libman decision was very important in that regard. Later, in response to questions, I can cite the relevant portions that demonstrate three things: first, setting third-party spending limits is the proper thing to do; second, third-party spending limits must be lower than those of candidates; third, they disagreed with the Somerville decision in Alberta. All of those things together give us the authority and direction necessary to legislate in this regard.

With regard to third parties, I am offering a national limit on advertising only. You must remember that candidates are limited in all their expenditures. Under the measure I am offering, third parties would be limited only on advertising. It would be a national limit of $150,000, a constituency limit of $3,000, and a by-election limit of $3,000 per third-party organization. That is not for the aggregate but for each one of them.

Senator Cools: That is per organization?

Mr. Boudria: Yes. If there are six organizations in my riding, each has a somewhat lower limit, but there is no limit on how many of them there can be. I think it is fair to say that there is usually only one group supporting a candidate, and that is his or her campaign.

The $150,000 limit would be used by a person or group of registered parties with the Chief Electoral Officer to support or oppose political parties or to oppose issues linked to the campaigns of political parties. I believe that $150,000 would provide for meaningful expression at the national level and that the $3,000 limit would allow third parties to participate at the riding level. I believe that this approach would restore the level playing field.

There is an anti-collusion clause to prevent a group from subdividing itself into several groups in order to circumvent the law.

The Supreme Court recently struck down the 75-hour blackout at end of the campaign period for election polls. It is important to note that the court supported the objective of giving voters the opportunity to assess the polls before election day. However, the Supreme Court suggested that a blackout alone without information on the methodology of a poll could not achieve that objective.

The government believes that misleading and inaccurate polls at the end of an election campaign can have an effect on elections. I believe that there is a longstanding tradition in Canada of agreement with that view. However, we must respect the Supreme Court ruling in designing any blackout that we propose. Therefore, Bill C-2 would introduce a blackout only on election day. I initially wanted a 48-hour blackout. However, after meeting with several people in the media, including the Canadian Newspaper Association, I backed down on that and decided to have the limit for election day only. In other words, a public opinion poll could not be released after midnight the night before an election. Similarly, there would be no advertising on election day, only until the evening before. I think that is reasonable. The last word is left to the voter.

There is another effect of the polls on election day that I should like to bring to your attention. I believe that all legislators supported the decision made several years ago that the results of an election should be made public to the voters only after the polls have closed. That affects Western Canadians, due to geography. That is good and legitimate. However, with the exit poll phenomenon of the last four or five years, it is possible to publish, at 4:00 p.m. Vancouver time, the exit polls of Central Canada half an hour before the polls closed, which has the exact effect we were trying to prevent in the other situation. In other words, whether you actually count the votes or do a scientific poll as people leave the polling stations, the results would be very similar. The people of one part of the country would know how the majority of the country voted before they themselves vote, unless we have a ban on public opinion polls, particularly exit polls, the day of the election.

I should raise the issue of the penalties.

[Translation]

The Commissioner of Canada Elections will be authorized to conclude public transactions -- agreements, if you will -- with persons and request injunctions to ensure the election process is fair. Previously, as I just said, irremediable prejudice had to be proved. But in an election, irremediable prejudice is almost never proved until the day after the election, when it no longer makes any difference. Criteria to ensure fairness and public interest would have to be included so that the Commissioner of Elections can be asked to intervene.

By the way, you know, of course, that the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Chief Electoral Officer are not the same person. The Commissioner of Canada Elections has a quasi-judicial role to intervene during an election campaign. This is Mr. Landry and not Mr. Kingsley. I do not want any confusion on this point.

Finally, given the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, will need time to prepare the application of new provisions, Bill C-2 will come into force six months after the day of Royal Assent, or a little earlier if the Chief Electoral Officer is ready. Of course, with amendments like these, the apparatus must be prepared to implement them for future elections, by making the necessary preparations, by training people in the regions, etc. It needs a transitional period.

These are important amendments. I think that they will provide a modern electoral system that will be even more efficient. In my mind, the changes I am suggesting are reasonable, just and founded in our democratic tradition and on the work of experts in electoral matters, of academics and of course, of many parliamentarians.

I believe that Bill C-2 will ensure that our electoral system remains as a model, as it already is for other democracies, for years to come. I will be pleased to answer your questions, and I am sorry to have taken so long to explain these things to you.

Senator Beaudoin: We are glad to have you with us, Mr. Minister, this morning. I totally agree that Canada is, without a doubt, a great democracy. There is no doubt about this.

I want to come back to the issue of opinion polls. In the past, polls were forbidden during the last days of a campaign.

Mr. Boudria: In France, it is still being done.

Senator Beaudoin: Yes, and it is done in many other countries. I read the Supreme Court decision in the Thomson case and I found it interesting. The decision was not unanimous but it was nonetheless very strong. I wonder why an exception is made for polling day. Is this based on Section 1 of the Charter, whereby this would be a reasonable restriction in a democratic country like ours? Is there a reason for this? Canada has many time zones. I have always wanted to know why polling stations closed at different times in different places.

I always thought that it was easy to know how people are voting in a province; you can simply find this out by telephone or by other means. We can know the trends before the polling stations close.

You are following the Supreme Court decision, and that is very good, but on polling day, you say that there is a total interdiction. Why is it total, do you find that this kind of restriction is normal in a free and democratic country? Would you say that this is so for polling day? With the three preceding days, there are more problems with the court decision.

Mr. Boudria: Actually, there are two parts to the answer. First, with modern means of communication, we can find out the results elsewhere in the country before even being able to vote ourselves if the opening or closing hours of polling stations are the same, given the different time zones. In the light of modern communication, we also had to change the system a few years ago, because the approach of banning the publication of results on television had become seriously flawed.

The modern equivalent consists in changing voting hours so that polling stations all close at about the same time. There are very few countries, perhaps with the exception of the United States, where we obtain the results of an election before polling is finished. In some American states, such as New Hampshire, if everyone has already voted in a polling station, even if it is only 10:30 in the morning and other people in the same riding have not yet voted, we can count the votes. I find that appalling and we could imagine that this could also happen in Canada because we have almost as many time zones.

Secondly, there is the more recent phenomenon of exit poll. The first time I found out about this was during the last American presidential elections. We get the results by interviewing people as they enter or leave polling stations. Then, the results are published. This method of reckoning, which science recognizes as being fairly accurate, is a way of getting around existing rules. Once again, this brings the rules back to what they used to be.

Finally, opinion polls could be published that some may find false or publicity could be broadcast on polling day and the opposing party could not contest it because of lack of time. We could not convene a public meeting on the same evening to decry these results, once the damage is done.

For all these reasons, the need to determine what is reasonable has been met regarding this very weak interdiction. Just think of the interdictions we had a few years ago. During the first days of a campaign as well as during the last 72 hours, publicity was forbidden. All these restraints on publicity were removed and the restraints on polls were once again shortened from 72 hours to midnight on the eve of polling day. This simply prevents information from appearing in the media on polling day. This is not unreasonable.

Senator Beaudoin: I am inclined to believe that it is reasonable.

[English]

Senator Andreychuk: I want to ask you about your government's perspective on suspending registered parties and setting the limits at 50 candidates. There is some debate in the developing and reforming countries as to how to achieve inclusiveness in a pluralistic society. I wondered whether you had given any consideration to that thought, and to the difficulty of setting these limits.

Mr. Boudria: You must excuse me for being rather careful with the answer I am about to give; the issue is before the courts as we speak.

We filed an appeal in the Madam Justice Molloy decision in the case of Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), because in the decision Madam Justice Molloy stated that 50 candidates was not the appropriate number, that wherever the number 50 was indicated it must replaced by the number 2. I do not know if everyone at this committee is aware of that, but that was the decision of Justice Molloy, which we appealed immediately.

We did not appeal, as I said, the provision about forfeiting an amount of money if there were not an appropriate number of votes, et cetera. In retrospect, perhaps that was excessive; however, in terms of two people constituting a political party, in my definition they are two independents, not a political party.

Is 50 the right number? I believe it is a reasonable number in the context of a country with 301 constituencies. To have recognition as a political party, and to be included on a ballot, there must be some threshold at which it is in fact a party and not a couple of individuals.

Please remember, there is no restriction whatsoever on anyone being a candidate individually. That is not the case. However, a political party means a group. Canada, which overall has 301 constituencies, is broken down into regions. Quebec, for example, is constitutionally identified as a region with 75 seats. The region of Ontario has 103 seats. The Atlantic and the West are also regions and, as such, they have an identified number of seats. I believe that the numbers are reasonable.

I cannot go further than that, as I said, because the matter is before the courts.

The Chairman: I understand that in the other place it was suggested by some of the parties that 12 might be a more appropriate number, given that that number relates to the recognition of party status within the House itself.

Mr. Boudria: The difficulty with that proposition is that, each time a political party runs 12 candidates, 100 per cent of the candidates would need to be elected. Whatever the number is, 12 must be the result, not the beginning. Obviously, it must be a number, I would suggest, much greater than 12 in order to achieve 12.

Surely one runs as a party in order to have, as an end result, a party. Otherwise, why have one to begin with? That is why we think that running 50 candidates in the hope of electing 12, if that is the threshold, because those people have advocated that that should be somehow linked to the number in the house, is not unreasonable. Most political parties would have considered themselves fortunate to elect 12 out of 50 of their candidates every single election.

Senator Andreychuk: One subset of that is the numerical aspect, but there are also geographic considerations. As part of their electoral system, some countries already have, or are considering including, the requirement that there be some regional distribution of whatever the number is set at.

Mr. Boudria: Again, that is not, I believe, the historical reality of Canada. Canada was formed by a group of provinces that joined to form a country, with the exception of the West, where a territory divided into provinces. There is a long history of regional parties in Canada, whether we are talking about the CCF and its origin, the Social Credit Party in the West, the United Farmers of Alberta, and groups like that. I am not saying that I personally like that, but I must recognize that it is a historical reality in Canada. I know this is not what you said, but to suggest that the Bloc Québécois also run candidates in Ontario would be complicated, to say the least.

Senator Andreychuk: I was not thinking of the Bloc at all.

Mr. Boudria: It does not matter. That would be a side effect.

Senator Cools: The parties that you just named ran candidates outside of their own provinces.

Mr. Boudria: They were not provinces but regions.

Senator Cools: There is a slight difference. I did not think of it until you raised it just now. There is a difference between parties like the CCF, the Social Credit and the Progressives, et cetera, and the Bloc Québécois.

Senator Pearson: The Creditistes were only in Quebec.

Senator Cools: They were Social Credits.

Senator Beaudoin: It was very complex. It started like the Social Credit for the whole of Canada.

Mr. Boudria: I believe there are also a number of others. For instance, if memory serves me, at the period of Confederation there was a regional party with only one province in Eastern Canada. Senator Buchanan, you could probably tell us about that. There is a long history of that. There was also the Bloc Populaire.

I am not saying that I like that phenomenon personally, but I must recognize that it is a reality. To say that a political party must not only present 50 candidates but must also be in more than one province or more than one region would not be recognizing what has happened for a long time in this country. Some people would probably challenge it before the courts very quickly. It would be excessive.

Senator Andreychuk: In terms of our foreign policy, I know of cases where we have suggested to other countries -- for instance, to break up some of the balkanization in Africa, et cetera -- that they should truly try to have multi-party systems but multi-party systems that have a national base as opposed to a tribal base. I guess I was asking from a public policy perspective. If we think that we should not, for historical reasons, then perhaps we should not be passing that message on to others.

Mr. Boudria: I will pass on your message to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Senator Moore: Thank you, Mr. minister. You are obviously practically, totally immersed in this bill.

I want to ask you about third-party advertising. I note the spending limits and that clause 91 prohibits making false statements. Clause 486(3) makes it an offence to contravene clause 91, and clause 500 outlines the penalty of a fine, summary conviction or indictable offence. I am thinking of the situation in the last federal general election in 1997 when the Canadian Chiefs of Police placed billboards in targeted ridings around the country. They were vicious ads. They were misleading and unfair. The candidates had to go to court to have them removed, and that process takes time. If someone contravenes clause 91, to have the situation righted one must initiate legal proceedings. However, it might be too late because the damage may be done by then, the message is out there. I was disappointed when I saw those billboard ads. One was in Nova Scotia. I do not know how else to say it: It was an Americanization or a negative thrust to a campaign, a tactic that I had never seen before. In order to fight the targeted message, which unfairly characterized the candidate, the candidate had to shift the focus from the campaign.

Is Bill C-2 sufficient enough to cover this type of situation? They are unfair, and I do not think they serve the voting public. They certainly are distracting and expensive for candidates, and they are very un-Canadian.

Mr. Boudria: You are absolutely right, senator, in describing that particular round of ads. They were not the only ones. There were a few other groups who did things equally bad, or worse.

Senator Moore: That is the worst I saw in Nova Scotia.

Mr. Boudria: I remember one case of a candidate, an MP at the time, who successfully challenged a negative ad campaign and had the material removed.

Clause 91 of the bill describes some measures -- and I can cite them for benefit of senators:

No person shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish any false statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate or prospective candidate.

Clause 92 applies if someone falsely alleges that someone has resigned and is no longer a candidate.

The injunction measures that I described a while ago have also been changed. Clause 516 reads:

If the Commissioner --

We are referring here to the Commissioner of Elections, who has the quasi-judicial role I described.

-- has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed, is about to commit or is likely to commit an act or an omission that is contrary to this Act, the Commissioner may, during an election period, after taking into account the nature and seriousness of the act or omission, the need to ensure fairness of the electoral process and the public interest, apply to a competent court $ for an injunction described in subsection (2).

As I said, the injunction now has not only the criteria of irreparable harm but also it is considerably easier to obtain. It could not be any harder to obtain, because I know of no one who has ever been able to receive relief of that kind for virtually anything, neither federally nor provincially. This one will make it more practical to apply.

Is it enough? I suppose time will tell. It is a middle ground. Those of you who are the legal minds around the table will recognize that in these types of matters it is also important to be very conscious of the right of free speech. You cannot go too far. If you say that anything you believe to be somewhat inaccurate cannot be published, then you are almost preventing debate at some point. Occasionally, even on the floor of the House of Commons, we disagree with one another as to facts.

The Chairman: You are saying that the ability of the commissioner to apply for an injunction makes this an immediate remedy for the problem.

Mr. Boudria: Yes. It is easier than what used to exist.

The Chairman: This bill creates an offence, and then clause 500 sets out the relevant penalty.

Mr. Boudria: The penalties are there. Under clause 516, the injunction measures are easier to access than they would have been previously. Providing it can be achieved, there is a compliance agreement or provision for that in the bill as well.

Senator Fraser: Mr. Minister, I wish to ask you about opinion polls. I understand the tension at work here. I also think I understand the balance you are trying to strike and the different elements that must be accommodated. However, I wonder why we tilt so far in the direction of controlling the media.

The Supreme Court says -- and I agree; in fact, you said the same in your presentation -- that it would be wrong to have incomplete, possibly inaccurate, tendentious or misleading material published at the end of a campaign. Why, however, do you have these provisions governing publication for the whole length of the campaign? Let me illustrate a couple of problems I see here.

First, in all probability, this would diminish the use by the media of leaked polls on fundamental issues -- forget voting intentions. Leaked polls can, on occasion -- as I am sure you, as a practical politician, know -- be an interesting contribution to the public debate during an election campaign.

Second, given the number of items that must be included in publication within the first 24 hours, a large number of private radio stations would end up not reporting the polls in question.

Mr. Boudria: There is a different test for radio.

Senator Fraser: For anyone who transmits to the public?

Mr. Boudria: There is a requirement, but what is asked of the print media, for example, is different. There will be a formula for radio that makes it easier to access. Please remember that it is only in the first 24 hours of publication.

Senator Fraser: I do remember that.

Mr. Boudria: For instance, if you are referring to a poll taken two days earlier, you do not have to say, "This was a poll taken two days earlier, 19 times out of 20, having sampled so many." It would not be necessary to repeat that. It is only for publication within the first 24 hours.

On the issue of going far in controlling the media, countries such as France have a total ban on publishing public opinion polls for the last seven days of a campaign. There is no ban anywhere in this bill, with the exception of the day of the vote, and there is nothing to do with public opinion polling outside an election campaign. It is only inside the election campaign, and there is no control mechanism. It is only to say, "Tell us where you got this stuff." It has the criteria identified.

Senator Fraser: Why for the whole campaign?

Mr. Boudria: In terms of the rules for radio, you are probably familiar with the broadcasting arbitrator who will be putting together the actual form to be used for broadcasting.

Senator Fraser: Where in the bill does it differentiate within that first 24-hour period?

Mr. Boudria: I will have to ask the experts to assist me.

Mr. Pierce: In clause 326 of the bill, you will see additional requirements that apply for published polls; it is under subclause 326(2).

Senator Fraser: I know, but there is a long list with which broadcasters must also comply.

Mr. Pierce: There is a list applying to both, but there is a more detailed requirement for publishers.

Senator Fraser: It is a fairly long list to apply to broadcasters. It also means that no element of partial information, however important or valid it might be as information for the public, can be given to the public at any time during the whole election campaign. If you said, for example, that the rigorous rules must apply during the last week of a campaign, that would give ample time for something that was inaccurate to be refuted -- indeed, for fresh polls to be conducted and published to refute it, according your criteria. We are talking about a seven-week regime for the whole campaign. We are talking about the whole campaign for this extremely rigorous limitation on the way that free press can no longer be free.

Mr. Boudria: I do not think that the test is that rigorous. Insofar as the desirability of the initiative, I refer you to the Supreme Court in Thomson, paragraph 109, which indicates that there is evidence that polls that have an important influence in terms of voter choice. It states that "for this reason, preventing the influence of inaccurate polls is a pressing and substantial objective sufficient to justify the limitation on expression."

The court also concluded that a publication ban, which we are not doing except for the day of the vote, in conjunction with a mandatory requirement to publish methodological information would be the most effective way to achieve this objective. That is found at paragraph 119 of the decision. That is why we have a polling-date-only ban and a requirement elsewhere to publish the source of the information only. If someone conducted a poll by contacting those who went to McDonald's this morning, then that is the source. If it is a scientific poll, we should know and people can then make their judgment.

We had a curious case during the last election campaign where one of these polls appeared on the front page of a newspaper not very far from here. A couple days later, other papers made fun of the newspaper that ran the poll on its front page, saying, "This is ridiculous. This was not scientific poll." That is fine if there is a competing interest that will hold others to account. However, toward the tail end of a campaign, when there is little opportunity for anyone else to refute what has been printed, the opportunity is gone all together.

Senator Fraser: That is my point precisely -- namely, the situation at the end of a campaign. I see the validity of that. However, I do not see the validity for the preceding period. I am well familiar with the current structure in the media in this country, minister.

Mr. Boudria: I know you are, senator.

The Chairman: Am I not understanding clause 326(1) when it states, in part, that "any person who transmits them to the public within 24 hours after they are first transmitted"? That is to say, they can be transmitted for the rest of the election campaign; is that correct?

Senator Fraser: There always must be an initial transmission. That trigger initial transmission is, by definition, within 24 hours and can occur at any time during the election period. There is no room here for the publication of information that someone would like to have suppressed because they do not want the voters to know about it.

The Chairman: It is really leaked polls about which you speak.

Senator Fraser: I am speaking partly of leaked polls. That is an important element of what should remain available.

Mr. Boudria: The debate really centres on whether the risk of saying that someone cannot cover a leaked poll is worth not having rules at all for that reason.

Senator Fraser: You overstate my case, minister.

Mr. Boudria: That is one aspect. You have raised a second one, as well, which is the following, if I may paraphrase, that any restriction has greater merit toward the end of a campaign than at the beginning of it. I believe you implied that as well, senator. Effectively, there are two points, and I think you have raised both.

There is no doubt that toward the end of the campaign it becomes even more important, but again, referring to the Supreme Court decision, it is still a very important issue to address and is not that onerous. It only applies for the first 24 hours after the publication of a poll. Referring to it the next day does not even have that test.

I return to the example of a newspaper. If you use material two days in a row, it is only on the first day that you would have to do all this. You would not the second, third, fourth or any other time you use it, assuming that you are using it for the same purposes it was being used the first time.

Senator Cools: On a point of clarification. Senator Fraser and the minister have been having a dialogue. What is a leaked poll? What is a difference between a poll and a leaked poll?

Senator Fraser: May I, Mr. minister?

Mr. Boudria: Of course.

Senator Fraser: What I was speaking about, Senator Cools, refers to the provision to the press of partial information from a poll, usually provided by someone who has a political axe to ground. In a campaign, all sides have political axes to grind. However, frequently the material is provided because it will become, it is hoped, a portion of the public debate. Public debate is what it is all about in terms of helping electors to make up their minds.

Senator Cools: When you say public debate, where is the debate?

Senator Fraser: The voters. We can perhaps talk about that later.

The Chairman: Senator Cools, perhaps you could wait your turn.

[Translation]

Senator Joyal: I would simply like to follow Senator Fraser's line of questioning. This morning, newspaper articles reported judge Richard Nadeau's decision involving the National Post and the Bloc Québécois case where he refused to allow the Bloc Québécois to publish its internal polls. I have not read the decision, nor what has been alleged. I only saw the announcement of the decision. We should see to what extent the elements considered by the judge in his decision at this stage of the process may raise doubts about the points on which you want to intervene. That is the only added element that I wanted to bring.

Mr. Minister, I would like you to consider section 18.1 of the bill. Mr. Peirce and Ms. Mondou told us yesterday that this had been added by the House of Commons. This section was not in the original bill. As a minister, you are not reputed for leaving the Senate out of our parliamentary process. Let me remind you that you are certainly informed, as Government Leader in the House of Commons, that for the past six years, the Senate has been amending bills from which it had been excluded. In an extremely important provision aimed at using a new electronic polling system, as a major change in our electoral system -- it would be an entirely new way of voting -- the Senate does not have to approve such a decision. You know very well the basic reasons for which the Senate was created, you said this indirectly, just now, in your statements about how our country was founded. The Senate was created to be a voice for the regions that have less weight in the democratic balance though popular vote and to protect minority rights in these regions. As you yourself are a representative from Ontario, you know what I am referring to.

When we learned about this provision yesterday, I could not agree with excluding the Senate from a provision of such great importance. As I said, we have amended bills from which the Senate had been excluded. Had we been informed about this provision when the bill was first drafted, some of us would certainly have informed you that there is a defect that must be remedied. This was an initiative taken by the House of Commons. We were not informed of it in time to make the corrections, as had been the case last spring with the bill to consolidate environmental laws. As the Senate has been excluded, we had to inform you that this exclusion of the Senate had to be corrected. It was corrected in due time. When the Bill was brought before the Senate, this provision was not amended, and it is now in force.

Every time a bill from the House of Commons excludes the Senate, I or someone else remove amendments. We have said this to several of your colleagues who have testified before our committee, be it the Solicitor General, the Minister of National Defence or others who have introduced bills that excluded the Senate. I fully appreciate that this is none of your doing. This provision is a private member's bill. The fact remains, however, that it excludes one of the essential chambers of the Parliament of Canada on a fundamental decision, namely, one that changes the way we vote. This may have tremendous repercussions in the rural regions or in areas of the country that are not so familiar with electronic voting. Accordingly, this pertains to the exercise of a basic democratic right. I cannot accept the exclusion of the Senate from a provision like that.

Mr. Boudria: First of all, I think that most of the people around this table know that I often defend the Senate in the House of Commons against attacks from the other side. Every year at estimate time, I have an opportunity to put my commitment into practice, not only because it is my duty to do so, but also because it is a pleasure since I am a strong believer in the bicameral system of the Canadian Parliament. I hope that you do not think that I am lacking in commitment when it comes to the institution of the Parliament of Canada, the Senate and the House of Commons.

Honourable senators, you are free to choose whether or not to accept my explanation, but this clause does not call for the implementation of an electronic voting system. It simply goes like this: the member of Parliament in question, who is far from being someone I usually defend, wanted to authorize the Chief Electoral Officer to conduct tests in this regard. Other parliamentarians said yes, but if there is a test, the committee responsible for elections at the House of Commons, the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the former Committee on Procedure, Privileges and Elections, wants to look at the nature of this test that is being suggested for the people. This is the same committee that reviews the estimates of the Chief Electoral Officer. This is the same committee which deals with an entire series of issues pertaining to the House of Commons' electoral system. Some members of this committee have said that certainly, he can go ahead with the tests, of course, but nothing will be cast in stone because this requires a legislative amendment. But as far as the test is concerned, the representatives of all of the elected parties would like to understand what he intends to test before going ahead with it.

In fact, double protection is provided with respect to these tests, and here I am not referring to the implementation of anything on a permanent basis since, naturally, this would require a legislative amendment subject to due process and including both chambers. This then refers only to the possibility of these tests for electronic voting.

As far as the substance of the issue is concerned, when there is, for example, statutes that call for review after five years, I, as minister responsible for reviewing all enactments before they are introduced in the House, add the word Senate if it is not there. This is not the objective, since it is merely a double precaution to preclude an official, although this is an official of high calibre, both as an individual and as the incumbent of this position, namely, the Chief Electoral Officer, to make a unilateral decision to proceed with a test without giving an elected member the opportunity to see it in advance. This all occurred the day after a controversy, a few months ago, when UNICEF and the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada had conducted election simulations in schools. This was part of the public education mandate and it had stirred up some parliamentarians who interpreted this activity as some type of extreme left-wing plan or something of that ilk. I viewed it as an educational exercise, as when a member of Parliament or a minister or a senator visits a classroom to explain how the Canadian Parliament works to young children. To some extent, it was this agitation that caused the members of the House of Commons to seek this double protection to ensure that a test like this could not be conducted without having a chance to look at it first.

Senator Joyal: And you would not be opposed to the idea of us amending this provision to include the Senate?

Mr. Boudria: Naturally, I acknowledge the constitutional right of honourable senators to amend any bill, but if this bill is delayed and, as a result, must go back to the House for amendment purposes only -- I am not trying to tell you to find others, quite the contrary, I want to say the opposite -- that would cause delays. You know, further to events at the House of Commons since last fall and with the five parties in the House, bills are not passed quickly. And if a bill is sent back to us, we risk starting the next election campaign without the benefit of a new act and perhaps without any rules concerning third parties. I will invite you to give some thought to this. I acknowledge that you have full authority to amend a bill from the House of Commons, even if I don't always like the idea.

Senator Joyal: Very well, we have understood the message.

[English]

Senator Cools: I was reflecting on the minister's response to Senator Joyal. I was thinking that the problem might be that there are not enough parties in the Senate, based on the logic of the minister.

My question is about the application of the law on the ground, which is what the Elections Act is about. I wonder why, on the question of the tax credit, donations to a party or to the individual candidate during the election, or during the period of the writ, has been $100 for 26 years now, since 1974. In your remarks, you said that, in fact, you are moving it to $200. However, $200 is really not a sufficient amount.

If we recall, the purpose for that incentive is to involve individual citizens in the business of contributing to political parties. Why is it only $200? Why not make it higher? Why not raise it to $300, for example? You said yourself, Mr. Boudria, that perhaps it should have been, and you cited other jurisdictions that have done just that.

During the writ period, the contribution goes to the candidate and not to the party. We all know that. You know it. You have contrived to get contributions made to you during that writ period. Why are we not increasing that amount to at least $300?

Mr. Boudria: It is a charge on the public treasury, Madam Chair. Doubling the amount in one shot seemed to be, shall we say, a considerable amount. That was our view, and I do not think any party in the house proposed to make it larger. This is in reference to the 75 per cent tax credit.

Senator Cools: Perhaps you should explain that provision, sir.

Mr. Boudria: I will describe how the system works. At the present time, if you contribute $100 to a political party, providing you are a taxpayer, you receive $75 back on your tax return. It is a tax credit. Beyond that, the amount is 50 per cent for the next $250. What this would do is make that 75 per cent feature apply to the first $200. The objective that is sought here is to increase the number of donors at the base, to ensure that there is broader public participation. That is why in the bill, for instance, we are not increasing the threshold for those who give large donations. That did not seem to be a worthwhile objective. To increase the pool of people who want to participate in that part of the democratic process, namely, contributing to the election of candidates or political parties, seemed to be a far more worthwhile objective, and that is why we have only increased it to that level. It is our hope that that will increase the number of small donors as opposed to the large ones, and we feel that $200 will achieve that end.

Senator Cools: Anyone who works politically in support of a party has known for years that that sum is too small.

When I heard that the new act would raise the amount, I welcomed it with tremendous enthusiasm. The initiative is good; make no mistake about that. However, you yourself said that the $100 spent in 1974 would be far more in today's economy.

Mr. Boudria: It works out to about $280.

Senator Cools: Really, then, the sum of $200 represents no increase at all. I had been hoping that that number would be a minimum of $300. Candidates and those who work for candidates know that people give when they realize that there is a public policy interest in giving, namely that tax credit. Much thought went into creating that tax credit regime. The people who devised that scheme were careful not to conflict with the interests of charities. That is why they went the tax credit route.

Mr. Boudria: Only one province, Ontario, has a $300 threshold. Alberta's limit is the most generous at $375. We mirror image several provinces. Sorry. I am referring now to the disclosure provision, which is a different item all together. Ontario is what you just said, Madam Chair.

The Chairman: I am curious, Mr. Boudria. How much does the $75 rebate on the first $100 cost the treasury right now? Do you have any sort of ballpark figure?

Mr. Boudria: I have a few pieces of information here that I can share with you, Madam Chair. The current cost of the $100 threshold is approximately $10 million a year. The cost of increasing that threshold to $200 we assume will be an extra $4 million. That is an estimate because the change does not mean that anyone giving $100 will automatically give $200.

Senator Cools: That is not a significant draw.

Mr. Boudria: There could be offset decreases. There could be people who gave a larger amount who will give less because there is a more generous limit and they will stop at that level. Who knows? It is difficult to predict.

Senator Cools: We pay a lot of attention to multi-billion-dollar interests like the media and we pay an insignificant amount of attention to Tom, Dick and Harry, the ordinary donors in a riding. Many of us remember the thrust of fixing that regime in 1974. I am not proposing an amendment but I wish that you had made the threshold just a bit higher.

Mr. Boudria: While some criticize me for having it too high, senators, I can indicate that there were at least others who thought that it should be higher.

The Chairman: There was at least one senator who thought that.

Mr. Boudria: I would raise one final item, honourable senators. I arrived at your meeting later than scheduled because of a vote in the House of Commons. I apologize for that delay.

The Chairman: We did not waste any time. Thank you for coming today, Mr. Boudria.

Senators are asked to note that we will meet next Wednesday after the Senate rises or at 3:30. Come prepared to stay for a long meeting.

The committee adjourned.