Thank you very much.
The NDP agrees on a number of the views previously expressed. In our view, if we could implement Mr. Kingsley's recommendations on the advance registration of candidates, we would solve half a dozen problems. I don't see why we couldn't do it, if we all agreed. So I ask you to correct this fairly serious problem.
I'd also like to talk briefly about audit fees. How can auditors contribute to campaigns? That could be a way to view the problem. There's another way to see the problem. Currently, auditors are paid differently, depending whether they audit the financial statements of electoral district associations or candidates' returns. That's a problem and a dilemma. Things should at least be unified for the auditors.
As for bank accounts of nomination contestants, there's also a fairly serious problem. In the NDP, nomination contestants do not always spend a lot of money. Often, a candidate will print 50 or so copies of a pamphlet on his printer at home. However, he is required to open a bank account, because he has spent money for goods and services. It's ridiculous; it makes no sense. We must absolutely review the obligation that nomination contestants have to open bank accounts, in which there will be no official transactions. The impact of the act was a bit unexpected, and it should be corrected.
There's also the question of membership fees. Bill C-24 set a limit on contributions, and that limit did not include membership fees in a political party, which in itself was very good. That means that, if you spend $25 for a membership, you're not entitled to a $25 tax credit. Consequently, someone who gives more than that $25 amount receives a greater benefit with respect to tax receipts than another person who only paid the membership fee. I believe that's another problem inherent in the Elections Act that could not be anticipated at the outset. So we're proposing this change. We don't see any objection to it being excluded from the maximum, but this must be considered as a contribution and must grant entitlement to a tax receipt.
We can transfer surpluses from campaigns and candidates, and the same should be true for debts, it seems to me. If a candidate has a debt, he should be able to transfer that debt to his riding association, if it is in agreement. Things should be made so that this is possible.
Let's talk about eligibility for public financing. Do you remember that there was an eligibility threshold for political parties with regard to that amount of $1.75—which is not $1.83, I believe—per vote received by a political party. We of the NDP believe that a proportional arrangement would be fair and would give all votes equal value. In the same vein, the same is true with regard to political party financing.
I'll tell you that I don't think our party would benefit in any way from this particular change. It would actually probably benefit many of our opponents, but from a purely justifiable position, it seems to me that if somebody votes for the Libertarian Party of Canada, their vote should have the same value as the vote that somebody might cast for our party or for one of the bigger parties. That is a serious undervaluing in the votes, and I think it doesn't do justice to our system.
Finally, I'd like also to recommend that we seriously consider the possibility of having limits on the spending of leadership candidates. All other campaign-related activities are subject to limits in our system, with the exception of leadership contestants. Nomination contestants are required to follow strict limits, but our leadership contestants are not. I think that would be a step toward greater accountability as well.