HAFF Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 3, 2003
| º | 1610 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)) |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Ms. Susan Baldwin (Legislative Clerk) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Susan Baldwin |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Susan Baldwin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
| º | 1615 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC) |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1620 |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.) |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret (Senior Privy Council Officer/Counsel, Legislation and House Planning/Counsel, Privy Council Office) |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault (Senior Counsel, Political Financing Reform Team (Legal Operations/Counsel), Privy Council Office) |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| º | 1625 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
| º | 1630 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
| º | 1635 |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
| º | 1640 |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
| º | 1645 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1650 |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1655 |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
| » | 1700 |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
| » | 1705 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.) |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
| » | 1710 |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
| » | 1715 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
M. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
| » | 1720 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
| » | 1740 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
| » | 1745 |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Susan Baldwin |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Susan Baldwin |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Susan Baldwin |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Susan Baldwin |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Ms. Susan Baldwin |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
| » | 1750 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
| » | 1755 |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
| ¼ | 1800 |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| ¼ | 1805 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) |
| ¼ | 1810 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.) |
| ¼ | 1815 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| ¼ | 1820 |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
| ¼ | 1825 |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
| ¼ | 1830 |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
| ¼ | 1835 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
| ¼ | 1840 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
| ¼ | 1845 |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
| ¼ | 1850 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| ¼ | 1855 |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
| ½ | 1900 |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Susan Baldwin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
| ½ | 1905 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
| ½ | 1910 |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault |
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
| ½ | 1915 |
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
| ½ | 1920 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
| ½ | 1925 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| ½ | 1930 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
| ½ | 1935 |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| ½ | 1940 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| ½ | 1945 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| ½ | 1950 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Robertson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
| ½ | 1955 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
| ¾ | 2000 |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| ¾ | 2005 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
| ¾ | 2010 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
| ¾ | 2045 |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
| ¾ | 2050 |
|
Mr. James Robertson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| ¾ | 2055 |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 2100 |
|
Ms. Susan Baldwin |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
| ¿ | 2105 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Susan Baldwin |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
| ¿ | 2110 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Susan Baldwin |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
Ms. Susan Baldwin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
| ¿ | 2115 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| ¿ | 2120 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 2125 |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Jean-Michel Roy (Procedural Clerk) |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jean-Michel Roy |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
| ¿ | 2130 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Susan Baldwin |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
| ¿ | 2135 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Lynn Myers |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
Mr. Lynn Myers |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 2140 |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
| ¿ | 2145 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 2150 |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
| ¿ | 2155 |
|
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
| À | 2200 |
|
Mr. Lynn Myers |
|
Mr. Guy St-Julien |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Guy St-Julien |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Stéphane Perrault |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
| À | 2205 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Lynn Myers |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| À | 2210 |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
| À | 2215 |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
| À | 2220 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| À | 2225 |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
| À | 2230 |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Ms. Susan Baldwin |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Ms. Susan Baldwin |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
Ms. Susan Baldwin |
|
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret |
|
Ms. Susan Baldwin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
| À | 2235 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
| À | 2240 |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, June 3, 2003
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
º 
(1610)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, if we could begin, before we return to where we were in the clause-by-clause for Bill C-24, which is amendment PC-29 on page 134 of the binder, I'd just like to draw your attention to something. I don't think there's really very much that I, or we, can do about it, but as chair of the committee, I've received a letter from the Liberal association of Kingston and the Islands.
I didn't really know what to do. Obviously I'm not sure how the Speaker stands on communicating with us on a matter like this. It doesn't mention the Speaker. It happens to be from his riding. It's a suggested amendment from the riding association to Bill C-24, that the Government of Canada amend Bill C-24 to provide individual citizens with the option of directing their portion of the annual allowance to registered parties to the local riding association or the registered party of their choice through a question on their income tax return. The mechanism to implement this allocation should be designed to protect the privacy of taxpayers.
Now I'm not introducing this as an amendment in the formal sense, but I thought I should make it a part of the official record of the committee, if that's okay, and I've done that.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Are you going to respond?
The Chair: I thought I would respond as chair and explain that we were well on the way and--
Mr. Joe Jordan: You might suggest that as a concept it got a fair hearing at committee.
The Chair: --that it was discussed here at the committee. We will do that. Thank you very much.
We'll stand amendment PC-29 and go to NDP-14, if that's okay with Dick Proctor. That's on page 135.
(On clause 40)
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP):
Mr. Chair, we're proposing to replace line 15 on page 42, with the following:
| subsection 524(2) of that Act, and shall provide full disclosure of financial loans for the purpose of the campaign, including interest rates, repayment schedules and the name of the lending institution. |
The rationale for this is we think this motion describes what must be set out in a financial transaction return and leadership races. As the bill currently reads, there is no disclosure of loan conditions. We're simply asking that full information be provided, including the interest rate and repayment schedules. We've done this before in other parts of this bill and we're doing it again in the interest of transparency, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Discussion, comments.
Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, if the committee desires to do this, this proposed change should not be made by amending proposed section 435.21 in the bill, which deals with the opening of a bank account, but in proposed subsection 435.3(2) regarding the content of the leadership contestant's return.
The Chair: If we do that, the government position is supported, is it?
Joe Jordan.
Mr. Joe Jordan: I was going to say I think the committee has already passed the concept, so however it needs to be worked out, it's consequential really.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, I point out that this issue generally was accepted on a different amendment earlier by the committee.
The Chair: I'm looking around. I don't see people jumping up and down and objecting....
Mr. Geoff Regan: There remains the problem with the drafting of it.
The Chair: A problem with the drafting and the location.
Mr. Geoff Regan: I just mean the location is the issue with the section referred to.
The Chair: Could you say very carefully again then for us where it should be?
Mr. Geoff Regan: If you're going to have it, it should be in proposed subsection 435.3(2) regarding the content of the leadership contestant's return.
Ms. Susan Baldwin (Legislative Clerk): Are we on NDP-14?
The Chair: Yes, we are.
That's on page 47 of the bill, colleagues, which is later on in our proceedings.
You go ahead and ask Geoffrey again, Susan.
Ms. Susan Baldwin: Perhaps we could have something with the line number and the page number.
Mr. Geoff Regan: I'll leave that to the NDP if they wish to number it. He's looking for help and he's getting some.
The Chair: I'm not convinced that the NDP should respond on the fly like that. We have this location. Now, what's the problem? Let's see...proposed subsection 435.3(2). It should read that Bill C-24 in clause 40--no, it won't be in clause 40.
Ms. Susan Baldwin: I don't know what clause it should be in.
The Chair: We need the clause. We have the page. It's at page....
We'll stand that one also. We'll keep thinking.
Dick, if you would keep thinking on that as well, when we get to that page, somebody will remind me.
Amendment NDP-14 is stood. We'll move on, then, to Jordan, Liberal amendment 10(a).
Mr. Joe Jordan: Page 136.
Mr. Chair, I'm in the hands of the clerks and counsel, but this particular clause sets out limits that can be spent on leadership races. The thinking is, if we're going to limit what you spend on the nomination race, then perhaps, by extension, it makes sense to limit what you can spend on essentially what's a nomination race for the leadership of the party.
I'll let members read through it and they can comment accordingly.
º (1615)
The Chair: Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this motion, of course, would set a spending limit for a leadership contestant equal to 10% of the election spending limit for that party. It would also create a prohibition against incurring expenses above the limit.
As drafted, Mr. Chairman, the limit applies only to contests for a party that “endorses candidates in all federal ridings”. This wording presents a number of difficulties. First of all, it would make the limit applicable only to contests for parties that endorse candidates in all ridings. Secondly, the wording does not indicate in which election the party must have candidates in all ridings. Thirdly, the word “riding” is absent from other provisions of the act. The phrase used is “electoral district”.
The government is opposed to this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Carolyn Parrish.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): It seems to me that the words after “party”, “that endorses candidates in all federal ridings”, aren't needed.
If you want to get at the concept of setting limits, I'm just curious as to why you've chosen 10% instead of the 20% that looks like what we're doing for nominations in regular ridings. It's proportionately.... I like consistency and symmetry and all those funny things.
The Chair: Joe, I want comments only on these points.
Mr. Joe Jordan: Maybe I could stand the amendment to correct what looks like a drafting error. Any figure is arbitrary. I guess I started with Lester B. Pearson's campaign costing $3,000 and then worked my way up from there to the present day.
The Chair: Hang on a minute now. We can stand it for drafting, but if you were thinking about the drafting, it's better that the figures in it be right.
Carolyn Parrish.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Whatever the figures are that we've decided on for nominations--I can't remember if it was 20% or 25%; I think it was 25%. For consistency, I think this should be 25% as well.
I don't think we should get rid of it. I think it's a fine amendment and I think it should be 25%.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, we haven't really--
The Chair: I'm going to stand it in a moment. If Joe wants a friendly amendment.... He doesn't want a friendly amendment. These are the figures he wants. Are they?
Mr. Joe Jordan: For the nomination expenses it's a percentage. I don't think the two issues are related. The way this is worded now would put a limit on leadership races of about almost $1.5 million. I'm thinking that is enough, but....
The Chair: Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan: The point is, Mr. Chairman, we really haven't had a discussion about this. I don't think witnesses have talked about this issue. There hasn't been due consideration given to this question.
Certainly it's something that can be considered when the thing is reviewed or when the committee comes back after the next election, but clearly, Mr. Chairman--and who knows which of us will be back, but that's another matter--we haven't really talked about this and we haven't given it due consideration. I don't think we should be fiddling with this without having a proper discussion of it and having witnesses address the issue.
The Chair: If we stand this, we can re-engage this discussion again when we un-stand it, right? So Jordan L-10(a) is stood for drafting and perhaps other discussion.
PC-30 and PC-31.
Gerald, it's not that it's wrong--
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I'm just like a kid with a new pair of rubber boots: you go to the first water hole you can find and go right in over the top.
The Chair: This is the way, that's right.
Gerald, I was going to apologize to you for the fact that you have to sign the form. They have to be signed in.
Colleagues, you should know that Gerald is now a permanent member of the committee, but it requires a motion in the House, Gerald, and we missed it this morning in routine proceedings.
A voice: It was done.
The Chair: It was done this morning. I didn't move it, so someone else did. So you are now a permanent member. I apologize to your colleague.
Welcome to the committee. Keep up the good work and all that kind of thing. Just keep this moving along.
º (1620)
Mr. Gerald Keddy: And now do my motion, right?
The Chair: That's right.
PC 30 and 31 are consequential, colleagues, so if you're looking at 30, which is page 137, in effect you're looking at 31, which is page 138.
Gerald, could you start, if you don't mind?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: That was the part about the rubber boot in that one.
The Chair: That's right. No, I got you.
Listen, I'm very slow. You have to get used to this. I'm not an afternoon person. I'm very much an evening person.
Could we start, colleagues, with PC-29, page 134, which we stood while Gerald was on his way here?
Please, PC-29, page 134.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'll move PC-29. The change would mean that a person may be appointed as an official agent for a leadership contestant, notwithstanding that the person is a member of a partnership that has been appointed as an auditor, in accordance with the act. It would allow partners of the party's auditors to be financial agents of leadership contestants. I don't see any reason not to have that in there. I think it's a fairly important amendment.
We don't want to ban people from certain roles and positions they can play.
The Chair: Thank you, Gerald.
Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, we accepted the same thing for associations. I think we need a little better wording. The words “may be appointed as official agent or auditor” should be replaced with simply “may be appointed as agent” because that's the wording and the way it works in this bill. We're talking about the financial agent and so forth.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: “Agent” then covers both official agents and auditors?
Mr. Geoff Regan: Let me say that nothing in the bill, or the act, prohibits an auditor for a party from being an auditor for another entity. That's the answer. Nothing in the bill prohibits that anyway. But if you delete the word “official” and the words “or auditor”, “A person may be appointed as agent for a leadership contestant”, etc., that would be fine.
The Chair: We delete “official” and we delete “or auditor”.
Jacques Saada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): In French, we are deleting “ou vérificateur”.
Did I understand you to say that in any case, nothing in the legislation prohibits this?
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret (Senior Privy Council Officer/Counsel, Legislation and House Planning/Counsel, Privy Council Office): Nothing prohibits it for an auditor.
Mr. Jacques Saada: For an auditor.
Mr. Stéphane Perrault (Senior Counsel, Political Financing Reform Team (Legal Operations/Counsel), Privy Council Office): So there is no need to refer to auditors.
Mr. Jacques Saada: So, by including the agent, we are just adding to the language that was already there.
[English]
The Chair: Those in favour of PC-29 as amended.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Gerald, could we now go to PC-30 and 31, which are consequential, which is page 137?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: There was some discussion about us withdrawing this motion. I want to look at it in a slightly different way. If we leave the amendment in there, Mr. Chair, it would extend the period by which the leadership candidate must pay their expenses. And four months is, I would think, too short a period a time, it's a quick wrap-up, and they may not have as many dollars at this time since they're not allowed to collect as much in corporate donations, which is going to change the way leadership candidates work.
I think it should be extended to 18 months, which has generally been the practice of a lot of the parties and allows candidates.... Understand, lots of leadership candidates run and lose. Somebody wins, but there are four or five or half a dozen people who don't. I think it just allows them more time to gather funds in, to gather dollars in, and to give a tax receiptable deduction for it.
º (1625)
The Chair: I have Jacques Saada, Joe Jordan, and then Ted White.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I have one very simple question. Supposing someone runs for the leadership of a party and collects money from people prepared to support him. After the race, whether he won or lost, he still has debts to repay. If he wants to fund raise during the same year, it will be more difficult. So, imposing a four-month timeframe may constrain him during the same fiscal year, when he won't have access to other revenue sources. Maybe we could consider allowing for overlap into the next fiscal year, so that a candidate could raise the additional amount--perhaps even from people who already supported him--he needs to settle his debts.
[English]
The Chair: Joe Jordan and then Ted White.
Mr. Joe Jordan: I don't have any problem with expanding how much time they have to pay. My concern is, are we also delaying the reporting of donations through this, and I would ask the table officers about that.
A voice: It's not the same provision.
The Chair: Okay, Joe--
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If someone wants to run--
The Chair: Excuse me. I'm sorry, Ted.
Michèle.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: One point I forgot, Mr. Chair, is that after 18 months, if a debt is not paid it becomes a deemed contribution. So that's the one thing to--
The Chair: Ted White.
Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is about leadership contests, and frankly, if someone wants to run the country, he or she had better demonstrate some fiscal responsibility. I'm really surprised that a Conservative is talking about 18 months to pay a bill. To me, it's 30 days or 2% net 10. That's the way it should be. I can't agree. I think even four months is too long.
The Chair: Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan: I want to say, through you to my neighbour, the next riding over, Gerald, that his creditors must be more patient than mine. They're ready to wait for 18 months, and I don't think many would be. But the government's position is that the four-month delay for payment of claims is a reasonable time and is consistent with the time given for candidates.
The Chair: Gerald.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I would still add the facts, and I would suggest that you go back to the last four or five leadership races in either party and look at the amount of time that some of the people who were defeated had to pay some of their bills. In a leadership race, most of the time people overextend themselves, and I think four months in this case is not a lot of time to get all your debts paid. I appreciate the fact that it's 30 days or 2%, and I've worked for 25 years like that, but a leadership race is a different kettle of fish altogether.
The Chair: Jacques Saada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: I heard Geoff Regan's argument. I think it's normal for people to take some risks in a leadership race. Of course, people are supposed to be good managers and not to spend everything they have, but sometimes you have to take risks. And the risks that this individual takes may force him to borrow money, which means he has a debt, because he believes that the support he receives will compensate for the debt he has taken on.
Providing for such a short period would prevent a good leadership candidate who doesn't have a lot of money at his disposal to carry on a campaign. I'm not sure that is very democratic. The more constrictive the system, the less democratic it is. What I think is needed is some kind of middle ground; an eighteen-month period seems very long to me, especially for the reasons mentioned by Ms. René de Cotret.
This brings me back to my previous argument, which was that a candidate must have access to funding throughout the following fiscal year. If the period provided for here were twelve months, we would be absolutely certain that there would be overlap between fiscal years. I would be more sympathetic to that kind of approach.
º (1630)
[English]
The Chair: Gerald.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'd be more than happy to accept a friendly amendment for 12 months. I think that's a bit of a compromise. I still look at this as being extraordinary circumstances.
The Chair: Geoff.
Mr. Geoff Regan: I want to ask Jacques if he mentioned a candidate receiving a contribution in the year after he was a candidate for leadership in order to pay off the debt he has.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, absolutely.
[English]
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: The bill provides that you can receive a contribution as a leadership contestant for this contest until the date the contest takes place. So if you received money after that, it's for the next contest.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I believe we are dealing here with a typical technical provision that is ultimately prejudicial to politics. If we are limited over time in terms of loans and a date for the party leadership, a lot of people who would like to run will not be able to. That really isn't right. We just can't decide that everything is over the day someone decides to run. That never works.
Name me one reasonable party leadership candidate who has not ended up with a debt to pay back at the end of the race. It's very rare. If for technical reasons we are determined to hinder that form of democracy, I have to say I have a serious problem with that. If the issue is dates, perhaps we should come back to this later before we resolve this. If the leadership selection date is a determining factor for refunds, then I personally think that is inconsistent with democratic principles.
[English]
The Chair: Dick.
Mr. Dick Proctor: I think Gerald and Jacques are making very good points here. Let me just use the last leadership convention in the New Democratic Party as an example. I think the limits were $750,000 for what you could spend in that leadership campaign. I don't know what any of them spent, but I do know that all of them ended up with a debt. I doubt that all of them may have retired that debt in four months. Some of them may have, but I would think it's very difficult. I think we are dealing with a very unique set of circumstances here. We know going into an election campaign how much money we have to spend, and so on and so forth. But a leadership campaign is quite a bit different. So I'm very sympathetic to this additional period of time being allowed for leadership candidates.
The Chair: Gerald Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I used the example, and I'd like to add to it, of the successful candidate, let alone the people who lose the race. A successful candidate, prior to this piece of legislation, would have been able to fund-raise corporate donations and had much more potential to raise money. Now to take away those corporate donations and have a shorter period of time, that's a double blow. Imagine how much more difficult it will be, not just for the successful candidate but for the people who ran and didn't make it. It's going to be even more difficult for those individuals.
I'm certainly willing to accept the friendly amendment on 18 months, but I think 12 months is not irresponsible.
The Chair: I have Ted White, Benoît Sauvageau, and then Jacques Saada.
Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think the real problem that's been identified here is not the length of time you have to pay off the debt, but the ability to actually do it. We just heard evidence that you can't collect money after the voting day because it's for the next leadership thing. That's the real problem we have to get our minds around here right now. If you have enough money, you can pay it the next day. You don't even need four months. But what Mr. Keddy is talking about is the ability to raise money to pay off a debt or retire a debt. Apparently you can't do that.
My question actually would be, what is the penalty for not complying?
º (1635)
Mr. Geoff Regan: The penalty for raising money afterward to pay off your debt is that your limit, of course, is reduced for the next time.
Mr. Ted White: I don't understand.
Mr. Geoff Regan: The penalty, if you exceeded your limit, would affect you in a future leadership contest.
Mr. Ted White: If you're being selected as the leader, and you never run in another leadership campaign, then there's no penalty for raising money to pay off your debt?
Mr. Geoff Regan: That's right. But if you come second or third and you want to run the next time, as often happens, as we've seen--
Mr. Ted White: Then you're in trouble.
Mr. Geoff Regan: --you would have a problem with your limit. I think this, frankly, raises an important issue.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Geoff Regan: I think we should look at this. I don't know if we should stand it, but I think we have to look at this question: do we provide a period of time during which you can still raise money after the leadership contest only if you have a debt in order to pay off that debt? Then once that period, if it's a year, for example--I don't know what it is. Then after that, anything you collect has to go toward the next time.
Clearly, you're right that people often do have debts from leadership contests, and there ought to be a process in mind. I think we should look at that.
The Chair: Colleagues, you should know I have a long speaking list here: Benoît Sauvageau, Jacques Saada, Carolyn Parrish, Joe Jordan.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): I would like to put one simple question to Ms. René de Cotret. Could we make this twelve months, rather than four months? I have never done any in-depth study of non-verbal communication, but you seem to be saying no. I would like to know why.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: I want to come back to Mr. White's argument. Extending the period in which debts can be repaid will not resolve the problem. That is not the real issue. The issue is that no contributions can be received after the day of the contest. Yes, we could extend the period from four months to twelve months, but that will not resolve the issue.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Jacques.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I would like to give you a very simple example that will illustrate that we need to correct not only this problem, but the one raised by Mr. White. If I cannot collect enough money, I will have to borrow money. If I jump into a leadership race but I haven't repaid what I borrowed four months after the race is over, I am going to be stuck.
If the amount of money I still owe the bank is greater than the $10,000 individual contribution that is authorized, I will effectively have broken the law, because I won't be able to repay my campaign. That is considered to be a campaign contribution. It leads to all kinds of problems. I suggest that we consider doing this over one year or in the year following the party leadership selection date. Candidates would still be authorized to collect electoral funding during that period, so this would not be perceived as being a contribution by the candidate himself to his own campaign--a contribution that would be completely illegal if it exceeded $10,000.
So, I think we have to harmonize those two periods--in other words, the one for repaying debts and the one for filing returns. That way, we could set a twelve-month period for both.
[English]
The Chair: Carolyn Parrish, and then Joe Jordan.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I hate to sound like a broken record, but I just checked with my municipal friends. They have four months in which to close their books and put in the report, and they have 12 months to continue collecting to pay their debt. That's in a silly little municipal election. So let's be reasonable here. Nobody would have all the money they needed, come nomination day, for a leadership, or come election day, so this has to be looked at. This is another one of those cases where we're going too fast.
The Chair: Joe Jordan.
Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, in terms of any money you collect after the race going against your next race, I'm confused, because there's no limit on what you can spend in a leadership race. We just stood the only amendment that dealt with that. So that makes no sense to me.
The question is, can somebody continue to give out receipts to pay off a debt for expenses that were incurred in a leadership race? I think they should be able to for a reasonable period of time. What is that period of time? Is that what this amendment is all about? I think a year is a reasonable amount of time for you to clear up your debt.
º (1640)
Mr. Geoff Regan: Sorry, Mr. Chairman and Gerald, but this amendment isn't directly related to the receipt issue. It's related to when you can pay off debts to creditors of the leadership candidate--right? But certainly what you've raised is a related issue.
The Chair: Gerald Keddy, again.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: What I'm going to propose is that we accept the friendly amendment and extend the receipt issuing to a year and that we go back, if that's possible, and look at a mechanism on receipts.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: I have no authority to speak whatsoever, but it's not on receipts that we would do it; it's on contributions.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Sorry, it's on contributions.
Again, my apologies for not being up to speed on this particular piece of legislation, but I want to say, in previous leadership races--and you can correct me if I'm wrong--even to the point of donations that were guaranteed, if corporate donations were guaranteed for $20,000, that corporate donation may be paid in two installments; it may not be paid in one instalment. So the one installment was receipted at 30 days prior to the leadership, and the second installment, which would still be worth a taxable deduction, would be receipted after that. I think it even went to a year or 18 months because the parties could carry that, but I'm asking for clarification on that.
I think this is the much bigger issue. There are definitely two issues. I think we can put in and accept the amendment at 12 months, and we need to go back and discover exactly what we're dealing with on the other issue.
The Chair: Joe Jordan.
Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think, though, Gerald, there's an argument to leave it at 18 months.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm not opposed to leaving it. I was just trying to get it accepted.
Mr. Joe Jordan: That's right, although I agree with Mr. White: the issue of whether I pay my debt in 30 days or not is between me and my creditor. The issue for us is that after 18 months it is deemed a contribution if it's not paid. So it makes sense to line those two things up.
But the issue and I guess the question is, if somebody incurs expenses in a leadership race, how much time do they have after the end of the race to try to erase that debt and still be able to receipt for tax purposes?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: A leadership race is not like any other political race or contest that we're in. It's a totally different animal.
The Chair: Colleagues, there are these two quite different things in play. One way to do it would be to go ahead with this and then wait on the other.
Would it help if we stood this for a short time, Geoff, while both issues are being looked at? My understanding is this authority about the 18 months or 12 months is neither here nor there, so it looks to me as though there is some view that something should happen here. But on this matter of contributions, I think it is quite a serious matter, isn't it? If we don't clear that up, it's a flaw.
I don't know it myself, but....
He's gone.
Mr. Joe Jordan: No, but I think he nodded it standing.
The Chair: My suggestion is that we stand it. You will be looking at both matters, although it seems to me we're close to approving this amendment.
An hon. member: Are we going to stand it, though?
The Chair: We're going to stand it, and you're going to look at contributions, as well as this.
Colleagues, amendments PC-30 and PC-31 are stood.
That takes us to amendment G-20, page 139. It's a change in the French only.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this would amend proposed subsection 435.29(1) in the French version to make it equivalent to the English version by adding the word “après”.
º (1645)
The Chair: Okay, would colleagues examine this technical change in amendment G-20? It looks okay.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: Carolyn Parrish.
An hon. member: I think she withdrew this one.
The Chair: It's withdrawn.
Dick Proctor.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Before we go to amendment PL-5...you were wondering where my amendment stood, and I think it might come in ahead of that.
A hon. member: Amendment PL-5 is withdrawn.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Well, then, it definitely comes in ahead of it.
The Chair: We're on amendment NDP-14, page 135.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Correct.
With thanks to folks at both ends of the table, I am proposing that this bill be amended after line 24, on page 47. It should read as follows:
| full disclosure of financial loans for the purposes of the campaign, including interest rates, repayment schedules and the name of the lending institution. |
The Chair: And I guess the subsection shown will be changed.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Right.
The Chair: It's no longer required, so we're taking out the whole lot.
Colleagues, who agrees that Bill C-24, in clause 40, line 24, page 47, be amended with the following? We delete “subsection” through to “provide”, and we start, “full disclosure of financial loans”.
It has been suggested also, Dick, that it's proposed subsection (d.1).
Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes, I'm sorry; I couldn't read Jamie's writing.
The Chair: I'll try it again.
Instead of “be amended by replacing line 15”, it says, “be amended, after line 24 on page 47, with the following: (d.1)” and then it begins “full disclosure”, which is the second word of the second line, and goes to the end.
Before I go to Jacques Saada, colleagues, have you got that?
An hon. member: Is it in the same subsection?
The Chair: It's paragraph (d.1); that's right.
Jacques Saada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure about this, but I seem to recall seeing a similar expression in a previous clause. There we replaced “lending institution” with “lending institution or lender”. Could we be consistent and do the same thing here?
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor: I was going to make the suggestion that we do it as a friendly amendment, just so we're consistent with what we had earlier: “lending institution or lender”.
The Chair: Okay, thank you. I see counsel nods to that. This other change is in the very last line; following “lending institution”, it would read “or lender”.
Jacques Saada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Could I ask a question in French?
[English]
The Chair: In French?
[Translation]
Did Michèle say something?
Mr. Jacques Saada: No, no. I understood what she said, but I would like to ask a question about the French version. Does the term “lender” not designate both an individual lender and a lending institution? Could we not simplify the language here and use only the term “prêteur” in French? I'm talking about amendment NDP-14 on page 135.
[English]
Mr. Geoff Regan: Shouldn't this be “disclosure of all financial loans” rather than “provide full disclosure”? What does “full” mean? You've already indicated here that you're including “interest rates, repayment schedules, and the name of the lending institution”. Does full disclosure mean you have to go beyond that somehow?
The Chair: I'm waiting here for the French; that's the first thing.
The question is, do we need both: is it “prêteur” following “établissement de crédit”, or should it just be “ou prêteur”?
º (1650)
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Actually, the point Mr. Saada was making--I think we understand each other--was whether we could say just “et le nom du prêteur” without referring to “l'institution de crédit”. My French is the same as his; I'm comfortable with that as well.
The Chair: Well, then, shall we just say what the French is? There could be a number of changes here.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: I would suggest that after the word “remboursement”, the wording be as follows: “et le nom du prêteur”.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw your attention to another one of my questions. In English, it says “full disclosure of financial loans”, whereas the French version is “déclarer les détails de tous les prêts”. As far as I'm concerned, the French version is perfectly appropriate. However, the English expression “full disclosure” could be confusing, because additional details could be required than those specifically requested. Am I wrong?
[English]
The Chair: Jacques, just a moment. I thought I heard Geoff Regan say the same thing. You just said that, Geoff, did you not?
Mr. Geoff Regan: I said I thought rather than saying “provide full disclosure of financial loans” we should say “shall provide disclosure of all financial loans”.
The Chair: Dick Proctor.
Mr. Dick Proctor: What's the rationale? I think that's okay, but what's the rationale for it?
Mr. Geoff Regan: The rationale is I don't know what else “full disclosure” means you have to disclose besides what's set out here. It could suggest disclosing more than is set out here below. I don't know what it means; that's all.
The Chair: Okay, we're getting close to needing a written version, I think, in one of the two languages.
Gerald Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Just on Geoff's comment--and I have no problem with taking “full” out--are we restricting ourselves by only using at the end of it “repayment schedules and the name of the lending institution”? Does that restrict private loans? Or should we just say “the name of the lender”, which would include lending institutions?
Have you done that?
The Chair: We haven't done it in English.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: We have to do it in English too. It should be “lender”.
Mr. Geoff Regan: So “and the name of the lender”.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, “and of the lender”.
The Chair: I think at some point, Dick, you're going to a written version, which you accept and which we will....
Mr. Dick Proctor: Let's try this en anglais. There's a new (d.1). It comes in after line 24 on page 47 and would read:
| Disclosure of all financial loans for the purposes of the campaign, including interest rates, repayment schedules and the name of the lending institution or lender. |
An hon. member: It's “name of the lender”, isn't it? Just say “the name of the lender”.
The Chair: The only thing to put down, Dick, is.... We decided we don't need “lending institution”, just “the name of the lender”.
Colleagues, I think everyone has that. Those in favour of NDP-14 as amended, please show.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: Thank you, Dick.
Now we jump again to Carolyn Parrish's amendment number 5; that's withdrawn, or whatever it is.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, for anything that has anything to do with that first one, pretend I never did it.
The Chair: Okay. We then go to....
Yes, it's gone. Canadian Alliance amendment 13 was negatived, consequential on amendment CA-6.
We're at government amendment 20a, page 140.1.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this motion corrects a drafting error in the English version of proposed paragraph 435.3(2)(f) regarding the return of leadership contestants.
We're on amendment G-20a, which is on page 140.1.
The Chair: Does everyone have it?
A voice: I don't have it.
The Chair: I didn't have it. It's in one of the packages from today, colleagues. It's in the package whose top sheet is amendment 17a.
Geoff, have you said all you want?
Mr. Geoff Regan: Yes.
The Chair: Is there any discussion? Is there anything else?
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: NDP-15 is not moved because of NDP-13. Is that right, Dick?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes.
The Chair: The page is 140.2, which also will be in a package, I would think.
NDP-15 is in the package that begins with amendment NDP-7a.
A voice: It's not being moved anyway.
The Chair: That's right; it's gone.
Canadian Alliance amendment 14 is stood.
We'll hear Ted White on Canadian Alliance 14, explaining that it's consequential to CA-5.
º (1655)
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, we are working on this. I must say we're having a little bit of difficulty with legislative counsel on this one. We've been provided with an amendment, but I'm not entirely satisfied that it corrects the problem. We get the impression that at the moment they're overloaded there with amendments for this committee, and it's not necessarily being done correctly. I need to work on that a little more, but it's coming.
The Chair: Amendment CA-14 is stood. CA-15 was negatived.
Now, Gerald, we're at PC-31a and PC-31b, and these two again are linked. They are on pages 142.1 and 142.2. We'll deal with the one and then the other is consequential on it.
Michel, ça va?
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Chairman, are we on amendment PC-31a, on page 143.1?
The Chair: Yes, exactly.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Are we discussing it now?
The Chair: No; first Gerald has to give us the rationale for his amendment.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: This is a very straightforward amendment, Mr. Chair. It increases the threshold for reporting requirements for the leadership contestants. It simply cuts down on the bureaucratic burden on volunteers. We've already mentioned it's consequential to the next amendment. We're increasing it from $5,000 to $10,000, as simple as that.
[Translation]
The Chair: Michel, you now have the floor.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, this increase from $5,000 to $10,000 concerns a contribution to a leadership race. I really don't think this is at all necessary, because I believe the government bill is adequate in that regard. In my opinion, it provides for reasonable levels of contribution.
[English]
The Chair: Merci beaucoup.
Further discussion?
Jacques Saada, and then Geoff Regan.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: I have another question. If the distribution limit is set at $5,000, then there is no need to declare contributions that exceed $5,000. Have I got that right?
What that means is that because individual contributions can be as high as $10,000, people who contributed more than $5,000 will have to be listed on the return. Is my understanding of what is being attempted here correct?
» (1700)
Mr. Stéphane Perrault: This refers to the auditor's report, which is separate from the return itself, which is a lot more comprehensive.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, I understand, but I am wondering whether the following principle will apply: individual contributions can be as high as $10,000, and the auditor has to mention all contributions that exceed $5,000. Am I right?
Mr. Stéphane Perrault: We are talking about total contributions received by a leadership candidate. That means contributions from all contributors that exceed $5,000.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, you're right. That will teach me to read the English version.
[English]
The Chair: It's a reporting requirement, is it not? It could be contributions of ten--
Mr. Jacques Saada: It was because I wanted to use the second language, Chairman.
The Chair: All right. Okay. Thank you.
Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, clearly this would require the leadership contestant to submit an audited report only if he's received contributions of more than $10,000 or incurred expenses of more than $10,000. In fact, it would reduce disclosure and I think disclosure is an essential principle of this bill. We want to ensure disclosure, and the only way to do that is with the audited reports.
The Chair: Those in favour of PC-31a, please show?
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: It is defeated, and so is PC-31b.
On amendment PC-32, Gerald, page 143.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Is CA-15 negatived?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Actually, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a pretty good amendment.
The Chair: As compared with...?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Well, I haven't had the need to really immerse myself there, but some of them speak to me quicker than others. As in clause 23 of the bill, which allows the audit expenses of riding associations to be reimbursed, the PC Party believes that this privilege should be extended to leadership contestants as well. The amendment allows a maximum of $1,500 of expenses to be reimbursed. It's a political race. Since I've been here, we've had other amendments to regulate leadership contestants. I think it's only right that they would have some of the same audit expenses that a riding association would have.
The Chair: I regret to say, because this is such a reasonable amendment, as you've explained...but it does mention the consolidated revenue fund at the end, and as a result it's inadmissible.
Now Joe Jordan is going to argue with me on this on your behalf.
Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm just going to say that I think you'll find this is supported, and we can put it in as a recommendation of that second report that we referred to in terms of the....
The Chair: It also means the committee can introduce this amendment in the House.
Yes, Ted White.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, it would be nice just to get the government's opinion of this so that we have an idea of what sort of reception we'll get in the House.
The Chair: Did you hear that? Listen, let's make sure you did hear it. The suggestion was that we might put it in the second report that we might produce. I made the point that it's the sort of amendment that could be moved to the report stage, and Ted asked, what do you think?
Mr. Geoff Regan: As you've pointed out, it requires royal recommendation because it involves the expenditure of public funds. But I don't have an indication other than that of whether the minister would be open to this. I think you could certainly put it in the report and we can certainly pass on to him the view of the committee on this.
The Chair: Gerald, it's inadmissible, although I have a number of speakers who want to speak.
I'm going to start with Jacques Saada, then Carolyn Parrish, and then Gerald Keddy.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: I just want to point out that there is a mistake in the French version.
» (1705)
[English]
The Chair: Okay, French version. Will the counsel listen to this?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: In the third line, sub-paragraph (5), it should say “vérificateur” and not “véricateur”.
[English]
The Chair: Did we get that colleagues? Colleagues, did someone pick that up?
Stéphane?
Carolyn Parrish.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Chair, if you wouldn't mind taking a straw vote.... If this is the consensus and there's nobody at the table who disagrees, when this goes into the second report, it should be noted that it was strongly recommended by the committee. I think you have some that we are weak on and some we are stronger on.
I'd also like to make a comment, if you might allow me. I think we should compliment Mr. Keddy. This is a very complex bill, and it's very difficult to get into this little shark pool here and find your way through it. I think we have staffing working against us at the moment, and you've done a really good job. Don't get discouraged.
An hon. member: Be careful.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No, I don't want anything.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): This is definitely baptism by fire.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: No, no you're doing a great job. I'm impressed.
The Chair: Be very careful. I have a feeling there may be an amendment later on that we'll need support for.
Anyway, we've heard enough of this. It's inadmissible. We're going to consider it again for the second report.
We move to G-21, page 144.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this motion would amend proposed section 435.44 to take into account not only contributions but also other sources of revenue of a leadership candidate for the calculation of his or her surplus. This is really a technical amendment to correct an omission. The surplus results from the difference between all revenues of a leadership contestant and his or her campaign expenses. Currently the bill only refers to contributions in the chapter of revenues.
We're talking here about transfers, aren't we?
The Chair: Yes, Gerald Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I apologize, but I did have one more comment before we left amendment PC-32.
The Chair: No problem.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I do think it's important.
The other issue concerning amendment PC-32, which should be noted by the government in redrafting or in another look at it, is that leadership contestants are not eligible for either public funding or corporate donations, yet they are still running campaigns. This should be noted.
I think amendment PC-34a is consequential to amendment PC-32. It's a very similar amendment and should probably save time. Are we agreed on saving time?
The Chair: Agreed. We've got it. Okay.
We're again on amendment G-21, a technical amendment.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: We are now on amendment G-22 on page 146.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, can I just say how pleased I am to note that we have passed the halfway point.
The Chair: Good. As I pointed out earlier, I am not an afternoon person; as I pointed out last week, I'm not a morning person. I'm a night person. You should know that. Watch out when we get to around midnight tonight.
Jacques Saada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I just want to check one thing in amendment G-21.
[English]
The Chair: On page 21.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: In this clause, it talks about a surplus amount of leadership campaign funds. That amount is transferred to the registered party which organizes the leadership race or to the registered party association, am I right? There can never be corporate money; the only contributions allowed are individual contributions. So, there is no limit on the funds to be transferred, correct?
That's what I wanted to check.
» (1710)
[English]
Mr. Geoff Regan: Is there a desire for me to explain amendment G-22? I think it's pretty obvious.
The Chair: No.
Colleagues, are you comfortable with this one? It looks straightforward to me.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Now, we can't close it, so clause 40 is stood.
(Clause 40 allowed to stand)
(Clauses 41 to 43 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 44)
The Chair: Amendment BQ-16 was negatived here, whatever it is.
We are now on amendment G-23.
Mr. Geoff Regan: This motion would first amend paragraph 451(2)(f) by replacing the reference to “unincorporated associations other than trade unions”, with a reference to the subsection 405.3(3) of the act where those associations are defined.
Secondly, it would add paragraph 451(2)(g.1) to require greater details about donors to associations of individuals, to be included in a candidate's transactions return.
Thirdly, it would amend paragraph 451(2)(h) as a result of the addition of paragraph 451(2)(g.1).
The reason for the first amendment is to ensure uniformity in the description of this type of association. In fact, I'm reminded that all of this is the same as amendment G-8 on page 43. So we're correcting a drafting error here as well, and the change to paragraph 451(2)(h) merely reflects the fact that other contributors are not affected by the rule created under paragraph 451(2)(g.1).
The Chair: Are people comfortable with amendment G-23?
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: Mrs. Parrish's amendment L-6 is out.
We are on amendment G-24 on page 151.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Is it consequential to one we had earlier?
It deals with the content of the report of the candidate, making sure it reflects the transfers of funds made to his or her nomination contestant account.
Because we had a motion earlier that allows the candidate to transfer funds to his or her nomination campaign account, you have to do this to be able to include these transfers in the candidate's election return.
The Chair: Can you tell us what it's consequential to?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: It is amendment G-10 on pages 70 and 71.
Mr. Geoff Regan: You're a great man. Okay, it's amendment G-10.
The Chair: Colleagues, are you comfortable with that? We're going to wait to discover that consequentiality.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Colleagues, that's carried because it's consequential to amendment G-10.
We are on amendment G-25 on page 153.
Mr. Geoff Regan: This would amend proposed subsection 451(2.1) to replace the word “transactions” with the word “expenses”. Again, this is to correct a technical error and to ensure consistency in the wording of the requirement for all political participants. The act requires that the candidate return evidence of “expenses” incurred and not of all “transactions”.
» (1715)
The Chair: Ted White.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, that change makes the paragraph a little clumsy. It reads “evidencing expenses set out in the return, including bank statements”. Are bank statements expenses? Are deposit slips expenses? Are cancelled cheques expenses? It reads very badly.
The Chair: Yes, it--
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Elections Canada is of the view that a bank account is an expense.
Mr. Ted White: Oh, really.
The Chair: How interesting. Okay.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: Amendment BQ-17 is negatived already.
We have amendment Jordan L-11.
Mr. Joe Jordan: It's consequential.
The Chair: It's consequential, so amendment Jordan L-11 is gone. He said it was identical to amendment BQ-17 and consequential to amendment Jordan L-8. It's gone.
Has amendment NDP-16 been withdrawn, Dick?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes.
(Clause 44 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 45)
The Chair: Amendment CA-16, which is consequential to amendment CA-5, was stood.
Amendment BQ-18 was negatived.
Jacques Saada.
[Translation]
M. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, amendment CA-16…
[English]
The Chair: Amendment CA-16 was stood.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand, but when will we come back to it?
[English]
The Chair: It was stood because it was consequential to amendment CA-5. There's a sequence of them, as I understand it, and there is this drafting matter Ted was discussing.
Mr. Ted White: Yes, it's all to do with what has to be recorded and the passing of the hat, including the amount to be receipted.
Once I finally get it in order, it will have a domino effect through all of these other ones.
The Chair: Gerald Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I just want to make sure there's more discussion on this. I haven't had time to read it as it exists in the bill, but to require the name and address of a contributor who has made a contribution of more than $10 for a total amount of more than.... So if you pass the hat at any event and raise $1,000, you're supposed to provide a receipt? That's impossible.
The Chair: Listen, we're working on exactly that, but just so you and everybody knows, my thought is that we're going to get to the end of this thing. We're going to go back, and we have to pick up all of this stuff that's left. It's better to pick it up in some sort of logical fashion and to start with the first one and move our way through to these others.
Is that okay, Gerald?
But that point has been discussed. Am I right, colleagues?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Chair: Amendment BQ-18 has been negatived. So clause 45 stands because we're waiting for amendment CA-16.
(Clause 45 allowed to stand)
(Clauses 46 to 48 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 49)
The Chair: We now have amendment G-26 on page 159.
Geoff Regan.
[Translation]
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this motion is to subtract from the final payment--in other words, the reimbursement of the candidate's election and personal expenses--the amount of the partial payment received immediately after the election, and also to make this provision retroactive to the date on which Bill C-2 came into force, namely September 1, 2000.
The reason for this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is that a mistake was made when Bill C-2 was drafted that was only recently discovered. Under some circumstances, it could result in a reimbursement of 65% of the expenses incurred, rather than 50%. That 15% difference is the result of a failure to consider the partial reimbursement paid immediately after the election, which corresponds to 15% of allowable expenses.
This is a technical error that must be corrected retroactively to September 1, 2000. This will not mean that any candidate will have to repay certain amounts, because no payment exceeding 50% of expenses was made following the general election and by-elections that took place after Bill C-2 came into force.
» (1720)
[English]
The Chair: Ted White.
Mr. Ted White: I'm just curious, Mr. Chairman, how can we make this retroactive when we can't have a retroactive sex offender registry?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Colleagues, are you comfortable with this correction?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 49 as amended agreed to)
The Chair: Colleagues, if it's okay with you, I would suggest that we do one more here and then have a very short break.
Amendment CA-17 is inadmissible because it is consequential to amendment CA-7, which required a royal recommendation.
(Clause 50 agreed to)
» (1723)
» (1736)
The Chair: We can resume.
We invited the interpreters to eat, and one of the reasons I did that was I thought it would be a much more creative interpretation if we had our mouths full and you had your mouths full as well. There's plenty of food for everybody in the room.
Ted White.
Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just thought I should alert the committee to this right now. The amendment CA-5 that I've been working on has all these consequential amendments that flow from it, and it is very complex to read the different sections to make sure it's correct. I simply can't do it in this environment, or in five-minute lunch or dinner breaks. So I'm just going to say that this is going to be an overnight job for certain. There's no way I can have this ready for tonight, unless we have a decent break so I can sit down and study it for half an hour or more.
The Chair: By the way, I would suggest the latter when we get there, if we can. Obviously, if it's midnight or something, that would be inappropriate.
Mr. Ted White: I just thought it was appropriate to mention it now.
The Chair: Thank you for that. It allows us to plan.
You all heard that, colleagues. We will proceed, as we're doing now, to the end. We will then go back to what is left, one large piece of this series of amendments. As soon as we get to that point, it sounds as though we should have a break of perhaps 30 minutes. I will simply suspend for 30 minutes and Ted will disappear.
Lynn Myers.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): I know it's open-ended in terms of time tonight, but do you have a time in mind?
The Chair: No, I actually don't. I was thinking last week of 10:30 p.m., but if we get to 10:30, we should think about it again. I'm not thinking of going all night, if that's what you mean. If it gets to the point of something like that, I'm not interested.
But my sense is we are moving along now, and as somebody said earlier on, the more time you put into these things, the better the chemistry works.
Marlene Catterall.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: I just wondered if Mr. White's amendments might be done in this way. It seems to me there's one substantive idea, and then there are all kinds of consequential amendments that flow from that. I'm not sure he should feel he needs to draft all those consequential amendments before the committee considers it.
If there's one principle motion, Ted, we could consider it and either agree or not agree on it, and then the others could be drafted for you after.
The Chair: Whatever it is, Ted will explain it again, but we'll deal with it when we come to it.
Ted, go ahead.
Mr. Ted White: Through you, Mr. Chair, Marlene, that's not the issue. I have all the amendments here. It's just that I have to sit down and read how they relate back and forth to other clauses and make sure it does what we expect it to before I bring it back to the committee and say, please approve this. At the moment, I just can't concentrate on that and do this too.
The Chair: No, you can't. And when we get to that point, if it seems appropriate and it's not too late, we will suspend for 30 minutes and we'll come back, if it looks as if we can finish the thing off that way. But let's see how close to the end we get; otherwise it's hypothetical. Ted can do it instead of sleeping tonight.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Chair: We now go to amendment G-27, page 162.
(On clause 51)
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this motion would amend paragraph 468(1)(a) of the act, so the fourth line refers to section 451, not just subsection 451(1).
The reason, Mr. Chairman, is that subsection 451(1), as amended by the bill, no longer requires the remittance to the chief electoral officer of all supporting documents to prove transactions set out in the return. This requirement has been moved to the new subsections 451(2.1) and (2.2). Rewording paragraph 468(1)(a) to make reference to section 451 will ensure that a candidate who has filed his or her return, but not the supporting evidence, is not entitled to the return of his or her deposit.
Under the provision as amended, as suggested here, the candidate can recover his or her deposit if he or she complies with the direction by the chief electoral officer to file any missing supporting documents.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 51 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 52 and 53 agreed to)
(On clause 54)
» (1740)
The Chair: Now we go to amendment G-28, page 164.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this is a consequential motion regarding the calculation of the candidate surplus--
The Chair: As soon as you said that, Susan said to me “consequential to what?”
Mr. Stéphane Perrault: I believe it's amendment G-10. This was the--
Mr. Geoff Regan: It's the same as the last time.
Mr. Stéphane Perrault: I believe it was amendment G-10, regarding the transfer from a candidate's account to his or her account--
The Chair: That's right. We remember. Thank you.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 54 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 55 and 56 agreed to)
(On clause 57)
The Chair: Gerald, amendment PC-33, page 166.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think originally this was put in requiring a threshold to register. My understanding is in Rick's original amendment it was $10,000. For the sake of some movement here, we would look for a friendly amendment to lower that limit.
There should be a threshold somewhere, so minor nomination candidates, people who are thinking about it but are not absolutely certain, are not totally discouraged from running. I don't know where that number should be, quite frankly. It looks to me at a glance that $10,000 is probably too high.
The Chair: Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the suggested change, in our view, is at the wrong place. If it were desired--and we don't think it is--it should be at proposed section 478.23, dealing with reports. This amendment would make the duty to report dependent only on expenses, not on contributions received. This creates a problem, because a contestant may have received important amounts and yet spent little. In that case, there would be no way to trace the money and apply the requirements regarding disposal of surpluses. In other words, it would reduce transparency, and I'm sure members don't want to reduce transparency. I think most people here agree we want to improve transparency and disclosure.
Finally, the reference to registration isn't necessary since there is no prior registration, only a notice sent after the contest.
The Chair: Jacques Saada.
» (1745)
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, is the financial agent for a nomination campaign paid out of public funds, or is he or she paid out of the campaign budget itself?
Mr. Stéphane Perrault: He is in fact paid.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Well, there's something very strange here. Supposing it costs $1,000 or $1,500. That means that someone would have to spend $1,000 or $1,500 to have an audit done of expenses that might only amount to $500.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: You're talking about an auditor, rather than a financial agent.
Mr. Jacques Saada: The financial agent is asked to file a return, but the auditor is the one who is paid. The financial agent is not paid.
[English]
The Chair: Is there further discussion on amendment PC-33?
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: Can we go to amendment PC-34? I have this note here about amendment PC-34a now. Amendment PC-34 was inadmissible.
Does anyone have any remarks on PC-34a?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm not going to be a lot of help because I don't have it.
The Chair: I shouldn't have asked you.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: The rationale says it's similar to PC-32 on page 143. It allowed for audit expenditures to be reimbursed; riding associations are permitted to be reimbursed.
The Chair: Yes, PC-34a was admissible. Mainly I put it here because it should be here.
Amendment 186.1 was inadmissible, wasn't it? Don't let it spin around the table. I just want Susan to know what we're doing here.
I made a note here, perhaps thinking PC-34a should come after PC-34. It was inadmissible.
Ms. Susan Baldwin: I see where we are.
The Chair: Are you okay?
Ms. Susan Baldwin: Yes, I had that request forward.
The Chair: So I don't need a note here for that at all?
Sorry, Gerald, to....
Am I okay here now? Am I doing okay?
Ms. Susan Baldwin: Yes.
The Chair: Gerald, have you made your point on PC-34? Colleagues, I'm going to call for the vote.
Ms. Susan Baldwin: I don't think we have to. It appears to me to be consequential to PC-29 on page 134, which we've already carried with a couple of small amendments; therefore, it should just be carried.
A voice: It has to be amended first.
Ms. Susan Baldwin: Yes, the same amendments we did for PC-29 on page 134.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: With one further amendment?
Ms. Susan Baldwin: Sure.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: We're talking about the nomination contestant in this provision, not the leadership contestant.
The Chair: Are we taking out all that stuff? Michèle, would you read the wording, please?
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Yes, I'll read it in both English and French:
| A person may be appointed as an agent for a nomination contestant not withstanding that the person is a member of a partnership |
The rest is all okay.
In French:
» (1750)
[Translation]
| (2) Un membre d'une société nommée conformément à la présente loi à titre de vérificateur d'un parti enregistré peut être nommé agent d'un candidat à la direction. |
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, do you have that? Shall PC-34 as amended carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: We now move to amendment G-29 on page 168.
That's right, Michèle, “nomination” instead of “leadership”.
Ms. Michele René de Cotret: That's correct.
[Translation]
The Chair: It's the same thing in both cases.
[Translation]
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: It's the same in French and English.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this would amend the wording of section 478.14 so that the limit does not apply to the personal expenses of nomination contestants. The purpose of this motion is also to reduce the expense limits for nomination contestants from 50% to 25% of the election expenses of the candidate in the same riding in the last election.
The amendment to the wording in section 478.14 is necessary to make the application of this provision comparable to that for candidates. The reduction of the expenses limit from 50% to 25% follows up on commitments made in this regard.
The Chair: Marlene Catterall.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to propose an amendment to this government amendment. It's simply to replace 25% with 20%. I would like to give a bit of background.
I'm very happy to see this finally in legislation. There were a number of us who worked very hard to make sure our party's constitution included the requirement to have a limit on the spending for nominations. Unfortunately, in my view, the rules of the last election set it too high, at 50%.
I still believe 25% is higher than it needs to be. What we're trying to do here is level the playing field and make access to nominations more accessible to more Canadians notwithstanding their background and their access to large amounts of money. The Lortie Commission, as I recall, recommended 10%.
I don't know if this has been discussed in other caucuses. I know when our women's caucus put forth this idea before the last election, we had in mind somewhere between 10% and 20%. In my view, 20% is more than adequate, especially now that personal expenses have been removed from what's included in that amount, because that then levels the playing field in terms of people who live in ridings where they're more likely to incur additional personal expenses, travel, and so on.
I think 20% of what's allowed to win the whole riding and all the voters in that riding--20% just to win the hearts and minds of the members of your own party--is more than adequate.
The Chair: Thank you.
Gerald, now it's over to you. I want to get a sense of whether I'm considering a friendly amendment here or not. We have a subamendment--it was an amendment to the amendment--that 25% be lowered to 20%.
Gerald Keddy will speak to the subamendment.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I may be looking at this the wrong way, but at first reading I get a totally different opinion on it. I would think if you restrict your refund for expenses claimed to 25% from 50%, you would exclude more people than you would--
Ms. Marlene Catterall: This isn't a refund; it's a cap on how much we spend on nominations.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's a cap on....
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Spending.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: So it's 25% of....
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Whatever you would be allowed to spend during an election to win the election. Say your riding has a spending limit of--
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Sixty thousand.
The Chair: Then the cap would be 20% of that sum.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: If it was $60,000, this would limit you to $12,000 for nominations.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay.
The Chair: Okay, thank you.
Is there further discussion on this subamendment? You've heard the subamendment, colleagues.
(Subamendment agreed to)
The Chair: Colleagues, we proceed to discuss G-29 as amended, with “25%” now changed to “20%”.
Is there discussion on the amendment G-29?
Joe Jordan.
» (1755)
Mr. Joe Jordan: Just for clarification, are we limiting expenses?
The Chair: It has just been amended.
Mr. Joe Jordan: I just want to know, are we limiting nomination races or leadership races here?
The Chair: It applies to nomination races.
Mr. Joe Jordan: That's my point.
The Chair: Are you going to run in the leadership, Joe? “Joe for leader”.
Any other discussion of G-29 as amended, colleagues?
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Canadian Alliance amendment number 18, Ted, on page 170. This is one we can deal with. This is really quite something.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, this was designed to deal with something we discussed in this committee I think at some point weeks ago or days ago. Maybe it should only be the winner of a nomination contest who has to go through all the reporting. If we're interested in disclosure, what people are really interested in is who donated to the winner. Why subject everybody else to a complicated reporting process?
So this amendment would just require the financial agent of the winner of a nomination contest, who has accepted contributions, etc., to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the following in respect of the campaign. So it requires full reporting.
The Chair: Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, the government's view is that there is a need for all contestants to report because of the requirements regarding disposal of surpluses as well as the spending limits for nomination contestants. The motion would not reduce the administrative burden substantially, since all nomination contestants, in the event they would be successful, will in any case be required to keep track of the relevant information--unless of course they plan to lose, which I can't foresee.
The Chair: Is there further discussion of CA-18?
Yes, Ted White.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Regan has made me see the error of my ways. I'll vote against my own amendment.
The Chair: This we should see, I think. Rather than withdrawing it, Ted's going to vote against it.
I shouldn't have said that. I didn't mean to tell him which way to vote.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: Now on to G-30, page 171, the next page.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I wish I could always be so persuasive.
The purpose of this motion is to increase the threshold for which candidates must submit a report for contributions received and expenses incurred from $500 to $1,000. This is to increase the threshold for which a report is required in order to reduce the burden of nomination contestants.
The Chair: Is there any discussion?
Marlene Catterall.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Is this one of the figures in this bill that is indexed?
The Chair: The answer is no.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: Amendment BQ-19, Michel, is gone. That brings us to amendment G-31, page 174.
Mr. Geoff Regan: We've done things like this before. There are other similar amendments.
The Chair: Okay. If it's consequential, we just need to know to what.
Mr. Geoff Regan: I don't think it's consequential.
The Chair: No, that's the wrong word. We just need to do it again, do we?
¼ (1800)
Mr. Geoff Regan: It's the same principle applied to a different area.
The Chair: We need to do it again. Okay.
Mr. Geoff Regan: This is a clarification to the reference to associations of individuals who may make $1,000 contributions. It will amend proposed subsection 478.23(2), to replace the reference to “unincorporated associations other than trade unions” with a reference to subsection 405.3.(3) of the act, where those associations are defined.
It would add paragraph (e.1) to require greater details about donors to nomination contestants to be included in a contestant's transaction return, and it would amend paragraph (f) as a result of the addition of paragraph (e.1).
I can provide you with more reasons, but I don't know if you want them, so I'll wait.
The Chair: Is there any discussion of G-31?
Gerald Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Isn't this similar to the motion we had discussed earlier in that it would apply to the Kinsman Club or any organization that cared to give money? If you have an association made up of 500 members or 300 members, how can you expect it to give a $500 donation or a $1,000 donation and then break it down into $10 from Jacques Saada and $20 from Gerald Keddy? How do you do that?
Mr. Jacques Saada: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I am not a member of the Kinsman.
The Chair: Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan: I wanted to tell you this is the same idea as the one on page 140.
The Chair: Gerald is making the point that has been made before, so you can give the same answer as before if you like. As I understand it, the point is whether it's appropriate for an association giving a donation to have to break it down per member.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Oh, yes, okay.
One of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, is that if you have a new party that wants to get started.... Is that the right...? I'm on the wrong page, just a second, Mr. Chair. Right pew, wrong church.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Is the party in the kitchen or the living room?
Mr. Geoff Regan: Oh, right, that amendment. Sorry.
This has to do with disclosure.
The Chair: It was the other answer.
Mr. Geoff Regan: It was the other answer, yes.
This is to get the names of original contributors; otherwise you have a way to funnel money into the system, which hampers the whole intention of the bill. The idea is to provide disclosure.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't know if this is a legitimate argument--and I've heard the argument made about trade unions many times--but what do you do in the case where you have an association that gives $1,000 or $500 or $200 and they have to receipt it? Let's say I am part of that association and I've paid my dues. My name is on that contribution list and I don't want to give.
I think it creates a bureaucratic nightmare if the association is willing to.... I understand what you're saying about funneling money, but there still has to be some way to offset this. I'm not sure what it is.
The Chair: Jacques Saada.
That's not the way to do it. It's his turn to speak next.
Mr. Jacques Saada: It's my turn?
The Chair: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. We want to be sure that people cannot circumvent the rules, but it can be very difficult to retrace someone who contributed $2, $5 or $10. Could we consider providing for a minimum contribution?
In other words, I'm wondering whether it is feasible to identify everybody who contributed $2 or $5 and list all their names and addressees. Why not set a minimum threshold of $25 or $50? I don't think contributions of less than $10 or $25 will really have an impact on the level of transparency.
[English]
The Chair: Gerald Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think we potentially settled on the number of $25 for passing the hat. There has to be some set of parameters here to allow some sort of control. The premise here is fine, but we also can't create some type of a bureaucratic nightmare. People are just going to say, who will be the auditor, the official agent?
¼ (1805)
The Chair: Marlene Catterall has the floor before Geoff Regan.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think there is some kind of similar floor built into the legislation for charitable donations. If we're going to do something, let's try to be consistent with some other law rather than taking a figure out of a hat. It seems to me a charitable organization doesn't have to issue a receipt for contributions under a certain amount. This is not a new thing; it's handled elsewhere in law. I just wonder if there is a solution there for us.
The Chair: Michèle.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: It's not the money of the association that is given. What is being addressed here is the money of individuals. “Associations” in that context can multiply ad infinitum. You, Mr. Saada, or anybody else, can give $10 to association A , $10 to association B, $10 to associations C, D, E, F, and G. If it's never reported, because your donation is below whatever threshold you're suggesting, then this is the neatest way to avoid all limits.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, I understand the argument you're making, but I don't find it completely convincing, because you'd have to be completely twisted to make a $10 donation to 55 different associations in order to avoid declaring an amount of $550. Let's be realistic here. If somebody wants to make that substantial a contribution, he or she can easily do so as an individual, and it's just as simple.
I think this is an excellent principle. But we are seeking to include so much detail here that it's becoming practically impossible to apply. If someone makes a contribution of $25 to four separate associations, the total contribution will be $100. That $100 amount will not be identified, which means we won't have to do research, draw up lists and do a lot of paperwork for tons of people. In my opinion, there is very little chance that people will do something inappropriate.
[English]
The Chair: Ted White.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Saada, but I think it's more weird than what he said. Not only would a person have to go around giving $10 or $20 to a hundred different organizations, but then he or she has to persuade that organization to make a donation to the political party of his or her choice. It's incomprehensible that this would happen at all.
I believe that the real effect of reporting requirements is to make it impossible for associations to donate. I don't believe they'll donate. It's too much trouble.
The Chair: It's Michel Gauthier and then Stéphane.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I tend to agree with Mr. Saada. The basic purpose of this bill is to avoid a situation where people could exert undue influence on politicians by making substantial contributions. What we're trying to do here is democratize the financing of political parties. If an association gives a certain amount for an election campaign or a leadership campaign, then we know who those people were. If an environmentalist group in Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean makes a contribution to my party, for example, we know who that group is and what interests it is defending. An association is like a corporation. I don't believe that there is any way of knowing whether the members of that association gave $5 or $10. If a group of 258 members made a contribution of $200, what is important is to know that this particular interest group contributed $250 or $500. There is no need to go any further than that. Otherwise, why not ask a company to provide a complete list of its employees or shareholders, while we're at it? If you ask Alcan or the Royal Bank to do that, for example, you'll soon see that this is no easy task.
So, I see no need to go that far. I honestly support this bill. I think it should provide protection from abuse, but at the same time, I see no need to obtain the name and address of every individual who made the slightest contribution, and I don't see how that will help us attain our goal. I would have problems agreeing to that, even though the basic idea is a good one.
¼ (1810)
[English]
The Chair: Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, first of all, we already passed similar provisions in relation to other parts of the bill. Without this provision, we'd make many of the portions of the bill unenforceable. In fact, Mr. White suggests that he can't persist in a situation like this.
I suggest to you that you could have a group of people who could set up a large number of associations. You wouldn't need to have a lot of members in the associations, maybe two members each or something like that. They could put money into each of those associations and thereby get around the limits. You can imagine situations in which some groups might wish to do that to circumvent the law.
How do you prevent the law from being circumvented? How do you make sure it's upheld? This is one of the ways of doing it. I can see the attraction of what you're suggesting. I can see the appeal of it and why you're arguing for it. I think it opens this up and makes it unenforceable.
The Chair: Gerald Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm still not satisfied with the way that I think it has an effect. I understand your attempt to shut out or curtail people who may try to abuse this system. I'm not certain there's rampant abuse of the system in Canada by associations or groups supporting candidates all over the country, quite frankly.
Maybe we need to have an amendment that affects the other amendments. If we have more amendments coming from the government, or more amendments coming at the end of this package, perhaps it's time we had something that carried through the entire bill to deal with the unwieldy situation of having to come up with the name, address, and receipt.
Never mind about an illegitimate organization. I'm really not concerned about them. We'll find another way to keep them out.
For the legitimate organizations that might want to participate in the political process, we're effectively telling them that they're not going to want to.
The Chair: Ted White, Rodger Cuzner, and then Jacques Saada.
Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In response to Mr. Regan's argument that a couple of people could get together and make half a dozen or a hundred associations put money in and get around the rules, it's not a logical argument. These organizations can only give a maximum of $1,000. You'd have to set up huge numbers of these things in order for any particular individual to contribute more than $10,000, which they can do anyway.
Mr. Geoff Regan: They can hide it, though.
Mr. Ted White: They can hide very small amounts of money.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: How do you know if they are over the limit or not?
Pardon me, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Ted has the floor here for the moment.
Mr. Ted White: It made me lose my train of thought, Mr. Chairman. I think I'll probably have to come back to that.
The Chair: Your train of thought was on the right track.
Mr. Ted White: It's not very practical for individuals to be doing that.
What would they do? Would they set up Geoff Regan number one, number two, and number three organizations, and create all of these organizations to give you money? Surely the anti-avoidance rules in the bill would find those things and take care of them. Why do we need to have this complicated reporting arrangement for bona fide organizations when we already have anti-avoidance rules in the bill?
You can't do through the back door what you can't do through the front door.
Mr. Geoff Regan: How do you catch it? How do you find it? How do you know?
The Chair: Rodger Cuzner, then Jacques Saada.
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): Does this provide us with the opportunity to track them?
If there are three gun clubs in Gerald's riding and a gun shop makes three corporate donations to the gun clubs, and then the gun clubs in turn donate to the anti-gun registry candidate, is this a way of tracking it? Does this sort of close the back door on it?
¼ (1815)
The Chair: Jacques Saada, then Michel Gauthier.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm like my colleague, Ted White; my train of thought is going off the rails.
We want to avoid a situation where associations could take advantage of this to make undue contributions. But I don't think we should be drafting legislation solely on the basis of the people who may want to cheat; we should also be cognizant of whether and how it will apply.
Supposing a dance is held and that on that occasion, organizers, working through an association that was created, are able to collect $600 for the candidate's campaign. It would be difficult to determine who made a contribution and how. Supposing they sell alcohol and decide that the profits from the sale of alcohol will go to a specific candidate. How could you possibly ascertain who gave what? Technically speaking, I really don't see how that could be done. I agree that it's impossible to know everything that goes on.
When we were talking about associations, I asked whether it wouldn't be possible to limit the definition of the term “association” to those that are officially registered. However, that is no longer possible. So, an association has to be recognized and registered, and have a charity number. Let's just say it has to be recognized through some official channel.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that the mechanism that has been suggested here is really enforceable; there are a lot of associations and there is no specific way of officially recognizing associations, which are extremely varied in terms of their nature and activities.
In addition to that, I would like to come back to the example cited by the Parliamentary Secretary; he was saying that one or two individuals could establish a number of associations to make contributions. There is no doubt that when this legislation is in force, that sort of thing could happen. That happens with every piece of legislation: there is always someone who will find a way of getting around it. But what is important here is to remember the spirit behind this provision.
So, even though I could get together with my neighbour and create 22 different associations with a view to contributing to the campaign of a specific candidate, at some point, the same address would start cropping up. The fact is that if an association is identified by its name and address, that is what is likely to happen. In reality, there are more practical ways of circumventing the legislation than getting together to create 22 separate associations and having each one make a contribution of $1,000.
In any case, I have news for the individual or party receiving that contribution. You know the way things work: people go through the list with a fine-toothed comb. In Quebec, for example, the list of contributors is closely examined and audits are conducted. We do that here, and that is done in every circumstance.
So, I really feel that in a leadership campaign, or in the Bloc Québecois, for example, if the list included the names of 18 rather strange associations which all had the same address, that would create more problems than anything else. The fact is that legislation can never be completely foolproof; I personally feel that publishing the names, addresses and amount contributed by associations is perfectly satisfactory. That will eliminate a lot of abuse and, in cases where someone does circumvent the law, there will probably be a political price to pay. Those kinds of actions are easily identified.
So, even though I fundamentally support the ultimate goal of this clause, I still believe it is unenforceable, or at least very difficult to enforce, and completely unnecessary.
[English]
The Chair: Gerald Keddy, and then Joe Jordan.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm still having extreme difficulty trying to understand why we're going to this type of bureaucratic detail.
It's my understanding that we've limited corporate donations to $1,000. So a corporation can give $1,000. It can't give $2,000; it can give $1,000.
Maybe some of the legal expertise around the table can help me, but to set up a limited company or a partnership costs $150 or $200. You cannot do it on paper; it has to be registered to be legal.
¼ (1820)
Mr. Stéphane Perrault: Sorry, this is about unregistered associations, unincorporated associations.
Mr. Ted White: It's unincorporated organizations.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Well, what are they? How many unincorporated associations are out there? Somewhere along the line there, they're either a proper association that can issue receipts to their membership and have an audited set of books or they're an historical society that is a properly qualified association that is tax-exempt. So what's driving this? I need explanations.
The Chair: Joe Jordan.
Mr. Joe Jordan: Just on that point, I think the way this was explained at one time was that it was to catch parties that aren't officially parties yet, to give their candidates money. That's just one point; I may not be right.
Going back to Mr. Gauthier's point, certainly somebody could go around and orchestrate dummy associations and flow $1,000 through, but it strikes me that it would be a lot easier just to get your buddy to give $10,000 than to have the conspiracy expand past that.
So if somebody wants to flow money, the best way to do it is through an individual. Over 99% of Canadians don't give now, so the pool of people who could potentially do this is rather large. I'm just wondering if we're not trying to go a little too far here.
The Chair: Just a minute, Gerald. Ted has the definition for you.
Mr. Ted White: Yes. I was just going to help you with the definition of “organization”, because you'll see in the amendment we're considering right now, under (a): “unions and associations as defined in subsection 405.3(3)”.
Proposed subsection 405.3(3)says:
| In this section, “association” means an unincorporated organization—other than a trade union—together with all of its branches, chapters or any other divisions. |
So it's an unincorporated association of people.
The Chair: In the United States, I think the PACs, the political action committees, are part of an example of this.
Did I get everywhere? No. It's Gerald now, and then Jacques Saada.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I was just thinking that if we'd had this bill four or five days ago, we could have taken it to a bunch of fishermen somewhere down on the south shore and they would have figured out all the loopholes in it and got EI. This is a mess of difficulty--not all of it, and I realize a lot of hard work has gone into it, guys, but there are just going to be nightmarish things come out of this.
I don't know what the review process is in it, but it's going to have to be immediate.
The Chair: Jacques Saada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, so that we can move forward, could I suggest a compromise?
Rather than having a list of everybody who contributed to the association, we could provide that the name of the association's directors would have to be disclosed. Even an association that isn't registered has to be duly constituted; someone--and not just anybody--has to be able to sign cheques. So, by having the names of the directors, in a way, we have the whole basket to fill.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Mr. Saada, Mr. Cuzner, Mr. Regan and myself could decide to form an association with the people sitting in this room right now, and we could make a contribution to a candidate willing to support our cause in the next election. We don't sit down and write down our own constitution; we simply get together and form a group.
Mr. Jacques Saada: But you want to write me a cheque, don't you? In order for someone to write me a cheque, there needs to be a person with the authority to sign the cheque on behalf of everyone.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: But we don't write our own constitution.
Mr. Jacques Saada: No, but there has to be someone who can sign a cheque. By definition, the person who signs the cheques is a director. If we had those names, we would be in a position to obtain the names of everyone who contributed.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Stéphane has just pointed out to me that proposed clause 405.3 requires that an individual responsible for the association sign the cheques. This amendment only provides for that information to be published. The leadership contestant is already required to collect that information; this amendment only allows for it to be published.
¼ (1825)
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, we already discussed a clause similar to this one some time ago. I don't remember what number it was, but I know we passed it.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: It was G-8 and G-23.
Mr. Jacques Saada: But we have a feasibility problem here, Ms. René de Cotret, because we are talking about obtaining information, through an almost mathematical formula, that we may not be able to get. And because we can't access that information, what that means for all intents and purposes is that if someone accepts that such a contribution, he will be acting illegally. Rather than putting something in here that cannot be enforced, let's find a formula that will satisfy everyone.
[English]
The Chair: Gerald Keddy, and then Michel Gauthier.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm in agreement with that. I still think we're just headed down the wrong track.
If people want to funnel money to a campaign, they're not going to do it through the corporate donation or association door; they're going to do it through the individual door. If individuals are allowed to give $10,000 and corporations are allowed to give $1,000, and you're not worried about putting money in a pot to donate to someone who is going to go through the individual door, it's not going to go through the local club, whatever that club may be. Why would anyone go through the trouble?
If I want to donate to Geoff Regan's campaign surreptitiously, then I'll find somebody in his riding and put $10,000 in his or her mailbox, or $200, and that person can donate it.
Mr. Geoff Regan: That would be a strange thing, though.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Very.
The Chair: Michel Gauthier, and then Joe Jordan and Geoff Regan.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, we have already discussed this at great length. I have only one more question, and if I get an answer to it, I will be prepared to support this amendment. My question is addressed to Ms. de Cotret. If we pass this amendment, how will you go about declaring the contribution made by the Quebec Association of Friends of the Environment, which has 15,000 members and has contributed $500?
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: When the Quebec Association of the Friends of the Environment makes its contribution, it will have to identify the individuals that gave money for the purposes of that election contribution.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: But in some cases, the association may have 15,000 members.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: No, the association cannot give money out of its own funds. It has to contribute the money given by individuals for the specific purpose of that contribution, because it's important to remember that this affects the contributor limit. The contributors might have given the money for that specific purpose. So, when the association makes a contribution of $500 to a nomination contestant, it must also provide the names of the individuals that contributed that $500, because that affects the contribution limit for these contributors.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: So, that means that the Association of the Friends of the Environment, with the authorization of its board of directors and out of its own operating budget, cannot make a contribution of $500 to the campaign of Michel Gauthier, a staunch defender of the environment.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: You're absolutely right; it can't do that. This relates to associations of individuals, and the idea is to allow individuals to contribute.
[English]
The Chair: Okay.
Joe Jordan, and then Geoff Regan.
Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If we go back to the spirit of what we're trying to do, I'm of the view that associations shouldn't be allowed to give money. Even further than that, why don't the members just give it individually? They get a tax receipt. So I don't have any problem with this, because it's making it more difficult to do something for which, if somebody is actually doing it, there's probably an ulterior motive.
¼ (1830)
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I want to move this just to name them.
The Chair: Geoff.
Mr. Geoff Regan: The name could be “Gerald's Backyard Buddies”. It could be anything. Who knows?
Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of comments. First of all, we carried amendment G-23 and amended clause 44, which we have carried. I wish I had said it was consequential earlier, because it would have been simpler. But the point is, if we were to carry this, we would have to be able to go back and amend clause 44, which has been carried. It would require unanimous consent to reopen it, which you wouldn't get.
The next thing is, we're concerned about the multiplication of groups like PACs in the U.S. that find ways of getting in through the back door. I think we ought to be cautious in our approach to that.
If you think we're erring, then we ought to err on the side of caution in this regard, because what's important here is that we have transparency and that we have disclosure of political contributions. That's what this bill is all about, and without this amendment, we're not going to have the kind of transparency and full disclosure that we want to see.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: Amendment CA-19 is negatived because of amendment CA-6.
The Parrish amendment, amendment PL-7, is withdrawn.
Michel, amendment BQ-20 is negatived because of amendment BQ-6.
We're now on amendment G-32, page 178, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this motion is to amend proposed sub-paragraphs 478.23(2)(i) and (j) so that the content of the leadership contestants' returns reflects transfers made from their election candidate account to their leadership contestant account.
[English]
It's consequential, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you.
So new paragraphs 478.23(2)(i) and 478.23(2)(j) are moved. Is there any discussion?
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Amendment BQ-21 is consequential to amendment BQ-4.
Amendment Jordan L-12 is gone.
Amendment NDP-17 is consequential to amendment NDP-4--okay, Dick?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes.
The Chair: Amendment BQ-22 is negatived.
Amendment CA-20 is consequential to amendment CA-5--right?
Mr. Ted White: Yes, so it's stood.
The Chair: That's right.
Amendment CA-21 is gone, and amendment CA-20 is stood--right, colleagues?
Mr. Ted White: Yes.
The Chair: We're now on amendment G-33, page 185.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, this deals with the surplus of nomination campaign funds of contestants. The purpose of the motion is to amend proposed section 478.39 to take into account in the calculation of a surplus of a nomination contestant not only contributions received but also other sources of revenue. We've seen other ones, similar to this, previously. It's a technical amendment required to correct an omission.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: We're on amendment PC-34a, page 186.1.
Isn't it the one you mentioned before?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I thought it was negatived. We went to it. Remember?
The Chair: Okay, it's gone.
An hon. member: It is not negatived.
Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chairman, we know it requires royal recommendation. We said we'd put it in the other report as a recommendation.
¼ (1835)
The Chair: It's inadmissible. Sorry, I should have said that.
We're now at government amendment G-34.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this motion at page 187 is to replace in new proposed paragraph 478.41(2)(b) “the registered party with which that association is affiliated” as a potential recipient of the surplus by “the registered party for whom the nomination contest was held”.
The reason is, the current wording of new proposed paragraph 478.41(2)(b) allows for the return of the surplus to the registered electoral district association that held the nomination contest, but it does not deal with the situation where the contestant runs in an electoral district where there is no EDA. This change will provide that in such a circumstance the surplus funds will be remitted instead to the party.
I mentioned something like this earlier today when I was discussing a different motion.
An hon. member: It's not the same.
[Translation]
Mr. Geoff Regan: No, it's not exactly the same thing, but I mentioned this idea when we had another similar discussion.
[English]
The Chair: Yes, Jacques Saada.
Mr. Jacques Saada: I want to make sure I understand here.
Mr. Geoff Regan: As I was saying earlier, this is the case where, for example, the association in that riding, the EDA, has been deregistered or hasn't been registered. Therefore you can't give it to the EDA; it has to go back to the party. That's the idea.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Okay, thank you.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: Clause 57 is stood.
We move to government amendment G-35 on page 189.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this involves an offence by the official agent of a registering electoral district association. It would add new proposed paragraph 497.(1)(h.031) to create a summary conviction offence for a financial agent of a newly registered association who makes a false declaration on the assets and liabilities of the association when providing the statements required under section 403.051.
The reason is that as the statements of a registering association will no longer be audited, an offence must be created to apply the prohibition against making a false statement.
The Chair: Gerald Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: There would be an automatic process in there to establish a difference between someone making a mistake in a return.... And you'd have to do some kind of criminal action that would prove intent, right?
Mr. Geoff Regan: We had a discussion, I think, yesterday about the know or ought to know. The answer is yes. And by the way, this is a consequential amendment to amendment G-5 on page 22.
The Chair: It's not consequential, in the sense that we need it here, don't we?
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Okay, amendment PC-35 can't be moved. It's inadmissible, because....
Mr. Geoff Regan: It's inconsequential.
It was already defeated.
The Chair: Yes, it's gone.
Jordan's amendment L-13 is gone.
Amendment G-35a is carried. Amendment G-35b is carried.
We are on government amendment G-36 on page 193. It's the same as amendment G-35, isn't it?
Mr. Geoff Regan: This would create a criminal offence for a financial agent in the registered association. It's similar to one we just did.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Is it amendment G-35b?
The Chair: Amendment G-35b was carried before, consequential to amendment G-8. We're now at amendment G-36 on page 193.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Again, this would create a criminal offence for a financial agent of a newly registered association who makes a false declaration on the assets and liabilities of the association when providing the statements required under section 403.051. As a statement for registering an association will no longer be audited, an offence must be created to apply the prohibition against making a false statement.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
¼ (1840)
The Chair: Next is amendment PC-36.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's consequential.
The Chair: It is consequential, that's right.
Amendment Bryden L-9.
Joe Jordan.
Mr. Joe Jordan: It's part of the whole deal with the individual. It's stood until we sort that out.
The Chair: Okay. Amendment Bryden L-9 is stood.
Amendment G-37 is on page 197.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this again involves the in-and-out method. It would add paragraph f.16.1 to subsection 497(3) to create a criminal offence where a person enters into an agreement for the payment of goods or services to a political party or a candidate, if one of the conditions of the agreement is the making of a contribution to a political participant. A criminal offence must be created to apply the anti-avoidance measure envisaged in subsection 405.2(4).
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Amendment Bloc-23 was negatived.
Amendment G-37a is consequential and carried.
Amendment G-38 is on page 201.
[Translation]
Mr. Geoff Regan: This amends sub-clause 497(4) to ensure that it applies to all political participants. Sub-clause 497(4) provides that no proceedings may be commenced before the expiration of the period set out in clause 434 and clause 459 with respect to document correction. This amendment is intended to extend that protection to all political participants governed by this legislation.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Clause 58 is stood.
(Clause 59 agreed to)
(On clause 60)
The Chair: Amendment G-39 is on page 203.
[English]
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this would amend the French version of section 504 to remove, in the preamble, the words
[Translation]
“ou une association de circonscription radiée”
[English]
This amendment corrects a technical error. This section in the act creates a presumption that political parties and electoral district associations, among others, are persons if they are named as parties to judicial proceedings.
The English version refers only to electoral district associations, while the French version refers to both EDAs and deregistered electoral associations. The motion makes the two texts consistent with each other by removing the reference to deregistered associations in the French text.
The Chair: Thank you.
Are you comfortable with that, colleagues?
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 60 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 61 agreed to)
(On clause 62)
The Chair: Amendment G-40 on page 204, please.
Mr. Geoff Regan: This would add a new subsection 511(2), Mr. Chairman, to deem as public officers under the Criminal Code authorized individuals retained by the commissioner of elections to conduct investigations on his or her behalf.
The reason is that these individuals lost this status inadvertently in 1999 when the definition of a public officer in the Criminal Code was amended. This provision is essential to facilitate the enforcement of the act.
The Chair: I'm glad we picked it up in the four years.
Mr. Geoff Regan: You're very sharp, Mr. Chairman.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 62 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 63)
The Chair: We're at amendment PC-37, Gerald, on page 206.
¼ (1845)
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes. I don't think the existing wording is quite adequate. The basis of this amendment is that we agree that the commissioner should have to start the investigation in less than 18 months after he or she is aware of a violation.
Six months is what we've looked at here, but a year and a half is a long time if you're in violation of the act. It's going to leave a cloud of anxiety over your head, I suppose, to clear it up.
I think that if there's an investigation needed, we have all kinds of language here to give liability to people who donate and to put some teeth in the act, so to speak.
On the other hand, the commissioner would have 18 months to start an investigation. It's too long. Six months, I think, is more reasonable.
The Chair: Thank you.
Dick Proctor.
Mr. Dick Proctor: I was hoping to get some consistency from my good friend Gerald. He was arguing a few hours ago, and I agreed with him, that we needed a longer period of time for nomination candidates to pay off debts. It would seem to me that if we're thinking about doing that, we would need to have a similar period of time on the other end.
I would be in favour of it the way it reads.
Mr. Geoff Regan: I have a point of order.
The Chair: A point of order, by all means.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, did we carry clause 62?
The Chair: Yes, we did, as amended. It was amended by amendment G-40.
You heard what Dick Proctor said. We'll go back to Gerald Keddy, then to Geoff Regan.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think there is a difference between allowing a longer period of time to pay off legitimate debts and having the commissioner say that something improper has occurred and he has 18 months before investigating it.
The Chair: Let's go to Geoff Regan, because he might be able to explain that.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I have two things.
First of all, in the present act, it does say 18 months. In fact what's confusing here is that if you look at the bill, it underlines 18 months as if this is new. In fact, it's already a provision in the act.
The Chair: Why is it underlined?
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: It used to be written out, and now it's numbers.
Mr. Geoff Regan: It was written out as “eighteen”.
The Chair: It is a change. It's a drafting change.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Let me finish my second point, though.
We're talking about the time that we're allowing for an investigation before a decision is made to lay a charge. The point is that it says that from the time the commissioner becomes aware of the subject matter of the issue of the prosecution, from the time that they become aware of what they think has happened, until they lay the charge, you only want to give them six months.
If you give them 18 months, they may come to the conclusion that a charge is not warranted, whereas if they're forced to do it in six months, they might conclude that it is better to lay the charge. They might regret it later on.
Allowing 18 months for an investigation, considering how long it takes for investigations, I don't think is excessive before they lay the charge.
The Chair: Marlene Catterall.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: It seems to be a reasonable argument to me as well, given that the courts would take into account an undue delay in laying the charge. In other words, if it could have been done in six months and it wasn't done for 18 months, they would certainly take that into account.
The Chair: Colleagues, I'm going to call it.
Gerald.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, I'll withdraw.
The Chair: You'll withdraw. Amendment PC-37 is withdrawn.
We're on amendment G-41 on page 207.
Mr. Geoff Regan: I'll move this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this motion would amend the limitation period in proposed subsection 514(1) to indicate that it will start running when the commissioner of elections becomes aware of the facts giving rise to a prosecution. It would also add a new subsection 514(3) to provide for a certificate establishing the date at which the commissioner became aware of the facts giving rise to the prosecution. Subsection 514(1), Mr. Chairman, deals with the limitation period for the start of prosecutions.
The French and English version of the bill are not consistent with one another. This amendment clarifies that the limitation period starts running as of the date the commissioner becomes aware of the facts giving rise to the prosecution.
The second amendment provides that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this certificate, when submitted to a court, will be sufficient evidence of the date on which the commissioner became aware of the facts giving rise to the prosecution. Such a certificate eliminates the need for the commissioner to have to testify on this issue in every prosecution.
¼ (1850)
The Chair: Ted White.
Mr. Ted White: Yes, Mr. Chairman, through you, I'm having a little bit of a problem with this new subsection (3). What problem are we trying to fix here?
Let me start all of this over again. Mr. Regan, you just said the reason for this subsection (3) is so that the commissioner doesn't have to appear every time there's some sort of prosecution. But I don't understand that logic when it's just a matter of proving that the person who signs the certificate is authorized to do so. I don't understand why this section is in here to basically say the signature on the certificate is meaningless.
The Chair: Yes, Stéphane.
Mr. Stéphane Perrault: If I may, the point of this new subsection is to make sure the commissioner does not have to testify in person every time. He's going to provide a certificate, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this certificate shows he was aware of the facts giving rise to the prosecution on this date.
This may be challenged, and then he'll have to testify. But it's to simply avoid the commissioner having to come to court and testify every time as to the time when he was aware of the facts.
Mr. Ted White: Does the commissioner have to sign the certificate, or can anybody he appoints sign the certificate?
Mr. Stéphane Perrault: It's only the commissioner, yes.
Mr. Ted White: Then, again, I say, why is this clause necessary? Surely if a certificate is being presented in the court there would be evidence given that the signature is that of the commissioner--
Mr. Stéphane Perrault: That would be hearsay.
Mr. Ted White: --so why does the commissioner have to appear?
Mr. Geoff Regan: He would have to, otherwise it's hearsay, right?
Mr. Stéphane Perrault: That's right.
Mr. Geoff Regan: You need evidence of that. I've seen this kind of clause in other kinds of legislation.
The Chair: Jacques Saada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: If there is further debate on the motion itself, I would like us to proceed with that now, because my question is indirectly connected to that. I have a very simple question to ask.
Supposing a riding association or riding agent suddenly disappears; that can happen. What recourse would the association have to avoid being deregistered?
[English]
The Chair: Stéphane.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Perrault: The chief electoral officer has the power--which he exercises at his discretion--to deregister associations. In such an extreme situation, where the agent of a registered association goes underground, the association would have to provide an explanation to the chief electoral officer, who could then, under the circumstances, exercise his discretionary power and see that the association was not deregistered. He would also allow that association to appoint a new agent to carry out those duties.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
[English]
The Chair: PC-38, page 209.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: This reminds us a little bit of the other amendment, 37, but if you go on the rationale that you're going to allow 18 months to have an investigation before charges are laid and then you're going to allow seven years, that's eight and a half years. Surely, if you have the extra time to get your facts together during the investigation, seven years is then too long to have this before the courts and not settled. I would suggest that maybe three years is not enough time, but maybe there is a friendly amendment of five years. It is just that eight and a half years--
¼ (1855)
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, let's keep in mind that this part, the seven years, is from the date on which the offence was committed, not from the date on which the commissioner became aware of the facts that led to the prosecution.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: There are 18 months off that--
Mr. Geoff Regan: No, it's not 18 months after that. Remember, it says first of all that within 18 months after the day on which the commissioner becomes aware of the subject matter of the prosecution, but also the prosecution must be started not later than seven years after the day on which the offence was committed. In other words, it's a limitation of seven years total, which you often have on things like this.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: What's normal?
Mr. Geoff Regan: In criminal law I think it is seven years.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: The reason it has to be long is, among other things, because of the limits and the violations of the limits. The reports, for example, of candidates are not filed until after the elections. If there was no election for five years, it's--
A voice: You would only have two years then.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I propose a friendly amendment to change the three years to five years. I still think seven years is too long--it's excessive.
The Chair: I want to get this straight. Is this a friendly amendment or not? He can't amend his own motion, so it has to be a very friendly amendment.
It's not a friendly amendment, so it can't be moved. We're sticking with what it is.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: My question is if you go beyond the date that you're setting up in a friendly fashion, does it mean that charges are dismissed if there's no conviction? I don't want that to happen. Three years after the election I have a guy going to court who broke the Elections Act against me last time and spent more money than he was supposed to. The whole thing has been tied up forever. It took a year and a half to two years to find the guy who had funded the thing, and now it's been sitting in court, and what would happen is it would be dismissed. I don't like that. It should go as long as necessary to get a conviction.
The Chair: I'm going to--
Mr. Gerald Keddy: But is it the fault of the act or the fault of the court system?
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, to be clear here, let's say there is an election in the middle of next year. In the fall of 2004 someone breaches the act in a way that isn't discovered until much later when reporting is done following the next election, which could be up to five years later. The report takes a while after the election. Now we're at five and a half years or so. Then they would have a year and a half left after that--18 months really--to get the thing done and get the prosecution underway.
I don't think seven years is all that excessive when you consider that we have a five-year term possibly.
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 63 agreed to)
(on clause 64)
The Chair: Amendment G-42 on page 210, please.
Mr. Geoff Regan: This motion, Mr. Chairman, would amend section 541 to add that as documents are made public, leadership and nomination contestants can make updates to their leadership or nomination campaign returns. It simplifies the provision by removing the specific subsection numbers.
Section 541 lists all documents that are public records and may be inspected by any person on request. The list refers to annual returns on financial transactions of registered parties and electoral district associations and to campaign returns of candidates, leadership, and nomination contestants. The list has been broadened to include a reference to updated versions of these reports.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 64 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 65 allowed to stand)
(Clauses 66 to 68 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 69--Financial reporting--registered parties)
The Chair: G-43, page 215.
½ (1900)
Mr. Geoff Regan: I move G-43. This motion, Mr. Chairman, would add a paragraph to clause 69 to provide that the fiscal report of a party for the year prior to the coming into force of the act be prepared under the old rules in effect prior to the coming into force of the bill.
It would amend the English version of clause 69 to refer to “documents” instead of “transactions”, in accordance with the French version.
This motion, Mr. Chairman, will clarify that a party's documents related to the year 2003 are to be reported under the rules as they existed in 2003. Furthermore, it will correct a technical error in the English version.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 69 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 70 agreed to)
(On clause 71--Statement of assets and liabilities)
The Chair: G-44.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I'll move this amendment.
We're not actually amending the thing, but I'll explain.
The Chair: So you're going to explain exactly what you're going to do with this one, Geoff. Thank you.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The idea here is to remove the transitory rule requiring that electoral district associations disclose the source of funds collected since the last election, where they were registered under the new act. The reason is this change will result in all contributions made prior to the coming into force of the bill being reported in aggregate. They're all grandfathered, so to speak.
It is not necessary to submit a motion to this effect, but I wanted simply to warn you of the government's intention to vote against the inclusion of this clause in the bill.
The Chair: Susan is going to explain something about this, Geoff.
Explain the no vote against clause.
Ms. Susan Baldwin: Yes. The proper course of action in committee is to vote against the clause. At report stage you can make a motion to delete, but I only put this in because it's a little note saying the government wanted to delete this clause.
An hon. member: Can we dissent?
Ms. Susan Baldwin: Certainly, no problem.
The Chair: Geoff, have you got that?
Mr. Geoff Regan: That's right.
The Chair: You want to delete--
Mr. Geoff Regan: We'll just vote against the inclusion. That's what we'll do.
The Chair: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: I don't think I fully understood the comments that were just made. The government is telling us it intends to withdraw clause 71, is that right?
[English]
The Chair: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: I would just like to know why it is doing this; I didn't really grasp the arguments made in that respect.
[English]
The Chair: Why do you want to delete this?
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, you've seen there is one minor way in which the bill was retroactive. We don't want it to be retroactive in general, and if you had clause 71.... What we're dealing with is a problem that was created in part by Bill C-2. At any rate, if you had clause 71, then all the new rules applying about contributions and so forth and how you have to supply the list of who gave and how much and all that stuff would apply retroactively.
We're saying now it should not be applied retroactively and that the amounts you already have in your riding association's account should be grandparented--I think is the correct phrase these days--so that it's accepted and you can transfer it to the association or keep it in the association.
½ (1905)
The Chair: Dick Proctor.
Mr. Dick Proctor: In asking for the deletion of this clause, I'm thinking of the trust funds, and if you don't go back six months, then surely what you're doing is giving laissez-faire to somebody who has a several hundred thousand dollar trust fund to just roll that money into his or her EDA account.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill in general is to look forward. If we look back to 1972, when there were major changes made to the electoral law, we don't think a whole lot about what was happening in 1969 and 1970, and what amounts were where in 1971, and so forth. This law, I think, will provide more disclosure and transparency, going forward for many years.
I think it would assist us to get to that point if we accept the amounts that are now put into associations and provide this grandparenting, as described here.
The Chair: You should know I have a list of five. I have Gerald Keddy first, followed by Jacques Saada, Carolyn Parrish, Michel Gauthier, and Joe Jordan.
Gerald, you're on first. Who's on second?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: You're losing me in your logic here, Geoff. The whole purpose of this bill is to change the way we do elections, and it should be retroactive to the last election. As for things that are before that time, if there's money in a riding association that was gathered prior to the last election, then it's been receipted, I assume.
The whole thing is about transparency. You're going to take the one clause that has teeth in it, that really affects members of Parliament, and throw it away, saying that if you have $100,000 you don't have to disclose it. Some poor little bugger who gave $10 because they passed a hat around has to give you his name and address. Come on! This is farcical.
The Chair: Jacques Saada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: I just want to point out that despite this provision, even though the bill prevents the creation of trust funds, it cannot deal with previously established trust funds. Those funds were set up according to certain rules. Changing the ground rules and asking someone to be accountable now poses a fundamental problem, in my view.
Also, the reason why this provision, which in my opinion is not relevant, really has to be deleted is this: It often happens that several ridings get together to organize a joint activity as part of a political party's fundraising efforts. Once that activity is completed, we would have two years to determine what is owed each riding and how this should be reported. Figuring this out is an absolute nightmare.
I think that the spirit behind this bill is such that we should be saying that from now on, trust funds will no longer be allowed and that if certain previously established trust funds do not pay out funds to their association, they will only be able to pay out $1,000 in future. If they want these monies to really serve some purpose, they will have to ensure that they are actually being used.
By imposing a retroactivity clause, we will only be discouraging this kind of initiative, rather than the opposite. In my opinion, it is more important to look towards the future now, and ensure that people are encouraged to once again include these trust funds on the top line of their return, as initial assets.
[English]
The Chair: I would remind you, colleagues, I have Carolyn Parrish, Michel Gauthier, Joe Jordan, Ted White, and Gerald Keddy again. My God, who is this guy?
It's Carolyn Parrish.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Chairman, I think it's probably good to let us vent on this one. This is an area a lot of people are very indignant about. Many of my colleagues on our side of the House are just as upset about this.
You have to put a couple of things in perspective. First of all, those trust funds were legal when they were formed. You can't go back and say “You committed an act that was legal. Now we've decided, because of the new rules, we're really jealous that you collected $200,000. We're going to nail you for it and we're going to label it illegal.”
There are two types of trust, I find from talking to colleagues. One is the kind that generated tax receipts, and they're all registered trusts. I think Ms. Catterall has one she inherited from a previous riding association—it's nowhere near as glorious as some of the others that are notorious. Then there are other ones that elicited no tax rebate. We have two choices with these guys. I know of one that has $200,000 in it. If you don't compel that person, male or female, to roll it into a riding fund, they can just as easily go and spend it on a boat.
½ (1910)
Mr. Geoff Regan: That's right; they can keep it.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Second, if the spending limit is $70,000 for the next election and someone has $200,000 sitting in the bank, you take that person out of circulation. There's no point in fundraising for the next three elections, so they're not grabbing any more money from anybody.
As much as it sounds icky to us—not a good word, and I don't know how you would translate it into French—it was legal. It is offensive; we don't want it to happen any more—particularly in the case of the ones that weren't tax-receiptable, that can just be spent on clothes, cars, and airplanes. I think at some point you have to stop it so that it's not going to happen again. But you can't go back and make a legal act illegal, as much as we all would love to.
As I say, I think this is good. We have to do it. I think what it does is take a person who has a big chunk of money out of the fundraising business for at least two more elections. That accomplishes a good purpose. I understand how you feel, and I don't think it's a bad thing to let us all vent, but it's not going to make any difference.
The Chair: Michel Gauthier, then Joe Jordan, then Ted White, then Gerald Keddy.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I am going to surprise you now. I do not totally disagree with the idea of withdrawing this provision. Trust funds were established, and had that been illegal, there would have been prosecutions. Since there were none, it was obviously legal. We don't really like this, because we know how those trust funds were set up. But while we may not really agree, we have no choice but to live with this now.
Here is my question. Supposing we delete clause 71, and Carolyn Parrish has $200,000 in trust funds in her riding. From day one of this bill coming into force, will she be required to declare a transfer of $200,000 in trust funds from Carolyn Parrish to the riding association?
Mr. Stéphane Perrault: No. She will simply be required to declare the amount of the asset. The registered association…
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Yes, that's the problem. Mr. Chairman, I think you should listen to this. That is precisely the problem. I would agree with all of this if we were planning to state that from day one, a transfer of $200,000 would be made from Carolyn Parrish's trust fund. But if you only require the association to declare that asset, then you are not disclosing everything that happened. It's not that big a deal to say that Carolyn Parrish's trust fund transferred $200,000. I can understand the logic of respecting the process that existed previously, but can we not also abide by the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish here, which is that all contributions be identified from day one? Am I asking too much? Why couldn't the first contribution be identified as coming out of Carolyn Parrish's trust fund?
Do you understand what I'm getting at, Mr. Chairman? That is the real issue. Why would we want to do something that is inconsistent with the fundamental principle of this bill? We want people to declare all their contributions from day one, including a contribution that comes out of Carolyn Parrish's trust fund, for example.
Mr. Geoff Regan: But that's not the way things work. You declare the amount you have when you begin.
½ (1915)
Mr. Michel Gauthier: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. There is a fundamental difference between the amount of money the association has and the amount it will have once that transaction has been completed. Whether the association has $228 or $2,000 in its account, well, that's one thing, but on day one, a transaction is made which is compulsory under the legislation. One or perhaps even two or three trust funds have to transfer that money. All I'm asking is that we abide by the spirit of the legislation we are drafting here. We should be requiring that funds from trust fund A, trust fund B and trust fund C are transferred to the association. I don't think it's too much at least to ask--as I say, it's really not a big deal, and I am prepared to accept that principle--that the amount of the transfer be disclosed. We shouldn't be making it possible for people to launder money as they do what is needed to abide by the legislation. That is what this amounts to in a way. All of a sudden, it's all over and everything is hunky-dory. We don't even know what amount is coming from the trust funds, and we start off with an overall amount that comes from who knows where, Mr. Chairman.
I am prepared to support this, as long as we respect the fundamental principles behind this bill, and the first of those is that the first contribution has to be declared. That's it, that's all.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, just a moment.
I have Ted White, I have Gerald Keddy, and I have Jacques Saada. But Geoff Regan is now responding to what Michel just said, and I think that's the appropriate way to go.
So Geoff Regan first, then Ted White.
Excuse me, Jacques. Is yours a very specific point to do with what...?
Mr. Jacques Saada: It's just on that point specifically.
The Chair: If it's okay with you, Ted, I will keep to that point and come back to it. But quickly.
[Translation]
Mr. Geoff Regan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
If the contribution was made on January 1, 2004, it must be reported, but it does not need to be reported if it occurred before January 1, 2004, whether that was in 1999 or in 2003.
Are you going to look at transfers that were made in the 1960s? How far back will we decide to go in considering these transfers?
The Chair: Michel, Jacques Saada also has questions.
Mr. Jacques Saada: First of all, if a riding has assets of $20,000 that it declares on January 1, 2004, how will we possibly be able to differentiate between $20,000 in assets that come from who knows where, since the rules were not the same, and assets in a trust fund that were collected according to different rules?
Secondly, let's start with the principle of the key date. Supposing that on December 31, 2003, all trust fund monies can be transferred without any difficulty to the riding account, whatever the amount, whereas on January 1, 2004, the money in the trust fund can no longer be transferred because it is considered to be an association contribution, and the maximum contribution for an association is $1,000.
The problem is really quite simple: this is a double standard. I understand the logic of it. We are differentiating between the funds held by associations that were collected on the basis of existing or pre-existing rules, and amounts that were collected through trust funds based on other pre-existing rules.
I think the simplest solution would be to delete this clause and start all over again. People who have trust funds and want to use that money for political purposes had better transfer that money to the association before this bill comes into force, if they want to have the right to transfer it.
I'm sorry, Michel, but I just want to make one last point. On January 1, it will no longer be possible to transfer money. That will be it. On January 1, we will be required to transfer no more than $1,000.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to support that, but I want to ask a quick question. Can I do that?
[English]
The Chair: I have two more speakers on the same point. You can be on next.
So it's Ted White, then Gerald Keddy, and then Joe Jordan.
Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to say to Gerald that notwithstanding the problems with the trust funds, I think they have us by the short ones here, because there's a wider problem as well. That is, that if we don't grandfather these contributions, we have a situation where the riding associations have to account for every dollar they transfer since the last election. That means they have to identify the donors by name and address. That means they're going to have to make a random selection—how else can you do it? That means individuals are going to be caught up in this thing with donations attributed to them they may not even be aware of. They may not have chosen to be part of that group.
It really is complicated. We have to start at ground zero, and unfortunately it means dragging these trust funds in as well. But there's a whole bunch of considerations here. Remember also we're working with volunteers in these riding associations. What a mess for them to try to identify, by donor, all the money that's there. It would just be a nightmare. We have to have a start point.
½ (1920)
The Chair: It's Gerald Keddy now, and then Joe Jordan.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have no difficulty understanding the importance of the starting point. I'm not convinced at all, after reading clause 71, that it should be deleted.
I have a number of questions. The first one would be what replaces it and when? That would be the first question. We'll just do it one at a time. So what replaces clause 71?
Mr. Stéphane Perrault: All the rules for the collection and reporting of contributions that are provided in Bill C-24.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay.
So clause 71 was put there specifically to.... We fight elections in Canada one election at a time. I realize some riding associations are more affluent than others, and there are trust funds out there--lots of rumours of them--and it probably isn't quite fair or it may give an advantage to individuals, but quite frankly, that's not what I'm hung up on. I'm hung up on applying this.
I'm wondering, since the funds that were gathered since 2000 are going to be used to fight the 2004 election--or possibly the 2005 election--those funds should be caught up in the premise of this bill, because they qualify under the premise of this bill. Trust funds, dollars, or moneys that are out there prior to 2000 are not meant to be caught in this, grandfathered or grandmothered--it doesn't matter to me which word you use.
I think there needs to be an additional clause there, Mr. Chair, to recognize that funds prior to the last election aren't meant to be caught in this web, aren't meant to be identified under this piece of legislation. Funds since the 2000 election are. I think that would be much fairer to everyone, including riding associations that have trust funds set up, or individuals, because it doesn't affect them. It would only affect moneys they've gathered in the last three years.
I can use my own riding association as an example. If there's $28,000, $29,000, or $30,000 in the bank, or whatever's there, it's all been receipted and it's all available. If someone happens to have $150,000 in a riding association, and $135,000 of that was prior to the year 2000, then that's fine. This isn't going to get it and it's not meant to get it. But whatever came in after 2000 should be encompassed.
The Chair: Okay.
Joe Jordan.
Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm not an expert on trust funds, but it's already been said these things were done legally. It's just that the rules weren't strict enough.
So I guess, Gerald, it is a compromise, but either we bring this money into the system, where we now have good controls, transparency, and tracking, or they leave it out and it can't get into the system other than perhaps if the trust fund, as an association, might be able to give $1,000 a year or something.
Somebody is breaking the law. If they're not declaring this money, maybe they should have declared it as income if they didn't receipt it, I don't know. But I don't think this bill is going to catch that. I think all we're trying to set up is if somebody has $100,000 in a trust fund that they control personally and didn't receipt anybody for, I suspect they probably are in violation of some aspect or clause of the CCRA. But they can transfer that to their association and it will come into this system, and from now on it will be tracked.
The other thing is, we don't know how much money they have anyway. That's the other problem--we never had any controls at the association level. So whether my association says we have $14,000 in the bank--which we don't--or $50,000, who's going to know? There was no mechanism for me to report that before.
We have to start somewhere. If we encourage them to bring it under the light, we can track it from now on. Otherwise, they'll just keep it.
½ (1925)
The Chair: Geoff Regan, very briefly.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, first of all, if people gave money to your nomination fund, under the present law you wouldn't give receipts for that, and you wouldn't have to transfer it, as the laws exist, to your association or anything else. So that's not illegal money, right?
Secondly, if any influence has been exercised by the donation of these funds, that influence has already been exercised.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, could I say a few words just to counter the consistently negative perception people have of these foundations? It's important to make allowances. I won't mention any names, of course, but I want you to know that several years ago, the foundation established by a former Quebec MP had as its sole aim to redistribute funds collected from various organizations to the poorest residents living in the riding. The money was used only for that. This was political action in the field, but there was nothing shameful about that kind of political action. I just wanted to make that point, because it's easy to cast doubt on what drives all these foundations. I know of at least one in Quebec whose intentions are completely honourable.
[English]
The Chair: Michel Gauthier and then Michèle René.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I am coming dangerously close to supporting the government's position. I am prepared to accept that this be withdrawn and that we start the process from day one.
Ms. de Cotret, supposing we were to withdraw this clause and trust funds were therefore not subject to the requirements. I know you certainly have no desire to establish a process for laundering money. Are contributions made by trust funds covered under the former Elections Act at the time of the transfer? In other words, does the name of the person who has contributed more than $200, I think it is, have to be identified? If that were the case, deleting this clause would amount to our establishing a process for laundering money that would be totally unacceptable, particularly considering the transparency rules we are trying to respect. I'm sure my colleagues would not like the idea that by withdrawing this, we would be creating a kind of legal vacuum which would mean that just about any amount of money could be transferred at any time. I realize these are not always large amounts, but the fact is that almost any amount could be transferred without there being a requirement to abide by the rules set out either in the new legislation or the former legislation.
I would like to know exactly where we stand in that respect.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Anyone who transfers money to a riding association account prior to January 1, 2004 will not be required to disclose who contributed the money that was transferred to the account.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Well, I have a serious problem with that, and I think everyone does. Under the current Act, if a company contributes $10,000 to the Liberal Party, the Party is required to declare to the chief electoral officer that a contribution of $10,000 was made by Alcan or the Royal Bank, for example. That is what the current Act provides. We are now in the process of creating new legislation. I am certainly prepared to respect the process that has existed in the past, but the fact is that between the old legislation and the new, we would be creating a kind of vacuum into which hundreds of thousands of dollars could be gobbled up that would be covered neither by the new legislation or the old.
I am prepared to support my government colleagues if they wish to withdraw this, but only if this money doesn't end up in a money laundering machine. If those amounts were subject to the former Act, I would be in a position to know that such and such a trust fund transferred $250,000 to Jacques Saada's riding association account, for example. I don't think we want to use this bill to create a legal vacuum.
I'm sure you understand that what we are doing here is very serious. We are all honest people and we don't want to create a legal vacuum. We don't want to create a no man's land between the old and the new legislation wherein money laundering could occur. I cannot go along with that, and I'm sure you agree. I would like to get an answer to that. If there is no answer, we will have no choice but to defeat this clause, because we do have the power to defeat it. It would result in an incredible legal vacuum which is totally unacceptable and unjustifiable. I'm having trouble finding enough words to describe just how bad that would be.
½ (1930)
[English]
The Chair Dick Proctor, Gerald Keddy, and Jacques Saada.
Mr. Dick Proctor: I agree with Michel Gauthier that we don't want money laundering, but when I look at paragraph 71(1)(a), it says “a statement of contributions received by the registered association since the last general election and before the coming into force of this section from the following classes of contributor”, and it goes through the usual suspects. This is what the government is now proposing we delete and do away with in part.
I can't help but conclude this is simply being done to avoid having to name the seven or eight, as we understand it, people who have large trust funds, to get them in under the radar screen, and I am totally opposed to it. I think they should be in there, and I think paragraph 71(1)(a) should be in there.
The Chair: Gerald Keddy and then Jacques Saada.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: On the same point that Dick made, if you stop it at “since the last general election”.... I made this point before, that I don't know how much money various accounts may have in them since the last general election, but I'm going to assume it's not buckets and buckets full. If a trust fund has been built up over the last 10 or 20 or 30 years, or however long it's been there, I don't think it's been built up over the last three years. I feel that whatever funds have come in since the last general election to be spent on the next general election should be claimed. I don't have any difficulty with that whatsoever.
For this reason, I would be against deleting this section of the bill, because we're not after the money prior to 2000. If $200,000 was in an account prior to 2000, then we don't care. If $30,000 or $50,000 came in since 2000, we do care. There's a big difference.
But if we delete this section, what in the existing legislation prevents all moneys that may be in somebody's trust fund or account from simply disappearing? These moneys weren't necessarily raised for the individual, but may have been raised for a member of Parliament prior to that individual. But what prevents all that money from disappearing and never going into an election account? What specific part of this bill prevents that money from just going out into someone's account, someone's pocket, or into their cottage, their mattress, or wherever?
It's a point of clarification. I'd like to know.
Mr. Geoff Regan: I just want to say that the removal of clause 71 prevents that problem, because otherwise if they can't transfer it into their accounts they will do with it whatever they want.
And after January 1, I think we're going to see what amounts are in each riding's accounts. Right? Yes. You're going to say “We don't know whether it's trust or not”, but you're going to look at the amounts people have. I'm sure there will be lots of comments about who has $250,000 in their account, and not much comment on who has $23,000 or $15,000 or $7,000. There's going to be comment on those who have large amounts in their accounts.
½ (1935)
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I still think you're missing the point here. We're trying to delete the section that I'm in total disagreement with you on. This section is actually needed. But what we don't need to do is to go back to 1972 or 1989 or 1999.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Then the money will go somewhere else.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: We need to go back to 2000.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Then the money will go somewhere else.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's not going to go anywhere; there's nothing in this act to prevent it, right now.
Excuse me, if I have $250,000 in an account, tell me how I can't hide it? What provision in this bill prevents me from taking that $250,000 and hiding it right now?
Mr. Geoff Regan: So you want to use it for political purposes.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: The only difference would be that I can't hide the money that came in since 2000, because I have to receipt it.
Mr. Geoff Regan: If you want to use it for politics in the future, you have to bring it in. That's the point.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, I don't think you're ever going to get it to begin with, so I'm not worried about it. I'm expecting that it's going to disappear somewhere. I'm just simply not worried about it.
But I am worried about the money from 2000, because that's what this encompasses, and that money is going to be spent on the next campaign. And whether I or Joe Jordan raised it, it doesn't make any difference. We should be responsible for it.
The Chair: Jacques Saada, Michel Gauthier, and Joe Jordan.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, we have an expression in French that essentially means that sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone.
I want to come back to some of the arguments made by Mr. Gauthier. First of all, if we require the sources of these funds to be disclosed, the people that hold them will have no interest in transferring these funds to the associations. They will simply keep them separate from the associations. If we really want this money to be accounted for in the process, we have to encourage them to transfer the funds.
Based on your logic, which I am taking one step further here, if those funds were legally collected, there is no way, in my opinion, we can talk about money laundering. However, in cases where those funds had not been collected legally, there could be grounds for prosecution. Is it within the purview of this Committee to make provision for retroactive commencement of legal proceedings?
My view is simply that we have to arrive at a solution which, without necessarily seeming to be the best, will at least be more functional and more likely to bring that money back into the open through the process of transparent returns. The best way to do that is to encourage people not to keep those funds outside.
For that reason, I personally believe that we should leave well enough alone. What is our ultimate goal in all of this? Are we trying to prosecute people for certain activities--without knowing whether they were legal or not--in which they engaged at the time, or are we trying to ensure that this money will be accounted for in a transparent manner from now on?
Under the circumstances, I think we have to make an effort and take this opportunity to pull that money back in on the right side.
[English]
The Chair: Michel Gauthier and then Joe Jordan.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I and my friend Jacques Saada often think along the same lines. What he says makes sense and I have a lot of admiration for him. But I do want to ask this question.
Supposing the Foundation of the Friends of Michel Gauthier--who are very numerous--had been making an annual contribution of $5,000 to the riding association for the last ten years. Under the former Act, I would be required to declare that. That is public information which is passed on to the chief electoral officer.
Now why, on the day this bill comes into force, would the largest contribution made by the Friends of Michel Gauthier remain a secret? That fact is I am not trying to stop anyone here. Maybe that's the way it seems, but I'm not. I simply want to get closer to the government's position. The fact is I support it. At the same time, I don't want to suspend the former Act, even for an instant, if that means that amounts of money can crop out of nowhere at random.
Under this legislation, the annual contribution of $5,000 made by the Friends of Michel Gauthier, once it had been declared to the chief electoral officer, would be mixed in with everything else in the association's account, without any explanation being required. At the very least, it should be reported to the chief electoral officer on December 31, 2003, that the Friends of Michel Gauthier transferred $128,284 to the riding association. At least we should be ensuring that people will abide by the former legislation. But if we don't include provisions to that effect--and I do understand the point made by my friend, Jacques Saada--we will be giving people the greenlight. In other words, now I can wipe the slate clean and do everything according to the rules, since I really don't have much to be ashamed of. Everybody knows how poor I am.
However, with respect to previous contributions, I still believe we should at least abide by the previous legislation. Why would we want the major contribution made by the Foundation of the Friends of Michel Gauthier to remain a secret, when under the former legislation, all previous contributions were declared?
I won't say anything more about this. If we don't include that, I am prepared to withdraw this clause.
½ (1940)
[English]
The Chair: Geoff Regan on that, and then Joe Jordan.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, there's no indication that any such funds are necessarily illegal to begin with and have been received improperly. For example, we have the case of Dennis Mills, who had a farm aid concert. They put money in a trust account for that. They also had a trust fund for the Pope's visit.
People do things for other purposes. None of these trust funds are for purposes that you, I'm sure, would approve wholeheartedly. They may have to bring it in their association now, and not do it separately, or they may find some other way to do it.
I think it's unfair if you're looking at this thing as if everything about it is entirely nefarious. The point is that we're talking about something that's not illegal now. And we're talking about the intention of this law to go forward; it looks prospectively, not retrospectively. Let's bring it forward and get it done. We're creating a new system, which goes forward to produce a better system for our country.
The Chair: Joe Jordan.
Mr. Joe Jordan: It's true. Mr. Chair and Mr. Keddy, I agree with you that these trust funds are potentially a problem. I've worked with various NGOs to try to come up with a mechanism for getting them, and we couldn't. We couldn't because the money that.... I'm not concerned about third-party trust funds that pay an annuity based on interest to candidates. I'm concerned about a candidate who gets an unreceipted donation and slips it in a separate account. The money is untraceable now, so let's not kid ourselves about that. And trying to bring in a notion that we'll declare the stuff since 2000.... It's untraceable now, so unless you're going to subpoena the bank records and work your way through that microfiche, I don't think you'll be able to handle that.
Whether it's illegal or legal--and I'm not a lawyer, and that's not an apology--it depends on what you use the money for. If I suddenly pull that money out and buy myself a car, I suggest to you that that activity is illegal. If the money's sitting there, right now it's kind of a grey area, and we have to fix it. This approach that we're conceptually working toward says to the candidate that there's a bunch of money there that he or she has been able to stash away without paying tax on it, without giving receipts for it, and they don't know how much it is. A decision has to be made. Assuming they may want to use that for political purposes at some time, it should be given to their association, in which case it's traceable and trackable from now on, or they may be able to farm it out to themselves in little bits, to do it legally or do it illegally.
If somebody has that money and they're going to act illegally, we're never going to catch them under this bill. If there's a way of going at those trust funds, I'd support you, but I simply don't think there's a way to do it.
The Chair: Mr. Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: That is exactly my point. As I said before, I don't think we can go back prior to 2000. I disagree with you on that point. We can go back to 2000 on what's in the riding associations.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Trust funds or not, there's no way to access them. So we're going to grow and to depend upon the members' good will. I suspect there's not a trust fund.... I don't know if there are trust funds or not, quite frankly; I've never seen any. No one's told me beyond what you read in the press.
Since 2000, we all have responsibility to Elections Canada. If this bill is going to be in effect, I see no reason to delete this section. Now, if a riding association has a trust fund, it should be encompassed by this and they should bring that money in carte blanche, without a difficulty, without a penalty, if you will. But what has been put into a riding association since the year 2000, and I suspect that's a different account, should be viable under this bill.
I don't understand why we look, at least--to be fair to the committee--as if we're trying to hide it, because I don't think that's what we're trying to do. Trust funds, whether they occur or not, are immaterial to me; what's happened since 2000 is extremely material to me, if we're trying to revise this act.
½ (1945)
The Chair: Colleagues, I suggest we've had a good run at this one. You've all seen the note under G-44, and since CA-22 was negatived, I'm now going to call clause 71.
An hon. member: May we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: By all means.
(Clause 71 negatived: yeas 3; nays 9)
(Clause 72 agreed to)
(On clause 73)
The Chair: That brings us to PC-39, page 221.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I want to find it in the book, if I could. Give me one second.
The Chair: By all means. It's page 221.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm not going to find it in the book.
½ (1950)
The Chair: Okay, where is it? It's in the binder.
Go ahead, Mr. Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: This is simply a new clause that ensures, I think, the party system, all of the parties, that the Chief Electoral Officer will consult with the parties on the bill and its administration and interpretation to ensure there are no major difficulties, foreseen or unforeseen. I'm sure there will be more in the future. Some of this will have to be amended and changed slightly as we actually put it to work.
It's also been specified that there is the need for the electoral officer to consult with the parties on the text of both guidelines and the forms on an ongoing basis. I don't know exactly.... Regarding the administration and interpretation of the act in particular, he or she shall endeavour to consult on a draft text of both guidelines and prescribed forms before they are issued and, once issued, before changes are made.
I think we can expect, Mr. Chair, there will be changes made, amendments made, as we actually begin to apply this. That's all it's there for, that the parties will be consulted when this occurs.
The Chair: Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, my first comment is that this issue of consultation is outside the scope of the act.
The Chair: I do think this, at least the second part of it, appears to me to be beyond the scope of election financing. That's one.
The other thing I would like say about the first part--although I see that the representatives of the Green Party have gone, I think, the only non-parliamentary party that I've seen here today--is that there is, Gerald, an advisory committee to the Chief Electoral Officer, that this committee revived a year or so ago, and all the registered national parties, the federal parties, consult regularly with the Chief Electoral Officer through that committee.
If you really want to pursue it, I think there are parts of this that could count, but the other parts I think are outside the scope of the bill.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay, so what should be there then?
The Chair: I would say confine it to consulting on the part to do with the act. The act relates to finances.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Administration and interpretation.
The Chair: Yes, so you'd end at the semicolon.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chairman, may I?
The Chair: Let me.... I'm just talking to my colleague here.
Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): Act in this context would mean the entire Canada Elections Act.
The Chair: I've been given the interpretation, Gerald that.... I was thinking the act meant this bill, Bill C-24. If that is the case, if it is the Canada Elections Act, it's all outside the scope of the bill.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Well, I think that is outside the scope of the act, but let me comment--
The Chair: No, wait.
We are sure that's...?
Mr. James Robertson: This would be an amendment to the Canada Elections Act.
The Chair: Gerald, you'll excuse me, it's all out of order.
Amendment G-44a was carried, consequential to amendment G-8a.
We'll go to amendment G-45, page 222.
Mr. Stéphane Perrault: This was superceded by a motion we did along with the provincial and territorial divisions. It was, I believe, amendment G-44a. The clerk has the--
The Chair: So do you withdraw it?
You're not going to move it. Amendment G-45 is gone. It's like the money disappearing from Gerald's trust account.
We'll go to amendment G-46, page 224.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, this would add a new subsection 127(3.2) to prohibit the issuance of tax receipts by agents of an electoral district association until the financial agent of the EDA has been notified by the party's leader that the agents of the EDA are authorized to issue these tax receipts.
The Chair: Jacques Saada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I will be supporting this clause, but I still have a question.
Supposing there is a political party where the leadership is challenged, and an executive is elected. I can assure you that this can happen, not in the Bloc, perhaps, but in other parties at times. So, imagine the leadership is challenged and an executive is elected to bring about a change of leadership, and yet the leader refuses to issue the necessary authorization to recognize the agent. The association would be completely paralyzed. And yet it was not appointed by the leader; it was elected by the members.
In other words, by giving this discretionary power to the leader without any conditions attached to that power, is there not a danger that…
½ (1955)
[English]
The Chair: Would you like to answer that hypothetical question?
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Perrault: The registration of an association depends on the leader; if I'm not mistaken, the leader's authorization is required.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Supposing a leader is in place, and the association as well; that association is registered and is following all the rules, and under the circumstances, there would be no reason for deregistering it. That is not the issue. Over the years, the director of an association may change. However, the association is not deregistered; it's only the board of directors that changes.
I would like to know how, in a situation such as this, the members can be allowed to ensure that the association continues to operate, even if the leader decides that it won't.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: The leader of the party has to power to issue an authorization. As long as he is the leader and his power not been revoked, he has the right to do that.
Mr. Geoff Regan: The agent may change, but even the notification applies to the new agent.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Is responsibility automatically transferred from one agent to the other, or does every agent have to be appointed by the leader?
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: In fact, under this provision, the leader informs the financial agent, the head honcho of the association, of the fact that riding agents are authorized to sign. Within the riding, the financial agent is then the one to determine which riding agents will have the right to issue income tax receipts. He does not authorize them by name; he only authorizes the riding.
[English]
The Chair: May I interrupt?
I think this is the point. This week, there was a change in the Progressive Conservative Party. Where would, under the circumstances, the riding agents be waiting for new authorization? Because the authorization they received from the previous data still carries.
On the other hand, the new leader might next week write and say “You do not have it”. But as long as they have not received that, the old one will continue.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: That's correct.
The Chair: I think that answers your question.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Well, yes and no, Mr. Chairman.
I don't want to dwell too much on that. I think it's more a theoretical point, and I don't want to rush.... I'm not rushed, but we want to finish it.
The Chair: We don't want to rush through the bill. There's no sign of me rushing through this bill, Jacques.
Mr. Jacques Saada: My question is theoretical.
The leader of a party--and please don't get me wrong, I'm not targeting any party or any circumstance--
The Chair: It's a hypothetical case.
Mr. Jacques Saada: It's a very theoretical question.
A leader of a party is elected by the membership of a party. So is the riding association executive elected by the membership of a party. What gives precedence to one over the other?
The Chair: They say the law does.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Mr. Chair, at the moment, for an association to be registered it has to have the endorsement of the leader.
Mr. Jacques Saada: We agree on that. And maybe I don't understand, so be patient with me.
What I don't understand is once an association is registered, it's operational. It fulfills all the obligations under the law. There is a new election of directors at the riding association level, and because of a political problem, the leader can withdraw the authorization to issue receipts.
In other words, it's one tool in the hands of a leader to exercise pressure on the riding association to the detriment of the democratic vote expressed by the members to elect this executive. That's what I'm saying here. That's what I'm concerned about.
The Chair: Ted White, and then Dick Proctor.
Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm just wondering, what exactly is the purpose of this amendment, and who will check that the authorization letter has been issued? Can somebody please explain the purpose of this? I agree with Jacques, I can't see the purpose of it.
The riding association, in order to become registered, has to have the leader's agreement, so it's fulfilled all the legal requirements to become registered. It should then be able to issue tax receipts. So what is the purpose of this clause?
¾ (2000)
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. White will recall the testimony of some of the parties who appeared before us and expressed concern about associations having access to the tax receipts, wanting some way to make sure they handled them properly, that the parties themselves had a way to police it. This provides them with that mechanism.
The Chair: Dick Proctor.
Sorry, Ted.
Mr. Ted White: I was just going to say a better way to fix this would have been to make parties the only entity to issue tax receipts.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Well, that's cumbersome also. I know my experience is if you do it that way you can wait and wait while the party gets the benefit of the interest, and you don't get access to the money. So there's great attraction for some people in allowing the EDAs to have the power to issue tax receipts.
The Chair: Dick Proctor.
Mr. Dick Proctor: I think I'm okay, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 73 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 74)
The Chair: We'll move to amendment G-47, in the English only, page 226.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this would amend the English version of paragraph 230.1(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act to refer to “electoral district associations”, as is the case in the French version.
I doubt you want more explanation than that, but if you do, I'm happy to give it.
The Chair: No.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 74 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 75)
The Chair: We're now on amendment CA-23, page 227.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, I think this is self-explanatory. It just prevents the act from coming into force until January 1, 2005, so that we can spend a year and a half analysing all the problems and advising the government so that it can make last-minute changes before it comes into force.
The Chair: Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, it is the government's position that the bill should come into force January 1, 2004. We'd have a good six months to make the adjustments required, or thereabouts. We should be able to prepare for that in that time, to do the training required, etc.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: Next is amendment G-48, page 228.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Just a second, please, Mr. Chairman. I'm getting new information—incoming missives here.
The Chair: I would say, “Calling G-48, calling G-48. Over.”
Mr. Geoff Regan: “Missives”—information.
The Chair: We can ignore G-48, colleagues. Take G-48 out.
We'll go to PC-40.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, I'm ready—sorry.
The Chair: No, we understand you're going to do G-49 instead.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Oh, you want it out?
The Chair: You want it out.
We're on PC-40, page 230.
Gerald Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: The point of this amendment is to make sure this bill comes into force before the new electoral boundary changes, because it could possibly come into force after the electoral boundary changes.
We propose that clause 23 of the bill come into force after those changes, since clause 23, and that clause alone, deals with the riding associations, which would otherwise have to register with the coming into force. Then, they would automatically be deregistered—I think that's correct—when the changes take effect and would have to re-register again.
I think it's the easiest thing to do. We are going to have electoral boundary changes, whether some appeals go through or some don't go through. With this amendment, the riding associations would register once the electoral boundary changes are complete, and that wouldn't be until July of 2004.
I think that's a very good amendment. It would make sense to me.
¾ (2005)
The Chair: Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, some of us will recall that one of the things we've done already with this bill is make a change so that if we have existing ridings, with redistribution—for instance the South Shore, which isn't going to see a big change—they could take their existing registration and apply it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Geoff Regan: Hopefully, that won't be changed at all, if we have our way—
The Chair: Let's not go into detail. It's just an example.
Mr. Geoff Regan: —but even if it's changed slightly, even it's changed to become South Shore--St. Margaret's, it could still—
The Chair: We have no idea what you're talking about.
An hon. member: I do.
Mr. Geoff Regan: He does, and that's what counts.
The Chair: Let's come up with some generalized example here.
Mr. Geoff Regan: This is a generalized example, Mr. Chairman.
An hon. member: Take Peterborough.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Peterborough first? Then you'd be happy—is that what you're saying—if I used Peterborough?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay.
Mr. Geoff Regan: If a riding changes a little bit, the old riding association can just register as a new one with minimal requirements. The point is, you don't have to go through the whole process of starting up a new thing, because you can transfer the new one—
A voice: That's not how it works.
Mr. Geoff Regan: We made a change to do that. It was stood; we're bringing it forward.
The Chair: Could we give Gerald the chapter and verse to that, please? Could someone find it?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: When you take two riding associations and unite them, you have to give a full disclosure of the funds of both riding associations. You have to have a new inaugural meeting, obviously, but the issue becomes the money the riding associations hold.
For instance, in the past, when the Chester riding became Chester--St. Margaret's and I guess moved all the way down to Hubbards, the two riding associations involved would have to have a meeting. They'd decide who had the majority of the citizens. That's divided—
The Chair: Gerald, it's amendment G-7, on page 34 in the binder.
Mr. Geoff Regan: I think you'll see what we're talking about.
It's been stood, by the way; it hasn't been passed yet.
The Chair: Why don't we stand this one, then?
Mr. Geoff Regan: It's because we've had a discussion about the coming-into-force issue.
The Chair: Okay. Please, go ahead.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: To me, the importance here is—and I don't see why there's any resistance to it, quite frankly—that for any riding associations affected by boundary changes, when the changes take effect it would save them from having to deregister and register again.
The Chair: Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, we could discuss G-7 later. I think you'll find it would help solve some of the problem, in any event. But the government is opposed to this amendment, and the position of the government is that you come in to vote.
The Chair: I'll call PC-40.
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: It's now G-49, page 231.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this motion would amend clause 75 to provide that the bill will come into force on a specific date, January 1, 2004, and the reference to a six-month delay period is removed.
It would also exclude from this coming-into-force date subsections 49(1) and 49(2) and would provide for a one-year delay for the quarterly reports for parties.
¾ (2010)
The Chair: I'll call G-49.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 75 as amended agreed to)
The Chair: Colleagues, my suggestion now is—I know this is difficult for Ted White—that we could of course go on, and there are some clauses we've stood we could actually deal with. But I think it would be simpler if we had this 30-minute break that Ted has required now and come back.
So I am going to suspend until—
An hon. member: Do we really want to do that?
The Chair: He needs 30 minutes; he has asked for 30 minutes. That's fair enough. He has to go through seven or eight of these things, and he wants to do it in peace and quiet. I can understand that.
I was going to say 8:40 here, colleagues. Okay?
The meeting is suspended until 8:40.
¾ (2011)
¾ (2043)
The Chair: Colleagues, perhaps we could begin.
I do want to thank Ted White and others for working their way through these amendments. You should realize, though, that we're going to get at least some of them handwritten in English only. When we are working like this, members of committees are entitled to introduce amendments of this type, either in French or in English. I hope this will be okay. We will certainly read the ones concerned very carefully.
The other thing is that we have a meeting tomorrow at 3:30. We'll either be continuing what we're doing now, or we will be doing the second report on Bill C-24.
We're now going to proceed to the amendments for which we don't need Ted White's work.
I've been advised that amendments CA-1 and NDP-13 were negatived, so we can proceed to clause 13.
(Clause 13 agreed to)
The Chair: We now go to clause 14 on page 5 of the bill.
¾ (2045)
Mr. Joe Jordan: Didn't we address this?
The Chair: Amendment NDP-4 was withdrawn, but we just don't know why it was stood.
Mr. Joe Jordan: We stood it because we saw the wording they were replacing it with.
If my memory serves me well, when this amendment was first brought out it had the support of the committee. It was pointed out that it maybe wasn't in the right spot or that it had to be worked on. Rather than Dick withdrawing or defeating it, he stood it until he was comfortable that the government's replacement accomplished what he wanted.
The Chair: So I can call clause 14.
(Clause 14 agreed to)
(On clause 23)
The Chair: We're now on page 34 of the binder.
¾ (2050)
Mr. James Robertson: This was the one we talked earlier about. Mr. Keddy wanted to stop the constituency associations from having to comply with the reporting until after redistribution takes effect. This is the government's version, which is that there are only minimal changes they would--
The Chair: Gerald, can you hear this? So it's referring in fact to yours. This was the one we were talking about, where Geoff said there had been a discussion of your point.
Amendment G-7.
Mr. Geoff Regan: This would amend new proposed section 403.22. This would allow existing registered associations to continue their existence in a new district on the dissolution of their old district by the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, by sending a notice to the Chief Electoral Officer. It would also allow new electoral district associations to pre-register as soon as a proclamation is issued regarding a representation order. You wouldn't have to wait until it comes into effect, for instance, right? It would ensure that a deregistered association may transfer its funds to more than one electoral district association.
Now, what are the reasons for this?
The way the bill is drafted currently, all registered associations affected by a revision of electoral district boundaries would have to be deregistered. This amendment proposes to reduce an unnecessary bureaucracy. To simplify the regime for most EDAs, riding associations, the amendment would allow existing EDAs to be continued as new EDAs. It would also allow associations to pre-register before the coming into effect of a representation order. That's all for the purposes of this bill and this disclosure, etc.
With respect to continuation, the association and the party leader would simply provide notice to the CEO. Their assets and liabilities would all simply move with the association, but of course the party internally, Gerald, would probably require that you divide up your assets according to where the boundaries go, and so on. You know that stuff, right?
The pre-registration process allows other associations to pre-register, so they come into existence when a representation order comes into force. Deregistration of an old association would become the exception, as opposed to the rule, since deregistration would only occur if the old association failed to give notice to the CEO of its continued existence in a new district. So in the vast majority of cases you wouldn't have to go through the process of registering a whole new organization, but there would be a few cases like that.
For instance, in our province there will still be only eleven ridings. There shouldn't be any need to have a whole new registration. You would simply have them apply to the new boundaries, to the main part of the riding.
The Chair: You would need the registration, but not for this bill.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Right.
The Chair: Marlene Catterall.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Is there a provision anywhere that if two existing associations apply to be the registered association for a new riding under new boundaries, there's a process for the Chief Electoral Officer to make a decision on that? Or is that something that is left to the parties?
Mr. Geoff Regan: The leader decides that. In a dispute the leader would indicate which one it should be.
The Chair: Gerald Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I thought there was a process in place and I didn't think it was up to the individual parties.
Provincially, when riding associations change, and they do fairly often, you can't have one riding association or the other one. You take both executives. You form one riding association usually with the new name. If you have the riding association of Halifax West and the proportion of electors in Halifax West...if you have 80,000 electors and you have 10% of them, you get 10% of the funds in Halifax West. It could possibly be that there wouldn't be anyone on the association from those who are living inside your riding boundaries. That would be unusual, but it's not uncommon.
¾ (2055)
Mr. Geoff Regan: That's not directed by law; that's directed by the parties.
But, Gerald, the fact is, right up until now, EDAs didn't have to register, right? So EDAs were not really governed in terms of how they operated themselves. This regulates them to some degree, right?
I want you to look at the third new proposed subsection here.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'd like to finish my thought if I can.
The Chair: Yes, you have the floor.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I appreciate what you're saying, but it shouldn't be governing them to some degree. If we're revising the Canada Elections Act, then it should also deal, I would think, with the boundary changes, because you're dealing with disclosure of funds. For instance, if South Shore ends up with 88,000, 89,000, or 10,000 people and part of the riding of Halifax West, then the Conservative riding association in Halifax West would have to say, well, there are that many people, we have $10,000 in the bank, or whatever, you get a proportion of those funds. We have to disclose what's in the South Shore now. There's a new name and a new executive put in place.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Right, but the simple question really is this. That's an internal party matter, which the parties regulate. In fact, certainly our parties do, and I'm sure yours does too. It says you have to do that when the time comes. Why should the law have to regulate that? There's no particular benefit to be gained in terms of linkage in terms of the disclosure or influence from that. If you look at this new proposed subsection 403.22(3), you will see that you, and I quote, “may transfer goods or funds to the registered party with which it is affiliated”; that is, if it wants to be registered, for example, “or to any of its registered associations”.
The reason “any of its” is there, as I pointed out, is what you just talked about in terms of the way moneys are divided up. What I was saying is, you should be able to give your money not just to the new riding but also perhaps to that one and another one over here. It may go to three different associations. For instance, in my case, if we get the new boundaries as proposed, we'll have to give money for Halifax West, some for Sackville--Eastern Shore, as it will be called, some for Halifax, and some for South Shore--St. Margaret's, or South Shore as it may be called.
An hon. member: And none for Peterborough, though.
The Chair: Jacques, it's your turn now.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make one point for the benefit of my colleague.
The intention of the bill is to allow for contributions and expenses incurred to be recorded. If a registered association receives those contributions, they should be recorded. What happens to that money afterwards does not concern this bill; that is a matter of internal management. Of course, the ridings that receive these contributions would have to declare them as part of their own income.
That is no longer in violation of the legislation.
[English]
The Chair: Can I call the vote on amendment G-7?
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: Can we go down to Jordan L-1 on page 41 in the binder?
Is it withdrawn? It's withdrawn.
We'll go to amendment PC-14, page 51 in the binder.
¿ (2100)
Ms. Susan Baldwin: That one should be negatived because it was replaced. The government worked out the wording in amendment G-10b.
The Chair: Okay, on amendment G-10b, page 74.3 in the binder, my understanding is that Gerald replaced this. It should replace amendment PC-14, page 51.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Where are you, Mr. Chair? Could you tell me the pages?
The Chair: Yes, we're looking at page 51, which we are considering, and we're looking forward to page 74.3.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, I have the revised wording of page 74.3.
The Chair: Yes, but they just want to find the page.
The main point is that Gerald gets it, because it's his amendment.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's changing it to $25 from $50.
The Chair: Do you want to speak to that?
Mr. Geoff Regan: I'd just like to read it so that everybody hears the new wording, because I have it all messed up here.
It says:
| That Bill C-24, in clause 24, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 26 the following: |
| Exception |
| (6) The payment by an individual during a year of fees of not more than $25 per year in relation to a period of not more than 5 years for membership in a registered party is not a contribution. |
The Chair: Is amendment PC-14 withdrawn or negatived?
Ms. Susan Baldwin: It's negatived...or withdrawn.
The Chair: It's negatived; it's gone.
We're on amendment CA-5, page 53, and we're now dealing with your material.
Mr. Ted White: Actually, though, we need to do amendment CA-9 first, and then amendment CA-5 will be consequential. You could go to amendment CA-9.
The Chair: Okay. Could you give us the page number in the binder?
Mr. Ted White: Well, you have it on your desk.
The Chair: Thank you.
Okay, this is amendment CA-9a, a handwritten item, replacing amendment CA-9, it says at the top.
Just a minute. Can I give Ted a chance to speak?
Mr. Jacques Saada: Just before the vote on the--
Ms. Marlene Catterall: On a point of order, this was distributed to us not translated. My deputy whip, a member of our committee, has graciously provided a translation.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Jacques Saada: I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that we have it either typed or rewritten more neatly so it can be handed out.
The Chair: By all means. Is someone writing it?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: The translation is ready; I just need someone to write it out properly. If you can wait two or three minutes, I can do it.
[English]
The Chair: Okay, who has good writing here?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, so we don't delay debate, could other amendments be moved in the meantime? Could we jump to CA-9a?
[English]
The Chair: I think we need this one. It's kind of to break the log-jam of these others.
I think we should suspend for a few minutes to get that written out properly and to get it copied in Marlene's office.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: My translation will not be absolutely official.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Can we go to another one while you're suspending that one?
The Chair: We'll find one.
Colleagues, I'm not going to suspend; I'm going to continue. We're going to find the next one that we can deal with, if that's all right.
Thanks, Jacques.
Dick Proctor.
Mr. Dick Proctor: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, still with clause 23, there was amendment NDP-11a.
I had a package of five amendments that basically dealt with disclosure for a registered association, leadership candidates, nomination--
The Chair: We're still on--
Mr. Dick Proctor: Clause 23.
The Chair: No, we're working on clause 22, but we jumped--
Mr. Dick Proctor: No, we're on clause 23.
¿ (2105)
The Chair: I understand that, but we didn't finish clause 22. So do you want to just discuss clause 23 generally?
We didn't finish clause 22, because Ted said we should go on to this part of clause 23 before we come back to clause 22.
Mr. Dick Proctor: All I want to serve notice on, Mr. Chair, is that there was a package of five amendments. One of them was withdrawn because the government came in with an amendment, but there were still four others that I don't think have been dealt with.
I don't know if you have those or not, but I have amendments NDP-7a, NDP-16, NDP-17, and--
The Chair: Could you give us some page numbers?
Mr. Dick Proctor: On page 51.1--
The Chair: Yes, amendment NDP-7a is not moved.
Mr. Dick Proctor: I think the one on page 121.22 is the one that was dealt with.
Then, on page 140.2--
The Chair: Okay, here we are. Amendment NDP-7a was not moved. It's consequential to amendment NDP-4. Is that the one you meant?
Mr. Dick Proctor: I thought the one that was dealt with out of that was the one on which the government had come back with an amendment--I don't know if it was amendment G-4. That's amendment NDP-11a, which is on page 121.2.
But I thought we hadn't dealt with amendments NDP-7a, NDP-15, NDP-16, and NDP-17.
The Chair: So amendment NDP-11a, which is on page 121.2 of the binder, was withdrawn. But your point now is that requires us to look at amendment NDP-7a, which I have marked as not moved, which probably means you didn't move it...or I didn't move it.
Ms. Susan Baldwin: Amendment NDP-7a is consequential to amendment NDP-4, as are most of the rest of the ones you mentioned. Amendment NDP-11a is also consequential to amendment NDP-4, and amendments NDP-15 and NDP-16 are as well.
Instead, we took amendment G-10b. So those would be taken care of already.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes, except that, as I understand it, the government motion that replaced amendment NDP-11a only deals with party, and the other ones are providing for returns for candidates and those running for nomination and early disclosure.
The Chair: We'll go to Geoff Regan on this.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I think the government felt that the parties have the wherewithal to comply quite easily with the quarterly reporting. They have lots of computer systems and people working on this stuff, in most cases, and they can do this quarterly fairly easily, whereas the other groups to which this motion would apply would have a much more difficult time. It would make it more onerous on them, and the government is opposed to this amendment.
The Chair: Now this is--by the way, we're dealing with several amendments. Is any of this on NDP-7a?
Mr. Geoff Regan: We're supposed to be doing this to all these other groups, other participants aside from the national parties. The national parties, yes, they should have to report quarterly. We've done that, but in terms of candidates and riding associations, etc., we think it's an onerous burden.
The Chair: Dick thinks they're not consequential. You think they are, but he says they mention other aspects of the electoral process.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Oh, we can vote on them.
The Chair: Yes, that's right.
Thank you very much, Joe. Thank you very much, Geoff. I really appreciate it.
Mr. Geoff Regan: We're on your side.
The Chair: This is very kind.
I propose we vote on them.
So this is page 51.1 of the binder, NDP-7a.
Mr. Dick Proctor: This is in clause 23, after line 23 on page 20. It reads as follows:
| The financial agent of a registered association shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a return that includes the information required under paragraphs 451(2)(f), (g), (h), (h.1) and (i) one week before the day set for polling day. |
The rationale, Mr. Chair, is that this ensures that money received by an association prior to the writ being dropped is actually disclosed. It provides a period of four weeks from the start of the election campaign to the week prior to the vote to allow the association to prepare that disclosure.
(Amendment negatived)
(On clause 40)
¿ (2110)
The Chair: We'll now go to your next one, Dick, which is....
Mr. Dick Proctor: It would be NDP-15, page 140.2.
The Chair: It's on page 140.2.
Ms. Susan Baldwin: No, I thought it was NDP-11a.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Well, that one I thought was dealt with.
Ms. Susan Baldwin: Okay.
The Chair: Good.
Mr. Dick Proctor: It's the one the government came in with the amendment on.
The Chair: Page 140.2 in the binder, colleagues.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Sorry, but this one has jumped over to clause 40. Do you want to continue dealing with it?
The Chair: I think there's a logic here, don't you?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes, okay.
So this would amend clause 40 by replacing line 27 on page 48 with the following: “Officer within 30 days after the end of the”.
Mr. Geoff Regan: What page in the book?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Sorry, page 140.2.
The Chair: It's way ahead, NDP-15.
Go ahead, Dick, please.
Mr. Dick Proctor: The rationale is that leadership races already have disclosures up until two weeks prior to the vote, and this would change the post-vote disclosure from six months to one month.
The Chair: Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, are you sure this hasn't been defeated already?
The Chair: No, it has not been moved, so I think he's right. We do have a consequential amendment to NDP-4, which was withdrawn and therefore wasn't moved.
Mr. Geoff Regan: The government is opposed to this motion, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: We understand that.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: What's the next one, Dick?
Mr. Dick Proctor: It's NDP-16.
The Chair: That's on page 156.1, everyone.
Mr. Dick Proctor: That's correct.
The Chair: Okay, it has not been moved.
Dick, go ahead, NDP-16.
(On clause 44)
Mr. Dick Proctor: Well, this is in clause 44. The following should be added after line 47 on page 57:
| (2.3) The financial agent of a candidate shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a return that includes the information required under paragraphs 451(2) (f), (g), (h), (h.1) and (i) one week before the day set for polling day. |
This would provide for reporting of donors prior to the vote taking place, but note that there would be another report filed four months after the vote. So this is a preliminary report only of moneys received one week prior to election day.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 44 agreed to)
The Chair: What is the next one, Dick?
Mr. Dick Proctor: The next and the last is found on page 181.1.
The Chair: Turn to page 181.1 of the binder.
(On clause 57)
Mr. Dick Proctor: It's NDP-17, which is exactly the same as the previous one except it deals with nomination races and has a filing date four months after the vote. It provides for an early review of donations before the actual nomination race takes place. I would so move.
¿ (2115)
The Chair: Thank you, Dick.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: I can't call clause 57 because there's a Canadian Alliance amendment still to be considered.
We go back now to PC-15 on clause 23. That is page 54 of the binder.
Ted White.
(On clause 23)
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the areas that will be impacted by the more comprehensive CA-9a, which then has consequences through CA-5, CA-11, CA-14--
The Chair: So, logically, we'll wait, Gerald.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.
The Chair: What else can we do?
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Have we done G-10b?
The Chair: Let's go to PC-16, Ted. I only say Ted in case--
Mr. Ted White: No.
The Chair: PC-16 is page 56 of the binder.
Gerald, it's on page 56.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay, I just need to find it in the book. It refers to page 20 in the bill, line 37.
Mr. Geoff Regan: It may be consequential, Mr. Chairman. It's dependent on the fate of PC-11 on page 46.
The Chair: Let Gerald at least introduce it.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Of course.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think it's obvious here that Rick was trying to increase that number from $200 to $500. I see no reason not to do so. It reads, as amended:
| the name of the contributor of a contribution of more than $10, the name or the address of the contributor having made contributions of a total amount of more than $500 |
I think it just gives a little leeway to the financial agent and it probably actually makes life a little easier, I would expect. You're still disclosing the name. For the lower amount you're disclosing the name only. That's all you're asked to provide. If it's over $500, it's the name and the address.
The Chair: Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan: We are at PC-6, right?
The Chair: We're at PC-16, page 56.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, I want to suggest to you that the fate of this motion should depend on the fate of PC-11 on page 46, which was--
The Chair: Which was defeated.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Therefore, if this one isn't consequential, it should be defeated.
The Chair: PC-16 is negatived because it depends on PC-11.
(Amendment negatived)
Mr. Gerald Keddy: What happened? Was it defeated?
¿ (2120)
The Chair: That's right, it was defeated.
We're going to CA-9.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Just a second, please.
The Chair: Just a second, everyone, we're waiting for Jacques Saada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: First of all, I just want to let everyone know that I am not guaranteeing the accuracy of this translation, although I do think it is fairly correct.
Now, in terms of the French version, I didn't have time to determine what the equivalent lines would be in French. All I did is translate the English. I can't guarantee you that it really is line 5. We will have to check and see what line it is in French. People have to be able to follow.
[English]
The Chair: Okay. We do understand that.
We're going to Canadian Alliance amendment number 9.
Ted White.
Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A minor correction needs to be made on both the French and English versions. It should be “Clause 24” not “Clause 23”. Please alter it to read this way.
The Chair: So in the first line, “in Clause 23” should read “in Clause 24”.
Mr. Ted White: On the English version you also need to add the page number, which is page 27. So it should read “Bill C-24, in Clause 24,...on page 27”.
One final minor change--we have the words “be amended”--and the (a) you see, again in the English version in front of the next line, should be just before the word “by”, so it reads “Bill C-24, in Clause 24, on page 27 be amended (a) by replacing line 5 with the following”, and then it reads on.
This deals with the situation where you're doing some sort of solicitation at a fundraising event or a meeting where you pass the hat, or you have some other minor event going on, raffle tickets or something, where you're getting minor donations. For anything $25 or less no receipt has to be issued, but the person authorized to accept the donations on behalf of the registered party, the registered association, the candidate, or a leadership or nomination contestant must record a description of the function at which the contributions were collected, the date of the function, the number of people at the function, and the total amount of anonymous contributions collected.
I think this complies with what the government was requesting in terms of recording, in case you collect $1,000 or $500 in the hat. It records the event and all of the things that went into it, but it doesn't require individual receipts for anything under $25.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think that wraps it up, probably not too badly.
I have a question. If it's a description of the function at which the contributions were collected--whether it was your annual picnic or whatever--the date and the number of people, shouldn't it be approximately? Many times you have functions for which, if you sell tickets, it's one thing, but if it's an open function, you may have 265 or you may have 250.
I'm just wondering if it's an approximate number of people. I'd sooner have the word in there. Then we don't have to worry about it.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Whatever. Do you want the word “approximate”?
Mr. Ted White: I don't mind.
I should mention that this particular part of the amendment is directly from the B.C. legislation. They don't have the word “approximate” in there, but we can make our own rules, so what the heck.
Mr. Geoff Regan: We're doing it, Gerald. It's a go.
It's a friendly amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: It's a friendly amendment and I'm looking around.
Mr. Geoff Regan: It would be the “approximate” number of people at the function.
The Chair: Yes. We have that.
I'm now looking around, colleagues. Are we okay?
It's a friendly amendment. It's agreed. What we're looking at....
¿ (2125)
Mr. Geoff Regan: Hold it, Mr. Chairman.
What's being suggested is that we say “the number of people believed to be at the function”.
The Chair: I have to confess that it doesn't strike me as being the same as “approximate” at all, but I'm easy.
Mr. Ted White: In English it is “a reasonable estimate of the number of people would be”.
The Chair: Hang on a minute. We're looking for a simple friendly amendment here. I think “approximate” was fine.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have no problem. Actually, I think “approximate” is fine.
The Chair: We'll go with “approximate”.
Colleagues, the friendly amendment is the “approximate number of people at the function”.
Marlene Catterall.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm getting silly, I think, or suspicious.
Is it worth saying “where anonymous contributions of $25 per person or less”?
Mr. Geoff Regan: We've already dealt with the fact that if you give $26, you're over the limit.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Didn't we deal with the $25 already? If it's more than $25, you're supposed to claim it. That's a given.
Mr. Geoff Regan: We already dealt with it elsewhere.
The Chair: Colleagues....
Mr. Geoff Regan: One second. We have issues in the French, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Can we deal with the French?
The translation Mr. Saada has provided has a small change.
[Translation]
He is proposing to replace line 11.
[English]
Then we should pick up the language that is already in the bill and change $10 to $25.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Michel Roy (Procedural Clerk): This is not an official translation. We will check everything to be sure that the beginning and the end of each line correspond.
Mr. Jacques Saada: If there are any mistakes in French, I would like to be told.
[English]
The Chair: Is that okay?
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: That will be $25 per mistake.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, could I come back to that?
The Chair: Okay. Do you want to speak to CA-9a as amended?
A voice: You mean amendment CA-9.
The Chair: Amendment CA-9a is the handwritten one that we're looking at. Amendment CA-9 is the one it's replacing.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good solution to this issue.
The Chair: That's fine.
Ted White.
Mr. Ted White: Before we vote on this, I would say that there are consequential amendments that will flow from the passage of this. Everywhere else in the bill, where we have amendments to change the $10 figure, it will go to $25.
The Chair: Okay. It's Marlene Catterall, then Jacques Saada.
Marlene Catterall.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: I don't think it was in fact so frivolous, Mr. Chair. I think it does have to say $25 per person. It could be read and interpreted to mean a total of $25. It's safer.
The Chair: Okay, colleagues, you understand that then.
In (d) it's going to read that the total amount of anonymous contributions under $25 is accepted.
Is that not the place?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: It's $25 per person.
Mr. Ted White: It's “$25 or less per person are collected in response to”.
The Chair: Sorry, I was in the wrong place in the text.
Mr. Ted White: It is $25 or less per person.
The Chair: It is “$25 or less per person” in the middle of the text.
Colleagues, as amended, can I call CA-9a?
(Amendment as amended agreed to)
The Chair: Can we proceed?
We're going to proceed to the consequential ones.
Gerald Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chairman, do we have to deal with the consequential amendments? Aren't they automatic when we pass this amendment everywhere else in the act?
The Chair: I'm in Ted White's hands. I'm in Susan's hands. I'm in everybody's hands.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: The $25 runs throughout the act. We don't have to deal with those.
The Chair: It's worth going through.
Ted White.
Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do have the list of the amendments with the page numbers in the manual. If people feel more comfortable going through them, we can do them.
The first one is amendment CA-5 on page 53 in the binder.
¿ (2130)
The Chair: Do you want to move it?
Ms. Susan Baldwin: No, it's automatic. We're only checking to make sure.
Mr. Ted White: The next one is amendment CA-11 on page 122 in your binder. You'll see that it's $50 and it goes to $25.
The Chair: It's $25.
Mr. Ted White: The next one is amendment CA-14 on page 141 of the binder.
The Chair: Do you see it there on page 141? It's $25.
Mr. Ted White: Then the next one is amendment CA-16 on page 157 of the binder.
The Chair: It's contributions of more than $25, not $50.
Mr. Ted White: The last one is amendment CA-20 on page 183 of the binder.
The Chair: It's contributions of more than $50. It's $25.
Mr. Ted White: Those are all the consequential amendments that we have listed.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
(Clause 23 agreed to)
The Chair: Now we go to clause 24.
We'll forget amendment G-10b. That takes me down to clause 24.
Shall clause 24 carry?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Whoa!
The Chair: Yes. Is someone speaking to me?
Dick, what is it?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes. Before we pass clause 24...I know we've dealt with it. I guess I'm begging the indulgence of the committee to have a look at the definition of “trade union” on page 25 of the bill.
(On clause 24)
The Chair: On page 25 of the bill, colleagues, is the definition of “trade union”.
Mr. Dick Proctor: You'll see the definition at the top of the page. Ted White referred to it earlier when my motion came up and was defeated.
I'm sorry that I didn't have this information when my motion came up and was defeated, but I want you to listen to the last few words of the definition of trade union in the bill, “together with all of its branches or locals”, in relation to the definition in the Canada Labour Code:
| “trade union” means any organization of employees, or any branch or local thereof, the purposes of which include the regulation of relations between employers and employees; |
If we included the first part of that definition, and deleted “together with all of its branches or locals”, I think it would be in the spirit of the Canada Labour Code, which we find in the explanation on clause 23. It says, “The definition of trade union in this section reflects the definition found in the Canadian labour code.” I would submit, with respect, that it does not--but it should. So I'm asking consideration to delete “together with all of its branches or locals”.
¿ (2135)
The Chair: Geoff Regan, and then your officials.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I heard the words “branches or locals”, but I think we had this discussion previously in general terms and came to a conclusion on it.
The Chair: Is it not simply a drafting matter?
Mr. Geoff Regan: No. First of all, Mr. Chairman, the Canada Labour Code, of course, is a piece of legislation for a different purpose than this piece of legislation. And the intention of the government is--
The Chair: I understand that. But just for my information, does this simply rephrase the paragraph rather than changing the sense of the legislation?
Mr. Geoff Regan: I think it does change it.
The Chair: There's more to it, so it means something different?
Mr. Geoff Regan: In my view, it changes the application of the bill.
The Chair: Jacques Saada and then Lynn Myers.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the argument made by my colleague. However, amending the language for unions to reflect what has just been read, but not doing the same for businesses, their subsidiaries and their branches would create an imbalance that I don't think would be advisable.
I understand his argument; however, I maintain that under the circumstances, the decision we made was the right one.
[English]
The Chair: Lynn Myers.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, could Mr. Proctor read it again?
Mr. Dick Proctor: According to the Canada Labour Code, the definition of trade union in English means:
| any organization of employees, or any branch or local thereof, the purposes of which include the regulation of relations between employers and employees; |
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, it's just changing where branches or locals are inserted in the text. Frankly, I don't see that as a problem.
The Chair: Geoff Regan, that's what I was trying to get at. If it makes a difference, you should tell us.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, the drafter used the words “together with”, which are in the bill but not in the labour code, to make it clear that they are grouped as one organization in the same way that the Royal Bank and all its branches, or a company and its subsidiary groups, or a family of companies, are all one.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: This would actually change that definition to give them individual status.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Right. He wants to change that so that the locals are all able to give.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Just the way they do now.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Except the branches of banks and--
Mr. Dick Proctor: Oh, yes, but there's no question about who is going to....
A voice: It was defeated?
Mr. Geoff Regan: I know it was defeated. Really, I don't know why we're discussing it.
The Chair: We're discussing it out of courtesy.
Dick, do you want to make one more...? I don't know where to proceed at this point, because, as you understand, I was hoping there was going to be some sort of agreement that it would change and it wouldn't be a big deal. If it is a reasonably big deal, we have dealt with it, we know that....
An hon. member: All we know is the definition.
The Chair: Page 77, PC-20.
¿ (2140)
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Before we move on to another amendment, can I ask a question about the subsection we were just talking about, right under the definition of trade union?
The Chair: Again, is this out of courtesy, or what?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes, it's out of courtesy, if you don't mind.
The Chair: This is awful. This is just the thin edge of the wedge. I'm going to disappoint you now, but there's no food coming at 11 o'clock. I was joking.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: That's fine. I have champagne chilling in my fridge. I'm serious, I have champagne chilling in my fridge, so whenever we're finished....
I'm looking for some reassurance, because I think we've always been pretty sticky about how contributions can't come from outside the country. I want to make sure we're not broadening it here. It says here that if you're “a corporation that does not carry on business in Canada”, but you can carry on business in Canada and be located in Japan. You can be a trade union that holds bargaining rights for employees in Canada, theoretically, and be a totally American trade union.
The Chair: This is page 25 of the bill.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: I want the assurance that we're not opening up a door here.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: We're not changing anything in the act. If you look at 3(b), it says “a trade union that does not hold bargaining rights for employees”.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: It can be a totally American union as long as it bargains for Canadian employees? It can be a totally Japanese corporation as long as it does business in Canada?
Mr. Geoff Regan: For example, the head office of the Laborers International Union of North America is in the U.S., but it certainly has locals in Canada. Is there some reason why it shouldn't, as a union, be able to make a contribution?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: That is less of a problem maybe than a corporation carrying on business in Canada. They may do nothing here except sell a product.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Isn't that carrying on business? They hire sales people, employees....
Mr. Geoff Regan: Remember, it's a $1,000 limit on what they can give. Keep that in mind. If Toyota Canada has a Japanese parent, for example, how worried are we that it's going to give $1,000 total in Canada, particularly when for the limit we're requiring that it be operating in Canada, have actual operations?
The Chair: We're going to go to PC-20, which is page 77. It was stood, but in fact it has been negatived or made irrelevant by CA-9a.
Gerald.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't know if it has, because the Canadian Alliance changed...does it change everything? We just went through and accepted the changes to the Canadian Alliance amendments, but we didn't go through the bill and the other amendments, and if it's going to be consequential to everywhere in the bill, then we didn't have to go through them all one by one.
The Chair: Nevertheless, you can't move it, Gerald, because there's a line conflict and we've dealt with that line.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's fine then. So everywhere where it says $10, or $50, or $25, it's $25.
(Clause 24 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 25)
The Chair: Now we go to Parrish L-3. This is page 77.1 dealing with clause 25.
Carolyn Parrish.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Before we throw this thing out, first of all, I think we have agreement to go from ten to five. What we don't have is agreement to then parcel it out in $1,000 packages, so no single donation should exceed $1,000. I'm getting grief from my own side on this, so if there's some way of rewording (b) and (c) to have that concept that you can't give the whole $5,000 to one association....
Perhaps if they want to give a one-time donation of $5,000 to the party, that's acceptable, but to individual candidates and riding associations, it shouldn't exceed $1,000. We're talking about $1,000 being acceptable for corporations, so that seems to be a number in our heads that doesn't buy undue influence. Five thousand dollars from a wealthy individual, in my opinion, to one candidate buys undue influence.
So I would really like us to try to work this around so that if you want to do $5,000 to a party, great, but it shouldn't exceed $1,000 going to an individual or a riding association.
¿ (2145)
The Chair: Colleagues, I would point out that the version we're considering is one where each of the $250s is replaced by $1,000. We did that by hand.
Ted White.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, I'm opposed to this, because I certainly raise numerous donations that are over $1,000, and I work hard for those, so I'm not prepared to have that.
The Chair: Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, the government is opposed to this amendment, but in fact it will be accepting BQ-10, which you'll see on page 79, which is certainly a related one. I think in our view that's the way to do this, to lower the limit to $5,000, and then we'll have a separate issue to raise for the consideration of the members that's related to that.
The Chair: Do you want me to call this, Carolyn?
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes.
The Chair: I'm going to call PL-3, page 77.1. Those in favour, please show.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Hold it, I'm being coached.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: I was suggesting, Mr. Chair, that it seems to me every party around the table has had an amendment approved, or the member of every party, but not of the Liberal Party yet. I was wondering if we couldn't agree to allow Carolyn to amend hers to take out that lower limit. All she's doing is dropping the upper limit on the individual contribution from $10,000 to $5,000 and everything else comes out.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: She's just being really nice to me.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: The Bloc has had an amendment adopted, the NDP has....
The Chair: They've done the same as everybody else.
I'm going to call this one.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: No, don't.
The Chair: Don't call it? You're going to withdraw?
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: No, I'm not.
The Chair: We'll just sit here and wait.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'm going to filibuster.
I'm going to amend it. Help me here.
A hon. member: You'll have better luck with BQ-10.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I don't want to do BQ-10. You guys have gotten all kinds of amendments all day.
Can I co-sponsor BQ-10? If I withdraw this, can I co-sponsor BQ-10?
The Chair: On a friendly basis?
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: On a friendly basis.
The Chair: Why not?
PL-3 is withdrawn. We now go to BQ-10 on page 79.
Caroline.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Chairman…
[English]
The Chair: Excuse me, BQ-10, co-sponsored by Carolyn Parrish.
Mr. Geoff Regan: I thought we could go back to Bryden. If we don't deal with Bryden--
The Chair: It was negatived.
Mr. Geoff Regan: It was?
The Chair: According to me. Consequential on.... I have it as being negatived; gone.
BQ-Parrish-10.
Jacques Saada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: I will ask my regular question, which you have probably already guessed. What happens to the caps for territorial divisions? Will it be distributed? Perfect.
[English]
The Chair: Those in favour of BQ-Parrish-10?
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Congratulations to all concerned.
Next.
There was a line conflict in Bryden-3 and that's gone.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I have a related amendment. I mentioned this earlier.
The Chair: Yes, you did. Do we all have it? It's coming.
Stéphane, you can circulate that.
Joe, yours is gone. The Jordan 5 is gone, this one.
Ms. Susan Baldwin: NDP-10 cannot be put because of a line conflict.
The Chair: A line conflict with Bryden.
Dick, are you okay with that? We just carried BQ-10. That's gone. NDP-10 and NDP-11 are gone.
We are now going to look at this additional amendment, which is being circulated as we speak.
(On clause 25)
¿ (2150)
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, should I say what is the purpose of this amendment?
The Chair: No, will you mention where it fits, please?
Mr. Geoff Regan: It would fit in clause 25 after line 29 on page 27, so it would be right after the last line of the amendment we just made.
The Chair: Say that more precisely, Geoff.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Sorry, let me say that again. It's in clause 25, and it would be adding after line 29 on page 27.
The Chair: Page 27 of the bill, line 29--
Mr. Geoff Regan: It would be after (2), the following: “(4) The following contributions shall not be taken into account”--
The Chair: Why is it (4) and not (3) if it's following (2)?
Mr. Stéphane Perrault: Because there are other motions including a (3).
Mr. Geoff Regan: There is a new (3) somewhere else, right. We've already got this.
The Chair: Right. As chair I should have known that.
Mr. Geoff Regan: What this would do, Mr. Chairman, is it would allow that a candidate, himself or herself, could, because of this provision, make a contribution of $10,000. In other words, these provide that the first $5,000 doesn't count if it's a candidate giving it to himself, or her own or his own campaign. The idea is that we're less concerned about this where a candidate is influencing himself or herself. That's the point. If we're worried about influence, we aren't worried if the payment is to himself or herself.
The Chair: It's Gerald Keddy, then Caroline St-Hilaire, and then Jacques Saada.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm more concerned about this subsection (1) and the fact that in (4) it says, “The following contributions shall not betaken into account in calculating contributionsfor the purposes of subsection (1)”, and then you go on to say “contributions that do not exceed the $5,000”. So my question, without reading the entire page of the bill, is, does the first $5,000 of your own money then not count in your total? That's just wrong. You can't do that, because you're extending the spending limit then by $5,000.
The Chair: Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this section deals with contributions, not with spending, and it's how much a candidate can contribute to his or her own campaign. It all gets reported. It all gets reported still, but it's how much you're allowed to contribute.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: So that's replacing the $10,000 in total.
Mr. Geoff Regan: We've already replaced the $10,000 total with $5,000. In Bloc BQ-10 all those $10,000s are now $5,000s. We're saying, though, that--
Mr. Gerald Keddy: But my question specifically is to make sure that it's counted in the total.
The Chair: It's not extra, and you say--
Mr. Geoff Regan: It means you get a free $5,000, only it's not free because you have to report it towards your spending limit and all that stuff. It's just in terms of how much you can give as a candidate, himself or herself.
The Chair: Caroline, and then Jacques Saada, and then Ted White.
Mr. Geoff Regan: What it means is we've lowered the limits for all individuals except the candidates themselves who stay at $10,000. That would be the effect of it, if you want it to be the case. The government is open to your view on it.
The Chair: Are you okay on that, Ted?
Caroline.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Based on my understanding of your last comment, what this means is that as a candidate, the maximum contribution someone could make to his or her own campaign would be $10,000.
An hon. Member: That's correct.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: But isn't true that only people who are well-off could afford to make that kind of contribution to their campaign?
Mr. Jacques Saada: There has to be some protection. Supposing you borrowed money for your campaign. You could borrow up to $10,000 from yourself and pay that money back without violating the legislation.
¿ (2155)
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: That would become a contribution.
Mr. Jacques Saada: No, because you are entitled to your own contribution of $10,000. However, you are limited to a loan of $5,000, and you will automatically be doing something illegal if you have to repay any additional amount. Even when you borrow from the bank, there is greater security.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: So, if this is a loan rather than a contribution, it's at the party level. It's not a personal loan. It can be a loan from the party.
However, with respect to people who want to fund their own campaign with their own money, by providing for a limit of $10,000, we are giving one segment of the population that is better off a certain advantage. I want to be sure we don't forget that.
[English]
The Chair: Yes, it's Jacques Saada now, Guy St-Julien, and then Dick Proctor.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: I have two points to make.
Ms. St-Hilaire, supposing I don't have much money but I want to run. In principle, I will of course be hoping to be reimbursed, and so on. So, I am going to need $10,000 to begin with. I go out and borrow the money, so that is money that I owe personally. If the amount exceeds the contribution cap, because it is considered to be my own individual contribution to my campaign then I will… That is the reasoning, right?
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Not necessarily.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Absolutely.
Second, although I have a great deal of admiration for the people who drafted this thing, I see no reason why it has to be so complicated, when all we are trying to say is that a nomination contestant or leadership candidate can contribute no more than $10,000 to his or her own campaign. It would be so much simpler to just say that, rather than saying that…
[English]
The Chair: Stéphane.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Perrault: There are annual limits and there are limits specific to certain events, such as leadership raises. So, we had to deal with them separately.
Because we already have a provision, in proposed clause 404.2, that says that any amount invested towards a campaign is a contribution, in order to keep it at $10,000, we said we wouldn't count the first $5,000, but we would count the second $5,000. That brings us to $10,000. That is how the legal drafters arrived at this.
Mr. Jacques Saada: In any case, it doesn't matter.
[English]
The Chair: Guy St-Julien, Dick Proctor, and then Gerald Keddy.
Guy.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Ms. St-Hilaire of the Bloc Québecois asked a question earlier with respect to the $10,000 amount. I looked at information on the Internet regarding the election expense accounts of all 75 Quebec MPs for the last election campaign, and I remember that 56% of Bloc MPs borrowed $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000. So, I see no problem with an amount of $10,000. I personally invested $40,000 in my own campaign. So, the fact is that 56% of Bloc MPs either borrowed or themselves deposited $20,000 in their accounts.
[English]
The Chair: Dick Proctor, and then Gerald Keddy.
Mr. Dick Proctor: I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the Bloc deputy. I think this does, to some degree, create an unlevel playing field. Mr. White has referred to this bill from time to time as an incumbent protection bill and I think this proposed amendment reinforces that notion. I think $5,000 should be the limit and it should apply to everyone.
The Chair: Gerald.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm looking for a point of clarification. As it stands right now, I would tend to agree with Caroline.
The Chair: Colleagues, colleagues.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: As this exists now, I thought there was still a $5,000 cap on it. But under paragraph (a) it's “in total in any calendar year” by a nomination contestant or candidate of a registered party out of her own funds to her own campaign. I would support this motion if “in any calendar year” were struck and it was just simply “a total of $5,000”. If somebody wants to put $5,000 in their own campaign, I don't have any difficulty with that. That's up to them. It's registered money and it's in the riding association. But if you could put $5,000 a year in it, that's I think the opposite direction of where this bill would trying to go.
The Chair: Geoff, you heard that. There was a suggestion of a change.
I have Lynn Myers and then Guy St-Julien.
À (2200)
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I want to make the point that right now it's unlimited. I could put a million dollars in, if I had it and wanted it. This is at least putting constraints on, and I think it can be supported.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Let's talk about people who borrowed $15,000, $20,000 or $40,000 in the 2000 campaign, and put that loan directly towards their campaign, with no contribution or income tax receipts. Candidates who contracted debts have a right to be reimbursed for political activities associated with their election campaign. Does this bill allow them to be reimbursed for a debt contracted during the 2000 campaign?
[English]
The Chair: Okay, I have Jacques Saada and then Gerald Keddy.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien: I asked a question.
[English]
The Chair: I'm sorry. You asked the question.
Do you want to reply to that, Stéphane?
Mr. Stéphane Perrault: For a candidate, yes, you can do that with your annual limit. You must be mistaken. There is nothing in the bill that would prohibit that. You can solicit money in a year and then use that to pay for the expenses you incurred earlier in the year, or even in the previous year, for your election.
The Chair: Okay, Jacques Saada and then Gerald Keddy.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to Mr. Keddy, who is concerned about multiplying the $5,000 amount. This only applies to candidates. When you're a candidate, there has to be a date when your candidacy begins. So this cannot be extended over a four-year period. You can only be a candidate for a given period of time.
Your concern about multiplying the $5,000 amount every year for four years, which would allow people to accumulate much larger amounts, is already addressed, because this only applies to candidates, and only during the periods when they are actually candidates.
[English]
The Chair: I heard Jacques give that explanation.
Geoff, do you and your colleagues agree with that explanation?
I know you don't, Gerald.
It only refers to candidates; therefore, it does not apply in other than election years. Is that the argument?
Mr. Stéphane Perrault: That's not what I said.
The Chair: I'm sorry, I thought it was. I was just trying to get some clarification.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: The period during which an individual is a candidate is well defined. Consequently, when we talk about contributions to a candidate, we are not talking about contributions that extend over a four- or five-year period. This applies only during that specific period.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: But if you start to accumulate...[Inaudible - Editor]...starting the next day.
Mr. Jacques Saada: But to a maximum of $10,000.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Per year.
Mr. Stéphane Perrault: Per year. The cap on contributions to candidates applies annually, not on the basis of the election period.
[English]
The Chair: Okay, Gerald Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm still going to suggest an amendment. I think this leaves it open for $5,000 per year, and I have heard nothing to tell me anything different from that.
I would suggest a subamendment in paragraph (a) as follows:
| (a) contributions that do not exceed $5,000 in total by a nomination contestant or candidate of a registered party out of his or her funds to his or her own campaign as a nomination contestant or candidate; |
So that effectively gives it a total that takes the “per annum” out.
The Chair: I'll take that as a formal subamendment, which is to delete “in any calendar year”.
Mr. Joe Jordan: I would like some clarification on this, Mr. Chairman.
You're saying you can't give yourself $5,000 as a candidate, and $5,000 as a potential candidate for the nomination, which you are probably going to get anyway. In a year you get the nomination, you can do that anyway, right?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Absolutely. You can invest $5,000 in your own campaign during the year.
Mr. Geoff Regan: I don't think you should say “during the year”. You should say “during the nomination contest”.
The Chair: Okay, on this point, Jacques Saada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: I explained something earlier. I was contradicted, but I'm not sure I am wrong. If I collect money for four years, when the time comes for my campaign, I have to transfer the money I have collected to the campaign. Yet I am not entitled to transfer more than $10,000 to campaign.
I think my argument is pretty solid, because you can't accumulate up to $20,000, in anticipation of entering a campaign, in amounts of $5,000 per year. The amount of the accumulated assets that I can transfer to my campaign is limited.
À (2205)
[English]
The Chair: Listen, colleagues, we are debating a subamendment, which is to delete “in any calendar year”. You should remember that.
The officials now, please. Then I'll go to Ted White and Michèle.
[Translation]
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: I am going to contradict what we were saying two minutes ago. I want to be consistent here, because I said that publicly.
At the present time, everyone has the right to contribute $5,000 every year to a candidate's campaign. If you make a yearly contribution of $5,000 to your candidate account in anticipation of the next election, at some point--in four years' time, let's say--you will have contributed $20,000 to your own campaign.
An hon. Member: Exactly.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: This is an annual limit. It does not apply to the campaign.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I am going to give you my own personal interpretation, and if there is something that needs to be rectified, we will rectify it. I believe Mr. Keddy's concern has to be addressed.
In my own view, the purpose of the annual limit was to ensure that people could not exceed a specific amount in any given year. Right? It wasn't to allow that amount to be multiplied year after year, so that we would end up with a total that exceeds the cap on the annual contribution an individual can make to his own campaign. That was not the intention.
The idea was not to increase the $10,000 amount that we kept. That $10,000 amount was the limit on annual contributions an individual could make to his own campaign.
[English]
The Chair: Okay.
We're speaking now to a subamendment, okay? Gerald just explained the advantages, from his point of view, so far as I can tell, and his interpretation of deleting “in any calendar year”.
Ted White.
Mr. Ted White: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This whole bill is about the perceived influence contributions have on candidates and others involved in the political process. How can you influence yourself by donating to your own campaign? Why does it matter? Besides, we have limits on how much you can spend on a nomination race--we've set it at 20% of the total you can spend in an election--and the amount you can spend on the election is fixed as well, at roughly $60,000 or $65,000.
Who cares if you raise all of your own money for your own campaign? Why does it matter?
Mr. Geoff Regan: I care. The words “in any calendar year” should come out.
The Chair: I'm going to call the subamendment.
The subamendment is--it's Gerald Keddy's--to delete “in any calendar year” from 4(a).
(Subamendment agreed to)
The Chair: Colleagues, that was the subamendment.
I now call amendment G-11a, as amended. That is what you have before you, with the words “in any calendar year” deleted.
Lynn Myers, please.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Before we vote on this, I want to be really clear on what this now means. Can I have an explanation?
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, it would now mean that a candidate, like any other individual, can give $5,000 per year to his riding association or his account--if he has an account--but he can add an additional $5,000 during an election year. Or if he happens to be a leadership contestant, he can have an additional $5,000 during--they can do $10,000 for the leadership contest, basically. That's the impact of this.
The Chair: That's it.
Yes, Gerald Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: On that point of clarification, I think this takes the multiple factor out of it.
À (2210)
Mr. Geoff Regan: Let me say it again. What I'm saying is, like any other individual, you can give $5,000 a year; except in an election, you can have an additional $5,000 toward your candidate fund. Effectively, you're able to give $10,000 in an election year. You might give it the year before, but your total...you get an extra $5,000 toward your campaign, basically. Effectively, it's $10,000 in an election year that you could contribute, if you wanted to do that.
The Chair: Colleagues, those in favour of G-11a, as amended.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: Colleagues, I'm at page 96, Mr. Bryden. Amendment L-5a has been negatived, consequential to a Bloc amendment.
Now we're on an amendment by Mr. Bryden, L-6, page 103 in the binder.
Joe Jordan.
Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Bryden felt there was a drafting error. In the bill it says “eligible”. He felt that was wrong and it should be “ineligible”. We've since checked and Mr. Bryden was wrong. I spoke to him on the phone, so we withdraw the amendment.
The Chair: Amendment L-6 has been withdrawn.
Amendment L-8 has been negatived consequential to a Bloc motion.
(Clause 25 as amended agreed to)
The Chair: Colleagues, we're at clause 35, amendment CA-11, page 122, and it's been dealt with.
(Clause 35 agreed to)
(On clause 40)
The Chair: We're at page 136 in the binder, amendment L-10a, Joe Jordan. It is allowed to stand for drafting purposes.
Mr. Joe Jordan: I checked with officials during the break. It's on page 136 in the binder.
If you look at subsection 435.22(1): “the leadership contest expenses limit that is allowed for a leadership contestant is the amount that is 10% of the amount that was allowed under section 422”, and then it further explains, “for election expenses of a registered party that endorses candidates in all”. I'm looking for drafting language, possibly “federal registered electoral districts”.
The Chair: Not ridings?
Mr. Joe Jordan: Districts.
Just conceptually, what we're saying is the amount you can spend on a leadership race is governed universally, regardless of how many you ran. It would be the limit you'd have if you ran one in every riding in the last election, which is what section 422 says. So it's not contingent on how many your party ran; it's a limit that's the same for every party based on what you would be allowed to spend nationally if you were running a candidate in each riding.
The Chair: I have Ted White first and then Marlene and Carolyn. But I don't have the change in the wording yet.
So instead of “all federal ridings”, what do we put?
Mr. Joe Jordan: Federal registered electoral districts. I was looking to the drafters for wording.
The Chair: That's fine, but can you tell us why that is?
À (2215)
Mr. Geoff Regan: Electoral districts, not associations. Federal electoral districts.
The Chair: Why is that? What's the difference?
A voice: “Ridings” is not a word in the act.
The Chair: Oh, I see. I'm sorry about that.
Ted White, Marlene Catterall, and Carolyn Parrish.
Mr. Ted White: I'm certain I know the answer to this question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. That means if a party that chooses to run candidates in one province only--like the Bloc--and runs a leadership contest, it could claim it had intentions of running across the country, so it's entitled to--
Mr. Joe Jordan: All we're saying is that the upper limit is the same, whether you run one candidate or.... The upper limit is.... If you ran 301 nationally, it's a derivative of that number.
Mr. Ted White: The Bloc had a very high limit.
Mr. Joe Jordan: They want to spend that much. But it would be the same limit you could spend or the same limit the Liberals could spend. It's an upper limit and it's the same for everybody. It's a derivative of 10% of what a party could spend if they ran a candidate in every riding.
Mr. Ted White: Do you have the actual figure?
Mr. Joe Jordan: It's $1.4 million.
The Chair: Marlene Catterall, Carolyn Parrish, and Gerald Keddy.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mine is similar to Mr. White's point, but the result is that the party that runs federally would be seeking leadership within one province or within two or three provinces in a region and would be able to spend what somebody else could spend who had to campaign right across the country. It doesn't make sense.
Mr. Geoff Regan: It has an impact on the outcome.
The Chair: Just a minute. Carolyn Parrish, Gerald Keddy, and Jacques Saada.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Well, Geoff just blurted out the thought I had in my head. When you run the leadership, what happens is you can watch it at the polls. There's a blip. It goes up just after a leadership race.
A voice: Did you get a blip?
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: You do, you get a blip.
The point is, when you're campaigning right across the country in a leadership race,you are raising expectations, interests, whatever. First of all, I think the 10% is too low. I think basing it on the number of candidates that anybody could run across the country is bizarre. I think you've got to come up with a better way of doing it. I think it should be 20% so that parties like the Liberal Party, the Tory Party, the Alliance, whatever, that do run candidates right across the country--you base their 20% on every riding total.
Parties that run only regionally or random parties that are only going to run 30 or 40 candidates, base it on the ones they've chosen to run in, or they have seats in, or they have contested an election in. Somebody has to figure out how to make this make sense, but I can't support this.
The $1.4 million to run a leadership race right across the country is ridiculous; it's impossible.
The Chair: Gerald Keddy, then Jacques Saada, and then Geoff Regan.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm hearing a couple of different things here. At the beginning I wasn't sure if this was to set a guideline to establish leadership contest expenses, not candidates.
The Chair: That's correct.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: For nomination, for leadership candidates. So we're going to base this--and this will be for parties who are registered parties that endorse candidates in all federal electoral districts from coast to coast to coast, 10%. That's why I'm asking, because that's how I read it.
The Chair: I think that's a technical point. Perhaps Joe could explain it.
Mr. Joe Jordan: The reference to the 10% of what you could spend if you ran a candidate in each riding is simply a way of getting at a number. That's what you could spend. It's just that the leadership contest--
Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's 10% of the amount that was allowed under section 422.
Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes, that's right. You could stop right there if you wanted, because for election expenses of a party, that's just what section 422 is. So that cleans it up.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Why don't we just put that section 422, and after that put the rest in brackets as a point of explanation?
The Chair: By the way, brackets are not good in legislation, I'm advised here. But there's some similar way of doing it, I'm sure.
Is someone...? Joe, it's your amendment.
Mr. Joe Jordan: I think you can just stop at section 422 because that's getting a little bit confusing.
À (2220)
The Chair: It goes through...you're going to delete “for election expenses of registered parties that endorse candidates in all federal ridings”. Is that okay? Colleagues, do you understand that? The mover has deleted that.
Mr. Joe Jordan: No. I think we should leave it the way it is, because if you reference section 422, that is a number that is derived from how many candidates a party ran; it's a formula. What we're saying here is the upper limit for a leadership contestant's spending in a leadership contest is 10%. It's simply a way of arriving at the number based on what a party could spend nationally.
I don't know why, but maybe we're spending too much time on this.
The Chair: Jacques Saada, then Geoff Regan.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I want to address three points. First, with all due respect for the Bloc Québecois and the Canadian Alliance, I have the feeling we are trying to find ways to promote regional parties to the detriment of the national parties.
Imposing caps on a small region will make it possible to do a lot more than if those same caps apply to a large region, particularly because of such things as transportation. So, that is the first thing we should be considering.
Also, I have no idea of the potential economic spinoffs for Canada--not for the candidate--of one spending level in a party leadership race, as opposed to another spending level.
Finally, I have no idea whether a figure of 10 per cent is reasonable or not. I really don't know. This may be a good idea, but I sense it would be premature to move in that direction at this time. I prefer to vote against this amendment, in the hope that we will be able to debate it at a later date. We should not pass it tonight, because there are just too many pieces of the puzzle missing.
[English]
The Chair: Geoff Regan, as Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I agree wholeheartedly with what Jacques Saada has said about this. First of all, we haven't had much discussion. The witnesses haven't focused on this whole question. We haven't heard a discussion, really, in detail about this question of what the limits should be for leadership races. It's something new that has come up in clause-by-clause, and I think this, as it's said, would favour smaller regional parties. Let's say we had an Atlantic Canada party of some sort and they were able to spend as much on their leadership candidates as our party could nationally. That would give them an advantage, a bump, within my region, for example, that my party can't match. That's an unfair situation.
But above all, I think due to the fact that we haven't really gone into this as a committee during this process.... It seems to me that Jacques is right. We should defeat this motion now and move on, but consider this for the future.
The Chair: Carolyn Parrish, then Gerald Keddy.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Under section 422, it takes into consideration that a party in the last election ran 40 candidates, 50 candidates, 301 candidates; then I would end it after section 422 for election--
The Chair: We've not done that, so we're not doing that. So sorry.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Well, wait a minute. What do you mean, we're not doing it? Everybody--
The Chair: We did sort of rule on it, I'm afraid.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I tend to agree with what my colleagues are saying on this side of the table, that we really haven't had a good run at this. On everything else that's written in the bill, we've had witnesses coming out of our ears, but this is one that nobody has addressed. But I also think it's a serious flaw in the bill, not to have addressed it. We've addressed nominated candidates; we've addressed everything else. The fact that we left this out, to me, is a shame. But in this wonderful report that we're doing at the end that catches everything we missed, I think we ought to make a serious recommendation to consider drafting some legislation to the effect of regulating leadership. But it needs a lot more thought.
The Chair: Joe, did you want to comment on this briefly?
Mr. Joe Jordan: No, that's fine.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: A point of clarification, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm obviously reading this incorrectly, because as I read this, the leadership contest expenses limit that is allowed for a leadership contestant is the amount that is 10% of the amount that was allowed under section 422 for that. Is that all leadership contestants? It's not clear to me that it is. When you go back down after 422, it says for election expenses of a registered party that endorses candidates in all electoral districts. I would read that--
À (2225)
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Keddy, it's the same thing for any leadership--
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Well, I would read that to mean only for leadership contest expenses for election of a registered party that endorses candidates in all electoral districts.
Mr. Joe Jordan: I think we can beat this and put it in the report as something that needs to be looked at, because the issue with me was that backbench MPs were restricting their nomination expenses and were not restricting the expenses of somebody who would run for prime minister. It didn't make a lot of sense. Now, I agree that we didn't discuss it a lot and I agree that it may be awkwardly worded, but I think we simply need to flag this.
The Chair: Dick Proctor, I think.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Before you defeat this, I think it's a valiant attempt, and I really think it's an oversight that we don't have some figures in here. As Joe points out, we have them for every other operative who's running for election, and yet we're going to allow Paul Martin to spend however many million dollars, or the next person who comes along. I can't imagine the Prime Minister would want that, but there you go.
The Chair: I'm going to call the Jordan amendment, number 10a.
(Amendment negatived)
(On clause 40)
The Chair: Can we proceed to PC-30 and PC-31, pages 137 and 138 of the binder, please? We stood those, and by the way, the one depends upon the other. Let's deal with PC-30.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: The point here was to try to extend the period to 18 months--
The Chair: From four months.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, exactly. I would be satisfied to even make it 12 months, but if you guys are happy with 18, then I'm happy. That whole ability to raise money to retire a debt is not the same.... Everyone is not equal.
The Chair: I'm going to go to Geoff Regan on this. At the moment the 18 is 18.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, we can accept this with the following addition. I want to go for this exactly, all right? Just a minute now.
We would add to clause 25, before line 30 on page 27, the following--
The Chair: Can you tell me, where does this fit in the PC amendment?
Mr. Geoff Regan: It's at the end of it, after the end of the amendment.
The Chair: Go ahead, then.
You can listen to it; then you decide.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Why don't we just make a new amendment? This amendment would stand and that would be a new amendment.
The Chair: I'm calling PC-30. You realize it means we're also effectively deciding on PC-31.
Dick Proctor.
Mr. Dick Proctor: I was trying to vote.
The Chair: Oh, you were trying to vote.
Jacques Saada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: I would like to get one clarification, Mr. Chairman. This talks about debts to be paid within 18 months, but there has to be an ability to collect money later. Is that what the second amendment addresses?
[English]
Mr. Geoff Regan: That's why the change I had was important.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: I would like someone to read the next amendment so that we can see whether the context is the same or not. I would feel more comfortable…
[English]
The Chair: Can we read the other amendment?
It's not this amendment; it's another amendment.
Mr. Geoff Regan: The problem is, we can't support his amendment unless we get this one also.
You would add a new proposed subsection 405(5)--because we already have a 405(3) and a 405(4), apparently--which would say the following, in English:
| Contributions made to a leadership contestant within 18 months after a leadership contest are deemed to be contributions for that contest. |
À (2230)
[Translation]
And in French, the wording would be:
| (5) Pour l'application de la présente loi, les contributions faites à un candidat à la direction dans les dix-huit mois suivant la course sont considérées comme des contributions pour cette course. |
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Do you want to vote on that?
The Chair: No, we have to get at least a tacit agreement that the other one is going to pass. To be sure that occurred, I would normally call this a subamendment. We would deal with this, and then we would deal with yours as amended. Is that okay?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: What I was going to suggest, Mr. Chair, is it's not a subamendment; it's an amendment in its own right. If it's possible, I would think we would vote on this amendment and the consequent amendment at the same time. That way you can't pull them apart.
The Chair: Geoff's going to read again--
Mr. Geoff Regan: We have to reopen clause 25 to do this.
The Chair: We will do that. Just a moment; they're working on it. I would like you to read it again, though.
Mr. Geoff Regan: I would be delighted to, Mr. Chair, except that I've handed it over to the clerk.
Ms. Susan Baldwin: There is no indication on this amendment what page number it is in the bill or what line number it is, or--
The Chair: It's page 27 in the bill.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: And it's before line 30 In the English and before line 32 in the French.
Ms. Susan Baldwin: Usually we add “after”.
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: But it's because--
Mr. Geoff Regan: The problem is, there are other amendments going on. There are two other paragraphs that have been added. If you wish, it would be after proposed subsection 405(2)--or, sorry, it would be after proposed subsection 405(4).
Ms. Susan Baldwin: Give me the “below” direction. Add above what?
Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Add above section 405.1, on page 27.
Ms. Susan Baldwin: So it's: “Add before line 30, on page 27....”
The Chair:
I think I can do it again without reading them:
| 405. (5) Contributions to leadership contestants within 18 months of a leadership contest are deemed to be contributions for that contest |
Yes, Jacques Saada.
Mr. Jacques Saada: When you say “within”, does it include “after”?
The Chair: “Contributions to leadership contests within 18 months of....” I see; that's a good point. It should read “18 months after....”
Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, do we have unanimous consent to reopen clause 25?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(On clause 25)
À (2235)
The Chair: I'm now going to call amendment PC-30. By the way, it affects PC-31. It's the same thing. I'm not going to call it again. PC-31 is consequential.
I'm going to call amendment PC-30, with the amendment that comes after line 5 on page 27 and is proposed subsection 405(5)--contributions to leadership contestants and so on--all at once. Is that okay, colleagues?
I'm calling PC-30 as indicated.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We should know that PC-31 is also dealt with at the same time. Gerald, are you okay with that?
Can I declare clause 25 re-adopted?
(Clause 25 as amended agreed to)
The Chair: Let's take our time and make sure we do this right.
(On clause 40)
The Chair: Amendment CA-14 is now carried. Ted, this is for you, if anything, so you know that.
(Clause 40 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 45)
The Chair: Amendment CA-16 has now carried. Ted, are you okay with that?
(Clause 45 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 57)
The Chair: As amendment CA-20 has carried, shall clause 57 carry?
(Clause 57 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 58)
The Chair: We're now on clause 58. Joe, just so you know, Mr. Bryden's amendment L-9 had line conflicts.
(Clause 58 agreed to)
(On clause 65--Prior contributions)
The Chair: In clause 65, Mr. Bryden's amendment L-10 cannot be put.
(Clause 65 agreed to)
Mr. Joe Jordan: Are we at pages 213 and 214 of the binder, on page 93 of the bill?
The Chair: Let's get that right. It's page 93.
Marlene, are you okay with that?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: It's fine, yes.
The Chair: Okay, let's carry on.
Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Jacques Saada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, we discussed certain recommendations we may want to adopt. We may want to produce a report and table it along with the amended bill.
Do you think we will have enough time to think about this and hear people's comments tomorrow?
[English]
The Chair: I'll tell you my intention. It's not at the same time as the bill. I think the report can be tabled after the bill. I think the bill can be tabled first and the report can be tabled later.
Agreed?
Mr. Jacques Saada: How much later?
The Chair: I'm intending to do it tomorrow.
À (2240)
Mr. Jacques Saada: How much later can we table the report?
The Chair: My best advice is that it might be conceivable that this bill will be ready for the House by late Thursday. The earliest it's going to be tabled is likely to be on Friday. That gives you some sense of it.
By then, it is conceivable that we would have a report, if we work tomorrow and achieve it. On the other hand, I don't see the tabling of the bill as being contingent on the tabling of the second report.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: I have no problem with that in terms of the principle. I only hope that it will be announced that a report relating to the bill is to be tabled, and that we can resolve this fairly quickly, before…
[English]
The Chair: I have no objection to the two being tabled at once, except that my understanding is that it is our intention to table the bill as soon as possible.
Colleagues, this is my thought. My thought is that we meet tomorrow at 3:30 to work on the report. There are one or two other small items that I think we should mention or deal with. If it's necessary, I believe we should continue tomorrow because we're trying to complete this exercise.
At our regular meeting on Thursday we would begin Bill C-34 with the minister. Bill C-32, of course, is on ethics and conflict of interest. On Thursday, if the report is ready, it is quite conceivable that we would table the bill and the report on Friday.
The only point I'm making is that the objective is to table the bill as soon as possible, at least as far as I'm concerned, as your chair. We wouldn't delay it if tomorrow, for some reason, we don't finish the report. Then we could table the report on Monday, or something like that.
Colleagues, it would then be my intention that we would continue with Bill C-34 on the following Tuesday, again, with some effort to move it along. We're getting very close to the end of the year. We would see how it goes and what we think after meeting with the minister. Perhaps we'll have a little consultation and then decide how we will work next week on Bill C-34.
Are you comfortable with that, Jacques?
Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, I am.
The Chair: Colleagues, are there any other points?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Can I make one point?
I think we want to be sure that the report stage doesn't begin in the House until the government has had the opportunity to consider the recommendations and proposed amendments in our report.
That's the main concern. I only wanted that on the record.
The Chair: Colleagues, we could all work and produce the report tomorrow. We're discussing a hypothetical situation because they will both be ready at the same time.
Colleagues, I do want to thank all the members for your patience and your efforts.
I want to thank the counsel and the staff who came here. We appreciate it, particularly the graduation.
Did you get to the graduation, Michel? You did. Congratulations on that also. We do thank you very much.
I want to thank our own staff. I want to thank Susan. Susan, you can replace Thomas any time.
Colleagues, the meeting is adjourned until tomorrow at 3:30.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: I have a small point of order.
I do have champagne chilling in my fridge, if anybody would like some.
The Chair: Okay. Does everyone know where Marlene Catterall's office is? Go out this door, turn right, turn left, and it's there.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Sorry, I missed something. Are you reporting the bill tomorrow?
The Chair: No, by no means. It won't be ready until Thursday. It has to be printed.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: We're going to do our best. Our objective is to have the bill ready by Thursday. We doubt it will be tabled on Thursday.
There is one more thing from Ted White. Before we go, colleagues, let's finish it up properly.
Ted White.
Mr. Ted White: It's very nice, thank you, to have an invitation from Marlene for champagne.
Is the food still arriving at 11?
The Chair: No, I'm afraid not.
I also want to thank the interpreters and the other staff here today. We do appreciate your staying with us.
The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow.