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.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 29, 2003

1105

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.))

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.)

1110

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Perrault (Senior Counsel, Privy Council Office)

1115

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Ted White

1120

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Geoff Regan

1125

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

1130

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret (Senior Privy Council Officer/Counsel, Legislation and House Planning/Counsel, Privy Council Office)

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk)

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

The Chair

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

The Chair

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

The Chair

1135

Mr. Michel Gauthier

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

1140

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

1145

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

1150

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Ted White

1155

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Ms. Susan Baldwin

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

1200

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

1205

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

1210

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

1215

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

1220

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

1225

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

1230

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

The Chair

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

1235

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

1240

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

1245

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

1250

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

1255

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

NUMBER 046

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 29, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1105)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, could we begin.

The order of the day is Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing). We're going to continue the clause-by-clause. Again, depending on what Michel Gauthier wants, we're going to begin on page 101 of the binder.

Before we do that, you have before you the report to the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Nova Scotia. Although this is actually the second item on our agenda, I would like to ask that someone move that the draft report be adopted as the committee's report to the House and that the chair present the report to the House.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: If we could now, you have on the agenda the amendments in the order we're going to consider them. Last evening Michel Guimond was discussing a group of Bloc amendments. We have circulated a small package, and the first page in the package says page 40. These are simply extracts from our binder, and the number at the bottom is the number in the binder.

The way it worked yesterday--I'm explaining this so Michel Gauthier knows where we are--we were considering Bloc amendment 4, BQ-4, and that is where we are in the procedure, Michel, but then at Michel Guimond's request we moved to BQ-15, which is on page 101. So if it's okay with you, we'll begin our discussion there. The idea is, colleagues, to discuss all the items in this little package together because there are consequential links between them.

Michel, I know you're new here, so feel free to take your time. I know you will. Do you want to begin by discussing BQ-15? We debated it last evening, but we'll start again.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I'm not exactly sure what my colleague said, but, unless I'm mistaken, the aim of this group of amendments is to ban political financing by corporations and by associations. I was told that my colleague had pushed hard for a ban on contributions by citizens' groups. I believe a sound explanation has been provided and therefore, I have nothing further to add at this time.

[English]

The Chair: Exactly so. My recollection was that we were engaged with this matter of associations, questions like, what does “association” mean, what are the implications of it if it's not clearly defined, and so on? Is there some discussion of this?

Can I go to Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'm going to turn in a moment to Stéphane Perrault for a couple of comments on this, but I do want to indicate that one of the reasons for this is in relation to what you might call “getting noticed”. If a person gives a $10,000 contribution to a campaign, obviously that's noticeable because that's the individual limit. I think part of the idea is that if a group of people also want to be noticed but can only give $20 each, they can get together and give it together so they can get the same kind of notice as a person who has lots of money. It's to have some fairness in relation to someone who is wealthy.

I'm going to hand it over to Stéphane for, I'm sure, a much better and more eloquent explanation.

Á (1110)

The Chair: Mr. Perrault.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault (Senior Counsel, Privy Council Office): I would just build on that lead-in. The point about getting noticed is particularly important because this bill will change the landscape. Right now under the existing act, a group of non-wealthy individuals can pool their resources and make a significant contribution, significant enough that they get that notice. Of course, wealthy individuals can do that also, and this is part of the problem the bill wants to address, that there is an undue perception of undue influence on the part of the wealthiest groups or categories in society.

If we move forward with this bill and say that only individuals can make contributions and not associations of individuals, in effect that means we will have crystallized the privileged position of the wealthy. If I have deep pockets and I have $10,000 to give, I'll get noticed, but the church basement types of people who have just $50 to contribute will not be able to get the same notice, and this would arguably be a perverse effect of this bill.

Now, let's go back to basic principles. In our legal system “freedom of association” means the right of individuals to act in a concerted fashion to better achieve their goals. It implies that groups of individuals are prima facie entitled as a group to whatever actions, activities, or rights individuals enjoy or are entitled to do.

The provision of this bill on informal associations of individuals reflects that idea. It would allow people, those who would otherwise give but not give significant amounts or who may not give because they don't feel it's worthwhile giving only $50, to pool their resources and make a significant contribution of up to $1,000.

Of course, these people could all send their cheques separately or they could send cheques in a single envelope, but that assumes they would know in advance which candidate they were going to support. You may have an association that wants to raise money over the years to make a strategic decision and say at the end of the day when it gets to election time, it's that candidate we're going to endorse and not this one.

So when the association fundraises for these limited amounts, the donors don't have to know to whom the cheque will be made out. The cheque is made out to the association. They keep the name of the people, and when they make that strategic decision to back a particular candidate, then they disclose all these names.

Now, the same issue arises for small parties that do not meet the threshold of candidates for registration. Currently it's 50. Whether it's going to be the same in the future is unknown, but whatever that threshold is, small parties that do not meet that threshold are informal associations.

Under the bill, parties that are registered can give unlimited amounts to their candidates. That's a transfer, not a contribution. They can give $50,000, $60,000, or $100,000, and that's not a contribution. The small parties, like the big parties, don't necessarily know in advance who their candidates will be in four years' time, so they can't ask their supporters to write a cheque in the name of a candidate four years down the road. But they can raise some money and through this provision at least help their candidates with a $1,000 contribution to get them started. Otherwise, they would be prevented from doing that. This is a very important thing in this bill.

I think there was a concern yesterday that allowing associations of individuals to make small contributions can lead to a fragmentation of larger associations or a multiplication of associations because these are in fact informal associations and it is easy for them to fragment or multiply. This is why they are not treated in quite the same way as unions. They have to identify the name of original contributors and the amount, and that amount is taken into consideration for the individual's $10,000 limit.

This means you can't multiply funds like that. You can't use associations to generate more money or avoid the limits. The individual limits remain, and what I give through an association is subtracted from my entitlement to give up to $10,000. So this is not a scheme that would generate new contributions or avoid the limits that are in place.

Á (1115)

But it is a scheme that is important for small parties, and it is a scheme that is important for people with limited resources. They can have a voice that gets noticed in a way that is significant even though they don't have $10,000 in their pockets to give to get that kind of notice.

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks, Steve, for that explanation.

I have two points. One, I am concerned that if we don't narrowly define what we're trying to do, we'll have a bit of a loophole. There has to be some way of ensuring that unregistered parties or parties first starting up are able to transfer resources around--I think that's a reasonable thing they should be allowed to do--without opening the door to associations and to having to get into those kinds of definitions.

My second point is that it seems to me what we're trying to do here is compensate for the fact that the average Canadian can't fairly participate because the individual donation limit is too high. You've just sort of indicted your own argument here.

The individual limits should be set so the average Canadian can participate. The better fix here is to move on the $10,000 as opposed to trying to let the small crumb-eaters get together and pool their meagre resources to try to have a voice. The fix is to make sure the limit is set at such a level that the average Canadian of average means is able to participate on a level playing field, not to try to band-aid it after the fact.

I don't know where I am on this thing because it's getting a little confusing, but I think we have to be very careful what we do with this whole issue of associations. If we're really trying to put in place rules that help small parties, then let's do that and let's be very clear about it. The $10,000 is the problem, and rather than take 18 steps to try to address that, it's a lot simpler to just lower that; there are amendments to that effect coming out.

The Chair: Ted White.

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

Through you, I wonder if Mr. Perrault or anyone else can tell us whether the government received advice during the drafting of this bill, because the failure to leave access for associations and corporations could, at least to some degree, result in court challenges under the freedom of association that was mentioned by Mr. Perrault.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: Certainly, with this bill as with any other bill, the Department of Justice has been advising us on some of the issues, including that issue. As I've said, freedom of association is a fundamental issue, one that is reflected in this provision.

Mr. Ted White: Having accepted that we have to have some sort of access for these groups because otherwise there will be a court challenge, how do we reach a consensus as to what the appropriate amount of access is? We're busy talking about whether it should be $10,000 or $1,000 or $3,000, but obviously $1,000 was selected for some reason. Can you share with us the logic behind that? Why $1,000 and not $5,000 or $100,000?

The Chair: Geoff Reagan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you that it is the same level as it is for corporations. In other words, whether they're groups of people associating together through a corporation or through an unincorporated association, the argument would be that the same limit should apply.

Mr. Ted White: I'm sorry, maybe I didn't explain myself very well.

For the $1,000 figure applying to corporations and associations, how was $1,000 selected for either of those two groups? Why wasn't it $10,000 for corporations and associations? Why wasn't it $100,000? Somebody, having decided there would be a court challenge if there wasn't some access, said $1,000 is going to be enough to prevent a court challenge. Well, I'm not sure it is.

Á (1120)

Mr. Geoff Regan: The feeling is that this is the minimal amount we should have.

The Chair: Are there any other comments? Rick Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): I would suggest to Mr. White that this was an arbitrary amount chosen by the Liberal caucus at the time since there was originally nothing there for corporations and associations, but that's just an assumption on my part.

My concern with associations is not that they have the ability to contribute; I think that's wonderful. My concern is with the identifying of the contributor you talk about, and I have real, serious concerns here.

Now, that's fair ball; associations should have the right for $1,000 donations, as do corporations under the act--and pick one. You're right; you can set up an association for a small, non-registered party or for that matter an association that wants to donate to Mr. Regan's campaign.

A lot of those funds are raised not as gifts from individual donors but by volunteers who go out and do ticket sales, bake sales, or garage sales. Those funds are not identifiable, and you can't identify anyone as an individual contributor when you're doing this. How is the association going to declare the $1,000 that goes to Mr. Regan as to who it's coming from?

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: Certainly, it is an extra burden that is imposed on them, but it is an extra burden that is essential to prevent a loophole in the bill that would be--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Excuse me, it's not an extra burden; it's impossible. Through the chair, if I sell you a ticket for $2 and I take the proceeds from that ticket and give them to Mr. Regan, how do I identify who gave you that $2 for the ticket?

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, let me suggest that a group like that would raise money in a number of ways. I doubt that it would all come from $2 donations. The point is, if you get substantial amounts from individuals, you keep track of those, and you use that money to make a donation. That's how you would do it, it seems to me.

That issue of whether it's $10 or $20 applies to the party. The political candidate or the association, the EDA, will be able to collect small, pass-the-hat kinds of things; we're going to deal with that later somehow, right? But that doesn't apply to other organizations. It's if the local Knights of Columbus or the Rotary Club or whatever wants to pass the hat; this is what Rick is getting at.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And it may not even be them, it may be an association that's struck specifically for the purpose of raising funds for you, Geoff.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Well, what's wrong with the Halifax West Liberal association doing that?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Excuse me, but maybe it's an organization that's already there in place that wants to give a contribution. Contributions cannot be identifiable. It could quite easily happen. Now, when that happens and that association is left out, they obviously--

Mr. Geoff Regan: If you don't have them declare, the obvious problem is, you could have people coming in through the back door, giving huge amounts all across the country, and going way above the $1,000 limit that way. The loophole there is obvious.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: By the way, Mr. Regan, that's a very good point, but the Halifax West Liberal association does exactly what I've just identified. They have a bake sale, they have a garage sale. Those $2 and $3 contributions are not identifiable as to who the contribution is coming from.

Mr. Geoff Regan: But where there's a bake sale by this organization, Mr. Chairman, that is not a contribution by the person who bought the thing sold. They've gotten some value for what they gave, so it's not a contribution; the money belongs to the organization.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Sure, but they have to declare it when they give it to you.

Mr. Geoff Regan: They don't because it isn't from the person who bought the pie.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But if they make the contribution--you just said, in this legislation--

Mr. Geoff Regan: I know, but I'm trying to figure out how this would work. It's from the organization, you're right, but do you mean the members of the organization? How does it work?

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: The way it works is, if the EDA has a bake sale and they sell cakes at market value, then it's not a contribution. If an association that's outside the entities that are recognized here has a bake sale and then wants to make a contribution, then it is a contribution, and you're correct, they would have to identify the individual contributors.

But as Mr. Regan pointed out, if you do not have that, not only could you spend over the $1,000 limit, in fact you could spend over the $10,000 limit or any limit whatsoever because you could multiple these informal associations as quickly as you wanted to.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Moreover, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that if you have a group of people in your riding who want to get together and help you out, what stops them from doing so in the name of your political association? In other words, for people who happen to be in the Lions Club, your financial agent could say to them yes, you can raise money for our candidate on behalf of the Brandon--Souris Progressive Conservative association.

Á (1125)

The Chair: It's been my sense last evening and today that we've been round and round this issue. By the way, you're all aware that in our binder there are other amendments that relate to this section in addition to the consequential Bloc amendments, which are part of the little package we have.

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I see it, the aim of the Bloc Québécois' proposed amendment is quite simply to do away with contributions by corporations and associations. Anyone opposed to this principle should oppose the BQ's amendment. This is not to say that other amendments couldn't be brought forward later calling for the definition of “association” to be reviewed. We're getting caught up in a lengthy debate and losing sight of the important issue at stake here. The Bloc Québécois is proposing, quite legitimately, to do away completely with contributions from corporations and associations. Personally, I disagree with that position. I'm prepared to vote on this amendment. We can tackle the definition of “association” later on.

[English]

The Chair: It's my intention to call BQ-15 now.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Unless I'm mistaken, that also means that BQ-4, BQ-17--which is in the package--BQ-21, and BQ-23 are also defeated.

Colleagues, could we now return to the order in which we were going through it. BQ-4 has gone and we're now at Mr. Jordan's L-1, which is page 41 in the binder. We were discussing BQ-15, but we came to it, as you will recall, from discussing BQ-4.

Joe, do you want to say the consequential ones as well?

Mr. Joe Jordan: I can do it, maybe conceptually. It's essentially the same amendment my colleague in the Bloc was putting forward. They way it reads is a little confusing. Essentially, this amendment is consequential to the core amendment, which you'll find on pages 60 and 102.

I just want to say that I am going to put my faith in the committee's capacity to learn, so I will ask you to stand this amendment.

I do want to say, in support of the direction these amendments are going in, that we've spent a meeting--the end of one meeting and the beginning of this one--talking about the potential problems of trying to track associations and what they may or may not do. My reading of this bill is that this is exactly what we're trying to prevent. We're trying to make it so individual people can give in a meaningful way, and any steps we take towards allowing them to group, I think, is a wrong direction. We have put a $1,000 limit on corporations and unions at the local level, and we're already hearing there's some push now that if that's going to be the rule, unincorporated trade unions should get to give $1,000.

I am very concerned that we are going to set in place a regulatory framework that's going to cost dollars to track nickels. As I say, I'm going to ask the chair, because this is a consequential amendment, to stand it until we get to the core amendment. But I would just ask the committee to keep in mind that the goal of this bill is very clear, and to just eliminate it, I think, would be cheaper and more efficient.

Now, that being said, Mr. White has alluded quite correctly to the possibility of a court challenge. These rules have been in place in Quebec and Manitoba for a number of years, however, and there have been no such challenges. You don't normally find people going to court to argue they should be allowed to spend money.

I think this supports the notion that the corporations in Canada are not at the same level as in the States in terms of how they use lobbying. They probably give because it's embarrassing not to give. This bill provides them with a reason not to give, and I don't think there's going to be a hue and cry from the corporate community.

There will be a hue and cry from the National Citizens' Coalition. There will be a hue and cry from some of these other third-party organizations that attempt to influence the political process in an undue way. But they're going to do that anyway, so we might as well act in the best interest of Canadians and let the chips fall where they may in terms of the court case.

So, Mr. Chair, because this is consequential to amendments that are further in the deck, I would ask that you stand this amendment.

Á (1130)

The Chair: We'll have some discussions in a moment, but the idea is that it will be stood; then at some point you'll say, this is the core amendment, and we'll debate it again.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I think what we would do is, if the core amendment is defeated, this is defeated; we won't need to talk about it.

The Chair: Is there any other discussion on this? Carolyn Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Only to say, I would agree that it is the essence of the bill, and it needs to be deferred until we've talked about all the rest.

I'm of two minds: it's either get rid of it completely or go to $5,000. I think $1,000 is a joke. It would be a pain in the neck to track, and we can see all the problems we're having with it. I honestly can't decide if I want it to go to zero or $5,000, and I want to work my way through the bill before I make that decision.

The Chair: Rick Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Jordan wanting to stand this. The core issue he is debating right now has already been debated on the Bloc motion, so why is it we're going to stand this down when we've already dealt with it? I would suspect it would simply have been defeated by a vote of this committee. It's the same issue, Mr. Chairman; he wants to take the corporate donations from $1,000 to zero, and that's exactly the same motion we just dealt with.

Are you going to continue to deal with this on a regular basis? On every second motion are we going to deal with the same philosophical bent? We have to decide it. There is an amendment to go from amount to amount, but the same issue has just been dealt with.

The Chair: Rick, I understand the point. We debated the Bloc one well, but this is a member's personal interest. He's put a lot of work into it, and I think it's appropriate to stand it until the time comes.

And by the way, he has his own plans, just as you have your own plans here today.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I appreciate that and I like his philosophy. The point is that he lost the battle, so we should move on.

The Chair: Jordan L-1 is stood.

Can we go to page 42 in the binder, which is BQ-5. There are a number of consequential Bloc amendments related to it too: BQ-7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, and 24.

Yes, Michèle.

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret (Senior Privy Council Officer/Counsel, Legislation and House Planning/Counsel, Privy Council Office): That's consequential to BQ-8 and BQ-15--BQ-15 was just defeated--because it's removing these categories of contributions from the report made by electoral district associations.

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk): Are you then saying that the vote on BQ-4 should be in line with all the ones I have listed as consequential to it?

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: I haven't checked all the ones you--

The Chair: Michèle, if you don't mind, you should just say again very slowly what you think, and then we'll work on it from this end while Michel Gauthier is speaking to it. Would you tell us again, what are the conditions? What is the point you made? Repeat it to me, please.

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: The point I'm making is that this motion is amending proposed subsection 403.35(2) to suppress in the electoral district associations--

The Chair: Yes, but which are the consequential ones you think I didn't mention?

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: I'm sorry, I don't have a list of all the consequential ones. I just have them as they came.

The Chair: There's BQ-8, which I mentioned, and BQ-15, which I didn't mention.

I think I understand now what is going on here. Could you consider BQ-7 in the same way you considered BQ-8, please, and then we'll come back to you later on.

Michel Gauthier.

Á (1135)

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, all of these motions call for the elimination of the practice of corporate donations. In my view, they are all consequential. Therefore, if we reject the principle of corporate donations, in effect, we're rejecting all of these motions. I fail to see how I could argue my case, given that earlier the other motions were rejected as well. I could argue each amendment separately, but I can't understand why you won't consider them as consequential amendments.

[English]

The Chair: I do. I just wanted to hear you discussing this motion.

Listen, Geoff, this is for you and your colleagues. I simply want to know which ones you think are consequential to this one. I don't want to know right now unless my colleagues want to know the details now, because when Michel Gauthier has made his pitch on this particular amendment, I want to know what's happened. I have my own idea of what has happened, but you seem to have some other idea.

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, correct me if I'm wrong, but those moving the motion know best which amendments are consequential. If they say these amendments are consequential and not relevant under the circumstances, I don't see why we would ask other people to confirm this fact for us.

[English]

The Chair: Jacques, can I explain it to you: one of the points they've made is that there's a consequential link to an amendment we've already turned down. If that's the case, it's already gone. Do you understand?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: That's my point, Mr. Chairman. At this stage, this discussion is pointless. Either the amendments are withdrawn, or deemed automatically negatived. There is no need to establish that they are consequential, since the Member who moved them already stated that they were.

[English]

The Chair: Michel.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, in my humble opinion, all of these motions are linked and consequential. Their purpose is one and the same. If committee members reject the basic principle, in my opinion, they're rejecting all of these motions in the process, since the basic principle behind them is the same.

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, could you please put the question. If we defeat it unnecessarily, it has no consequence whatsoever, but we can move on to something else.

A voice: On peut aller voter.

A voice: You're right.

A voice: Let's just agree with Michel.

The Chair: Just a minute. Now, listen, I'm terribly slow. I'm an evening person, you should all know this.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Michel, are you saying these motions we're considering now are in effect linked to BQ-4, which is the one we just--

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I realize that you're a night owl. I'll restate my position for the third time. All of these motions flow from the same basic principle, which the committee has rejected. I don't want to waste any of your time. Your official said the very same thing, namely that the amendment motions are consequential. There's nothing more for me to say. We can vote again, if you like. I intend to vote in favour of these amendments.

Á (1140)

[English]

The Chair: I'm quite willing to hear more. I think we're getting closer to the vision here.

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: To simplify matters, could Mr. Gauthier reads us the list of proposed amendments that are consequential so that we can vote on them as a package, rather than having to vote 55 times?

[English]

The Chair: Michel.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier: I could indeed. The list, as compiled by the clerk, is as follows: amendments BQ-7, BQ-8, BQ-9, BQ-11, BQ-12, BQ-13, BQ-14, BQ-15, BQ-19 and BQ-24. All of these amendments are consequential. If one is negatives, all are negatived, as they flow from the same principle.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Rick, you're okay on that?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes. There are some here, and he's identified them.

The Chair: And they were the ones I identified at the beginning.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And that's true of all. Yes, that's fine.

The Chair: I'm going to rule they're all negatived.

Michel.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier: I won't comment, Mr. Chairman, because you would never take me on as your lawyer, even if you were in a bind.

[English]

The Chair: That's right; I am never going to need a lawyer.

Can we go to page 43 and government amendment G-8.

Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, this would amend proposed subsection 403.35(2). It would replace the reference to “unincorporated associations other than trade unions” in proposed paragraph 403.35(2)(a) with a reference to proposed subsection 405.3(3) of the act, where these associations are defined.

It would also add proposed paragraph 403.35(2)(b.1) to require greater detail about individuals who contribute to unincorporated associations, that they be included in the registered district association's return.

Finally, it would amend proposed paragraph 403.35(2)(c) as a result of the addition of proposed paragraph 403.35(2)(b.1).

Mr. Chairman, the reason for the first amendment contained in this motion is to ensure uniformity in the description of this type of association. The second amendment would correct a drafting error and would ensure that when associations of individuals make contributions, not only is the name of the association and other information included in the register or district association's report but also the name and address of each individual who contributed to the association's donation, the amount of the contribution made by the individual, and the date his or her contribution was made. I know Rick is really keen on this part.

Absent this change, Mr. Chairman, the above-noted information would have been provided to the participant but not published as part of the participant's return.

And finally, the change to proposed paragraph 403.35(2)(c) merely reflects the fact that other contributors are not affected by the rule created under the new paragraph, 403.35(2)(b.1).

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, getting back to the subject of associations and whether this bill violates the principle of freedom of association, as I understand it, an association has the same rights as an individual. However, a limit is being placed on individual donations and consequently, on how much an individual can contribute. Allowing associations to band together goes against the spirit of this bill, in my view, as does restricting individual donations. Until such time as we have come up with a much narrower definition of an association, I cannot support either the principle at issue here, or consequently, the proposed amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: At some time the committee is going to want to deal with this issue of associations as a vote thing, and perhaps rather than deciding on each amendment that includes “unincorporated associations”, we might deal with the principle of the amendment in that section of the bill. Then when we have the larger discussion and decision about what we want to do with “unincorporated associations”, if we decide in fact we want to change that or eliminate it, I believe that one motion to the effect that there be the consequential amendments made throughout the bill would do.

So we could proceed with the associations in there, and then if we make a decision to deal with the associations differently, we can have one bulk amendment that consequential amendments be made throughout the bill. Could we proceed that way? Then we wouldn't be required to have this discussion on every motion.

Á (1145)

The Chair: Rick Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I understand the concerns about the abuse of this type of contribution. I find, unfortunately, that the regulatory aspect is going to be just horrendous for us to try to coordinate, a real nightmare. The logistics of this will be terrible.

Very seldom do you receive individual contributions in excess of $10,000. If you're trying to track $10 contributions from individuals by listing their name, address, and date of contribution, you're going to need a lot of software to be able to follow that through the system. You're going overboard to try to stop what you consider to be an abuse. The majority of Canadians are not currently going to reach $10,000 in individual contributions, so you're putting in regulations to try to catch virtually nothing. I tell you, these are nightmarish regulations.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I'm going to go to Geoff Regan. Geoff, I also need advice on the suggestion that has been made here on this question. Where is it we get the sort of core amendment or whatever to deal with associations, or does somebody need to introduce an amendment about that?

Then Marlene was indicating the consequential effects of that. She's suggesting that when we get to that amendment, whether it's already in here or as it's going to appear, we agree that it will have the consequential effects throughout the bill. So can you in your clause be thinking about that while you're speaking to this particular point? We need direction on how to do it.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My inclination is that it's an excellent suggestion.

Jacques said, I want to be clear that any time an individual gives to an incorporated association wherein the amount they give and their name are listed, when that association hands money over, that individual's limit of $10,000 will be reduced by whatever amount they gave. That's just to be clear.

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, although my colleague is doing an excellent job, I have to disagree with him, for one very simple reason.

Take, for example, an association comprised of 10 individuals, each of whom makes a donation of approximately $1,000. Subsequently, another association is created, with members donating an additional $1,000. Ultimately, because of the amount of money donated, the association in question will wield considerable influence. It would be the same as giving considerable clout to a single association. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question, rather than give an answer? Perhaps counsel could advise me as to whether it would be possible to retain only registered associations, or those that can be registered, in the associations category per se, pursuant to the Income Tax Act.

[English]

The Chair: Essentially, Geoff, you and your colleagues have two questions there. One is on the procedure you want from me, and the other is this question about defining associations with respect to the Income Tax Act, right?

Joe Jordan, go ahead while they're thinking about it.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chair, but it's probably a question for the officials. If I'm reading this right, a non-incorporated association that's going to make a donation has to then record its sources. But my constituency association can donate to the national party without listing its sources, is that right?

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: That is right, because your EDA has its own reporting to do; their names will be reported, but through the EDA.

Mr. Joe Jordan: But what if I'm in a situation where my EDA has raised $20,000, all from $1,000 corporate donations, with no donations from individuals in a given year. Can I transfer money to the national party?

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: In the bill right now the provision says no.

Á (1150)

Mr. Joe Jordan: I couldn't find it, but what I'm assuming the bill means is that my association is allowed to transfer funds to the provincial association or the national organization as long as the amount I transfer is less than the amount from individual corporations I can document. Is that right?

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: It has that effect under proposed subsection 404.2(4).

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: It comes to that in fact under proposed subsection 404.2(4).

Mr. Joe Jordan: I would just suggest that this is going to be difficult to track.

The Chair: Can we go back to Jacques Saada's question, please, which concerns some way of narrowing the definition of associations. He referred to the Income Tax Act specifically.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I haven't taken a stand on the issue, Mr. Chairman. I'm merely exploring this possibility with counsel.

[English]

The Chair: No, I understand. It was a question.

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Just to be careful, we're not speaking here as legal advisors; we're policy officials of the Privy Council Office.

If you only accept associations that have been registered under the Income Tax Act, well, these associations are there for different purposes. There are certain purposes for someone to be registered under the Income Tax Act, and they're not relevant.

The Chair: Stéphane.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: I just wanted to follow up on a point Mr. Saada raised.

[Translation]

I'm not certain whether I understood Mr. Saada's comments, but I would just say that the bill makes it very clear that if an informal association of individuals makes a donation, that amount is subtracted from the individual limit. Therefore, there's no possible loopholes that would allow contributions over the permissible limit.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understood that, but admittedly, I'm not comfortable with the concepts at issue here because my legal understanding of the matter is unclear. My concern is this: if no parameters are set, an association can grow unchecked, as can the amount of the donations by that association. If 10 associations each contribute $1,000, that represents a total donation of $10,000. The ceiling on individual contributions will not be reached, but the amount of the overall donations will continue to increase. That's where I have a problem.

The question raised yesterday by Ms. Catterall was very pertinent. While I'm not opposed to associations in principle -- that goes without saying -- what do we need to do to avoid falling into the trap of multiple donations, which would result in associations wielding undue influence, contrary to what we currently see.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: I'm having trouble getting my head around the concept of undue influence, to the extent that all donations would come from individuals subject to the same limits on donations. The committee could set a different limit. Nevertheless, if the bill in fact imposes a ceiling on individual donations and determines that donations below a certain amount do not constitute undue influence, then it doesn't really matter if the money comes directly from an individual, or is funnelled through associations.

[English]

The Chair: Ted White.

Mr. Ted White: I'd just like to pursue, Mr. Chairman, a point that was raised by Mr. Jordan. It's about this issue that a riding association can't transfer corporate donations to the party. I agree with him that this is starting to turn into a bit of a regulatory nightmare.

Now, from time to time in my riding I've run a fundraiser with the small businesses where I've sent out a letter saying, look what a great job we've done holding the Liberals accountable for their high taxes. Then these corporations send in their $1,000 cheques. So potentially a riding association could end up in a situation where they accumulate corporate dollars, yet there's no way to transfer the money to the party.

I would urge the government to think about this and ask whether this is really what it wants to do and whether it needs to fix that problem in some way. That's the only purpose for bringing it in.

The Chair: Mr. Perrault

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: I would respectfully suggest that this issue could be dealt with when we get to it, because this is not related to the principle of associations of individuals that is being discussed here.

Mr. Ted White: Yes, I understand that, but I just wanted the government to think about this other issue because it's an important one; it just popped up as a result of Mr. Jordan's intervention.

Á (1155)

The Chair: Do you have some advice for me on how we deal with this matter Marlene Catterall referred to, how we get to this core issue of associations?

Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: The core issue of this matter is proposed subsection 405.3(2). When we deal with that, we'll deal with the main issue, and I suppose we'll dispose thereby of everything else. Mr. Chair, ultimately that's part of what Mr. Jordan's motion is all about, what it would remove.

The Chair: Are there amendments referring to proposed subsection 405.3(2)?

Mr. Geoff Regan: There are lots of them, Mr. Chair, including Mr. Jordan's.

The Chair: Given that, the best I can do is continue as we're doing. Let's take these things and treat them as they come.

By the way, Marlene's point was to recognize that somewhere, if there's a change in this matter of associations, we're going to have to make sure it reflects back through the rest. Is that what you--

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It's almost an editorial thing.

The Chair: We're considering G-8.

Susan, go ahead.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: Would it be possible at some point to get the amendments that would be consequential up to and including G-8 and deal with them all at once so at least when we come to them we can stand them faithfully?

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: I'm sorry, but there's a bit of a technical problem. A lot of the government motions that are related to these associations assume that the key provision, proposed subsection 405.3(2), will not be amended or at least not removed completely. So if we don't vote on these now, one thing that could be done when we get there, as I think was suggested, would be to accept that these are technical motions, and if the main one is removed through a motion, then we'll get back to the others. Or, when we get to proposed subsection 405.3(2), if it is maintained in the bill, we'll have to ensure that these technical amendments are voted favourably, because they are technical, to ensure it works.

The Chair: So we can do it either way. We can stand them or we can simply vote them, and then when the time comes, we will come back to them. I would propose that we vote, and the amendment is G-8.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Can we proceed to CA-4, page 45.

Ted.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The aim of this amendment is to reduce the amount of administrative burden on riding associations without significantly impacting on the principle of transparency.

Now, I personally can't imagine a situation where the total contributions made by an individual reaching $1,275 could be construed as anything more than support as opposed to attempting to influence. For example, we do three or four mailings a year to our membership, and quite often people will send $100 this time, $200 the next time, and $50 the next time, and it adds up over the year. We always remind them in those letters what their maximum tax rebate is, and quite a lot of people reach that towards the end of the year. Again, I don't think that can be construed as attempts to influence, it's just simply a show of support through the year.

Now, I don't know what the government's position is on this, but I'm not stuck on the $1,275. I chose that number because it relates directly to the maximum tax rebate that's available to an individual.

I notice that on the next amendment Mr. Borotsik is suggesting $500. I would hope the government is open to discussion on this one, and I'm certainly not adverse to some sort of friendly amendment. I would tend to prefer the $1,275 because it has that link to the maximum tax rebate; it's a very practical number.

Â (1200)

The Chair: Before I go to the government side, Rick, do you want to comment on that?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, I'll wait for Geoff's comments, and then I would support a change.

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: First of all, Mr. Chairman, a similar motion, CA-10, is made for reports by parties, leadership contestants--which is actually CA-13--and nomination contestants, but not for reports by candidates. The concern of the government is that this would reduce the transparency of political financing. Also, to the extent the change is not proposed for all participants, it would result in discrepancies.

The problem is, this does not preclude a situation where some person, organization, or company could give contributions to ridings across the country without them being reported, and then you wouldn't know the fact that this company has given $100,000 to a party through its EDAs.

The Chair: Rick Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I don't follow the argument that it's not acceptable because it doesn't also apply to candidates and nominees. That can be changed.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the government, again, it's a simply philosophy. The number that's listed in here is $200. There are other jurisdictions throughout this country right now that have declaration limits that are certainly higher than $200. It's an arbitrary number and it's one that, in my opinion, should grow in order for it to be somewhat realistic.

Again, my number was $500. I would certainly put my motion in concert with Mr. White's motion here because they're both of the same philosophy. We're arguing the philosophy and not necessarily the amount. The fact is that this legislation is going to be in place for a long time. I know you can amend legislation, but let's be reasonable when we go forward, first of all. With a $500 limit it's pretty reasonable not to have any declaration.

The Chair: Rick, we're not debating yours yet, we're debating the $1,275.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Well, as to the $1,275, Mr. White did say he was certainly amenable to an argument.

Philosophically, I think we have to come up with a more reasonable number for declaration on this. It's not a matter of hiding anything and it's not a matter of transparency; it's matter of realism, that there is at some level a reasonable amount a person can donate individually and not have to declare it to the point where we have blood samples that have to go along with the donation, which is what we see for associations at this point in time. So I would certainly argue in favour of Mr. White's motion but not necessarily for the amount of $1,275.

The Chair: Ted White.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank you for keeping the focus on this particular amendment because I would like to deal with them one by one. I believe there's a different logic in each case, and certainly there may be a discussion about what should be the appropriate level in each case.

With regard to this particular amendment and the objection raised by Mr. Regan that maybe a corporation could donate $1,275 to every riding association across the country, I guess maybe that could happen, but really, it's a matter of calculated risk. We have to weigh that against the administrative nightmare for riding associations and the practicality of this whole situation.

If we're talking about transparency, the ability to indicate where there are attempts at influence or the perception of it, I don't think it's unreasonable to raise this threshold a bit, ideally to $1,275, so riding associations aren't bogged down with enormous amounts of administration for no good purpose. It won't reveal anything, just take up paperwork.

I don't think the objection raised by Mr. Regan that a corporation is going to take advantage of this is a realistic expectation; it's just not realistic.

The Chair: Geoff, it's you, and then I'm going to call it, knowing we're going to be discussing this matter again in a minute.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I don't know why, if a corporation wants to give donations of more than $1,000 to a political party, it's so unrealistic for it to consider the idea of giving $150 to every riding association. I don't see why that's so unrealistic, but if he feels that way, fine.

For the benefit of colleagues on the committee, it might be useful for them to know what the limits are across the country in the provinces and territories. In Newfoundland and Labrador it's any donation over $100; in Prince Edward Island it's $250; in Nova Scotia it's $50; New Brunswick, $100; Quebec, $200; Ontario, $100; Manitoba, $250; Saskatchewan, $250; Alberta, $375; British Columbia, $250; the Yukon, $250; the Northwest Territories, $100; Nunavut, $100.

I don't think anyone could say the $200 is out of line with those.

Â (1205)

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, those sound like the donations during an election campaign.

Mr. Geoff Regan: They're the reporting requirements, the disposal requirements, for comparison.

Mr. Ted White: But none of those provinces and territories have legislation like this for them to report those amounts every year.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I think they do. It's just this question of requirements.

Mr. Ted White: You see, during an election campaign there's a good reason to report certain amounts, but this is not just during the focused point of an election campaign of six weeks. This is over an entire year, and people may make several contributions.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I see here now that it does depend. It says here, in some cases it's for candidates, political parties, and third parties, but not in all cases. It doesn't always apply to third parties in some of the provinces, for example. It's only in three provinces that it applies to third parties, and it applies to leadership contestants in only Manitoba and British Columbia. So it's true that it doesn't apply in all--

Mr. Ted White: And there may be additional considerations such as cost-of-living increases and so on, but I'm not sure this is relevant to this argument.

The Chair: Carolyn Parrish, and then we'll call it.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'm in favour of simplicity. The $200 reasonably covers all those figures you just read out; it fits in the middle, and it also covers election and non-election years. If we're looking for simplicity, the figure proposed by the government is the best figure, and I'm going to support it.

The Chair: The vote is on CA-4.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Could we proceed to PC-11, page 46.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chair, do I go through my same arguments again? I don't agree with--

The Chair: No, that's one of the reasons I called the vote the last time.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I appreciate that. We know the philosophy, and now we're just arguing about the numbers.

I don't agree with Mrs. Parrish on this. I don't believe that because the $200 comes from the government, it's reasonable. I think it's arbitrary. As we've just seen from other jurisdictions, it ranges from $375 to $50--

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: That's not what I said. I said--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, that's exactly what you said, that it's somewhere in the middle.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: --it's a proposal.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It's an arbitrary number. Let's be reasonable about it. We're reasonable people sitting around a reasonable table saying, this is a piece of legislation that's going to go forward ad infinitum, so let's be realistic: $200 today is not $200 tomorrow.

Let's do the Alberta number. Maybe it's more reasonable at $375, but mine is $500, which takes into account us going forward into the future. I will leave it at $500, but it's obvious we're not going to go anywhere on this.

The Chair: I'll call PC-11.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Can we proceed to Parrish L-1.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: This is a bad location. Can we stand this until Rick is in a better mood or goes to his conference?

What are you doing here? You're supposed to be someplace else.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Personally, I'd much rather be someplace else.

The Chair: You reap what you sow.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, I know.

I would like to add a paragraph, 403.35(2)(c.1). It says:

in the case of an individual that is a contributor referred to in paragraph (c), the name of that contributor's employer, and any corporation of which the contributor is a director;

What this does is, if AstraZeneca--and I shouldn't use that, but it's just one of my favourite companies--decided to have every employee in the company give me $100--

A voice: But they won't.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Well, they might; I'm charming.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: It would show up on a printout that it was the same corporation donating each time. What this does is, it increases transparency in the system, it discourages funnelling through the employees or directors, and a pattern would emerge that would be visible to the chief electoral officer instantaneously.

For Mr. White's benefit, this is part of the U.S. system. They have that in their system right now, so that should impress the heck out of you. I don't know about New Zealand.

The Chair: Ted White.

Mr. Ted White: I'd like to ask Ms. Parrish if she would be willing to add unions to this so anybody who's a contributor and who belongs to a union has to give the name of the union.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, that's friendly.

The Chair: Hang on. You do the phrasing and tell me what it says if it's friendly. It's “any corporation or union”, right?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes: “corporation or union of which the contributor is a director”.

The Chair: Rick Borotsik.

Â (1210)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, during the hearing of witnesses I had suggested this at one time because there is some concern about possible abuse wherein employees of certain corporations would then be allowed to make contributions and donations as individuals as opposed to corporations. At that time, when I questioned the witness, the witness--and I can't remember who it was--said no, I don't think you want that kind of a regulatory handcuff on it.

The problem I have with this amendment is the follow-up, the ability to be able to have checks and balances, to be able to find out who the individual contributor is.

By the way, you may be employed by a particular corporation--I won't mention the name--and you may want to make a contribution to different candidates throughout, but that is legitimate. That's a legitimate, individual contribution up to the limit of $10,000, I might add.

I think we're becoming Big Brother on this more than anything, and the logistics of the regulation are tough. Where do we go from here? Do we do DNA samples next time to make sure we don't just have corporations and so we can identify and follow that individual through the whole process?

I initially liked it. Unfortunately, I can't support it at this time, and I'd like to hear where the government is going to go on this one.

The Chair: I prefer “Big Sibling”.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand what my colleague is trying to do, but I see a problem. Just because I sit on a company board of directors doesn't give anyone the right to conclude that I'm making a contribution in my capacity of board member. Putting it another way, my contribution shouldn't be tied solely to my status as a board member. Therefore, an amendment of this nature will not dissuade anyone.

Instead, I think we're complicating matters. Take, for instance, the case of a person who sits on 10 boards. Members of all ten boards will have to be listed because of a $100 donation. That could be a problem.

I understand the principle behind my colleague's proposed amendment, but the fact is that we've taken every possible precaution to avoid such a situation.

[English]

The Chair: Can I go straight to government, please.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, in our view, this would create a greater burden to collect information on the part of the person who receives the donation. It's more information to collect, obviously, and it may put a chill on certain donors' willingness to give.

The evil the member seeks to repress--which of course is corporations giving through their employees and their directors--will be caught, we think, by the anti-avoidance rules, by the prohibition against giving money that is not your own, and by the snitch factor. That is the danger that someone will know about this, and you never know, if they get mad at you later or if they're mad at the employer or whatever, they may tell. Those are all factors.

In relation to the idea you're going to have any member of a union have to declare the fact that they're a member of a union, why not say that anyone who belongs to any organization whatsoever should list what organization they belong to? I think it seems a bit excessive, personally.

The Chair: Carolyn Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, I don't like the idea of including unions; even though I said I did, I don't. I think it should be “union executive”. Think of the number of people who belong to unions in this country: it's millions of people. So I like “union executive”.

As far as your answer is concerned, Mr. Regan, as much as you and I are very good friends, it's a very simplistic approach, in my opinion. I think that saying we're going to catch them because somebody is going to snitch on them is pretty simplistic.

Mr. Geoff Regan: It was the weakest of the three arguments.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: What I'm considering here is, there is a lot of information we collect you don't necessarily use.

Now, if suddenly one single company and 65 people who work for that company donated money to four MPs or four riding associations, that would pop out so easily it would be foolish to ignore. What I'm suggesting is, it's a piece of information that puts what you're doing into a hard-core investigative position rather than you hoping somebody is going to snitch or that somehow we're going to ruminate over this and somebody is going to magically figure it out.

If you want to make this transparent and you want to put checks and balances in, it doesn't mean you use all the information. It would be ludicrous.

I'm a big fan of name brand drugs. If five big companies in my riding had a hundred employees each give me money, it would be so easy to pick out doing this, and I wouldn't have to do a lot of work--

The Chair: Rick Borotsik .

Mr. Rick Borotsik: There are other options. There are SIN numbers as opposed to just having your employer; we could always trace people back on SIN numbers, especially if Ms. Parrish would like to.

If you change employment, are you going to have to have a 30-day notice period to declare your change of employment, giving where you were at the time of the donation and where you are now after the donation?

Â (1215)

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I think you should go to your conference. I think you'd have much more fun there.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Michel Gauthier.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier: It's all a matter of transparency, Mr. Chairman. Either we want to be transparent, or we don't. I totally agree with the Member. If we want to guard against undue influence and any end runs around the legislation -- just imagine for a moment all of the members of the Royal Bank's Board of Directors deciding to donate $10,000 to the Liberal Party -- it might be a good idea after all to have access to the list of directors. That kind of information could prove useful.

As far as Quebec's legislation is concerned, while it might be very interesting, one of the problems that the government is endeavouring to correct is the practice of people violating to some extent the spirit of the act. The legislation is extremely difficult to enforce. Therefore, I think it might indeed prove interesting to have this kind of information. In my view, it would result in greater transparency. Consequently, I wholeheartedly support this amendment.

[English]

The Chair: I'm going to call Parrish L-1.

(Amendment negatived)

Can we please move to BQ-6, page 47, Michel Gauthier.

Michel, there are again consequential amendments; will you mention those.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, the problem, as I see it, is that the deletion of lines 25 to 28 is directly linked to the elimination of corporate political financing. That proposal has been rejected. I can always try and convince you anew, but I think that would be a difficult proposition.

[English]

The Chair: So BQ-6, BQ-18, BQ-20, and BQ-22 are all negatived.

Can we proceed to page 48, PC-12.

Rick Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm sure I'll get Mrs. Parrish to support me on this one.

Mr. Chairman, this is a philosophical argument. I understand that there was some peripheral discussion about this. What we're asking to do is to delete proposed paragraph 403.35(2)(g). What the amendment effectively says is that if there's a transfer internally from riding associations to the party or to other candidates, that internal transfer, because it has been recorded in other areas with the funding coming in and all that, should be the business of the party, the association, and the candidates themselves.

We just think that there's an intrusion here that's not necessary, although I know the government is going to explain how there is a potential for abuse. I don't see the potential for abuse here, but I'm sure that somehow, somewhere, they're going to try to justify it in that fashion.

I honestly believe that all of us around here have faith in our own parties, our own organizations--well, I do.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I honestly do. Obviously, I'm going to lose this one.

If it's an internal movement, since the money is collected outside and we have made all the declarations already, I think it's just an intrusion--Mr. Chair, through you.

Thank you.

The Chair: Could we have the government side, please.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, first of all, we know that under the bill EDAs may not transfer corporate contributions to parties. The problem with this amendment is that it would make it impossible for Elections Canada to track whether that was happening or not. Deleting this provision would significantly diminish the value of the financial reports by the EDAs, registered parties, and candidates of registered parties, and it would result in an inaccurate picture of an EDA's financial situation.

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm leaning towards supporting this because it gets back to the issue we discussed.

Let's just take an example. My association raises $12,000, that is, $6,000 from individuals and $6,000 from corporate. I'm asked to transfer $6,000 a year to my provincial association. I can do that because I happened to raise $6,000 from individuals. What I'm then saying is, all the money I spent on my own operations was actually the corporate money and I'm giving you the money from individuals. This is ridiculous; it really is ridiculous.

If we think this regulation is in any way improving the situation, we're kidding ourselves. I agree with Rick; I think the limits are set once money is in the system. Giving it to me is helping the party in a holistic way, and to make further distinctions is overly problematic.

What I'll add to that is that I've been involved in a few discussions about how this is going to change fundraising and how parties have to change their operation. I have to tell you that I think it's going to change things for the better, I really do. From the Liberal Party perspective, we're going to have to knock on more doors, shake more hands, and change our culture a little to focus more on the individual, and I think that's a very positive thing.

But it's also going to require a bit more flexibility in terms of how the money flows within the party. I guess I agree completely with Mr. Borotsik, that once it's in the system, it should be able to flow around without these kinds of constraints. The solution is much more problematic than the problem here.

Â (1220)

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I see two problems, Mr. Chairman. The first is that if a candidate is making transfers during a campaign, for example, then Elections Canada won't be able to calculate what surplus he should be handing over to the party at the end of the election.

Second, if you weren't tracking these, the party's books would not balance--a minor detail.

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: You can track it and record it as a block transfer from the association. At the end of the day, we don't lose track of the money. If I transfer $6,000 of my money to the provincial or national association, they record it as money in and I record it as money out. All we're saying is, you don't have to take the further step of tracking the fact that the corporate money went to paper clips and the individual money went to the party. I think we're just going a little bit too far, and I say that as somebody who supports this bill.

If your problem is that somehow corporations will do what they do in Ontario, which is donate money to the national party through the association, what I would say is, you're treating the symptom. We somehow make this distinction--which I've never understood--that a corporation can give to a constituency association or a candidate, that's okay, but they can't give to the party, that's not okay.

Either get rid of it or at least allow it to be something we can work with. It forces bias into the system. Rural MPs who raise more from individuals will have more flexibility to donate back up through the system than will urban MPs.

I don't know why we're doing this. I cannot understand the rationale for micromanaging the party's business at this level.

The Chair: Ted White.

Mr. Ted White: Through you, Mr. Chairman, I just don't follow the logic that the books won't balance. The riding associations have to file a report once a year that explains all their assets and liabilities and everything that's happened for the year. It's going to be darned obvious what took place.

It just seems to me that maybe the government is struggling here to continue to make its case for not accepting this amendment. The safest thing might be to stand it till they've had a chance to think about it a little more. I think this is a really problematic area; it's just too intrusive on the internal party transfers of funding.

I support the amendment, but if the government's really struggling there to state its position, I think we should stand it.

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I agree with the need to record the transaction in absolute terms. It goes back to the other argument we're getting ready for, which is further on down the bill, so it may be worthwhile to stand this until we solve the bigger issue.

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, my point is, all we're doing is recording a block transfer and not all the details of it. Look what it says:

a statement of the commercial value of goods or services provided and of funds transferred by the registered association to the registered party, to another registered association or to a candidate endorsed by the registered party;

It isn't asking for the details on where it all came from; it's just saying, tell us how much you transferred.

Â (1225)

The Chair: I'm calling PC-12.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: With your permission, I'd like to take a moment longer to speak, not about the amendment as that issue has been settled, but about the wording of the clause. I can understand the need in English to repeat...

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry, Jacques; are you dealing with the one we just dealt with?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Not the amendment, with the bill itself.

[Translation]

I'm trying to understand why the English and French wordings would differ. In the English version, the drafters deemed it useful to repeat the expression “registered association”, whereas in the French version, the word “enregistré” was omitted. Is there a particular reason why this was done?

[English]

The Chair: Could someone comment on that, Geoff and your colleagues.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: Paragraph (g) refers to “by the registered association“. In fact, all associations that file returns are registered associations.

Mr. Jacques Saada: My question concerns the text that comes after that. In the French version, the provision notes that the statement may be transferred “à une autre association”, not one specifically designated as a registered association.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: I believe your observation is correct.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you. Should I move a motion to amend in that case?

I move that in line 45 in the French version, the word “enregistrée” be added after the word “association”.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, you heard that.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Jacques, for pointing that out.

We're on page 49, PC-13.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I am withdrawing this amendment because it's redundant; it speaks to the previous amendment. If I lost that one dramatically, I don't expect this one is going to go any further, so I will withdraw it.

The Chair: We appreciate it; PC-13 is withdrawn.

We then go to page 50, NDP-7.

Dick Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thanks, Chair.

What we're proposing here is that we have full disclosure of financial loans when they're borrowed for a campaign, including the interest rates, repayment schedules, and the name of the lending institution. As the bill stands now, it's our position that there are no significant disclosure conditions on loans made to a registered association. In the interests of transparency, we believe these things should be included.

As I look at what is written here, I would have an observation that we might want to say “the name of the lending institution or lender” because it may very well be that you would not receive money from an institution per se but from an individual who is able to lend.

The Chair: Colleagues, the amendment we're considering should, in the last line before the semicolon, read “lending institution or lender”.

Is there any discussion? Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, first of all, you'll note that the information regarding loans is already required under proposed paragraph 403.35(2)(i), and it's unclear to me what this motion would add. Moreover, the reference to “campaign” in the proposed text here is imprecise. There is no definition of what campaign it's referring to.

The Chair: Dick Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Well, it may be referred to, but the point is that as it stands, we won't see what the interest rate is, what the terms and conditions are, whether they are favourable, and things along that line. That's what we're trying to get at here. If the issue is transparency, then this is to assist in that.

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Proposed paragraph 403.35(2)(i) in the bill says “a statement of loans or security received by the registered association, including any conditions on them”.

Â (1230)

The Chair: I'll call NDP-7.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of proceedings])

The Chair: We're on PC-14, page 51.

Rick Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you , Mr. Chairman.

I must beg the indulgence of the drafters and certainly of the committee.

This is pretty simple. In our party we have the ability to buy a single-year annual membership of $10. We also have the ability to buy a membership for $50, taking you into a five-year membership period. That would mean $10 a year for five years, but you buy it in one lump sum.

I don't know if this is the right location for this, but what I'm suggesting is that for a membership up to and including $50, it should not have to be registered as a contribution or a donation to the party. It's a membership fee of $10 multiplied by five years, which makes $50.

I find, again, this is going to be terribly cumbersome. I don't know if this is the right location. It is another paragraph after proposed paragraph 403.35(4), and when you read it, it doesn't quite fit. I'd like to hear from the drafters as to whether in fact there's a better location, or better yet, if there's any feeling for this from the committee, to have it so a membership fee up to $50 is not registered as a contribution.

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, let me give you the government's reaction to this motion. First of all, a similar effect would have resulted from PC-1. We're arguing the definition of “contributions”, and that motion was rejected.

Next, the language in the motion, in the government's view, is unclear. Would it result in these fees not being calculated as part of the EDA's revenues? Moreover, the motion refers to party membership fees, and it appears to assume that such party fees are paid to associations, not to parties. This is the section dealing with the EDA's return, and of course it varies in different parties.

I'm going to invite the officials to speak if they'd like to add a comment.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: By the way, I might also say that the drafters suggested this be the location. I didn't agree with that; there must be someplace better it could fit.

But really, it's about the substance. If you agree with the substance, we'll find a location. If you don't agree with the substance, then we don't have to worry about location.

The Chair: Michèle.

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: We may be able to put it in proposed section 404 or 405, which deal with contributions. I think proposed section 404 would probably be the best one, but we're not there yet.

The Chair: Are you suggesting that or are you saying it's technically possible?

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: I'm just saying there's a place.

The Chair: Geoff, are you suggesting that or are you saying it's technically possible?

Mr. Geoff Regan: I'm looking into it, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Do you want me to stand it and come back to it in a few minutes? We're going to finish, by the way, colleagues, in 20 or 25 minutes. Do you want me to do that?

Mr. Geoff Regan: I think that would be fine.

The Chair: Jacques Saada, before we do, do you want to comment on it?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I'm very interested in this amendment because I don't believe the aim of this bill is to have us submit our membership list to the Chief Electoral Officer. If we were required to disclose all of the contributions made at sign up, this would be tantamount to giving the Chief Electoral Officer our riding association membership lists. I have reservations about doing that.

As for the amounts in question, mention was made of $50. It could be $25 or $20, depending on the political party, but I think a maximum of $50 is reasonable. This would include five or six years' worth of dues. I agree with the principle at issue and I think we should support this amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Gauthier.

Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I sincerely think the idea is a sound one and that it in no way changes the meaning of the act. The aim is to allow a certain amount of needed room to manoeuvre. I have no problem supporting the PC party on this matter.

Â (1235)

[English]

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to suggest that the committee should agree on the principle of this. We could defeat this motion but agree to bring a separate motion on proposed section 404 to deal with this.

The Chair: Excuse me, Geoff; you will introduce the separate motion when the time comes?

Mr. Geoff Regan: I don't mind, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So we can stand this down until proposed section 404, then we can bring it back, and we can see what Mr. Regan has to offer.

The Chair: Exactly. This PC-14 is stood.

Now, BQ-7 is negatived and is consequential to BQ-5, which is also negatived.

Michel, ça va?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Geoff Regan: Speaking of going, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would mind a quick recess.

The Chair: I suspend for two minutes.

Â (1236)

Â (1239)

The Chair: Could we resume. For the record, that recess allowed us to dot our i's and cross our p's.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Ted, CA-5, page 53.

Â (1240)

Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The consequential connection is on page 76 in the binder, CA-9. I don't mind dealing with them separately, but if we want to discuss the principle together, that's fine as well. I heard some encouraging noises coming out of the government yesterday on this particular one, so I'm hoping we can get somewhere on it. Again, this is oriented towards reducing the amount of unnecessary administration for riding associations without impinging on the transparency.

The classic example is the passing-the-hat situation, and we do it all the time at our public meetings. Often people will put $10 in, and the next person puts a $20 bill in and takes $10 out. I can just imagine the look of horror when that hat comes back and there are three or four $20 bills in there; the people will say, my God, we have to find who did that and give them receipts.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Or they put in $10 and take $20. That's happened too.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: You do that in church.

Mr. Ted White: So we have to do something about making change. I chose the number $50. It's not excessive, yet it allows for the eventuality that over time maybe people will get to giving $50.

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister was interested in what the case is in other provinces, and let me just tell you. In Quebec a receipt must be issued for every contribution. In Ontario a receipt must be issued for every contribution. However, anonymous contributions of $10 or less can be accepted at meetings held in relation to the affairs of a candidate, constituency association, or party in response to a general collection of money solicited by a person attending a meeting. It doesn't say whether it's collected for the party or not.

Anyway, in Alberta it's the same thing: a receipt must be issued for every contribution; however, political parties can keep anonymous contributions of $50 and less.

In British Columbia there is no obligation to issue a receipt in that province, but the financial agent of a political participant must keep a record of the name and address of every contributor who made a contribution; that's under section 190 of their act. Political participants can also keep anonymous contributions of $50 and less when collected in response to a general solicitation at a meeting in relation to the affairs of a political participant.

I see some sense in the way they do it in both British Columbia and Ontario, where it's in relation to a general solicitation at a meeting, the kind of thing like passing the hat Ted was talking about. I think there might be some benefit in actually clarifying it, spelling it out the way they do in Ontario and British Columbia in that regard.

The Chair: Ted White.

Mr. Ted White: I think it's clear from the numbers and conditions that were read out by Mr. Regan that there's a diversity of opinion about what should be the correct amount and how it should be administered, and it differs greatly from province to province.

I guess it comes down to how complicated we want this to be. Does Mr. Regan have a suggestion for how we can--

Mr. Geoff Regan: I wonder if Mr. White would be interested, Mr. Chairman, in drafting something that provides some limit on that so you respond to the precise issue we're talking about, passing the hat. It could be like what we see British Columbia, where it's collected in response to general solicitation at a meeting in relation to the affairs of a political participant.

Mr. Ted White: I don't have a problem with that. I would consider that to be friendly.

The Chair: So we would say something like, contributions of more than $50 when collected in that way. Is that what you would suggest?

Mr. Geoff Regan: I wonder if $30 or $50 is the right number. It strikes me, for example, that I don't see a big problem with people passing the hat to get $20 bills. The question is, what is the committee's view on what the number should be, whether it should be $20, $25, $30, or $50? What should the number be?

The Chair: We know what Mr. White's view is: it's $50.

Mr. Ted White: I just have a small intervention on that $50 thing. I remember now what I was thinking about with this number.

All of the act is really concerned with what individuals contribute. Sometimes at meetings a husband and wife or partners are sitting together, and one will say to the other, why don't you throw in $20 for me as well, so they drop $50 in the bucket. That happens at our meeting.

Again, I just didn't want to get riding associations into situations where they were trying to account for this stuff, and $50 seemed reasonable.

Â (1245)

The Chair: Carolyn Parrish, please.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Chairman, I don't want everybody to think I'm a very diabolical thinker, but let's say I went to one of these large corporations that thinks I'm wonderful. They have a thousand employees, and I'm addressing them on some subject of federal interest. Then they decide to pass the hat, and every one of the thousand employees puts in $50. That's a pile of money.

I think $50 is too high. I think you have to regulate what sort of meeting it is, that it not exceed so many people in attendance. What if I go to address a large drug company, there are a thousand people sitting there in the audience, and then they pass the hat for me? I walk out of there a very wealthy lady.

Let's do $20.

Mr. Ted White: Let's do $20.

The Chair: By the way, the next amendment says $25.

A voice: Let's do $25.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: No, listen. I was listening to Geoff, and Geoff said, first of all change the wording, and Ted appeared to generally agree with that. So it's going to explain and give the circumstances of the collection, something like that; we'll hear that. Then he said, what about the number? I assume what you're going to do is, you're going to come back to us and give us some wording now or in future.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, the danger is that $50 would increase the amount of contributions unaccounted for. For example, an association reports it got $500 or did a collection and got $3,000. Well, you don't really know where that came from; you assume it's all $10 or $20 contributions--

An hon. member: It's from car washes and bake sales.

Mr. Geoff Regan: It's from the old car washes and bake sales Rick is so interested in. The point is, it's money that's unaccounted for, and that's the concern about having a high limit. For me, $25 or $30, something in that range, is more practical. Besides, if a wife wants to give it, they can take their $20 each and put--

The Chair: Colleagues, the next amendment I have, PC-15, says $25. Geoff, in answer to your question, people think $25 is okay.

So it's a contribution of more than $50, and then you have some wording from British Columbia, “collected by” something. Is that what it is?

Mr. Geoff Regan: Let me tell you what I have in the explanation. This isn't the actual wording of the section from B.C., it's just in the explanation of the situation in B.C.

The Chair: I can stand these two if you like, and then at the next meeting you can come back and we'll come back to them.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I would suggest that maybe if Ted wants to draft something and if he's agreeable with that number of $25, if he can live with that, then let's stand these and let him come back with a drafted motion. How's that?

Mr. Ted White: I don't have a problem with that. You'll share your wording with me and I'll have it redrafted.

The Chair: I'm going to stand CA-5, then.

Rick, can I stand yours too?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, you can, but I have a suggestion as well. If you go to the next two, you'll see they talk about the cumulative amount. It has been suggested changing $200 to either $1,275 or $500. If we agree with the concept that $10 is going to be changed to $25, then there should be an adjustment to that too. Why don't you stand the next two as well, CA-6 and PC-16?

You have to have a cumulative, Geoff. If it's now $20 or $25 and eight or 10 people in a room give $20, it's over the limit. If you haven't registered it, then you have to send it in to the Receiver General; it goes hand in glove. Why don't we stand the other two down and have them come forward at the same time?

The Chair: I'm quite comfortable with that. It gives people time to think. It would give you, Ted, time to draft, and it would give the government time to think about CA-6 and PC-16 as well.

Ted White.

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, CA-6 is actually consequential to an earlier amendment because it's tied into $1,275, and that one was negatived. It's off.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So take PC-16 with it.

Mr. Ted White: Well, if CA-6 is negatived, I don't think you want yours negatived.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, I do not. I'm saying--

The Chair: Could I repeat this? We're going to stand CA-5, PC-15, and PC-16.

Rick, are you okay with that?

Â (1250)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm just wonderful with that. I think it's great.

The Chair: The government, you know what we're doing. When you all come back, you'll be ready to deal with it, okay? So they're stood, and we'll do one more if it's possible.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make your day because the next one is PC-17. I'm going to withdraw it because it has been dealt with under G-4. You are so happy.

The Chair: Oh, I am so happy.

Then we'll go to CA-7.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I suggest you rule this amendment out of order because it requires a royal recommendation. It would increase from $1,500 to $2,500 the maximum amount that can be reimbursed to a registered association for an audit.

The Chair: It deals with expenditures. It can only be dealt with at report stage.

Mr. Geoff Regan: This is a reimbursement from the Government of Canada for the auditor; it increases it, so clearly it requires a royal recommendation.

The Chair: Ted, you understand that. Do you want to argue it?

Mr. Ted White: No. I understand perfectly, but I would still like to take this opportunity to ask the government's willingness to consider this at report stage, then.

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Let me respond that the government's position on this is that the purpose of the audit subsidy isn't necessarily to cover all of the audit expenses but only part of them.

Mr. Ted White: Why is the government's position that it only wants to cover part of the costs? We're dealing with professionals here, not necessarily volunteers, but they end up being de facto volunteers by having to sell their services at below market value. Why is the government's position that it doesn't want pay for it?

Mr. Geoff Regan: It has to do with saving the taxpayer's dollar. I know you're anxious to do that.

Mr. Ted White: Oh, oh! Here, take the money out of the unregistered paperwork. Now, that is a really weak argument. That is just awful.

The Chair: So CA-7 is inadmissible for the reason we've described, and clause 23 should stand.

(Clause 23 allowed to stand)

The Chair: I think this would be a good place to stop, but just give me a minute first before we do.

Colleagues, I want to go through where I think we are. You all know we meet again today from 3:30 until 4:30 with the president of the Liberal Party as the witness. I would strongly suggest our next meeting be 5:30 on Monday. Then, by the way, we'll proceed to 11 o'clock on Tuesday, our regular time, and then begin again at 3:30 on Tuesday, as we did yesterday, with the meeting going straight through the evening.

Carolyn Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I might respectfully suggest we find out how many of the core members can be here on Monday at 5:30, number one, and number two, why don't we start at 9 o'clock on Tuesday morning and have a good run at it?

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I have something else to say, but on this, I don't mind meeting extra time, but if you want me to meet on Monday, don't tell me on Thursday; that's my only point. If we can come up with a schedule over the next couple of weeks, I don't mind devoting the time, but I can't be here on Monday at 5:30. Now, that may be good or bad, I don't know.

The Chair: Rick Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Well, I don't like meeting in the morning because the chair is not a morning person; he's kind of grumpy at the best of times. Can you imagine meeting at 9 o'clock?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rick Borotsik: We're also dealing with electoral boundaries right now, and we're trying to jam in as much as we possibly can. I think we have some overlap in time that has been identified. We have the clerk and the researcher here, so you're going to miss a lot of us if we overlap.

The Chair: By the way, that applies for Tuesday, which is one of the reasons I'm suggesting Monday.

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, also based on the schedule we've been following to date, I've made commitments in my riding for Monday, and I'm on a 3:15 flight out of Vancouver. Like Mr. Jordan, I must say, please don't tell me on Thursday afternoon that I'm coming here for Monday. It really would be a major disruption for me.

Â (1255)

The Chair: I hear that from one or two members. What do other members think?

Mr. Ted White: I don't have a problem with starting early on Tuesday.

The Chair: Well, colleagues, I'm looking around the table here, and some can't make it for Monday. If we don't meet on Monday, despite the riding boundaries--and I do understand the department with the riding boundaries--I think we have to meet steadily on Tuesday. I have no objection to starting at 9 o'clock on Tuesday, but I think we should meet every possible hour on Tuesday. By the way, we may have to think about the riding boundaries and how that plays out.

You all know, I have tried in this committee to avoid extra meetings because of the whips and the people who are on there.

Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I just have two quick points, Mr. Chair. In one of the earlier meetings we discussed the quarterly reporting of national parties, and I understood someone to say that somebody was putting together an amendment. I just want to know where that is. Is that forthcoming?

The Chair: It's in there now.

Let me go back to where we are. We meet today at 3:30; that is still on. We meet, for the moment, Tuesday at 9 o'clock, and we will decide for just which hours. We're going to meet a lot of hours on Tuesday, okay? We will decide on Tuesday which hours those are, but there will be a lot.

Carolyn Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I have no objection to meeting on Wednesday morning as well. I know we all have caucus, but maybe we could start partway through Wednesday morning.

The Chair: Let's decide that next week, but at the moment it's Tuesday at 9 o'clock, and we're going to try to meet as many hours as we reasonably can on Tuesday.

Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: This point deals with this rumour that somehow we're going to request going from $1.50 to $2. I've spoken to the members individually, and I just want to say to the committee, if conceptually there's some view based on the number crunching--I'm not at that point yet, but I'm in the middle of trying to crunch them--that the public money is not offsetting the corporate money and there is a need to move on that figure, what I would suggest is this.

Let's say we went to $2--and I'm looking for some guidance in terms of how we do this. Then that extra 50¢ to the Liberals is $2.5 million. I would suggest, based on the arguments of the gentleman from the Conservative Party, who has been one of the most helpful witnesses we've had, that this then would become the figure that is some sort of core funding for registered parties in the House of Commons, not something that just lines the Liberals' pockets, because we're shopping for food on a full stomach and it's not fair to the other parties.

Who can I talk to about that?

The Chair: Let me say, first of all, it is not something we can do within the clause-by-clause of this bill because of the same reason we didn't do Ted White's. It's something that, if it's going to be introduced, has to be introduced at report stage.

On the other hand, when we get to the end and we have this thing wrapped up, the committee can make all sorts of commentary. We can comment and put opinion in there as much as we like, but the decision will be taken by the House of Commons itself. Are you comfortable with that?

Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, is there any reason we can't have clause-by-clause after Mr. LeDrew tonight?

The Chair: Colleagues, the suggestion is, do we meet at 4:30 on clause-by-clause today?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: Let me repeat, then. On Tuesday we meet at 9 o'clock and we meet all day if it's humanly possible. Okay?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Colleagues, meeting is adjourned until 3:30 today in 253-E.