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

Tuesday, June 3, 2003

0910

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

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.)

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

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

0915

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

0920

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

0925

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

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

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Dick Proctor

0930

The Chair

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Michel Guimond

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Michel Guimond

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Michel Guimond

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

0935

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC)

The Chair

0940

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

0945

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

0950

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

0955

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Ms. Michele René de Cotret

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Geoff Regan

1000

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

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

1005

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk)

1010

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Ms. Susan Baldwin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

1025

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Ted White

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

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

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

1030

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

1035

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

1040

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

1045

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

1050

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Ted White

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Geoff Regan

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

1055

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

1100

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

1105

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

1110

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

1115

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

1120

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Jacques Saada

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Jacques Saada

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

The Chair

1125

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.)

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Guy St-Julien

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

1130

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Geoff Regan

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Geoff Regan

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

1135

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

1140

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Geoff Regan

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

1145

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Geoff Regan

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

1150

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Le président

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

1155

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

1200

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

1240

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Jacques Saada

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Jacques Saada

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Ted White

1245

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

1250

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Jacques Saada

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Ms. Marlene Catterall

1255

Mr. Geoff Regan

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

1300

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Geoff Regan

1305

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

1310

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

1315

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Jacques Saada

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Stéphane Perrault

Mr. Jacques Saada

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

1320

Ms. Susan Baldwin

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Ms. Susan Baldwin

1325

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

NUMBER 048

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, June 3, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): 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 doing clause-by-clause, and when we get there in a moment, we're on page 60 of the binder.

You'll recall that last week the House of Commons referred to us the matter of MPs' privilege and the courts, and the steering committee agreed that before we decided what we should do, we should gather a substantial amount of background information. I have to report that collecting of material is in process. It looks as though, at the earliest, it would be the end of this week, maybe the beginning of next week, that we would have the material together. As some of you know, it's not only current material we're looking for, a lot of it goes back to, not exactly medieval times, but 200 or 300 years ago, when MPs really did have privileges. I just thought you should know that.

Also, I was asked today about the status of the election boundaries work. We tabled the report on Nova Scotia today, the subcommittee has been doing hearings on Ontario, and Quebec is next.

(On clause 23)

The Chair: Now we can continue where we left off. BQ-8 on page 59 was one that was eliminated as a result of earlier action.

Michel.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I am not asking to hold the meeting over again, but I have often put this question to some of my colleagues. In amendment BQ-8, we recognized three types of financing. As I say, I don't want to re-open the debate or the voting on BQ-8, but there was a follow-up matter that the government was supposed to follow up on. It's important to remember that BQ-8 provided for the elimination of three types of corporate financing: from companies or corporations, from unions, and from unincorporated associations.

I would like Mr. Regan to address this, because at the end of the last meeting, we had agreed we would take a look at the particular status of unincorporated associations.

[English]

The Chair: We're discussing this now, but it was consequential on BQ-5, I believe. Geoff Regan

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I thought Mr. Reagan would have an instant reply in his head. It's a good thing for us that the Privy Council people are here. Who is paying them?

[English]

The Chair: Michel, you'd be a very good colour commentator.

[Translation]

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, the government's position has not changed. Not only has the government's position not changed, but we believe it is necessary to provide for contributions from unincorporated associations--

Mr. Michel Guimond: The Bill uses the expression “associations de particuliers” in the French version. So, the government believes that contributions from unincorporated associations should continue to be allowed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Michel. We're now on page 60, Jordan L-2. Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Because of the nature of the consequential amendments, I was allowed to stand it. I appreciate the committee's doing that, but it's essentially identical to the amendment the Bloc was putting in to bring the corporate from $1,000 to zero, and I won't make the same arguments again. I've had this debate within my own caucus, and I've got some work to do. I'll continue in my parliamentary career to work towards this, because I do support it, but I won't waste the committee's time if you want to call the question.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: The next one is page 61, Bryden L-1.

Mr. Geoff Regan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, has this in fact been moved?

The Chair: Not as yet, but the package of material, of which this is a part, was introduced by John Bryden when he was at this committee early last week.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I'm not sure of the procedure, whether it has to be a member of the committee who moves this before we consider it or we just consider it and vote. How does it work?

The Chair: I would ask someone to move this motion.

Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I said I would move Bryden's amendment.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Geoff, thank you for that.

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to be given some clarification with respect to not only this clause, but many others that come after it. It has to do with the conditions under which amendments are deemed to be in order. Could an increase in the contribution mean an increase in the tax credit? Can these amendments be considered to be in order or do they have to be dealt with at the report stage?

The question I'm raising here will help us with what is coming up afterwards. I would like to know, if we're talking about a cap on contributions, whether we are also talking about a cap on the tax credit. And if the tax credit comes into play, then there are financial considerations. Is the Committee able to deal with these considerations, or should they be dealt with at the report stage? I'm not saying we should remove it; I just want to know how this would work.

¿ (0915)

[English]

The Chair: I understand the point. I would like some advice on this, colleagues.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I suggest we vote on the question, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: It does increase the corporate limit by $225. I don't want to support this, but I suggest that I call Mr. Bryden, because if we defeat it here, he can't move it at report stage, right?

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I'd suggest to you that this has not actually changed the tax credit itself. I think, if it were changing the credit itself, it would require a royal recommendation.

The Chair: I don't mind voting on this, but I don't want to create a precedent for later amendments.

Mr. Geoff Regan: This is not part of what the government has been proposing. It's opposed to this amendment.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We proceed to page 62, G-9. Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: It's changed, apparently, Mr. Chairman. We've gone from an “or” to an “and”. I gather we submitted a new amendment, fO24-024.27b.

The Chair: We don't have it.

Mr. Geoff Regan: You don't have it?

The Chair: Is the only change “contestants and” instead of “contestants or”?

Mr. Geoff Regan: In French it's twice actually.

The Chair: We have that change in our version. What is the other change?

Mr. Geoff Regan: In the English it says “contestants and”.

[Translation]

In French it says: « des contributions qui ne dépassent pas 1 000 $, au total »

[English]

The Chair: That's fine. Thank you, Geoff.

Colleagues, the English and French versions we have in our binder are the ones the government is speaking to.

Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: All right, Mr. Chairman.

These would amend proposed section 404.1 to ensure that corporations and unions may also make a $1,000 contribution to independent candidates. It would also amend the section to allow for a subsequent contribution from corporations and unions if there are two elections in the same district in the same year. In other words, if you have a byelection and a general election in the same year, or vice versa, it would allow a corporation or a union to make the contribution on each occasion. It would finally amend the section to allow for a subsequent contribution from a corporation or a union to the candidate for an election if the corporation or union previously made a contribution in that same year to an unsuccessful nomination candidate in that riding. In other words, if the concern is about exerting influence on a person who becomes elected, the fact that the $1,000 has been given to a candidate who was unsuccessful in seeking the nomination shouldn't prevent a company from then giving a contribution to the candidate who is successful.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Not to confuse the point, Geoff, but what does an unsuccessful candidate do if they have money left over, if they don't get the nomination? What happens to that money?

Mr. Geoff Regan: If it is a registered EDA, they transfer it, if I recall correctly, to the EDA. If it's not a registered EDA, because it hasn't met the requirements and has been de-registered or whatever, it goes to the party. They can also choose to transfer it to the successful candidate, which, of course, makes good sense.

The Chair: Ted, was that your point?

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Yes, I was just going to clarify that.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We will stand PC-18, page 66, until we have our colleague with us.

Jordan, L-3.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, I have suspicions that there may be a drafting problem with this. I'd like to stand this amendment and try to sort it out some time today. I'll endeavour to do that.

The Chair: Colleagues, are you comfortable with that? It's agreed.

(Amendment allowed to stand)

The Chair: So we have NDP-8, page 68.

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Before we go any further, I would like to come back to page 51, because there is an amendment I would like to move. I don't want us to get too far ahead.

[English]

The Chair: That's PC-14, page 51 in the binder. It's stood. Is there a particular reason for doing it now?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman; there must be a communication problem here, because we're not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about an amendment that relates to provincial and territorial divisions.

[English]

The Chair: As we have apparently received a number of new amendments, it would be much easier if the clerk could have a few minutes to look at them all together and find where they fit in our process here. Then we will return to them in 15 minutes to half an hour. Is that okay with you?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Of course it is.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We go to NDP-8, page 68. Dick Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): I wonder if the committee would agree that we look at the next one, which is NDP-9, so you can defeat that, and then we can deal with NDP-8.

The Chair: I see no objection.

Mr. Dick Proctor: This simply, along with other amendments submitted by the Bloc and Mr. Jordan, would delete any contributions being made by corporations or trade unions to candidates or contestants for nomination or leadership.

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

¿ (0925)

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, the government's position is that the decision to allow limited contributions at the local level from corporations, unions, and associations is integral to this bill. We think it's important that it remain.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We go to NDP-8, page 68.

Mr. Dick Proctor: The proposal here is that the definition of a trade union be “any local organization”. We want to make it abundantly clear that we oppose corporations and trade unions donating in any way, shape, or form, but since that's not the will of this committee, we want to argue that a trade union local should be treated similarly to a company. We just had an example in the previous motion from the government talking about two donations in an electoral district in the same year. We're talking about local issues, and we have trade union locals that have their own charters, elect their own boards, and have funds to dispense, but the way it's being defined here, under the Canada Labour Act, these individual locals, as I understand it, would not be able to donate money to the $1,000 limit, it would be up to the national office of most of the trade unions, depending on how they're chartered or incorporated. We believe this should be available to union locals.

I would submit that there are going to be huge difficulties in this, because a trade union is not going to understand it. A union local that has contributed for years and years to the political process is going to assume that now the amount is reduced, but they can contribute $1,000. They're going to find out, to their surprise and dismay, that this money will have to be turned back or it's only the head office of most of the unions that will be able to contribute. So that's the gist of it, that a trade union local would be able to contribute a maximum of $1,000 a year.

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I have a question that directly relates to the amendment. For businesses, as I recall, the definition provided in the Bill includes businesses, their branches and their subsidiaries. Are franchises also included, for example?

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret (Senior Privy Council Officer/Counsel, Legislation and House Planning/Counsel, Privy Council Office): The definition of a franchise is an independent business that only buys the product of a corporation with a view to reselling it. Insofar as the franchise is an independent corporation but is not controlled by the business that sells it the product, it is not included in the definition of corporation.

Mr. Jacques Saada: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I think we should be consistent throughout the Bill. If we are only allowing corporate contributions for a corporation as a whole, including its subsidiaries and branches, I see no reason why we would agree to increase union contributions, when we have moved to limit corporate contributions.

[English]

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you Mr. Chair.

I haven't given it a lot of thought, which may be dangerous, but I guess the discrepancy is that there is a quantifiable definition on the business side. If they qualify for the small business tax credit through Revenue Canada, they can give individually. The unions don't have that qualifier, so they're treated a little differently. But Dick, how many local unions are we talking about here? How much are we expanding the potential donor base?

Mr. Dick Proctor: I'm trying to find out that information. I don't know whether the Privy Council officers here can tell us. I would venture to say there are a heck of a lot more businesses in this country than there are trade union locals, so I don't think you're in any danger of seeing it lopsided in favour of the unions. But I don't have a precise number for you.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: Ted White.

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

Dick, it seems to me there may be a drafting error here because of the last line in the definition. As they stand in the bill, lines 6, 7, and 8 say “together with all of its branches or locals”. There'd have to be some work done on the drafting if this amendment were approved.

The Chair: Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to come back to the matter discussed in Ms. René de Cotret's earlier reply to my colleague, Jacques Saada, with respect to a franchise that is not controlled by the corporation. Let's take some specific examples. All Tim Horton's restaurants in Canada and all McDonald's restaurants in Canada are given a different company number when they incorporate. Of course they use the corporate banner and they are required to buy their supplies from the company. But if you ask for butter with your croissant at Tim Horton's, what you will get is Tim Horton's butter.

Coming back to Mr. Saada's question, does that mean that the owner of five McDonald's franchises, each of which has a different company number, could contribute $5,000 on behalf of each of his franchises?

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: No, because he controls five of them. A company that controls other companies falls within the definition of a corporation. I believe that's the term used. It's one per corporate entity.

Mr. Michel Guimond: And if it's the reverse--say these five separate owners of five McDonald's restaurants used the name McDonald's but also have the corporate name 284036-2622…

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Where companies are concerned, I have to be very careful. First of all, the McDonald's example is problematic. I don't want to get into all the details, but the fact is that there are McDonald's restaurants that belong to the company and there are other Mcdonald's restaurants that are franchises.

Mr. Michel Guimond: That are corporations.

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Yes. You really have to look at this on a case-by-case basis, and it has to follow the definition set out in the Income Tax Act. So, if at some point, a distinction has to be made…

Mr. Michel Guimond: Is it the same problem with Tim Horton's restaurants, for example?

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: I'm afraid I'm not an expert on franchises, Mr. Guimond.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Michel.

Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, first of all, it seems to me that where you have unions, you usually have labour lawyers, and I think labour lawyers would be well aware of these provisions brought into law and would advise the unions what the rules are. They would advise the head offices and national offices, and those would advise locals what the rules are and what the constraints are on their contributions. I'd be very surprised if there are many of them going into the next election who aren't aware of what these rules are.

As Mr. White has pointed out, the language of this is confusing, because it could, in effect, treat as distinct all accredited bargaining units, every unit could be considered accredited, but it would give very different attributes to unions than are given to, for instance, banks or corporations that have subsidiaries. Think of the number of companies we see in daily life that operate in our communities, but won't be able to give more than $1,000 across the whole country, whether it's the Royal Bank, or Bell Canada and all its subsidiaries, pharmaceutical companies, companies like Wal-Mart, Loblaw's, Sears, and so on and so on.

When it comes to the case of franchises like Tim Horton's, I would suggest that there won't be all that many cases in which the interest of the main corporation on a tax policy, say, is identical to the interest of the small business owners who hold the franchise. They have a different interest. If the company decides they'll provide a way to give a break to all their franchises of $1,000 so they can all give $1,000 to a particular party, if Elections Canada suddenly sees a whole lot of contributions from Tim Horton's franchises across the country of $1,000, I think they'll want to do an audit and find out what's going on there. If they find that there has been a break given by the main corporation to the franchisees, they're in breach of the law.

That's the government's position. We're opposed to this.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Joe Jordan .

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm curious, and I think this will be important as we move through this, about the existence or lack thereof of a review of this legislation at some point. I don't know whether we have that in the bill. I suspect we don't, but I may have missed it. Whether it's reviewed because it's part of other things that are reviewed I don't know. This particular issue I think is one we can deal with in two years or three years, when we review it. The problem I see is that we have defaulted to CCRA for a definition on the corporate side, which is certainly easy, but it's really a definition based on financial control within an organization, not political control. If there's a review in a reasonable number of years, I'm inclined to support Mr. Proctor, and we can sort it out when we see what's actually happened on the ground.

The Chair: To my knowledge, there's no review in the bill.

Dick Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Maybe I'll close the debate, if I can, and you can recognize Mr. Regan.

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: On this question Joe has brought forward, the Chief Electoral Officer holds a review and reports to this committee annually on that review. Each time he reports, it would give the committee a chance to look at this and examine the bill.

The Chair: Dick Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: When the minister was here, when we were discussing this, he used the example of General Motors franchises. I don't know how many General Motors franchises there are across the country, but I will guarantee there are a heck of a lot more than there are CAW locals across the country. What I'm trying to get at here is that there is a real imbalance if it's going to be done the way the government is proposing to do it. It's not fair at all to trade union locals, which are independent and do have autonomy, as I said before. So I strongly urge you to support this amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We can now go back to PC-18, page 66. Gerald Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I appreciate the fact, Mr. Chairman, that you've allowed us to come back to this motion. I'll ask committee members to bear with me as I try to get up to speed on this legislation.

I met with Rick this morning. He's got a number of amendments put in on behalf of the party that we certainly want to discuss. It's an important piece of legislation and a bit complicated, and it has been dumped on me, all right? Rick has done an admirable job carrying this.

The Chair: Gerald, you can take your time, as long as you're quick.

¿ (0940)

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The issue at stake here is changing lines 27 and 28 on page 24 to read:

any calendar year to a registered party and the registered associations, nomination contestants, candidates and leadership contestants.

It adds leadership contestants and parties to the list of those eligible for corporate and union donations. I think that's pretty straightforward. I had a chance to speak to Rick a bit this morning about this. The fact that leadership contestants and parties weren't eligible for corporate donations we thought was a major mistake in the bill, a significant flaw, and certainly one that needs to be corrected. I'm more than happy to listen to arguments for and against it.

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, clearly, the exception for a limited contribution at the local level is intended to recognize support only at the local level. The position of the government is that it is a good way to permit participation of corporations and unions in the process, while limiting that involvement in a way that is reasonable. It's one of the ways of enhancing public confidence in the process and the system at the national level.

The Chair: Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think examples are probably the best way to show flaws in legislation. This policy is in place in Manitoba now, where the parties are not allowed to receive corporate donations, and it makes it extremely difficult for parties to raise funds. We've already limited corporate donations, as I understand it, in this bill. To now start not only to limit corporate donations, but to exclude parties from receiving them I think just adds an extra chapter in an already onerous piece of legislation. At least in Rick's experience, in Manitoba it's really not working well at all.

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Of course, the difference in Manitoba is that there is no public subsidy. This bill provides public subsidy to replace the corporate contributions that are being removed. So I think there's a big difference between this and Manitoba. It's certainly the intent and the expectation of the government that it will replace the corporate contributions.

The Chair: Ted White.

Mr. Ted White: My understanding of the bill is that it doesn't provide a public subsidy to leadership candidates, so I don't see how that's relevant in the slightest.

The Chair: The amendment adds “leadership”.

Mr. Ted White: Yes, it adds the ability of corporations to give a contribution to leadership contestants. It seems to me that it's probably a sensible provision, because it doesn't allow for a lot of money to be given to leadership contestants by corporations, but it does at least allow a leadership contestant to approach local corporations, and maybe other corporations across the country, to help with that contest. I think it's a reasonable proposal.

The Chair: Thank you.

Geoff Regan.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Geoff Regan: Leadership candidates obviously are very influential, and I'm sure people are concerned about this. One of the things they will be able to do under this bill is have the flow-through of the tax credit that's available to individuals, which is being increased. That's one of the ways they'll be able to raise more funds.

The Chair: Okay.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We now go to G-10, page 70.

Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this is one of a series.

[Translation]

The purpose of this motion is to amend sub-paragraph 404.2(2)(c) to prohibit transfers of funds from Canada to a party before that party officially supports Canada. That would also amend sub-paragraph 404.2(2)(d), to allow a candidate to transfer funds from his election candidate account to his nomination contestant account.

[English]

So in other words, only those who are endorsed by a registered party as its candidate may transfer money to the party in a way that is not considered to be a contribution.

As for the second amendment, it may be difficult for persons to know when they begin to accept contributions for their election whether they'll have to submit to a nomination contest. It's therefore necessary to allow transfers from their election candidate account to their account as a nomination contestant. In other words, they start off deciding they want to be the candidate, but they may not face a challenge, may be unopposed for the nomination. So they start off with a candidate account, and when they realize they're being challenged for the nomination, they move money into a nomination account, but only if they have to. This provides them with the option. In this way a person will be able to place all of his or her contributions in his or her election candidate account and then make transfers, as the need arises, to his or her nomination contestant account.

The Chair: Ted White.

Mr. Ted White: I just wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether there's an intended or unintended consequence in proposed paragraph (d) that would address the issue raised by Marlene Catterall a week ago--time flies whether you're having fun or not--about putting money into your own election campaign or nomination campaign and how much you could put into your own campaign. As I read this, it would allow a candidate for a nomination to give himself or herself money without its being considered a contribution.

Mr. Geoff Regan: But it says “in his or her capacity as a nomination contestant”. In other words, they can give it from one capacity to another capacity, but the limits still apply.

Mr. Ted White: Okay.

The Chair: Is there more discussion?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Gerald, it's PC-19, page 72.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The amendment is to delete lines 18 to 22 on page 26. Proposed subsection 404.2(4) reads now:

A registered association, a nomination contestant or a candidate of a registered party may not transfer to the party any amount received in accordance with section 404.1or 405.3.

It effectively prohibits nomination candidates, registered associations, or candidates from transferring money received from corporations or unions to the party. It seems to me there's something seriously wrong here. Once money has been donated and disclosed, the party should be able to spend it wherever it pleases. I think this effectively, if it stays in there, prevents that. So it's a very burdensome part of this particular bill.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Carolyn Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I just need some clarification on this. If the money is donated to six or eight candidates for a nomination in a particular riding, there's still the $1,000 limit, is there not? Or can a corporation give $1,000 to each nominated candidate?

Mr. Geoff Regan: It's the $1,000 limit.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: So once they've given in one riding, that's it, they can't give any more. So why can't they transfer it to their central party?

Mr. Geoff Regan: Because the intent of the government is that you shouldn't be able to do indirectly what you can't do directly.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: But it still wouldn't be more than the $1,000 limit, would it?

Mr. Geoff Regan: No, it wouldn't, but that's the position of the government.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The money's been given, it's been disclosed, it's legal. You need to allow some flexibility to transfer that money where various parties may need to spend it.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I need a good argument from Mr. Regan.

The Chair: While Geoff is thinking about it, Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chairman, we talked about this before, and it got quite confusing. My understanding from the officials was that as long as your individual donations exceed the amount you're transferring, you're okay, which is kind of silly. I think we're splitting hairs here. What you're forcing the association to do is say, the corporate money I got I actually spent on staples, and the individual money is what I'm transferring. If we were serious about it, I guess you would somehow determine an administrative overhead for the party and allocate it. It gets fairly complicated here.

Is there a distinction between a transfer and a fee for service? If it's fee for service, it doesn't matter if it's corporate money, does it?

Mr. Geoff Regan: That's right. When you're getting value in return for what you're giving, it's not a contribution, you're purchasing something.

The Chair: Can you give us an example of that?

Mr. Geoff Regan: If it's a campaign, you're a candidate, and you're buying a package from your national party that includes graphics, maybe some kind of advertising stuff, or a deal on the cost of the printing of a brochure, or things like lawn signs, or whatever, you're getting value for what you're giving to the party, and it's therefore not a contribution. It's the same as if you have a bake sale, you sell a pie, and you get $10 for the pie; the person who gives the $10--even if it was $50, or reasonable value--wouldn't have to get a receipt for that, because they're getting value for their money.

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: If what I'm getting in return for my transfer to the provincial association or the party is administrative support at the national level, is that fee for service? If that's true, we don't need this amendment, we can do it anyway. I just need to know where the line is.

Mr. Geoff Regan: My understanding is that Mr. Kingsley has indicated that when a service is provided to more than one riding together, that is an activity of the national party and cannot be funded through contributions from corporations.

The Chair: A riding package would be exempt, wouldn't it?

Mr. Geoff Regan: Just one second.

The Chair: While they're thinking, Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I can understand the philosophy behind not allowing indirectly what is not allowed directly, but my reading of this is that it's so complicated that the simplest thing might be to just say, if it legally enters into the system at some point with the constraints we've put on it, we shouldn't further constrain its flow. The local constituency association would have to agree to transfer it. It's not as if there's going to be this big sucking sound from the top. I think we're setting up a situation where we're going to again spend a buck trying to chase around a nickel.

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

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

I don't want to focus on the wording in English; I prefer to leave that to my Anglophone colleagues, but as far as I'm concerned, the French wording is very clear. In this clause, it says in French: “ne peuvent céder”. You're not transferring if you're buying something in exchange. There is only a transfer when nothing is being given in return. So, the French version is perfectly clear. It means that money could not be given without something be given in return, but doesn't prevent someone from buying a service.

I don't know whether the English term “transfer” expresses the same idea, but in French, the meaning is clear.

¿ (0955)

[English]

The Chair: Can someone comment on that first? Are we talking about the same thing on both sides of this? It looks to me as though they are the same.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I believe they're the same issue, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that--

The Chair: Explain to Jacques, though, why it's not different in the French.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I am simply saying the French to me is clear, but the English is not as clear, but I don't need anyone to confirm that.

The Chair: Thank you. Excuse me for saying that.

Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's a prohibition against nomination candidates, registered riding associations, or candidates transferring money received from corporations and unions to the party. To break this down to the common denominator, once the money's been received and it's been disclosed, there will have to be a free transfer process from the riding association to the party, from the party to the riding association. It's all the same money. We're not talking about new money here.

My question for our legal experts is, what happens when it's the other way around, when you have a byelection, the party wants to help--and fundraising is always a difficulty--and wants to transfer money to the byelection process? It can't happen under this, as I understand it.

Ms. Michele René de Cotret: We're not speaking as legal advisers to the committee, but I can tell you that in the bill there is full authority to transfer funds from the party to the electoral district associations and candidates.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Except money received from corporations and new money--

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: The party does not receive any money from corporations.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think it's redundant and should be deleted, and I think it's going to come back to haunt us.

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, on Jacques Saada's question, the drafters have used “céder” for “transfer” in English throughout the bill, so that's why it's used here. It's intended to mean the same thing in this case.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I feel extremely comfortable with the clarity of the French here. The question is very simply, when you transfer moneys in English, does it mean you transfer without anything in return?

Mr. Geoff Regan: Yes.

Mr. Jacques Saada: If this is correct, there is no doubt whatsoever as to what is allowed and not allowed.

Mr. Geoff Regan: The advice I have--and Joe Jordan will want to hear this-- is that if the riding association pays money to a PA or the national party in exchange for a service or a good, as long as you're getting reasonable value for what you're paying, it's not a contribution and not a transfer in the sense we're talking about in this bill. So if you're paying your provincial association or party to provide you with membership list services, for example, and management of that for you, you're allowed to do that, from what I'm hearing from the officials. So that should be good news for you.

Mr. Joe Jordan: That gives a certain comfort level to me.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's a cost, that has value. If a riding association wants a membership list to run a byelection, it will have to pay for it. That's a service that's provided, and you shouldn't have to buy that.

Mr. Geoff Regan: They're going to provide it to you. If you're prepared to pay for it, you can pay for it. If you want to pay the price, to defray the costs in doing that, you can do it, but they aren't required to charge you for that service.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: They're about to be required to charge you for it.

Mr. Geoff Regan: No they're not. They can provide a service to you, they just can't get money from you. In other words, they can go down, but they can't go up. They can give money to your campaign or provide services to your campaign, but you can't give corporate money to them.

À (1000)

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That doesn't make any sense to me, Geoff. And does it also take it a step further, to go back to the byelection issue? There's a byelection being held tomorrow. Dick Proctor's riding association has $5,000 extra they would like to transfer to the riding association in the byelection to help them out--you know how often that happens. Is that going to be prevented?

Mr. Geoff Regan: Did you say if his riding wants to give money to another riding?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: They do, routinely.

Mr. Geoff Regan: There's no problem with that. Nothing prevents giving to another riding for another candidate. But it is a problem if it's from corporations or unions. If the riding association in Dick's riding wants to transfer to the NDP riding association in South Shore, the bad news for you is that they can do that. Will they want to? I don't know, but that's another thing.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I still think , Mr. Chair, this section could be deleted, and that would add clarity to the bill.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would like to ask a question about the wording. In the clause where we dealt with the government amendment, the one that came before the PC amendment, we decided it would be useful to change the language in English to add the word…

[English]

The Chair: Let me make sure we're all on the same page. It's G-10, page 70.

Mr. Jacques Saada: We agreed to a change that would read “from a candidate endorsed by a registered party...”.

[Translation]

Here, in sub-paragraph 4 that we have just looked at, we did not make that same change. Is there a reason for that?

[English]

The Chair: That's on page 26 of the bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Was my question clear? We changed the language… Excuse me, let me go back for a minute. I'll start over again. In amendment G-10, we changed the language in English to add the words “endorsed by”. Here, however, we see the same wording we had previously in that paragraph on page 26 of the Bill, lines 14 to 17. Just for the sake of consistency, should we not add “endorsed by” here as well?

[English]

The Chair: And the line on page 26 again, Jacques, please.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Line 16 in the French, 18 in the English.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Perrault (Senior Counsel, Privy Council Office): If I could just explain sub-paragraph 404.2(2)(c) sets out what kinds of transfers are allowed.

À (1005)

[English]

The Chair: Paragraph 404.2(c) “from a registered party to a leadership contestant”--

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: No, this is proposed subsection (2), as a result of G-10: “from a candidate endorsed by a registered party”. It will accord with the French. This tells you which movements of money are allowed and do not count as contributions. With only those transfers from the candidates that are endorsed by the party allowed, proposed paragraph 404.2(3)(c) has a subcategory of these transfers that are not allowed, and this is corporate money. You don't really need to refer again to candidates endorsed by the party, because it's only those who are endorsed who are allowed to make this transfer.

The Chair: Ted White.

Mr. Ted White: I notice that we've just got some more government amendments here, and I want to put on the record that based on the discussion we just had and the continuous flow of new amendments from the government, I don't have much confidence that this bill, being so complicated, is going to come into law in such a way that it can be useful. I think it's going to be a mess.

The Chair: Joe.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Are there any more amendments we know of?

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: Not on this page.

The Chair: There are two sets being circulated, but for now, just look at the packages. We're going to continue.

We're on page 73, BQ-9. Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: This amendment was added during the vote on BQ-5.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, that's fine.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: This amendment is consequential on BQ-5.

[English]

The Chair: Page 74, then, Jordan L-4.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Now we go to page 74.1 G-10a. I'm going to ask Carolyn Parrish to take the chair, as I have to go and present the riding boundaries report.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Can I make a suggestion? We're going to stop for a minute. These new amendments that were just handed out, let's have somebody walk us through where we put them in the white book, so we're not all running around in little circles. Let's take five minutes and put them in.

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk): What I'd like to suggest, and I think the departmental officials and Mr. Regan will agree, is that the package headed “G-8a”, as I believe they are all consequential, dealing with exactly the same subject, be left as is. The others ones are on largely separate subjects. They would be worthwhile putting into the book. Most of those amendments appear to be in response to opposition amendments that have already been stood. They are the government compromises or suggestions.

À (1010)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Okay, so let's go back and start putting those in.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: Then the committee needs to decide whether it wants to deal with the government ones we've just received for the amendments that were previously stood or wants to continue and come back to all the stood material at the same time.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Can we suspend for a few minutes?

À (1014)

À (1021)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Is everybody reorganized, rejuvenated, and ready to go?

It's G-3a, page 19.1.

Mr. Geoff Regan: This is a friendly amendment to replace NDP-5.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): On page 19, which we have stood.

Mr. Geoff Regan: This amendment would allow electoral district associations to receive contributions during an election period. You'll recall having a discussion about this yesterday.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Proctor, do you have any comments, because it's your original on page 19 they're messing around with?

Mr. Dick Proctor: If I understand it correctly, this agrees with the gist of what we're trying to accomplish.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Are there any other comments?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Can we go back to page 19 to NDP-5 and vote against it, now that we have the government's friendly amendment?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): The original at page 58 was inadmissible, so now we're going to look at the government's solution in G-8a on page 58.1.

À (1025)

Mr. Geoff Regan: Madam Chair, this motion is consequential to the recognition in the bill of provincial and territorial divisions of registered parties. It will amend proposed section 404 to allow PTAs to appoint registered agents to receive contributions and issue receipts on behalf of the PTA. PTA agents will be treated under the act as party agents appointed under subsection 375(1) of the act. Changes to these agents will in this way be reported to the Chief Electoral Officer by the party. It will also amend proposed section 404 to make it clear that moneys received by provincial or territorial divisions of a party are considered contributions received by the party for the purpose of the limits as well as the reporting.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: For clarification, could Mr. Regan put on the record the meaning of PTA?

Mr. Geoff Regan: I already referred to provincial and territorial divisions and I should have explained that PTA is provincial and territorial association.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Are there any other questions or comments?

Mr. Saada, do you have anything to say about this, since it's yours?

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm ecstatic about this amendment.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Ecstatic? Is that how you look when you're ecstatic?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Depending on what I look at.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Madam Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): It says provincial divisions, not provincial or territorial. Is there a reason for that?

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: In the definition it's included.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): I'll call the question on G-8a.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): I've just had it pointed out to me that this also relates to G-18a, page 131.1, G-35b, page 192.3, and G-44a, page 221.1, which are in this package. So that vote can carry the whole package. Or would you like a separate vote? Let's be efficient.

(Amendments agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): That takes us back to G-10a, page 74.1. Mr. Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Madam Chair, this motion would amend proposed section 404.2 to provide that leave with pay given by an employer during the election period, during the period after the writ is issued, for the purpose of running as a candidate is not considered to be a contribution.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): That's very clear.

Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I'm inclined to agree with the proposal, but I'm concerned about the “what if?”. What if an employer decides to have a whole bunch of candidates seeking nomination? Obviously, what is being proposed here is one employer, one employee, but let's say a company, for Machiavellian reasons, wants to run a whole bunch of candidates. This is not what the government would want, but it's the law of unintended consequences. Maybe the officials could give me some comfort on it. I am concerned about it.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): What comes to mind is the yogic flyers in 1993. It was just a big advertising ploy. None of them levitated.

Mr. Keddy.

À (1030)

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It seems to me this would bring some clarity to situations that have already developed and have been controversial in prior election campaigns, where government employees have taken leaves of absence to run in an election campaign, whether they be a member of the teachers' union, a member of government. They have a leave of absence coming to them, they take their leave of absence, they run in a byelection somewhere or run in an election campaign. There has to be some provision in the bill. If this is what this does, it adds clarity.

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: It does a bit more than that. This allows leave with pay, as opposed to leave without pay, not to be considered a contribution by the employer.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think leaves with pay are there now. That's my understanding.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Under the existing law it's allowed, but this bill would not allow it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: This is filling that loophole.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Yes.

As to the concern of a company trying to have a bunch of its employees as candidates, in our view, it's caught by the anti-avoidance rule in proposed subsection 405.2(1):

No person or entity shall

(a) circumvent, or attempt to circumvent, the prohibition under subsection 404(1) or a limit set out in subsection 404.1(1) or subsection 405(1); or

(b) act in collusion with another person or entity for that purpose.

I think that would be acting in collusion.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Earlier I referred to an amendment that had been moved last week but hadn't passed because it cast the net too wide and included too many things. It talked about vacation, and so on; I'm sure you remember the terminology that was used. Now we are trying to target much more carefully, by saying that someone who is on salary cannot consider his salary to be a contribution, because he takes paid time for his election campaign. That is totally consistent with the other provisions of this Bill.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: On Mr. Keddy's point, it probably depends on what's been bargained into the contract. Crown employees in Ontario have to take an unpaid leave, that's in the contract. So all this is saying is, if they happen to be able to bargain that into their contract, it's not a contribution.

Mr. Geoff Regan: This just says, if an employer, the Province of Ontario, for example, gives a person leave with pay to run in an election, it's not considered a contribution, but whether or not they get the leave is still a matter of the contract between them and their employer.

Mr. Joe Jordan: They don't allow you to take leave with pay in Ontario if you're a crown employee.

Mr. Geoff Regan: It wouldn't be included as a contribution under this amendment, that's all.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): It doesn't give them the right to do it. It says, if it happens, because you've negotiated it with your employer, it's not considered a contribution to the campaign finances.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: So provincial and territorial differences are accounted for. For instance, if it's allowed in Nova Scotia, but not in Ontario, so be it.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Is that very clear to everyone?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): The chair has now returned.

À (1035)

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we're on page 74.3, G-10b.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this motion replaces PC-14, which was at page 51. It provides that annual party membership fees not exceeding $25 paid by individuals do not constitute a contribution. If you'll recall, their number was $50, and I'd like to hear the views of the committee on what the level should be.

The Chair: That PC amendment was stood.

Ted White.

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

In our party you can buy a three-year membership at one time, so that would be $30. I'm just wondering whether the wording can be misinterpreted: “The payment by an individual of a fee of not more than $25 per year”. Does that mean $25 for each year of membership, or does it mean $25 in total for the year? It could be interpreted two ways, and I think it's not entirely clear the way it's written.

Mr. Geoff Regan: You have to allow the option of paying more than one year. The fact is that sometimes parties offer you the chance to pay for the next three years this year. You could do it for a lifetime, and that would be $1,000 or some outrageous amount, but within reason, whether it's up to five years or whatever, you want a way to be very clear in saying it's not more than $25 per year for a membership.

Mr. Ted White: “The payment by an individual of a fee equivalent to not more than $25 per year”.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Why don't we say “of not more than $25 per year for a maximum of five years at a time”. That may be making it clear that you have the opportunity to pay for a number of years.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I don't think the wording is right, but the concept is.

The Chair: Gerald Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that's why the PC amendment had $50, because we can buy a five-year membership at $10 per year. But I would argue that this is clear now. I don't quite understand all the discussion here. It says, “The payment by an individual of a fee of not more than $25 per year for membership”. If you want to change wording, I would say “for yearly membership” or “for annual membership”, and I'd propose a friendly amendment of “not more than $25 per year for annual membership”.

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, once again I would like to make a suggestion for the French version; we'll see what can be done afterwards about the English. The French version would read as follows : “Ne constitue pas une contribution le droit d'adhésion à un parti enregistré d'au plus vingt-cinq dollars par année”. That way, we cover everything.

À (1040)

[English]

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I think the problem we're trying to solve is that my father can take out a hundred year membership at $25 a year, give me $2,500, and it doesn't count as a contribution. So why don't you put somewhere in there “to a maximum of five years” or something, to give an upper limit? Because I think we all know what we mean.

The Chair: Carolyn Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Joe and I are on the same wavelength. Memberships are not necessarily receiptable, but you can get somebody to give you $25 for fifty years, and it's a big chunk of money.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I suggest we stand it, but before we do--

The Chair: Before we do that, let's hear from these others, so you know what they're talking about.

Ted White.

Mr. Ted White: I agree with the idea that we stand it down, but I'll just put an extra thought in there. I was thinking about wording: “The payment by an individual of a fee for membership in a registered party”--take out the “not more than $25 per year”--“is not a contribution, provided that it does not exceed the maximum of X number of dollars over a certain period of years.” Can we work out something like that? Put the $25 or whatever at the end of the sentence.

The Chair: You can work that out in a minute.

Michel Guimond, then Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: The current wording includes three elements: membership fees, the $25 per year, and also the idea of being a member of a registered party. It is complete in itself.

Mr. Jacques Saada: The problem is this : in a case where a party decided to charge a $25 annual membership fee for five years at a time, there would be some doubt as to how this provision should be interpreted.

If you don't mind, I would like to answer Mr. White.

[English]

It seems to me that you do not wish to enter into the internal operations of the party by having a cap on membership dues, and the combination you are proposing may be a bit constraining in this regard.

The Chair: Gerald Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chair, I would make a friendly amendment. You can vote it down if you want and the government can put the same one in, but I think it's here in front of us and we don't have to delay it. I think everyone in the room is in agreement. If we say, “The payment by an individual of a fee of not more than $25 per year for annual membership for a maximum of five years in a registered party is not a contribution”, it's done.

The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I agree with that. I think that's what we wanted to accomplish. I'm always concerned about figures in law becoming outdated, though, so is there any thought of indexing this particular figure or any others in the bill?

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: With membership, it's a self-policing matter. People aren't going to pay an increasing amount. With $25 a year, I think we've got ten years built into that, and then we review this.

The Chair: Do you want it stood?

Mr. Geoff Regan: Yes, we'll stand it. We'll be ready before long, I think.

The Chair: Colleagues, thank you for that input.

(Amendment allowed to stand)

The Chair: We can now return to CA-8, page 75. Ted White.

À (1045)

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chair, I would ask everyone to make a change, because this, unfortunately, due to a drafting error, refers to the wrong position on page 26. It should read, “That Bill C-24, in clause 24, be amended by adding the following after line 27 on page 26”. Then you need to remove from the actual wording of the amendment “ferred to a particular leadership contestant”.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Ted White: Unfortunately, this was a drafting error, and I patched it up a bit here. I'm going to explain why. We may end up standing this one. Proposed subsection 404.3(1) on page 26 reads:

No registered party and no electoral district association of a registered party shall provide goods or services or transfer funds to a leadership contestant or a nomination contestant.

What I'm worried about here is that if we have a nomination contest under way and the riding association says, we'll provide a hall and volunteers and coffee for everyone who comes here, and we'll do a general printout of the characteristics of all the candidates and hand them to everyone, that is the provision of goods and services to nomination contestants. My amendment would just say they can't do any of this stuff “except for the purpose of running nomination meetings and other events to which all the nomination or leadership candidates are invited”. That's really what it comes down to.

À (1050)

The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm not convinced that this amendment is necessary, because normally, the riding association wouldn't be transferring anything to the candidates, it would be holding a meeting where the candidates could debate and present their views. I'm not sure why that would ever be done by transferring money to the candidates themselves.

Mr. Ted White: It doesn't say transfer, it says provide goods or services.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: But in that case it's not providing goods or services to the candidates, as far as I can see. I'd appreciate some comment here. It's the riding association providing goods and services to its members so they can hear the candidates. Mr. Regan was talking about broadening this, and I'd like to hear that discussion, but I really don't see the need for this myself.

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: The government's concern is to make sure everything is provided to all contestants equally. It's okay for the association to give things to the contestants, as long as it's not unbalanced. I'm going to suggest a friendly amendment so that it would read as follows:

No registered party and no electoral district association of a registered party shall provide goods or services or transfer funds for a leadership contestant or a nomination contestant unless the goods or services are provided equally to all contestants.

There are things we may not foresee here that may make sense, and this covers the eventuality.

The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think this can create a problem. The riding association provides membership forms, and that's a good or a service. Sometimes it comes with a charge, sometimes not. One nomination contestant, for example, may need five times as many forms as another nomination contestant. If you say goods and services must be provided equally, that's a bit constraining.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Then remove “equally”, if you would like: “unless the goods or services are provided to all contestants”. Really, it's equal access.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: On an equal basis would do it.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Isn't that equal access to these goods and services?

The Chair: With due respect, I think the argument would be that if a person didn't want 50 memberships forms, they shouldn't be given them.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: As proposed, it would almost require that.

The Chair: I see. We're going to need to read it again before the vote anyway, and read it very slowly please.

Mr. Geoff Regan: It is that Bill C-24, in clause 24, be amended by replacing line 27 on page 26 with the following:

nomination contestant unless the goods or services are offered equally to all contestants.

The Chair: Could we have the French, then?

[Translation]

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: In line 24, we would replace the current wording with the following : “la direction ou à un candidat à l'investiture, sauf si les produits ou les services sont offerts à tous les candidats”.

À (1055)

[English]

The Chair: It always sounds so much better in French, I think.

Ted, are you comfortable with that now?

Mr. Ted White: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I believe I would have to withdraw mine to facilitate what Mr. Regan is proposing. If that's what I need to do, I am happy to withdraw mine.

The Chair: Ted will withdraw amendment CA-8. Are we agreed? It is agreed. Thank you, Ted.

Now we have the amendment that has just been read in English and in French.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: On page 75.1 we have Carolyn Parrish's amendment PL-2.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: In an effort to keep everybody happy with me for my next amendment, which is coming up, I am going to withdraw this one, because we've already had a debate on this. There are six spots in there that do the same thing, and if you didn't vote for it before, I assume you won't vote for it this time. I just want you to remember what a gracious and wonderful person I am when it comes to the one I care about.

The Chair: Thank you.

We're still working on CA-9. We will come back to it when we go back to amendment CA-5, which was stood.

Mr. Ted White: We're waiting for the drafters to produce the right words. So this one needs to be set aside until we get that.

The Chair: So we're on page 77, PC-20. Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think, Mr. Chair, it is the same as CA-9.

The Chair: Ted White.

Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification for Mr. Keddy, we had an extensive discussion here, and there was general agreement that we should change some wording and come back with some numbers. That is going to happen later.

The Chair: So we'll return to both CA-9 and PC-20 when we deal with CA-5.

Colleagues, I will stand clause 24 because we've two or three stood items in it.

(Clause 24 allowed to stand)

(On clause 25)

The Chair: We proceed now to Carolyn Parrish PL-3 on page 77.1.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, the first thing I'm going to do is, in proposed paragraph (b) of my amendment, if the committee agrees, change “$250 in total” to “$1,000 in total,” and I will make an argument for that in a moment. The same change is needed in proposed paragraph (a).

The Chair: So your proposed paragraphs 405(1)(a) and (b) now have $1,000, not $250. Thank you.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: As you will recall--I'm sounding like a broken record--I kept asking for us to bring in the electoral officials who govern the municipal races in Ontario, and we never did actually hear from them. Ontario sets a limit of $5,000 per contributor in a municipal election in each electoral district. They have a $750 limit for any contestant to accept; they have to package out their $5,000 by $750s.

What I am proposing first is that we drop the $10,000 individual limit to $5,000. I think $10,000 is outrageous. I don't think there are very many people who can afford it, and those who can get one heck of an influential drop in the bucket. If they're giving to six parties, that's $60,000 a year. That's outrageous, and I think it goes against the intention of the bill. So I'd like to see that dropped to $5,000 in total per electoral year per party per contestant, the way it's described.

I would like to see, though, that $5,000 be packaged out in no amounts greater than $1,000, which is the limit we put on corporate donations. So there's a consistency there. It says to a large donor--we won't name names, but people pop into mind who have tons of money in Canada--okay, Mr. X, if you want to give $5,000 this year to Liberal candidates, you have to pick five. On a purely selfish level, what it does is eliminate huge donations going to party leaders, party whips, proposed cabinet ministers, because that's where all the money will be dropped. It forces the individual to say, I'm going to fund five people and I'm not going to exceed that $1,000, which seems to be critical in corporate donations when we're looking at influence peddling or whatever we're looking at. If we can't take more than $1,000 from a corporation, we shouldn't be able to take more than $1,000 from an individual. Just because you're a rich guy, it doesn't mean you should have more influence over the electoral process than a poor guy. So we're going to help you restrain yourself.

Paragraph (c) talks about $5,000 in total to leadership contestants.

Á (1100)

The Chair: Ted White.

Mr. Ted White: I'd like to make the observation that when this bill comes into effect, the parties will be well looked after by dipping into the public treasury, but riding associations and contestants are going to have to get out there and look for donations from individuals. I would be appalled if we accepted this amendment, because it's quite common in my riding for people to give well over $1,000 through a year in several fundraisers we run. So I just couldn't support this at all.

The Chair: Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The amendment moved by Ms. Parrish is similar in many respects to amendment BQ-10, which we will be moving shortly. We believe that the cap of $10,000 for individuals is far too high. The question you should be asking yourselves is this : among the people we represent, members of the middle class and ordinary citizens, do you know of many who could afford to make a political contribution of $10,000 per year? In my opinion, they are in the minority.

If we want to ensure that elected officials are truly accountable to the people, are not subject to the influence of outside lobbies, and can engage in independent thinking, then in my opinion, adjustments must be made to the amounts, and to the Bill as a whole.

We in the Bloc Québecois have expressed our opposition to all corporate financing. We realize that for a company, $1,000 in corporate financing is a minuscule amount. However, I do think we should have gone along with the adjustments proposed in Ms. Parish's amendment, which were to reduce this amount to $5,000. I have to say that I am still not entirely sure how I will be voting on this amendment.

In amendment BQ-10, we say that candidates that don't belong to a registered party--in other words, independent candidates--should not be discriminated against in any way. Rather than being entitled to only $1,000, they, too, should be entitled to $5,000. The consistency rule should apply to everyone. I see no reason why independent candidates should be subject to a different cap than candidates representing an official party in the House of Commons or an official party that is duly registered with Elections Canada.

So, I am not in favour of the $1,000 amount proposed in Ms. Parish's amendment to sub-paragraph 405(1)(b), but I am totally in favour of a cap of $5,000.

Amendment BQ-10 which I have already tabled also advocates reducing the cap for individual contributions.

Á (1105)

[English]

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I certainly agree with my colleague that we should go to $5,000. With all due respect, someone has to enforce this, someone has to track this. We're creating an administrative quagmire, and I don't the gain is worth the pain. It's worth discussing, because there are a bunch of amendments we're going to bang off when we finally decide. If you look at BQ-10, you can give $5,000 to every party, my amendment says your cumulative amount is $5,000. That's something the committee will have to think about. Your amendment, Carolyn, I can't support, only because I think it's far too complicated to enforce.

The Chair: Gerald Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I need clarification. It says “individual”, so any individual could give, as it reads now, before it is amended, $10,000. That person could also be the main shareholder or CEO of a corporation, and the corporation could give in its own right as well. Am I correct or not?

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, the corporation could give in its own right up to the $1000. If the corporation transferred $10,000 to an individual so that he or she could give money, that would not be permitted.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have some questions about lowering the amount. This is supposed to be on the books for four or five years. There has to be some natural evolution in the process. Are we going to find out that this system does not work as perfectly as we would like to see it work, so the larger amount is actually needed?

Second--and perhaps someone has the statistics, as I wasn't able to be at the hearing--what's the average individual donation? How many donations do we get that are between $5,000 and $10,000? I suspect not very many. Are we causing a tempest in a teapot here that may hurt us down the road? I think it's a valid question.

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, the limits are indexed to inflation year after year.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask that PL-3, and BQ-10 be stood, because the government will be introducing an amendment in relation to this issue later today.

The Chair: So PL-3 is stood, colleagues, as long as you agree? I see no objection. And BQ-10 on page 79 would also be stood.

Carolyn Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: If this is being stood, I'm not going to object to it, but I want to address what Joe Jordan said. The bookkeeping on this is a fallacious argument, because they do it in Ontario now, and it's done efficiently. Second, I want the government to understand that this is a consistent position on breaking it down into the $1000s. As to the appearance of influence. If somebody gives me $10,000 and they phone in the middle of this meeting, I leave, and I answer the phone, that's not what we want. We want to keep everybody in Canada on an equal footing with their member of Parliament. So no rich people should be able to give me $10,000 and make me jump up and answer the phone. As long as all that is being thought about, I have no problem with standing it down.

The Chair: So the idea at the moment is that we stand pages 77.1, 78, and 79. The clerk suggests to me that we also therefore stand pages 80, 81, 82, and 83.

Joe Jordan.

Á (1110)

Mr. Joe Jordan: I don't mind standing mine, I just want to let you know that when we do discuss it, I'm going to argue with Carolyn on that point again, because I think it absolutely creates a nightmare.

The Chair: I've no doubt we will.

(Amendments allowed to stand)

The Chair: That brings us to page 84, G-11.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this motion would add a new subsection to section 405 to create a presumption that a contribution made to a person who represents himself or herself as running for a given party will be deemed to be a contribution to a candidate of that party. Similarly, a contribution made to a person who represents himself or herself as an independent candidate will be treated as such for purposes of contribution limits. The reason for this is that while the limits are based on party affiliation, there is no formal affiliation outside election periods. The motion is to avoid confusion and arguments about whether a candidate is a candidate of a party between elections for the purposes of calculating contribution limits.

The Chair: Thank you.

Dick Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I'm troubled a little bit by “as intending to seek the endorsement” or “intending to be a candidate”, as opposed to seeking the endorsement. What happens if somebody intends to seek, and so is qualified under this particular amendment, and then withdraws his or her nomination?

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, if they're seeking contributions--that's what we're talking about here--they have to start doing the paperwork that's required as if they are going to be elected, not just a candidate. So if they decide not to, the same rules apply as if they were defeated in a nomination.

What happens to the contributions of the corporations?

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: They are considered contributions. Once you become a candidate, retrospectively, the act turns around and regulates all you've done. So to ensure that this works properly, before you actually become a candidate and somebody makes a contribution to you, that person should know it will be as an NDP candidate, even though you're not yet endorsed by the NDP in the election.

Mr. Dick Proctor: So I collect your contribution, and then I decide not to actually go through and seek the nomination. What happens to the money you've given to me?

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: It goes against the limit you--

Mr. Geoff Regan: No, you have to transfer it to the party or something.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: That's the same under the current legislation.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Because you haven't registered as a nomination.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: This hasn't been a problem.

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: This is not the purpose of this motion. The purpose of this motion is to make it clear to the donor against what limit his contribution will apply. So if a candidate comes to the door and says, I intend to seek the nomination of the New Democratic Party, it goes against the $10,000 this donor can give to the New Democratic Party. That's all this motion deals with.

Á (1115)

Mr. Geoff Regan: It doesn't constrain the candidate.

The Chair: Ted White.

Mr. Ted White: I'm going to introduce another twist here. I did discuss this with the minister, and I've been in communication by letter with Elections Canada. I was just wondering when I would have the opportunity to introduce what may be a problem in this bill. When do you become a candidate exactly? Are you a nominee when you get selected in a nomination race, and you become a candidate when the election is called? We're talking about contributions to candidates here. It seems to me that if I go for a nomination meeting tomorrow in my riding and I get selected to be the future candidate for my party, I can now go out in my riding, approach corporations, anybody I like, and have them give me money directly, without receipts, and I can spend as much as I want on pre-writ activity, without any restrictions whatsoever, because I'm not a candidate until the time the election is called.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: But this goes beyond the purpose of this particular motion.

Mr. Ted White: I understand that.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: Currently, you can spend as much as you want outside the writ, that is not regulated. If you collect money prior to the writ, therefore prior to your becoming a candidate, once you become a candidate, the duty in the act kicks back, and if you did collect it without an agent, if you did not report, you're in default. You can collect prior to becoming a candidate, but when you do become a candidate, all of this has to be reported, and it has to have been collected by an agent.

The Chair: Can I ask the question that was asked before? What if you collect this money and you decide not to seek the nomination?

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: This is different, but the act right now does not regulate this.

The Chair: Ted White.

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

My party right now has been going through a lot of nominations, and this could be up to two years ahead of an election, we don't know, maybe three years. So if they are collecting money right now and spending it, I'm sure a lot of them don't know they're supposed to report it when they finally become a candidate in two years time. You're saying that has to be done.

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Section 82 of the Canada Elections Act says you are deemed to have been a candidate from the time you collected your first contribution. That's in the act, it's been there for three years.

Mr. Ted White: I'm sorry, I just need clarification. I think this is a really important point, because it may open a future loophole for spending if we don't understand this. If you're not a candidate until the election is called, I still don't understand how the part of the act you're referring to can apply.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: If you start collecting money now without an agent and you're not reporting all of this, and you never become a candidate, then you can't receipt it, for tax purposes. You can receipt it for non-tax purposes. If you started collecting, you do in fact become a candidate, and it so happens that you have not collected through an agent and that you have not done the report, then you're in contravention of the act.

Mr. Ted White: Even if you've spent money already.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: It's about the collection.

The Chair: Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: My understanding of this is that it deals with the contribution, not so much with the candidates, that this is a way to track the dollars. If I give a donation of $5,000 to someone who says they're going to run as a candidate and they eventually run as a candidate, that's part of my $10,000 limit, as it exists right now, and that has to be tracked. That's why the clarification is in there. If we change the $10,000 limit, that has to change all of the numbers in this thing. That's the nuts and bolts of it right there.

My question is the same one that's been raised here a few times. I suspect that if it's not dealt with in this legislation, it's a serious loophole. If you're running as a candidate for the leadership of a particular party, you raise $150,000 or $200,000, or you raise $2 million, and you decide part way through the race that you're going to withdraw, that money belongs to that individual, as I understand it.

Á (1120)

The Chair: Jacques, would it be useful for you to intervene now before Michèle speaks or afterwards?

Mr. Jacques Saada: I honestly don't know. Let's wait and see.

The Chair: In which case, let her speak.

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: To respond just to the point you made about a person withdrawing from the race, it's as long as the race officially has started. For leadership, for example, it is provided in the bill at the moment that a race starts when the party gives notice to the Chief Electoral Officer that a race has started. It doesn't start before that.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: And if you withdraw after the race has started?

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: If you withdraw after the race has started, you must submit reports and reimburse your surplus.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: And if you withdraw before?

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: If you withdraw before the race has started, that is, before the party has given notice that a race has started, you are not covered.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's your little personal fundraiser.

Mr. Geoff Regan: You're outside the electoral process entirely.

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: My question hasn't been answered. Imagine that I am a business and I give $1,000 to someone who would like to be a candidate, but is not yet officially a candidate. He then decides not to run. In that case, there is no return to file or anything. If there is no return, as a business, am I then allowed to give $1,000 to the person who would be the actual candidate?

That is my problem. It's the person who is officially there that matters, and we just forget about the individual that no longer has anything to do with this. In other words, we make the person who followed the rules accountable, and the person who is no longer involved benefits from that. I see that approach as problematic. Am I wrong?

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: No, you're not wrong, but does that happen very often?

Mr. Jacques Saada: No. I just wanted to be sure I understood what my colleague had said. The fact that no income tax receipt was received is part of the answer to his question, because someone who is not registered anywhere and doesn't have an agent is not allowed to issue income tax receipts.

Secondly, if he withdraws, the effective consequence of that is that the official candidate will be penalized for someone else's actions.

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Just to ensure that this is absolutely clear, it is only during an election period that candidates are allowed to issue tax receipts. The riding association and provincial division can issue tax receipts outside the election period. However, as regards candidates running in an election, what was there previously remains--in other words, tax receipts can be issued only during an election period.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, I understand. I don't want to spend too much time on this, but am I right in thinking that the fact a provincial or territorial association or the actual riding can issue income tax receipts does not in any way change the fact that if the nomination contestant does not secure the nomination and is not declared the actual contestant, no income tax receipts can be issued by anyone. Is that correct?

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: It may be, yes.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, colleagues, I've got Dick Proctor in a holding pattern here, but I have Carolyn Parrish, Ted White, and Guy St-Julien. I ask the three of you--Dick is not--if we are dealing specifically with this matter before us, in which case it's Carolyn Parrish, Ted White, and Guy St-Julien.

Á (1125)

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Well, I'm contributing to this conversation because I'm getting quite interested. We belong to one of the two oldest professions. With the other one, it's not illegal to--

The Chair: Don't go there.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Let me finish, I want to get this square. It's not illegal to accept money, it's illegal to solicit. In this case, if somebody walked up to me on a street and I said, wearing a red hat and a red scarf, I'm going to be the Liberal candidate, anybody can give me $1,000. I can do whatever I want with it, and if I decide not to run and I'm not issuing tax receipts, if somebody walks across the road right now and hands me $1,000 and I'm a private citizen, how the heck is the government going to stop that or interfere with it? Where it becomes essential is in soliciting it under the title of whatever and issuing receipts. But any person in Canada has the freedom to stand on the corner of Sparks Street and hand money to anybody they want. Are we not splitting hairs here?

The Chair: Would it be more convenient for you to hold that thought? Then I can go to the others and see what happens here, because we could go on with this forever, I can see.

Ted White.

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

I apologize for throwing this right into the midst here, but as I said, I was looking for where it fit. We talked about the candidate. Again, if I have just been nominated yesterday, I'm walking down the street--a similar situation to Carolyn's, except I'm not wearing a red scarf and a red hat--and an individual or a corporate owner comes up and says, I'm so pleased you were renominated, Ted, I'm putting an advertisement in the paper to say make sure you vote for Ted White next time as soon as the election is called, or my riding association accepts money and puts advertisements in the paper and puts out flyers in the street promoting me, does all of that come back to haunt me later?

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: No.

Mr. Ted White: What's the difference, then, between a candidate doing it directly and these other people doing it indirectly?

The Chair: Guy St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We're talking about tax receipts that are issued in an election period. A campaign costs about $78,000, according to the returning officer. But what about a candidate who decides to invest $50,000 of his own money and doesn't want any income tax receipt? That sort of thing does happen.

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: That will not be allowed under the new legislation. At this time, the bill provides that a candidate cannot contribute more than $10,000 towards his own campaign.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Yes, but in a large electoral district, the personal expenses of a candidate are allowed to exceed $100,000. There is no limit.

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Yes, and that is the concern.

[English]

The Chair: Stéphane, can you go back to the first two please?

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: I'll try not to get confused. I would love to stand on the street corner and get $1,000 bills.

If I understood correctly, Mrs. Parrish's point was that we should not attempt to regulate people throwing $1,000 bills at each other, and we're not doing that. If there is a con artist going out there claiming to be a candidate and just raising money for himself or herself--and I'm not aware of this being a problem--there are provisions that may apply in the Criminal Code. This act will not regulate every single aspect, we have to be clear on that point.

The Chair: Geoff Regan, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Geoff Regan: I'd be delighted to hear from Ted.

The Chair: There's Ted's point, sure.

Mr. Ted White: I think there was perhaps some more information coming here, but I'd still like the government to think about this. For a party that has early nominations, if it has some benefactors out there--horrible corporations, Carolyn--who come along and say, we are so happy with that candidate having being reselected we're going to promote the hell out of that candidate for the next 12 months, three times as much as will spent on the actual campaign, once the election is called. Does the government want to place restrictions on that or not? If not, why do we have all these other restrictions once the campaign is called?

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, are we not confusing two important points : regulations on the financing of political parties and regulations on party spending? Are we not mixing up two separate things that may come up later? The bill specifically relates to the financing of political parties, and not necessarily their expenses.

Á (1130)

[English]

The Chair: It's not for me to say, but I think there's some truth in what you just said, Jacques.

Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: D'accord.

The Chair: Marlene.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: This is not on the general train of the discussion, so I've held off. Does this apply also to somebody who represents themselves to be a candidate for a nomination and then becomes a candidate for the nomination?

Mr. Geoff Regan: It says “a person who presents himself or herself as intending to seek the endorsement of a particular registered party”. I think that answers your question, doesn't it?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: To a certain degree, but I'm not sure.

Mr. Geoff Regan: If you're seeking the endorsement of a fullly registered party, you're a candidate for the nomination. In that case this applies too.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm happy to carry this, I'd just like some assurance from people who've had a chance to look at it. Because if there is likely to be an abuse, it's maybe more often somebody saying, I'm going to run for the nomination.

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: I think intending to be a candidate includes the nomination.

The Chair: Dick Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

I wonder if the government would consider what I think is a friendly amendment, though maybe it is only in my own mind. I would be much happier if it read, starting with the second line, “who presents himself or herself as seeking the endorsement of a particular registered party shall be treated as a contribution referred to”, and then you drop down and take away “intending” in the third last line to read “herself as seeking to be a candidate not endorsed by...”. In other words, we're deleting the “intending” and we're “seeking”. As I say, “the intending” jumps out at me.

The Chair: While we're thinking about that, could we think about the French, please?

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: What I'm saying is that the language in French is already clear. The change being proposed by Mr. Proctor only applies to the English, not to the French.

[English]

The Chair: My understanding is that the second line of the English needs changing so it says “who presents himself or herself as seeking the endorsement”. Then in the second last real line in that paragraph in English it's “seeking to be” instead of “intending”. So we've got that.

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We then proceed to PC-21, page 86. Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: This would change clause 25 by adding after line 29 on page 27 a fairly lengthy couple of sections, and I'd like to read through it all, Mr. Chairman.

Á (1135)

The Chair: Read it very slowly, Gerald, if you would.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think it's important, because the issue seems to be on the definition of corporations, and there's a huge difference in corporations that are Canadian Tire or Irving Oil and Geoff Regan's lawyer service or Gerald Keddy's Christmas tree fund. There are lots of corporations or associations out there that are a lot smaller than these.

I think we're fine. We won't read it.

The Chair: Thank you. Colleagues, read very quickly.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: If everyone has had a chance to read through this, there are a couple of key parts. The first is in proposed paragraph 405.01(a), “it is from a corporation the majority of the shares of which are held directly or indirectly by an individual”. So we're talking about smaller partnerships, associations, corporations, privately run businesses. We all have assistance given to us in election campaigns by volunteers who have certain skills. They may help to run your office, they may do websites, they may help to do your accounting and the keeping of your books. These people are volunteers, and unless we put this in, we're not going to be able to depend on those volunteers without looking at it as an election expense.

On the final page it says “contribution for the purposes of this act, except section 407, where it has a commercial value of less than $200”. I think we have to allow these smaller contributions in kind, and from my understanding of the bill, this is something that was left out, and we need to put it in here to accommodate the same individuals we all use to run election campaigns.

The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, my recollection is that provisions like this are already in the act. For instance, I know during an election campaign how I have to account for contributions of goods and services in kind.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: But we're changing the act. It's unfair.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: That's why I'm asking, because it seems to me that if it's already in the act, it doesn't need to be repeated. I'd like some clarification on that, and let's see where we go from there.

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: If I'm reading it right--and this is again a point of clarification--the only time this would be an issue is if the market value of their contribution puts them over the limit. Is that right?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: As I understand, it wouldn't matter what the contribution is; if it comes from a corporation, it has to be claimed. Those people volunteer on our campaigns all the time. They come in, they work the desk, they run the office, they help set up a website, they do numerous different things.

Mr. Joe Jordan: So I guess the question for the officials is whether in-kind labour is an individual or a corporate contribution.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's on the corporation.

The Chair: You've got two thoughts there.

Ted White.

Mr. Ted White: Without passing any judgment on the amendment itself, I would just say that there is a problem in paragraph 405.01(a), in that it refers to “a corporation the majority of the shares of which are held directly or indirectly by an individual”. As is very common in small companies, in my own corporation my wife and I own equal numbers of shares, so neither of us has a majority, but the total shares are only held by two people. So there's a problem with the drafting.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think that's more uncommon than common. With most corporations I'm aware of, someone owns 51%. I don't want to quibble over that.

Mr. Ted White: That may or may not be the case, but a lot of moms and pops in businesses, I would suggest, do own equal numbers, and even if it is a small percentage of them who do this, it creates a problem with the wording of paragraph (a).

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I want to refer you to subsection 2(2) of the Elections Act which says:

For the purposes of this Act, the commercial value of property or a service is deemed to be nil if

(a) it is provided by a person who is not in the business of providing that property or those services; and

(b) the amount charged for it is $200 or less.

The Chair: So Gerald's point, for example, about the website would apply if it was a website person, but would not if it was somebody who just simply could build websites.

Mr. Geoff Regan: As with someone who happens to work for a phone company and doesn't work on phones, but doesn't other work for you, volunteer work.

Á (1140)

The Chair: Marlene, are you okay with that?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: With that assurance, it does seem to me that what's proposed here is redundant.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I'm not certain it's redundant.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I've always had a problem with that section of the act, frankly, because just because I work as a graphic artist during the day, I don't think it should preclude me from offering my talents in the evening or on the weekends to a candidate of my choice. My talent may be that I'm good on the phones, I may happen to work as a receptionist. Does that mean I can't work as a receptionist in a campaign office?

Mr. Geoff Regan: It doesn't preclude that, it simply means it's included in the limit.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: This clarifies the entire issue. It sets out clearly within the bill what's acceptable and what's not. It allows for the incorporation of an individual who has incorporated themselves; otherwise, they're treated like Canadian Tire.

Mr. Geoff Regan: The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is that proposed section 405.02 refers only to services from unions and corporations, not services from individuals. I'm not sure why that would be the intent of the draft.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The individual can be a corporation.

Mr. Geoff Regan: But we're talking about volunteer activity. For instance, you can have a small business and not be incorporated.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, but they can have a small business and be incorporated, and then they're not able to volunteer their services. This deals specifically with a commercial value of less than $200. We're talking about putting clarity in the act, I think.

The Chair: In regard to Ted's point. I understood you said it's uncommon for two people to have exactly equal shares, but if they exist--

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have no problem accepting a friendly amendment that incorporates that.

The Chair: But do you have any thoughts on how you'd do that in paragraph (a)?

Mr. Ted White: We could change it to say, “it is from a corporation the majority of shares of which are held directly or indirectly by no more than two persons”, or something like that. You could put in a qualifier like that. Notwithstanding what Gerald has already said, I think a lot of legal representation to people setting up a corporation, mom and pop, is that they split the shareholdings, and it's very common.

The Chair: Jacques Saada, on this point.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that during election campaigns, the current system is that if someone wants to make a contribution, that contribution has to be accounted for, so that that individual is not able to do through the back door what he or she can't do through the front door. So, if that process is not problematic, why should we change it? I see no point in doing that.

[English]

The Chair: You're right for the general case. We're trying to get some wording here.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, but if I'm against the general case and against whatever wording you have here--

The Chair: Yes, okay. But before I called this, I wanted to know what we were voting on, that was all.

That is a 30-minute bell, colleagues, and we'll keep you informed.

I would actually like to call this. If it passes, I do agree with Ted White, that has to be dealt with.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: BQ-11, page 88, was negatived.

Á (1145)

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: That amendment was negatived at the same time as BQ-5, because it is consequential on it.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Michel.

So we proceed to page 89, G-12.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, G-12 would add a reference to paragraph 405.3(2)(b) in subsections 405.1(1) and (2) and paragraphs 405.1(2)(a) and (b) and 405.2(1)(a). It would also amend the English version of paragraph 405.1(2)(a) to refer to subsection 404.1(1) and not to subsection 404.1(3). The added references to paragraph 405.3(2)(b) seek to provide for indexation of the $1,000 limit for contributions by associations of individuals. This motion results from a proposed change to subsection 404.1(1); associations of individuals will not be referred to any more in this subsection, but only in subsection 405.3(2). The amendment to the English version of paragraph 405.1(2)(a) is to correct a drafting error. Currently, the English version of the bill refers to subsection 404.1(3) as providing for the $1,000 limit for corporate and union contributions. In fact, this limit is found at subsection 404.1(1).

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the interpreters. I listened to that in French, and it was much more intelligible than it was in English.

Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think in our last meeting we had a discussion about associations. There were a number of different views about associations, and I don't think we have resolved ourselves yet how we want to deal with associations. So subject to any comments from Geoff, I would say we should be standing this, except with respect to the ones where we're correcting the English version.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, we already voted on the issue of incorporated associations.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay, my apologies if we did.

The Chair: So we vote on G-12.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: BQ-12 was negatived. We're coming to Bryden-5 now.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: What happens to Mr. Jordan's amendment L-6, on page 92?

[English]

The Chair: It was negatived.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: And Mr. Bryden's amendment L-5?

[English]

The Chair: That was stood. We left standing Bryden L-3.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: With respect to amendment BQ-12, since BQ-5 was negatived…

[English]

The Chair: That's right.

Bryden L-5 is stood for the same reason Bryden L-3 was stood. BQ-13, page 95, was negatived.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Amendment BQ-13, on page 95, was defeated with BQ-5.

[English]

The Chair: Oui.

That brings us to page 97, G-13.

Á (1150)

Mr. Geoff Regan: This motion would add a subsection 405.2(4) to prohibit anyone from entering into an agreement with a party or a candidate for the payment of goods or services when a term of the agreement is that any person will make a contribution, directly or indirectly, to a political participant. This would prohibit the type of arrangement where expenses would be inflated artificially for the purpose of receiving a larger reimbursement.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: BQ-14 is negatived.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: It was defeated with amendment BQ-5.

Le président: That's correct.

[English]

Jordan L-7 negatived. BQ-15 is negatived.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, at the same time as BQ-4.

[English]

The Chair: So that brings us to page 102 and Jordan L-8.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, this amendment attempts to remove the ability of associations to make donations, and I'd be very interested in the government's position on it.

The Chair: Okay, I'll go straight to the government, Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, we think the decision to allow limited contributions to the local level from corporations and associations is integral to this bill. You'll recall my comment yesterday that this affects a party that is not registered. An unregistered party, if it's planning to run in the next election and is getting itself organized, may not know who its candidates are going to be. It's trying to raise money across the country, and when the election comes, it should be able to contribute money to its candidates, even though it isn't registered. This would allow it to do that.

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: My only concern is whether we are opening it up to associations that have no intention of ever trying to become parties. If we mean unregistered parties, should we not say it?

Mr. Geoff Regan: I think Mr. Perrault is anxious to answer that question.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: This is a repeat of the discussion we had the other day. I have nothing to add to what I said about freedom of association and the need to have a little money for resources.

The Chair: Joe.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, based on the new-found knowledge we got that this thing is going to be reviewed, the Elections Act--

The Chair: What we heard was that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has a mandate to deal with the Chief Electoral Officer and may, therefore, every year review this legislation, and often does. That's where we are.

Á (1155)

Mr. Joe Jordan: It gives me a certain comfort level. If there seem to be abuses, we can get to them that way. So I will withdraw.

The Chair: Okay, it's withdrawn.

Michèle.

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: I want to nuance your statement, Mr. Chairman, just to say that the Chief Electoral Officer makes a report and recommendations after each election, not every year.

The Chair: I appreciate that amendment, but this committee does have a watching brief on the Canada Elections Act and the Chief Electoral Officer, and we do normally hear from him every year. I'm simply trying to clarify the point that we can review it.

All that being said, Jordan L-8 is withdrawn. And Joe, I've been told by the clerk that you therefore withdraw 11, 12, 13, and 14.

Bryden L-6 is stood.

That takes us, Gerald, to PC-22, page 104.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: This is a short amendment, again including registered parties and leadership contestants in the list of groups unincorporated associations can contribute to. I think leadership contestants just need to be added.

The Chair: Geoff.

Mr. Geoff Regan: As Mr. Keddy has indicated, this motion would allow associations of individuals to contribute to all participants, including parties and leadership contestants. It's a major departure from the intent of the bill, and the government is opposed to this amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Bryden L-7 is negatived.

Page 106, G-14. Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: This is a mirror of G-9, which we did already for corporations and unions. This would allow associations of individuals, when there is a second election in the same year in the same riding or a nomination contest for an election in the same year in the same riding, to give both times. It's only where they've given to an unsuccessful nomination contestant.

The Chair: Is there discussion?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: That takes us to page 110, PC-23.

Colleagues, there's the bell. We have 14 more minutes.

Gerald.

Â (1200)

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's an amendment to replace lines 28 to 35 on page 29 with the following;

who is responsible for the association, and

(ii) the amount of the contribution.

Under the bill as it exists, if a local club decided to give to a political party, they would have to disclose their contribution list. It's a bureaucratic nightmare. They could give $1,000 made up of $10 donations. It's just never going to work. We have to treat them as a separate entity, not as a large group. There's got to be a way to do it.

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, removing the requirement for the association to provide the names and addresses of original individual contributors would make it impossible to enforce the limits of those who choose to contribute through unincorporated associations. That's the essential problem with this motion, in our view.

The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I would like to know why we're creating a double jeopardy for individuals. Let's say 10 people contribute $100 and that comes under the $1,000 limit of the association, do they then have $100 less they can contribute as individuals?

The Chair: Ted White.

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

I would just make the observation, as I've done before, that this is a really complicated bill. I agree with observations Joe Jordan has made numerous times that we're going to spend $1 to save 25¢. I actually agree with this amendment, because I think there is no possibility of influence and abuse from an association giving $1,000 that's made up of other groups of people, even if we lose track of who it was who gave the money to the association in the first place. I don't think it's a big issue. I think this is a good amendment to simplify the reporting.

The Chair: Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It allows the contribution. It just regulates the tracking.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Bryden L-8 is stood.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Chair, on a point of order, would there be any appetite for us to pair for this and keep on working? We have four members of the opposition here.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: No, because we don't agree with each other over here.

The Chair: It was a good try, Dick, but we can't do that.

Can we try PC-24?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No. We've got 10 minutes.

The Chair: Okay.

Colleagues, we'll come back to amendment PC-24 immediately after the vote. I'm going to suspend this meeting until then.

Â (1203)

Â (1237)

The Chair: If we could resume, Ted White has something to say. You want me to withdraw “indefinitely”?

Mr. Ted White: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I don't think there's any need to go on indefinitely tonight.

The Chair: We're being very precise here. In the agenda we issued yesterday it said “until 10:30”. In the agenda that has been circulated today it does not say 10:30. I don't really mean we go on indefinitely, but if we were getting close at 10:30, it would be my intention to continue.

Mr. Ted White: If we want to finish at 10:30, we should make sure we're not close.

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that you may notice in a little while the absence of Madame de Cotret, but I think it's understandable, as she'll be attending her son's graduation.

The Chair: Congratulations. This is good.

Mr. Geoff Regan: She's very mad at me about that.

The Chair: Félicitations.

PC-24 is negatived, as it's consequential to PC-23.

We now go to G-15, page 113.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this amends section 405.4 to prescribe that a political participant shall return the contributions that exceed the limits or violate the anti-avoidance rules. This obligation already exists for indirect contributions received by political participants and those coming from an ineligible donor. The obligation must be expanded to include the return of contributions exceeding limits and violating the anti-avoidance rule.

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Could you help me; I'm not sure I understand what you want to do. Are you talking about 405.1?

Â (1240)

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Sub-clause 405(1) is to be amended.

Mr. Jacques Saada: But here I see 405.1.

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Clause 405.4 is going to be amended to refer to sub-clause 405(1).

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, I understand, but if we are referring to 405.1, then there obviously must have been a reference to it there.

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Yes.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would like to know where that reference appears.

[English]

The Chair: That's page 30.

[Translation]

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Sub-clause (1) of clause 405 refers to the limits on contributions. If a political participant receives a contribution higher than the limits laid out in this clause, he has to return it.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, I understand the principle, but that is not what I see in clause 405.1.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: Where do you see 405.1?

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm not talking about clause 405.1, but rather, sub-clause 405(1). I'm sorry; that was my mistake.

[English]

The Chair: Ted White.

Mr. Ted White: I have a similar question, because I don't have a subsection 405.2(4) in my bill. Is it something we passed in an earlier amendment? It is. Okay.

The Chair: It's a new subsection, Ted, on page 29 of the bill.

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: These clauses talk about the chief party agent. My understanding is that if a mistake is made with respect to funding provided by a provincial or territorial agency, the money is not remitted to the provincial or territorial agency, but rather, to the party. I would like some clarification in that regard.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: I'm not sure I follow you.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Supposing that the provincial wing of the Liberal Party in Manitoba raises money, and some of that money is the subject of an offence. In terms of the reference to the chief agent, are we talking here about the chief agent of the party or of the provincial wing of the party?

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: Of the party.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I just wanted to clarify that.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: I see.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 25 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to)

(On clause 27.1)

The Chair: We have a new clause, G-16, page 115.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add a section 409.1 to make the costs related to fees paid by a candidate to his or her representatives on election day computed as a personal expense for a candidate. This amendment allows for candidates not to be restricted by the limit on election expenses in payment of his or her representatives. The effect of this motion is to return to the situation that existed prior to Bill C-2.

The Chair: Ted White.

Mr. Ted White: For clarification, that means that if a candidate pays for the position of financial representative, that's not--

Mr. Geoff Regan: No, scrutineers. Some people pay their scrutineers. This allows them to do it and not have it included in their election expenses

Mr. Ted White: We can't see subsection 136(1) here. It's in the Elections Act probably.

Who are these scrutineers? Are you talking about election time? They're paid anyway.

Â (1245)

The Chair: As I recall the discussion, apparently, in Quebec it is common to pay scrutineers, whereas in Ontario they're not paid. They suggested over here that we have this secret paragraph.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, when I was defeated in 1997, that evening at the celebration of our defeat at our headquarters a couple of people came up to me afterwards, ladies who had been out in the rural area acting as those “inside agents”, as we call them, and complained that they didn't get chocolates this time.

The Chair: Ted White.

Mr. Ted White: I'd like to clarify with anyone who knows up there whether it would still be possible to have a scrutineer donate $1,275 during the election campaign and then be paid $1, 275 to serve as a scrutineer. The end effect is that the taxpayers actually pay the scrutineer.

Mr. Geoff Regan: If he or she is paid as a term of the payment that he or she pay it back to the party, it's caught by the “in and out” clause.

Mr. Ted White: That's just what I wanted to check. Thank you.

The Chair: Gerald Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: For clarification, the people identified in subsection 136(1), do we have them?

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Subsection 136(1) reads as follows:

A candidate or the candidate's official agent may authorize any number of representatives of the candidate to be present at a polling station, but only two of each candidate's representatives may be present at any time.

These are the people to whom there is reference.

The Chair: Okay.

(Clauses 27.1 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 28 to 31 agreed to)

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Can I just ask something on clause 31?

The Chair: Yes, okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Perhaps someone could clarify this for me so that I'm absolutely certain that I understand what this is about. It says here:

(3) No person or entity, other than a registered agent of a registered party, shall accept contributions to the registered party.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: That's why in a previous amendment, on page 58.2, which dealt with provincial and territorial divisions, we went with the wording, and I will read the amendment as it was approved:

[...] This act applies to these registered agents as if they were registered agents appointed by the party pursuant to sub-section 375(1).

That way they are treated as agents of the party. That means they can receive contributions.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I wouldn't want people to think I am fixated on this, but I would just like to complete my question. Why is there no mention in this clause of registered riding agents?

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: Well, the reason is that the contributions are made not to the parties, but to the ridings. Excuse me; it's the reverse, but there is no need to mention riding association agents, because this does not deal with contributions made to them.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Clause 416 of the Bill.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: Yes, it deals with parties.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Political parties.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: I'll call it again.

(Clause 31 agreed to)

(On clause 32)

The Chair: We proceed then to PC-25, page 117. Gerald Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

What the paragraph does is increase the amount from 62¢ to 70¢, and I think the point of the amendment is the question of why the increase in spending. The Election Act already has 62¢, we're going to put it up 8¢. That's a considerable amount of money, and it would appear that there is no rationale behind it at this time.

Â (1250)

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this motion, in our view, would remove any limit from the bill, because it deletes those lines. Also, one of the expenses that parties usually have in an election is polling expenses, and in the past polling expenses have not been included as an eligible expense you had to report and so forth. Now you will have to report your polling expenses, and to adjust the limits to provide those amounts, we have this increase per elector from 62¢ to 70¢.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's already in the Elections Act, and if it's not in here, but it's in the Elections Act, obviously, it's going to be carried forward. What we've done is increase the spending limit, and I still haven't heard an argument to tell me why we've increased the spending limit.

Mr. Geoff Regan: If we're going to say you now have to now include your polling expenses in what you report, if we didn't change it, we would actually be lowering the limit effectively.

The Chair: Gerald, I must say, I thought that in deleting this, we would return to the previous situation, in which you have 62¢. On the other hand, the interpretation we have just been given is that it removes the ceiling, and if it removes the ceiling, I should rule this inadmissible, because it's potentially increased expenditures.

Madame de Cotret.

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: It doesn't remove the ceiling. You are correct in thinking that it just goes back to 62¢.

The Chair: Thank you.

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I just want to put one simple question. When was the amount of 62¢ set?

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: That amount has been indexed.

[English]

It was changed in 2000 based on previous data, but it's indexed.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Is this increase from 62¢ to 70¢, which goes back to the year 2000, due to inflation, or does this come on top of the inflation increase?

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Yes, this comes on top.

[English]

The Chair: Ted White.

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

Without passing judgment on the amendment itself, I think a very weak argument was given by Mr. Regan for increasing it to 70¢, on the basis that they had to increase it so you could runs polls. It's entirely voluntary what you spend your campaign money on, you don't have to take polls, and maybe lots of candidates don't, so it seems like a silly reason to increase the spending. I might as well argue that because I made a videotape, I should get an extra eight cents. It's just a silly argument for increasing the spending.

The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think the difference is that if you make a videotape, it's already a reportable expense and a reimbursable expense. If you do polling, it's now not reportable within your limit or reimbursable. With this, you do have to report it as part of the total limit, and then you're eligible to be reimbursed for it.

That's a 12.5% increase. How did we decide that was a reasonable amount for polling?

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I understand Elections Canada reviewed the numbers, parties reported in relation to what they spent on polling, and this was based upon that review.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: That's the parties, but this relates to the allowable limits in ridings, does it not? If it does, what do we base it on with respect to polling in ridings?

Â (1255)

Mr. Geoff Regan: My understanding is that it's for the party spending limits.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: We're talking much larger amounts here. Is this an indexed amount? I know it has gone up every election, but I've forgotten on what basis it's indexed.

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: It is an indexed amount, and the indexation formula I think is CPI and is at section 414 of the act.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: So this is based on actual figures of what now has to be paid for under the limit.

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: It's an approximation of what was spent in 2000.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you

And we have something similar with respect to candidates?

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: No, it's only for parties' polling expenses.

The Chair: Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Without having followed the bill along, I think it's obvious that the incumbent does have a huge advantage. If it's 70¢ or 62¢--and I'd rather see it at 62¢--does it go as a percentage of the electors to all parties? Because if you're talking about polling, where's the percentage of the election results. In trying to finance elections in the future, is it an equal amount divided among all parties that are on the ballot?

Mr. Geoff Regan: It benefits every party equally, because it increases your reimbursement. That's available to every party equally.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Is it based on the number of electors or the number of votes?

Mr. Geoff Regan: It's based on the number of voters in the country. All parties have a limit on how much they can spend based upon the number of electors in Canada, and it's obviously the same for all parties, because they all live in the same country, they all face the same electorate.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's a percentage divided among the five parties?

Mr. Geoff Regan: No, it's 30 million Canadians times 70¢.

The Chair: Marlene.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think there's a misunderstanding here that this is an amount paid to the parties. It's not, it's what they're allowed to spend during an election campaign, and that's all parties. It's based on multiplying 70¢ by the number of electors across Canada, and that sets the limit. It's not money that goes to the parties.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Does it bring election expenses down for everyone at 62¢?

Mr. Geoff Regan: As I was saying earlier, because of the changes to the rules and the fact that your report has to include polling expenses in this, what this is proposing would reduce the election expenses. Parties don't have to buy TV ads, they don't have to buy signs etc., but they do these things and they do the polling, and these are legitimate expenses. But those are to be reported and included in the limits.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: But are we going to put an increase in there to buy advertising, to buy signs, etc.?

Mr. Geoff Regan: No, those things are already--

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Then why treat polling separately from all the rest of your expenses?

Mr. Geoff Regan: We aren't treating it differently any more. It was treated differently, and why should it be? Precisely. Thank you for making the argument.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: It's now Jordan L-9, page 118.

I'll call this one now, if you like.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'll save us time and humiliation, but I do want to say I like the fact that they're including polling in what has to be declared. I've been saying throughout we should be controlling what we can spend. If we can control the need for money, it turns the temperature down. But having seen the result of the previous vote, I'll withdraw this.

(Clause 32 agreed to)

(On clause 33)

The Chair: We proceed to G-17, page 119.

· (1300)

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this motion would amend proposed subsection 423.1(1) in the English version so that an unpaid claim is deemed to be a contribution on the day on which the expense was incurred, not 18 months after the end of a fiscal period for which a return is made by the party. This amendment corrects a technical error in the English version.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 33 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 34)

The Chair: Carolyn Parrish is not here. Do we know when Carolyn Parrish will be back?

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): I convey 1:15.

The Chair: Thanks, Bob. We welcome you to our committee.

We'll stand PL-4, page 119.1.

(Amendment allowed to stand)

The Chair: CA-10 is negatived, so, Gerald, we're at PC-26, page 121.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chairman, I think it can be withdrawn. The government has already defeated similar amendments.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

(Clause 34 allowed to stand)

The Chair: CA-11, page 122, is consequential to CA-5 and is stood.

(On clause 34.1)

The Chair: So it's G-17a, page 121.1, with a new clause..

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this would provide for quarterly returns by parties. We had a discussion about this during our meetings, and I think members wanted to see this. The quarterly reports are not audited, since the annual report will be. The information required concerns only contributions received, not expenses. The obligation to file quarterly reports applies only to those parties that are entitled to the quarterly allowance, i.e., those that receive 2% of the vote or 5% of the districts where they presented a candidate.

The Chair: Ted White.

Mr. Ted White: For clarification, Mr. Chairman, if we move to quarterly reports, the parties still have to do a yearly report?

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: The final report is the one that's audited, and it's a full report on all their financial transactions.

Mr. Ted White: And will therefore include all the things that were in the previous report.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: Yes. These are interim reports and they're not audited. They're only money received.

Mr. Ted White: Then what's the point of them?

Mr. Geoff Regan: The idea is that if someone makes a contribution, you ought not to have to wait until 18 months afterwards to find out that they did so. If you're going to have disclosure and transparency, you ought to be able to know within a reasonable time. Let's say you have a bill going through the House that's related to some particular issue and there's a contribution that seems to relate to that in some way, or there's an election in-between. That kind of 18-month delay can have a consequence.

· (1305)

Mr. Ted White: So the last quarterly report will be in within 30 days of the date it's due, and a person could go and look at the four reports for the year, knowing they're not audited, but at least they would be available.

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering whether the government could accept a sub-amendment to this amendment. Based on my understanding of how provincial and territorial associations work, they report to the party, which is then accountable. This process involves additional time. Could we not consider extending the time frame beyond the 45-day period, to allow every one a chance to file their returns on time?

[English]

Mr. Geoff Regan: It's electronic, and I think they'll have the information quite simply on their computers. It should be fairly straightforward to develop. It's only national parties, but it includes the PTAs. They have to report their stuff to the national centre and have that information there.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Since the response is less than enthusiastic, I withdraw my proposal.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

(Clause 34.1 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I'm advised that we should go back to NDP-4, page 13. This was stood, it's now unstood. Dick, this is superseded by the amendment we just had. This arose out of your amendment.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I'm assuming we now will withdraw it.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Dick.

Geoff, G-17a, which we just did, the first of this second package we have, is consequential to G-17b, is it not, which is page 129.1? So G-17b is carried, G-35a, page 192.1, is carried, G-37a, page 200.1, is carried.

Dick, is it your understanding that NDP-11a, page 121.2, which should be page 121.3, is consequential again to NDP-4?

· (1310)

Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes.

The Chair: So it is withdrawn.

(On clause 34)

The Chair: We now have Carolyn Parrish with us, so we can go back to page 119.1.

Carolyn Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Oh, I'm withdrawing all those. The first one failed, and if they didn't pass the first time, what would make me think you guys will have a change of heart? I only fight what I can win. Sorry about that, guys.

(Clause 34 agreed to)

(On clause 35)

The Chair: CA-11 is stood, so it's page 123, PC-27. Gerald.

· (1315)

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That can be withdrawn.

The Chair: Okay.

CA-12 is negatived.

PC-28, Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Withdrawn.

The Chair: Okay.

(Clause 35 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 36 to 38 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 39)

The Chair: Jordan L-10, page 126.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair I'm going to withdraw this amendment, but make reference to it in our recommendations at the end of this report.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Clause 39 agreed to)

(On clause 40)

The Chair: We're now at CA-12a, Ted, page 127.

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: What is the difference between clause 39 and the current wording of the Elections Act?

[English]

The Chair: What page?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: On page 35, clause 39.

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: … Well, it's the rate at which party election expenses are refunded.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I thought that had been withdrawn following a question from Mr. Jordan, so that we could keep open the possibility of suggesting something else when we make our recommendations. Can we amend that clause here, or do we have to wait for the report stage?

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: It can be lowered, but not raised.

Mr. Jacques Saada: So, we cannot move an amendment to raise it here? I see.

However, after we have passed the Bill, if there is a desire to propose an increase, can we do that at the report stage?

[English]

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, it would require a royal recommendation.

The Chair: If you're proposing an increase, it can be done at the report stage only, it cannot be done here. It can be suggested as a recommendation in our report.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: But that is the whole point of my question, Mr. Chairman. I see no consistency here. I have been told that we can only increase this amount at the report stage, when that is in fact what we are doing now.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault: All the necessary steps have been completed that would make it possible to increase it at this stage.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm sorry, perhaps I'm losing my concentration, because I really don't follow you. The percentage was 22.5 per cent, right? We are proposing to increase it to 50 per cent--in other words, to change it from 22.5 per cent to 50 per cent. That necessarily means increased spending for the government. How can the Committee do that, considering that this would automatically increase the government's spending?

Ms. Michèle René de Cotret: Because this was done through royal recommendation.

[English]

The Chair: An increase in a bill given to a committee is proposed by the government, not by the committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: That was the right answer; thank you very much. Your explanation was appropriate, but I misunderstood it.

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: If there are issues like this the committee wants to address, we could prepare a report to go along with our report on the bill, like the menu the government brings to the table.

The Chair: We can all hear this advice from Susan.

· (1320)

Ms. Susan Baldwin: We would need two separate reports. The rule is that when you report a bill back, you only can report back the amendments made to it, if any. So if you have a subject of any sort you wanted to add to it, you would have to do it in a separate and following report.

The Chair: And I'm told we've done that in the past.

CA-12a.

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

The purpose of this amendment is to introduce an element of fairness for small parties that may run candidates in at least 50 ridings, but be incapable of reaching the thresholds in the bill for receiving their quarterly allowance. The one that concerned me was proposed paragraph 435.01(1)(b), where they will receive a payment if they get “5% of the number of valid votes cast in the electoral districts in which the registered party endorsed a candidate.” For those of us in major parties getting 5% of the vote is very easy, not a great hurdle, but I could conceive of a situation where a minor party might have already gained some ground in one part of the country and got maybe 15% or 20% in quite a number of ridings, while then in one or two somewhere else it only gets 2%. That destroys its entire opportunity to get an allowance. I would suggest that we average it to 5%, which is still in the general spirit of where we want to go with this.

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, the government position is this motion is unnecessary. The language is similar to that currently used in the act for reimbursement of party election expenses.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Amendment NDP-12, page 128, is withdrawn. Thank you, Dick.

NDP-13, on page 129.

Mr. Dick Proctor: This is a proposal to index for inflation the quarterly payments from the Chief Electoral Officer to the political parties. We've heard a number of occasions in the bill where some things are indexed for inflation and others aren't. We think this one should be and we should be consistent throughout.

The Chair: The amendment is inadmissible, because it requires an increase in public expenditures. It can be addressed by us only as a recommendation in the second report that was mentioned, but it can be introduced as an amendment at report stage in the House.

G-18, page 130. Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, this motion formally recognizes provincial and territorial divisions of registered parties, as my colleague Jacques Saada will be delighted to see. It requires the leader of the party to provide basic information about the PTA, including the name of its agents, and also allows a portion of the party allowance to be paid directly--.

The Chair: Hold on. Amendment G-18 reads, “The payment may also be made in whole or in part to any entity of the party, as authorized in writing by its leader.”

Mr. Geoff Regan: No, we've withdrawn that and got a new one in, but I guess you haven't got it yet. It was given to the clerk.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: I have amendment G-18a, but I have that listed as carried, because it was part of the consequential package we did on provincial divisions. So amendment G-18 will be not put.

· (1325)

The Chair: It is withdrawn.

We're now on G-19, page 132. This will be the last one, colleagues.

Mr. Geoff Regan: This motion would add under proposed subsection 435.08(1) that a leadership campaign agent can pay expenses as well as incur expenses. There are two references to the functions of these agents in the bill, and they do not say the same thing. This amendment will ensure that they match and will allow these agents to not only incur, but also to pay expenses. In practice, a financial agent is a volunteer who is only there part-time, so it's imperative to ensure that leadership campaign agents can also pay expenses.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Colleagues, I'm going to end the meeting at this point. We resume again at 4 o'clock. As I mentioned at the beginning of this meeting, the agenda has no closing time this evening. This room is secure, and you can leave everything you need in here.

The meeting is adjourned. Interpreters, I thank you very much.