Bill C-54 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans)

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to enact rules concerning loans, guarantees and suretyships with respect to registered parties, registered associations, candidates, leadership contestants and nomination contestants.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, let's start our meeting this morning. I want to advise members right off the bat that the meeting will be held in public.

As well, I want to advise that you have received this morning the information from the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada. That was circulated this morning. Hopefully, you've had an opportunity to read that. A second copy is being circulated to members right now, just in case that might drum up some questions for our witness this morning.

Colleagues, the order of business today will be to pose any questions we may have regarding Bill C-54 to our witness today, who I'll introduce in just a moment. At the conclusion of these questions, and I'm certainly hoping we will have time, we have two other pieces of business.

The first one, following the witness, will be dealing with the subcommittee's report on the conflict of interest code.

On the second one Monsieur Guimond has just approached me and we will give him some time at the end of that, following that, if in fact we still need the time. I will offer that to Monsieur Guimond.

Colleagues, pursuant to the orders of reference of Monday, May 28, the committee will now resume its consideration of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans) 2007.

I want to advise the members that we did in fact contact all the witnesses that the steering committee, and ultimately the committee itself, agreed to, and as the committee agreed, those witnesses who could appear would appear here on Thursday. Those witnesses who could not appear would be requested to submit something in writing, so that we could review that for our Tuesday meeting, and then we would start clause-by-clause on Tuesday.

I have to tell members that Equal Voice was in fact e-mailed. We do have acknowledgment that the e-mail was received. However, we have had no response whatsoever from Equal Voice.

The Supreme Court judge we were trying to reach was not reachable, and the other gentleman is simply not available.

Elections Ontario has accepted our offer to appear here and has sent to us this morning a witness whom we can question.

As to the other witnesses who have responded or we've been in touch with, again, I just want to repeat that they've been asked to submit so that we can get their opinions on this issue.

Without further delay, colleagues, let me introduce Mike Stockfish. He's the director of election finances for Elections Ontario.

Madam Redman, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Do you want to adopt the budget first?

Lucile has put together a budget for us for the study of Bill C-54. It would include the cost of witnesses' expenses, potentially a video conference—that I don't see happening, but we have it here just in case—and miscellaneous. The budget is $14,350 to study Bill C-54.

All in favour of the budget?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

No.

Sorry, you did hear that wrong, or perhaps I said it wrong. This Thursday we would have the witnesses for Bill C-54, and the Conflict of Interest Code. Clearly, if there ends up being a lengthy discussion on this issue, we won't be able to deal with it on Thursday.

There has been such a lot of work done on that code.

Madame Redman, you were on that committee, so you know that there was a lot of work done.

Mr. Owen, you were on that committee, and a number of us were there. Chances are we'll have a look at that, and there may be brief discussions, and we'll be able to do it this Thursday.

Clause-by-clause on the contract--I can't see that starting until Tuesday, simply because I don't expect all the witnesses to be able to attend. One of them is a superior court judge. We're asking them.

For another witness--I believe, Madame Redman, recommended by you--we have only an e-mail address. There is no phone number. There is no way to contact them, and we're doing our very best.

I sense that some of them will ultimately be submitting reports rather than appearing in person. I can't see that happening before Monday, so I can't see us starting clause-by-clause before Tuesday, which means Thursday.... Anyway, that's all I have to say about that.

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I appreciate the work of the steering committee, and just for record, we Liberals would be very happy to be here until the 22nd, if we need to, to get all of this done.

I want to clarify if you said in your report on the steering committee that we could potentially be doing Bill C-54 clause-by-clause and the Conflict of Interest Code on the same Thursday, or am I wrong?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, we're going to start our meeting this morning.

This morning's meeting will pretty much deal with two key issues. One is the steering committee's recommendations on where this committee should go over the next couple of weeks, and the second part will be based on whether we accept that report or not.

First, colleagues, let me tell you that we potentially have six meetings left. That's not a lot of time. The steering committee met this morning at eight o'clock and reviewed all the different motions before the committee, as well as leftover business, or some small items requiring more detailed discussions—which time potentially does not permit. As well, we looked at the list of potential legislation that could be sent before this committee.

The steering committee had lengthy and very in-depth discussions, and ultimately, here's what the steering committee decided.

We will deal this morning with Monsieur Guimond's motion in relation to questions by independent members during question period.

The second thing the committee recommended was that because all the other motions on your list require significant discussion, they should be put off until the fall.

The committee discussed Bill C-54 and a number of potential witnesses to be called on Thursday. We've narrowed the list down to four witnesses, all of whom will be contacted, if they've not already been contacted. Lucile has already sent out some e-mails this morning. The witnesses we requested will be here on Thursday, and those who can't make it on Thursday will be requested to submit a report by the end of day Friday, which will be translated and submitted to members late on Monday, if all goes well, for Tuesday's meeting. So we should finish our investigative process as a result of that action. We should be able, therefore, to begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-54 on Tuesday, June 12.

Again, rumours are flying about how much time we have left here in Parliament, but we may then begin with Bill C-55 on Thursday—but I think we're moving too far ahead. The steering committee only decided, therefore, on the plan of action for today's meeting, as I said, which will be to deal with Mr. Guimond's motion. If the committee agrees with that, we would ultimately adjourn today, and on Thursday we would come back to hear the witnesses.

I should also point out that the Conflict of Interest Code has been finished by our subcommittee after, I think, 11 meetings and some fairly arduous work. That is ready to be presented on Thursday. We'll have a look at that on Thursday as well, along with having our witnesses.

On Tuesday we'll begin clause-by-clause. We need to agree as a committee on a 24-hour notice for any amendments to Bill C-54, and we need to approve a budget.

So that's what we need to do today. Are there any discussions on that?

Madame Robillard, you're first, and Madame Redman, you're second.

Canada Elections Act

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise today to continue the debate with respect to Bill C-55.

There has been a great deal of extrapolation and overview with respect to the ingredients of the bill. I do not think there is anyone in the House who would take exception to the efforts of the government and the opposition to find ways to broaden the franchise and to encourage people to exercise their democratic right to vote. As has been pointed out, this is one of the most basic freedoms that we enjoy and we should always be perceptive and reactive to citizens' needs for accessibility in order to exercise that franchise.

This particular bill is systemic in the sense that it deals with the mechanics of the election through the availability of advance polls. The bill is suggesting two additional days, one of which would be exactly the same, and the other being the Sunday prior to the election. Polling subdivisions across the country would be the same as those that would be accessible in the general election. That is self-evident in the sense that it would be more accessible for Canadians across the country to avail themselves of their franchise. Thus, it would be surprising if there were any opposition to that.

One issue has been indirectly raised and I would like to bring it into the discussion. I would suggest that this is more of a discussion with respect to allowing people to exercise their franchise and encouraging them to vote rather than one in terms of the usual cut and thrust of debate where something is put forward and the opposition has to tear it apart and find some way to improve it.

There are many improvements, I suppose, that generally could be made to the manner in which we carry on the electoral process. Fixed dates has been mentioned, and it is generally considered that this would be advantageous and a step in the right direction toward democratic reform.

The advance poll would be on the Sunday prior to the election and would have the same level of accessibility as a regular polling day during an election. This advance poll would be held the day before the election. I do not know whether the government has given enough consideration to the implications this might have if there were an issue of a high level of interest such as we experienced during the same sex debate where amendments had been made and had became law, but there was a continuing discussion of that through the last election period.

The fact that there was an interlude or, what I would characterize it as, a cooling off period between the time the bill became law and the election, very strong positions were taken across the country among various groups, but at the end of the day everyone had the opportunity for discussion, decisions had been made and we were moving ahead.

This just occurred to me. In the heat of debate, where there are issues that touch on the moral and legal lines, is it in the national interest for there to be the heightening of concerns and a re-awakening of issues the day before the vote? The ability to have a cooling off period, a period where people have an opportunity to digest what has been done, reflect on it and then exercise their franchise during the general election is that implicated by the fact that we are now having a poll the very day before an election, a poll that will be accessible in every constituency, every subdivision across the country?

In fact, that might become the source of discussion as a matter of religion. We have always tried to consider religion as absolutely sacrosanct in terms of issues related to what people view as their religious feelings on a matter and balance that against what is a political issue that is being defined by charter issues and so on.

It is this kind of balance that Canadians have been able to advance civil society through our institutions and conventions. We treat our conventions with respect and tend not to over-moralize. We try to have a balanced perspective with respect to how we would like to entrench the rights of all Canadians in terms of our institutions through our Charter of Rights. This was both the process and substance of what that discussion was all about many months ago, and we advanced past that.

I have a concern, and I am not sure whether it has been reflected on by the government, about should an issue of this nature arise or one related to our history in conscription. This was an extremely divisive issue and we had to come to grips with it. It led to regional differences that in fact threatened to divide the country and it took years for us to move past that issue.

The day before the election is there a possibility that there could be a negative influence in terms of institutions that would now be used, in the name of religion, to mobilize around particular points of view and inordinately affect the outcome with respect to an issue as it relates to a political decision? I only put that out as a concern. It has not been mentioned and it is perhaps something, had there been a broader consultation, that would have been more clearly articulated with respect to the bill before us.

When we look at the statistics, particularly for young people and those who have felt disenfranchised for whatever reason, they indicate that voter involvement has gone down. It was as high as 75%, as I understand it, in the 1970s and 1980s and has gone down to 65% or 60%. We note also that even among seniors, for whatever reason, there seems to be a diminishing of interest with respect to exercising their franchise, which might be a surprise to some people. There are regional patterns with respect to people being less inclined to exercise their franchise.

Although this is an exception, it is worthy of mention. Where we have done studies empirically trying to establish why people get involved in the process of voting and so on, it has been very clear that new Canadians, particularly those who have become citizens in the last decade, are exercising their franchise at a higher level than those who have been here for a long time.

Is it because we take our democratic right to vote for granted? Is it because of the experience new Canadians have, coming from countries where they did not have those privileges? As immigrants always have in the history of our country, they come here to seek a better life, a life where they have more say in their own futures, the futures of their children, the legacy they are creating. It is obvious to me that with those higher voting ratios among new Canadians, there is something for us to learn.

It is why this discussion goes beyond Bill C-55. Bill C-55 provides another opportunity for people to exercise the franchise. For us to really come to grips in real terms with increasing the responsibility and accountability to be part of the electoral process, we have to look beyond Bill C-55.

My colleagues in the New Democratic Party were speaking yesterday about proportional representation. They were alluding to what was happening in the province of Ontario with respect to a citizens commission, which looked at different approaches to electoral reform. This will find its way through into the next election in which there will be a referendum, just as there was in British Columbia. This is one approach that could be taken with respect to mobilizing public opinion and attempting to focus that on improving our electoral system.

I believe the government has attempted to look at different approaches because two other bills were introduced. Bill C-56 was introduced to change the formula for redistributing seats in the House of Commons. Bill C-54 looked at the restrictions on the use of loans by political entities governed by the Canada Elections Act.

The amendments through those bills were earnest attempts by the government to focus on the whole issue of accountability and relevance, and hopefully a corollary to that, getting people involved in the democratic process and in political organizations and mobilizing them to become more involved in Canadian politics.

As part of the discussion, I will make a few comments without straying from the intent of Bill C-55. I have stated that we all should support Bill C-55 with respect to the amendments it is make to allow for two additional advance polls.

However, if we are to draw people into what we view as political life and the discussion of issues that affect us, we have to look at issues related to accessibility. We have to look at whether we are really debating the real issues that people are not only interested in, but also issues that they see as part of the legacy for them and their children.

We also have to take some reflection on whether we have and are earning the public trust. It is matters of accessibility and that we are dealing with the real issues that concern Canadians. If we are doing those in earnest, they will view that as us exercising what they deem to be the public trust.

I reflect yesterday when we had workers here from all over the country. I know many of us in the House joined with the Canadian Labour Congress. People from coast to coast to coast talked about job loss and about the dramatic and traumatic implications of that. Workers had tears in their eyes. At the gathering in room 200, I and many of my colleagues were moved as we listened to the descriptions of what was happening in small communities across the country, with respect to the loss of jobs.

I mention this because this is not something of a partisan nature. Yes, we can look at governments and say we did better than that. These issues are of a global nature, which reflect on very complex and interconnected issues related to capital and how we are competing with countries in the global economy and what is happening with respect to foreign investment in terms of how we can connect and convince Canadians that we have control over our economic future.

It is related to issues that people are caught in a sense of helplessness. If they see this House, both in terms of the substance of that issue and the style of addressing it, they will see us grappling with the issues about they are most concerned. In that way we will be earning to some extent their trust. They may think we are making mistakes in their opinion or they may think we are on the right track, and hopefully we are. They may exercise their franchise in different ways, but that is part of believing in this country and believing in our institutions of governance.

I use that as an example because it goes beyond this bill. It goes into the manner in which we have representation and the manner in which we debate and are seen to be debating. It relates to how we contribute to the positive culture of parliamentary democracy in Canada.

I have shared this on occasion with many of our colleagues, that sometimes we are less than up to the challenge in terms of meeting the expectations of Canadians.

I will talk just for a moment to Bill C-56 as it relates to broadening the franchise. As I mentioned, that bill deals with changing the formula to redistribute seats in the House. In terms of whether we are earning the public trust, both the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario have indicated great concerns with respect to what the bill says. The government should be aware that consultation is absolutely fundamental to gaining the public trust and that we are attempting to broaden the opportunities for people to get involved in the process.

The last comment I have is with respect to Bill C-54 on loans. One of our most sacred rights is the right to be a candidate. Under the Canada Elections Act, we have the fundamental processes and protection in place to ensure that loans are dealt with, that candidates cannot go beyond what they spend.

With respect to some of the content of Bill C-54, it becomes apparent that some are less equal than others when it comes to borrowing money. What we have said is we will make everybody borrow from the bank, thus making it impossible to go our friends and have them on record loaning us money and on record having to pay us back.

Everybody now has to go to the bank and I am not sure that it is a democratic principle that everybody has to go to the bank because everybody does not have the equal ability to get the same loan and get the same rate of interest, and so on. Everybody always has to negotiate.

That bill went, to some extent, philosophically in an opposite way. The legislation that the government had brought in previously was designed to deal with that.

I did not mean to stray by mentioning Bill C-56 and Bill C-54, but I did want to elaborate. If we are dealing with electoral reform to broaden the franchise, those are the things we have to increase. We have to increase accountability, we have to increase accessibility, and we have to earn the public trust.

[Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

With me today are Mrs. Diane Davidson, who is the deputy chief electoral officer and senior legal counsel at Elections Canada; Mrs. Janice Vézina, who is the executive director of political financing and corporate services; and Mr. Stéphane Perrault, who is the senior general counsel at Elections Canada.

Thank you again.

As the chairman just said, it was only on Tuesday that we were invited to appear before your committee regarding this bill, which is very important for the political financing system. At that time, we were very busy preparing our appearance before the Senate regarding Bill C-31, which greatly hindered our ability to prepare a detailed and adequate analysis of the bill at hand.

Nevertheless, I think that it is important to share some comments with you today. I did not have the opportunity to prepare type-written notes. However, I would like to speak to you about certain issues that are raised by this bill. First, let me note that this bill responds to a recommendation my predecessor made and that it reflects his suggestions very well. Nonetheless, I must say that we were not consulted about drafting the bill. Therefore, we were informed about it only when it was tabled before the House.

The bill adds an important piece to the financial framework as regards the inflow of moneys to regulated entities under the Canada Elections Act. While the bill certainly responds to recommendations made by Elections Canada last January, it only touches one aspect of these recommendations, which is the loan aspect.

One observation I have in reviewing the piece of legislation is that loans should not be looked at in isolation from other rules regarding access to money, such as the one regarding stricter contribution limits, the existence or absence of spending limits for various entities governed by the act—mainly leadership contests—the rules governing transfers among various entities, and the availability of tax credits for certain entities during or outside the writ period, as well as other subsidies, such as the allowance offered to parties. The interaction of those evolving rules may have significant implications for candidates, lenders, and parties who have different financial needs and borrowing capabilities.

The proposed restrictions on loans, in conjunction with the recent contribution limit, will require entities to rely more heavily on loans from financial institutions to fund their activities. That's one likely outcome of Bill C-54.

The question arises as to whether financial institutions will be willing to play this role, and if so, to what extent, and how they will adjust their lending practices under the rules set out by Bill C-54. For example, a guarantor may not guarantee a loan for more than $1,100, except for parties and district associations. As parties are the only ones allowed to guarantee substantial loans, this may have an impact on the relationship between parties and candidates or between independent candidates and those supported by political parties. Will candidates or small parties be able to find sufficient financing to support their campaigns?

These are some of the questions that come to mind when we look more comprehensively at the financial framework for financial entities. I must admit that I have no answers at this time to those questions. It will require much more analysis.

Following our study which, I repeat, was only preliminary, I can say that this bill has some problems with implementation. Let me mention a few of them. For instance, the bill states that loans to candidates must be paid back 18 months after the date on which they were made rather than 18 months after the date of the election. In this way, a loan might have to be paid back even before the election is held. In our opinion, this is an operational problem.

Secondly, although the bill allows candidates to borrow from financial institutions, a candidate cannot use more than $1,100 worth of his personal resources or goods, for example his house, as collateral. We want to know whether a candidate can be exempted from these restrictions on loans or collateral, without violating the spirit of the bill.

A third example, which has more to do with the operations of Elections Canada, would be a situation in which a candidate tells us that the bank, following its usual accounting practice, considers a loan to be unrecoverable or written off. According to this bill, the Chief Electoral Officer must determine whether the loan has really been written off following the usual practice of the financial institution. However, nothing in the bill provides that the Chief Electoral Officer should have access to the documents of the financial institutions and that he will be able to verify their practices in such cases.

If a loan is written off, the riding association becomes responsible for the debt as if it had put up collateral. As we interpret the bill, this is more or less an automatic process triggered by writing off the debt. If this occurs, the association might not have agreed to collaterize the loan. Perhaps this is the intention of the bill, but I must draw it to your attention. Of course, these are only examples. A closer study would probably come up with more such examples.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, I was--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, we'll bring the meeting back to order.

I want to give a special welcome and a deep thank you to our witnesses this morning.

This morning, colleagues, we have, for the second half of this meeting on Bill C-54, the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand.

I'm going to offer Monsieur Mayrand the floor in a moment to introduce his team. However, I just want to bring to the members' attention the fact that Monsieur Mayrand and his team were very kind. It was with great difficulty that they were able to come this morning. The team testified in a Senate committee yesterday, and they have done a phenomenal job in preparation for this meeting. I want to acknowledge that in public and let them know how much the chair, and I'm sure the members from the House, appreciate their extra efforts in getting this information to us this morning.

I will offer you the floor. Perhaps you would introduce your team, Marc, and then say anything you have to say. Then we will open the usual round of questions.

Monsieur Mayrand.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It seems to me that with this bill, the government is reacting to a specific event. I will not mince words here, I am going to speak to you frankly. With the exception of the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, is there really a problem that justifies the tabling of Bill C-54?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I will briefly speak to the amendments concerning loans that were presented when Bill C-2 went through, since Monsieur Godin raised the subject. I don't want to say the wording was sloppy, but the difficulty was that the wording I don't think would have achieved what I think was Mr. Martin's very good and very genuine intention. There was some awkward blurring of the line and terminology between the words “contribution” and “loan” and so on. I know the objective he was trying to achieve was what we're trying to do with Bill C-54. I believe it would not have been achieved with the amendments that were put forward at the time, and that's where it got tripped up at the time.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I could invite you to the Standing Committee on Official Languages!

I would just like to make a few comments. At the beginning of your remarks, you thanked Pat Martin for his work. It is most unfortunate that this was not done for Bill C-2. Mr. Martin's amendments to Bill C-2, which the government rejected, are now included in Bill C-54. Had they been accepted in Bill C-2, these provisions would now be law.

I have no questions at this time. I may have some on the next round. We support this bill. It will put everyone on an equal footing. Everyone who runs for office will be treated the same way. So people will not get elected simply because they have rich friends.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

And I'm Peter Van Loan.

I'm pleased to appear today to assist the committee in its scrutiny of Bill C-54, the accountability with respect to loans bill. The bill is another important part of our agenda to strengthen accountability in Canada through democratic reform.

Our agenda in this respect is extensive and ambitious. It has three main components: strengthening our electoral system to make it more responsive, fair, and effective; second, modernizing the Senate; and third, reforming the financing of political parties to eliminate the undue influence of rich and powerful individuals.

To start, we are strengthening our electoral system by, firstly, ensuring our democracy remains fair to Canadians across the country through Bill C-31, which seeks to reduce voter fraud, and Bill C-56, which ensures fairness and representation in the House of Commons by restoring the principle of representation by population.

Secondly, we are taking steps to improve voter turnout through Bill C-55, which adds two additional days of advanced polling on the two Sundays prior to election day.

Lastly, we are also providing a level of certainty and transparency to the public by establishing fix date elections. Under legislation that was recently enacted into law, the date of the next general election will be October 19, 2009.

Through another piece of legislation currently before Parliament, we hope that October 19, 2009, is the date of the first national consultations process for choosing senators.

For the first time, Bill C-43 provides Canadians with the opportunity to have a say in who represents them in the Senate. This legislation, which represents a realistic and practical way of modernizing the Senate, is one part of our plan to do so. The other part is our bill to limit the terms of senators to 8 years from the current maximum of 45.

The last major component of our agenda to strengthen accountability through democratic reform is our legislation to reform the financing of political parties, candidates, and associations to eliminate the undue influence of rich, powerful individuals in the political process.

We committed to doing this in the last campaign, when we introduced, as our first piece of legislation, the Federal Accountability Act. On April 11, 2006 we fulfilled that commitment and on December 12 of the same year, the Federal Accountability Act became law.

The act banned corporate and union contributions, imposed tighter rules on gifts and trust funds and limited annual donations to a political party to $1,100 in 2007.

The bill being studied by this committee today builds on the Federal Accountability Act and on our commitment to eliminate the influence of rich, powerful individuals from the political process.

The bill would amend the Canada Elections Act to establish stronger rules and better transparency for loans made to political parties, candidates, and associations. These amendments would enhance accountability and increase transparency around the use of loans as a political financing tool, which is vital to ensuring the confidence of Canadians in the integrity of the political process.

Along with the Federal Accountability Act, the changes proposed in Bill C-54 will ensure that the financing of political parties, candidates, and associations is fully transparent with straightforward rules that are easy to enforce.

The amendments proposed for the treatment of loans in Bill C-54 would extend to loans the same standards of transparency that are now in place for contributions. By removing chapter 3, which allows for the use of loans to circumvent the restrictions on the source or limit of contributions, the amendments will ensure that the reforms enacted in C-2 cannot be undermined through the misuse of loans.

Specifically, the amendments would make the following changes to the treatment of loans.

First, the bill would establish a uniform and transparent way of treating loans made to political parties, candidates, and associations. It would require mandatory disclosure of terms and the identity of all lenders and loan guarantors. It would achieve greater transparency and ensure that political parties, candidates, and associations are treated uniformly, which is, believe it or not, not now the case.

Second, total loans, loan guarantees, and contributions by individuals could not exceed the annual contribution limit for individuals established in the Federal Accountability Act, which is set at $1,100 for 2007. Since loans from individuals would be treated as contributions from the time they were made, loans could not be used to circumvent the limit on individual contributions.

Third, only financial institutions and other political entities could make loans beyond that $1,100 limit. Unions and corporations would now be unable to make loans, consistent with their inability to make contributions. They could not disguise contributions as loans. Since financial institutions would have to charge commercial rates of interest, neither borrowers nor lenders could exchange favourable rates for favourable treatment.

Finally, the rules for the treatment of unpaid loans would be tightened to ensure that candidates cannot walk away from unpaid loans. Riding associations will be held responsible for unpaid loans taken out by their candidates. Those would succeed to the associations.

At this point I want to pay some tribute—and I don't want to say I'm disappointed that Monsieur Godin is here, but I am disappointed that Mr. Martin is not—because Pat Martin deserves some credit for having kept this issue on the radar screen and pressing us to move forward with this legislation. I wanted to give him due credit for having done that.

In January 2007, the Chief Electoral Officer presented recommendations to Parliament for changing the rules on loans. This was the first examination of the rules for loans since 2000.

The CEO recommended that Parliament impose additional controls on loans, make loans more transparent, and establish consistency in the treatment of loans for all classes of political entities. Specifically, he recommended the kinds of changes we are including in Bill C-54: the amendments in Bill C-54 implement the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer with respect to loans.

At second reading, several members expressed an interest in having the bill come into force earlier than six months after royal assent, which is the current wording in the bill. The government would like to see the changes in force as soon as possible. l would encourage the committee to discuss the matter with the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Mayrand, when he is here next hour—how quickly the changes could be put into operation—and to feel free to encourage him and challenge him to do it as quickly as possible.

In conclusion, accountability with respect to loans is an important part of our new government's agenda to strengthen accountability through democratic reform. By adopting this bill, which updates the rules for loans and expands transparency, Parliament would demonstrate to Canadians that it remains serious in its commitment to clean up all aspects of federal political financing.

It will show that we will not allow rich, powerful individuals to influence the political process. It will show that we will continue to build upon the reforms made in the historic Federal Accountability Act.

Today, I am seeking your support for these measures and will be pleased to attempt to answer your questions.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

On a point of clarification, Chair, are we suggesting that Thursday's meeting and Tuesday's meeting would be on Bill C-54? Is that where we're headed, at least two meetings, or are we taking more?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay.

Well, is there another point? I'm sorry, I want to make sure I have everybody.

All right. Having heard that--and I appreciate that, colleagues; I think that's the most productive and efficient way to move--then I would suggest that at this moment in time the meeting is finished for today because we are moving to legislation, Bill C-54. We will in fact listen to any members. You can contact me. We'll make sure that we are prepared to deal with your motions when in fact they come up.

Is there one final comment?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Well, in any event that is what we will remember, no matter what the member for Hull—Aylmer may think. It is about the only thing that we recall about Jean Chrétien. He cleaned up the financing of political parties. Despite what the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer says, he must also understand that was the end of secret funds.

They found a new way of operating. The Conservatives tabled a bill that, on the face of it, was rather brilliant, Bill C-2. They proceeded quickly. It was urgent because it was an election promise by the Prime Minister and it was absolutely essential that it be passed quickly. I do not know whether you remember it, Mr. Speaker. Since I am a lawyer, just for fun I took a look at it. It must have been almost as thick as the Income Tax Act, about four inches. It amended nearly 200 federal laws. The concept was enormous. The basic idea was excellent, to clean up financing.

They called it the Accountability Act. It was intended to restrict financing and ensure that no one could ever again get around a law that made it possible to donate large sums of money about which nothing was ever heard. But then something happened. We became aware of something, and I am not the one who says so. Our good Liberal friends found a way to do it. I imagine that the lawyer who found this way of doing it must have been paid a great deal more than we are. They found a good solution: loans. They call it a loan and they do not mention it again.

For those who are watching us on television, here is how it works. Suppose, for example that I am Bob Rae or the honourable member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, who is currently the leader of the opposition. Bob Rae received $705,000 and the honourable member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville received $655,000. How did they proceed during the leadership campaign? By means of loans.

What took place? Someone loaned the money. My name is Joe Blow and I really like a leadership candidate or a candidate for election but I can no longer make a donation of $20,000, or $50,000 or $100,000, as was previously the case with the Liberals and some Conservatives. So, what can I do? I give him a loan. Nobody ensures that the loan will be repaid. So, if the loan is not repaid, what does the loan become? It becomes a donation, but we do not say that. That is how the Liberals have been financed, and how, for the most part, they financed the party’s latest leadership campaign. Obviously, we obtained this information from a source, namely the Ottawa Citizen. There should be no doubt about that. It is not the newspaper that I read every day but I do read it occasionally. We can read right there that considerable sums of money were loaned to them. That is where this Bill C-54 comes into play.

If my name is Bob Rae and I receive a $580,000 loan at a 5% interest rate from someone named John Rae, who, by some unfortunate chance, is a former vice-president of Power Corporation, would I not have a debt toward this individual? The hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville received a sum of money—I asked a question and we did not get the answer—from someone named Stephen Bronfman. He received $50,000 from that man for his leadership campaign. If he has not paid it back, would the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville not have a debt toward this individual should he become prime minister one day?

This is the message that I am trying to convey to the public and this is the purpose of Bill C-54. I agree with my colleagues from the NDP, and this is something we said during the study of Bill C-2. We said that there was a loophole, because it was possible to circumvent the rules by making a loan. Let us take a look beyond this legislation.

What does the Quebec Election Act say concerning loans? They are not contributions. I will read section 88, and I will try to read it slowly, so my friends opposite and especially my good Liberal friends can understand it. It says: “... are not contributions: volunteer work and the goods or services produced by such work”. Thus, the work of volunteers who are in our offices is not a contribution.

The act also refers to “anonymous donations collected at a meeting or rally held for political purposes”. There is nothing complicated there. After delivering an extraordinary speech, I pass the hat around and I collect $150 or $200. There is no problem, because this is not a contribution under the act—I am talking about the Quebec act.

The act also refers to “a loan granted for political purposes by an elector or a bank, trust company or financial services cooperative at the current market rate of interest at the time it is granted, or a guarantee granted by an elector as surety;”

I now turn to section 105, which reads:

“Every loan shall be evidenced in a writing setting out the name and address of the lender, the date, amount...”

Section 106 is interesting. Again, I am talking about the Quebec Election Act:

“The official representative shall, at least once a year, pay the interest due on the loans he has contracted.”

Therefore, we will support Bill C-54, so that it is reviewed at second reading. This bill is interesting, because we would have liked to know, from our Liberal friends, and of course our Conservative friends, who are getting loans, how the Prime Minister's leadership campaign was funded. According to some data, we are talking here about an amount of $1.1 million. Who provided financial support to the Prime Minister? I imagine that all those who are listening to us would also like to know the answer to that question.

With all due respect to this House, I believe that before going any further we have to stop playing hide-and-seek. Everyone in this House and outside, including those who are listening today, knows that it takes money to run an election campaign. Some ceilings have been set. Now, an election campaign is said to cost $89,000 per riding, depending on its size. How are we going to fund election campaigns?

We must stop playing hide-and-seek by saying “I will get a loan from someone and forget to repay it. Since that someone really likes me, he too will forget about it”. Unfortunately, this is how election campaigns have been funded all too often in the past.

We will have to take a good look at this bill to see how it deals with this. I would like to draw members' attention to a government press release about this bill that reads in part as follows:

Only financial institutions (at commercial rates of interest) and other political entities could make loans beyond that amount. Rules for the treatment of unpaid loans would be tightened to ensure candidates cannot walk away from unpaid loans.

Loans that are not repaid after 18 months would be considered political contributions. In my opinion, this is an important point. We have to clean up politics.

Why do we politicians have such a poor image? Because too often, we conceal things from voters. We do not tell them the whole truth. We do not reveal everything about where the money for an election campaign came from. People still have this idea of the party slush fund, where someone says, “I'll give you $1,000. I expect you to do things for me, and once you're in power, I'll have an in with you and be able to get favours”. This has to stop.

I hope that this bill will help us clean up politics. The Conservatives' idea behind Bill C-54 is good. However, I hope that when the bill goes to committee, protection for whistleblowers can be added and reform of the Access to Information Act discussed.

I will start with the reform of the Access to Information Act. It is thanks to this legislation that we have all the information we have today and that journalists can obtain that information. We often hear that thanks to the Access to Information Act, information has been uncovered or obtained, or that information obtained under the Access to Information Act has revealed something. The Access to Information Act must be reformed so that it can go even further in controlling ethics.

Our good friends, the Conservatives, who boast about how they have cleaned up government, need to do their part as well. They have not done much to protect whistleblowers. When the bill goes to committee, the committee will have to find a way to strengthen that protection. People who work in departments and witness goings-on in political offices that are illicit or illegal or violate current legislation should be protected.

Whistleblowers are entitled to $1,500 for legal costs. Let us add a zero to that. One thousand five hundred dollars is not much, since there is no lawyer who will work for less than $100 an hour. This means that the person would be entitled to 15 hours. We know the whistleblowing procedures, what those who work in political offices or within a department experience, which we must respect when they decide to publicly blow the whistle or send information. They must be protected. I think this $1,500 limit for recourse must absolutely be increased. I strongly suggest that it be increased to $15,000. There would be no problem. We will see how this will be debated in committee, but I think this limit must absolutely be increased.

I hope my Conservative friends who are listening will understand that the public sector integrity commissioner must be given the power to enforce the Public Service Disclosure Protection Act. To ensure that the translation is correct, I will repeat. The public sector integrity commissioner must be given the power to enforce the Public Service Disclosure Protection Act. It is this public sector integrity commissioner who must be in charge of getting things in order and enforcing this act.

I hope my Conservative friends will understand this as well, and that the members of the committee will consider the suggestion to make it impossible for the government to exclude crown corporations and any other entity from the application of the Public Service Disclosure Protection Act. Crown corporations—VIA Rail, Air Canada or any other company under federal jurisdiction—must have access.

I will close by saying that we will be in favour of this bill, the purpose of which is to counter the misappropriation or bypassing of campaign financing rules, because it is very important. We also agree with this bill because it will fix the problem of loans, which helped bypass the political contribution restrictions.