Evidence of meeting #58 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was loan.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Somebody who answers your website got notice from us and accepted the notice last Thursday. It's not relevant, but there was notice.
At any rate, we'll move to our second round, a five-minute round. I have only three names left on my list, so I'm watching for hands.
Madam Redman, please.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank all of the witnesses for coming. It was a very short timeline, and I realize that probably a greater capacity exists at each of the parties than it does at Equal Voice. You are a very important component, and I thank you very much for coming. It was one of the things that our party felt was really important.
I know Judy is very passionate about this issue, as I think most female colleagues are—indeed, a lot of male colleagues are—about getting better representation.
I thought it really interesting when Ms. Wicks was talking about child care. It sounded distinctly more expensive than the $100 a month, but that's getting a little partisan, so I'll skip over it.
I really wanted to ask the party representatives about an issue that's been touched on several times, and that's the loan reverting to the association. Am I to go back and tell my riding executive that if I were able to secure a loan and then, for whatever reason, defaulted on it, they are personally responsible? Or is it looked at as a corporate entity? Exactly what kind of exposure are we now subjecting everybody's riding executive to—is it the president, is it all the table officers, is the treasurer? Do we have any idea what the ramifications would be at that level?
12:10 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Liberal Party of Canada
Banks are not my clients generally, but if I were called upon to advise a bank on whether or not to give a loan, I'd be looking at that provision and saying your ultimate debtor here 18 months hence will be an unincorporated association, and unless you have adequate guarantees that are personal to individuals, you can't sue that unincorporated association—meaning an electoral district association—to recover the debt.
There are mechanisms that will vary from province to province for bringing something in the nature of a representative action, where instead of suing that riding association, you bring the action against individual officers of the association, but what you are getting at is the association's financial resources, as opposed to their own financial liabilities.
The concern you identify, I think accurately, is whether this might have a bit of an effect of imposing some financial fear upon party volunteers from all sides as to whether they're going to be put, at minimum, to the expense of defending themselves, and whether individuals, for various reasons, are going to weigh one more factor against engaging in the political process in support of parties from all sides of the House.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
I don't know if any of the other party representatives want to speak to that.
12:10 p.m.
General Director, Bloc Québécois
The fact that an association or a party, if there is no association, must be the guarantor can also have another effect. With this extra guarantee, the banks can be much more generous and not quite as strict when it comes to loan applications, since they know that, at the end of the day, either the party or the party association will be liable for any unpaid debt. Therefore, if you change the rules of the market...
In the end, if the association were to default, it could lead to the cancellation of the association's registration. Therefore, the party would become liable. There is no legal obligation for an association to be registered: it is an option that is provided under the act. In some parties, associations are not registered and they report directly to the party for matters relating to funding and financial returns.
12:15 p.m.
Eric Hébert-Daly
I'd like to add that in fact there's still quite a bit of flexibility in the internal workings of a political party to address some of the issues that we've had to deal with over the last 20 years, I'm sure. My colleagues at the table here will share that there are mechanisms around how rebates are shared within parties, about how that's used as guarantees and how that can be done centrally. There are still quite a number of options for us in terms of how we organize this to limit the risk for individuals, and these sorts of things. I think that will continue to happen under this piece of legislation.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
No, we're actually out of time, but I'm happy to put you down on the next round. We have lots of time for that.
We'll have Mr. Lukiwski and then Madam Wasylycia-Leis.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would just like to ask a couple of questions further to what Madam Redman was inquiring about. Some of the questions I had have already been answered, but this is with respect to Mr. Hébert-Daly's recommendation that if a debt is to be transferred ultimately to the registered party that the registered party has to give their agreement to the electoral district association to absorb or to accept that debt.
I'm just wondering, in terms of mechanics, how you see that working--by having an agreement in advance in writing, for example, prior to the campaign's starting? Subsequent to that, what consequences or what difficulties might occur? Or do you foresee a situation in which the registered party might say “No, we're sorry, but we do not agree to accept the debt should you default”? I'm just wondering how this whole thing would work, because you mention that it could be enacted in Bill C-54, and it probably could. I'm just a little fuzzy as to exactly how the mechanics of this whole relationship would work. I would like to get comments from the other parties as well, if you please.
12:15 p.m.
Eric Hébert-Daly
It seems to me that there could be a simple form signed showing the amount of money we're willing to take responsibility for. Most of you around the table will have signed forms assigning rebates and assigning personal information and all these sorts of things to your parties in your own processes. I think this could easily be a form that simply states what amount of risk the party is willing to undertake in that particular case.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I agree it could be done. When do you think that would be appropriate—prior to the writ being dropped?
12:15 p.m.
Eric Hébert-Daly
I suspect, just given the way elections normally work, that it could happen pretty much at any time that engagement takes place. The reason is primarily that sometimes your candidates don't get nominated until into the writ. So I don't think you can specify a time for it. I think, frankly, it just needs to be as fluid as any other assignment form that you would fill in for party purposes.
12:15 p.m.
General Director, Bloc Québécois
We are not really in favour of transferring the debt. I think that goes against the provisions of the Canada Elections Act. There is a growing trend to make the candidate and the registered association accountable directly to Elections Canada. All of their expenses have to be paid before they submit their financial return. So, they must have enough revenues to pay any allowable expenses and they are the only ones who can authorize the expenses. That is what the act says.
For example, a riding with a limit of $78,000 knows that it will have to repay 60%. That means that it must start out with 40% in its account. Expenditures are based on the financial plan that takes into account any incoming amounts and any amounts that will have to be repaid. That is how the economy of the act works.
Introducing the concept of debt transfer means a transfer of responsibility which, in my opinion, goes against the economy of the act.
12:15 p.m.
National Director, Liberal Party of Canada
I hear the reasonable arguments from both of my counterparts. I think we all have to keep in mind that there have been a lot of changes to the Elections Act from two different parties over the last five years. I think we're all playing catch-up to a certain extent. I think my colleague from the NDP is quite right that if it became the law of the land, then it would probably become part of the assignment agreement that I think we all undertake with our candidates in terms of sharing either rebates or other central costs of a service package or whatever.
I also take very well the point of my colleague from the Bloc that we are all struggling to live within the new realities of the Elections Act as it's written, or as it may or may not be amended. I think we are all finding ourselves facing an increasingly difficult regulatory burden, and I would be loath to add to that any more than you have to.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I have a very quick question for all of the registered parties.
Has your experience been that candidates or EDAs seeking loans would first go by the method of assigning their potential rebate to the bank in order to secure the loan, or is it mainly individual guarantors? We could perhaps start with the Liberals for a response.
12:20 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Liberal Party of Canada
The problem that arises—and from discussions I've had with your party and others in the past, I suspect it's similar—is that in the agreements the candidates presently sign, we assign the whole rebate, even though we only take a percentage of their rebate. Elections Canada sends the rebate cheque to our party's financial agent, who then sends the appropriate share back down to the candidate's agent. My experience is that without agreement in place, no bank is prepared to rely on that subsequent transfer.
As one of my colleagues here pointed out—I think it was Monsieur Gardner—Elections Canada is taking longer and longer and longer to give you guys your rebates. You all know that; I don't have to tell you.
12:20 p.m.
An hon. member
No, you don't.
12:20 p.m.
Eric Hébert-Daly
I can certainly say Mr. Siegel is correct in stating that a lot of banks are reticent when there's an intermediary managing the rebate. But at the same time, a lot of them do see it as reliable enough, based on past practice, and go ahead and do that—or at least a portion of that—and divide it up among certain guarantors. So there's a bit of a mix, depending on where you're at.
A lot of financial institutions, as I'm sure all of you will have noticed as candidates, don't know how to deal with electoral entities to begin with. More often than not, they start with a blank slate and then move forward. So you need your riding associations to educate them in terms of what they need to do.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you very much.
Madam Wasylycia-Leis, please, and then Madam Redman, and Monsieur Proulx. Those are all the names I have on the list, so I'll be looking for hands up.
Please, five minutes. We're still going to go for five minutes.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
Yes, as Karen Redman said, I feel very passionate about this issue. I've been working in this area of women in politics for 30 years. I started off 30 years ago when Eric was just a wee lad, working in his office, as the women's organizer for the NDP. We as a party have been working very hard ever since to try to reduce the barriers, and to deal with those at every level, and I think we're making some progress.
We've made progress at the candidate level, where we've agreed that there has to be a ceiling on what you can spend as a candidate, and we have put a ceiling on the donations you can take in, because that's the way to have a level playing field. Now we're trying to say we have to do this at the nomination level, whether it's a nomination for party leadership or a constituency.
We have a proposal here that appears to deal with one part of the problem, to put a limit on the loans. Eric, in your brief you actually mention that this helps to deal with a difficult problem and to level the playing field, particularly for women and other financially disadvantaged groups. So I'd like you to explain a bit about how you see this, and why. And then I'd like to ask the other party representatives if they agree that this bill will actually help remove barriers for women and help them enter politics.
12:20 p.m.
Eric Hébert-Daly
Well, the level playing field is key, and most importantly, in terms of the spending limits. I appeared before this committee last year to describe how I felt strongly that limits on leadership contest spending was an issue that needed to be dealt with. I continue to believe that lowering limits on these sorts of things does level the playing field; it really does have a positive impact on access to the system. So putting that on an equal basis, if you will, is important.
I would just say, generally speaking, that women who have trouble accessing loans will always have a harder time getting even more money. Not everyone can get a $30,000 loan from a friend or someone else. If you start from that premise, you have to be able to say: if that's going to be a barrier to begin with and the barrier is already disadvantaging women, this does in fact level the playing field. I agree with you on that—which is probably not a surprise to the committee. It does make it easier for women to access the system if in fact they're not dealing with the big sums of money, which do tend to be in the hands and control of men and more-advantaged groups.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I thank you for that.
To me, it seems a bit obvious, and not from a partisan point of view. It seems to me that if you can deal with this financial barrier for women, then we will have more women being able to seek nominations and enter politics.
Monsieur Gardner.
12:25 p.m.
General Director, Bloc Québécois
Unless I misinterpreted Bill C-54, and unfortunately for Ms. Dion, there is no proactive measure to encourage women to enter politics. Bill C-54 has no bearing on this very laudable objective.
The bill states that from now on, loans will not be granted by financial institutions, period. It does not deal with limits on expenses, or limits on expenses relating to leadership races. Such measures may have been included in Bills C-2 or C-31.
I don't want to give anyone false hopes. There are no proactive measures for women in this bill, and nothing that would ensure a more equitable treatment. We must not be under any illusion that C-54 will provide that type of advantage. Personally, I will have no hand in that.