Evidence of meeting #48 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was loans.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
You mentioned the changes that complicate this bill and you proposed some amendments that would simplify it.
We were allowed public funding for some time. Do you think that would allow things to remain more transparent and to deal more effectively with difficulties of this kind?
12:25 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
I don't see any direct relationship, honestly. The issues we're dealing with in terms of loans existed under the previous funding regime. It has little to do with the funding regime.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Craig, you have about a minute left, if you have something really pressing.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I want to get back to the guarantor's thing.
You suggested that the bank may look at the local riding association, the EDA, as somebody who could sign off. I'm not sure banks would recognize that as an entity. Would they not then see the people in the riding association as the ones guaranteeing the loan?
What I'm trying to understand for all parties is the mechanism, especially early days in a campaign, especially for not well-funded candidates. A few members who are your key supporters sometimes also sit on your executive. The bank is not going to see the EDA or the riding association as a legal entity that will guarantee a loan. Those people in effect have made a contribution. In your response to my question earlier, I think you said the banks can recognize the riding associations, or potentially the party, as the guarantor.
12:30 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
You're correct. It's a grey zone in the law. There's a provision in the act that allows a creditor to sue an EDA. In that context it gives it some personal, moral personality, if I can use that expression, even though it's not incorporated. That's one of the reasons I suggested that the party, at the end of the day, should be responsible for those debts.
October 23rd, 2012 / 12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think the personal observation based on Bill C-21 as written, and even with what you propose here, is that if you are an independent candidate, you're seriously disadvantaged. I'll just make that remark as an opener. I'm not asking for a comment.
Mr. Mayrand, do you know whether banks and other financial institutions are comfortable with the provisions of Bill C-21? Ultimately, they are going to be deciding whether or not to grant a loan, in situations that may become public knowledge.
12:30 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
We have had no discussions about the bill with financial institutions.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Okay.
I want to clarify this because there seems to be some ambiguity in Bill C-21, and I want to make sure it's 100% clear.
If a candidate has a debt, during the course of the three years before it becomes a deemed contribution, are they allowed to receive up to the maximum amount from the same person once a year in helping them to repay their debt? At the moment they can only receive once in the campaign.
12:30 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
It's the same thing for contributions. You can contribute every year.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
In theory, can I say $1,200 times three from the same person, if one takes it all the way to the three years?
12:30 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Yes, except if you're contracting loans, you're not helping your situation.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
I'm talking about individuals contributing to help you repay your debt.
12:30 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Yes, absolutely.
It's $1,200 a year.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
In your presentation, you described two examples of loopholes. I would like a few more details about them. You said that, unlike the current provisions on contributions, nothing in the bill specifically prohibits anyone from channeling loans through other people. Could you explain what could happen?
12:30 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
I was thinking of the situation we have seen in other systems, the use of dummy names. So an individual who wants to lend $10,000 to a campaign uses family members to hide the loans, if I can put it that way. The act does not specifically prohibit that.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
So it would be relatively easy to build in another amendment.
12:30 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Absolutely, and I strongly recommend doing so.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Very good.
The other loophole you mentioned was credit sales. Could you expand on that a little for us?
12:30 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Given that we are saying that it is inappropriate for candidates to fund themselves, I feel that we should look at all kinds of transactions, not just loans. The other possibility is for candidates to sell themselves goods and services on credit. So they secure funding indirectly that they cannot get through loans, but they can get through credit sales. That is why I am saying that it is a loophole that has to be looked at.
