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]

You have two minutes left, but I wonder if we could talk about Bill C-54 at some point.

[Raylene Lang-Dion]

Thank you so much for inviting Equal Voice to appear before the standing committee. For those of you who are not aware of Equal Voice, if you can just indulge me, I'll take a moment to explain who we are.

Equal Voice is a national, multi-partisan, volunteer-based organization dedicated to the promotion of electing more women in Canada. We currently offer such services as a bilingual online campaign school called “Getting to the Gate”, and an informal speakers bureau. We raise awareness of the issue via public events. We compile federal and provincial election-tracking data, and we are midway through a national public awareness campaign called “changing the face of Canadian politics”. Most significantly, this year on the 25th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all federal political parties committed to nominating and electing more women in the next federal election by accepting Equal Voice's “Canada challenge”.

With over 1,500 members and growing, we will soon have chapters in every Canadian province. Even though women comprise 52% of the population, only 21% of elected representatives are women. Canada is now ranked 48th in the world by the Inter- Parliamentary Union for the percentages of women elected to Parliament. The numbers do not need further elaboration, for they speak for themselves.

The issue of women in politics has been thoroughly studied by the House of Commons, the Senate, royal commissions, and many academics. We all know that women are truly numerically under-represented in Canada, and we have to ask ourselves what we are going to do about it.

Equal Voice is a relatively new and growing organization made up mostly of men and women who volunteer their time for the cause. We still have a lot to accomplish in terms of having the resources to respond rapidly to issues such as Bill C-54. Therefore, today Equal Voice will speak to the historical aspects of proposed financial reforms that would benefit women seeking public office.

Equal Voice has yet to identify any academic data supporting the notion that there have been sufficient financial reforms or sufficient moneys for women entering politics, particularly at the nomination stage. More bluntly stated, the issue of money continues to serve as one of the greatest barriers to women wishing to enter the elite level of the political realm.

You are well aware that there have been two royal commissions, the first one in 1970—otherwise known as the Bird commission—and then the 1990 Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing. The 1990 commission clearly recognized the effects of unequal financing on women's candidacies and made eight recommendations aimed at rectifying the imbalance. I won't go through them all, because I'm sure you're familiar; however, I will mention the top three: the spending limit should be set at approximately $200,000 for party leadership contests; the spending limit should be set at approximately $5,000 for constituency nomination contests; and contribution for nomination contests should be tax-deductible. And there were a few other very good suggestions.

Equal Voice is eager to hear what others have to say on the proposed amendments. Specifically, we are very interested in how Canada's banking community interprets the proposed amendments, because the banks may very well determine women's access to loans for the purposes of election campaigns. We are also curious to know what Elections Canada has to say about the differences in moneys raised by male and female candidates during the election period. These are but a few of the questions that must be addressed before this bill can be adopted.

A May 1995 study from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business stated that “women seeking financing are refused 20 per cent more often than men; and women are regularly charged a higher rate of interest than men”. It would be interesting to know if this is applicable for women seeking loans for nominations in elections.

Finally, Equal Voice asks why more focus has not been given to the findings of the previous royal commissions. Equal Voice supports initiatives that level the playing field for women, and we'll be clarifying specifics over the next year as we have the opportunity to develop formal position papers on a variety of issues relevant to women's political participation and election.

We look forward to sharing these with you, and with all Canadians, and the international political audience. Equal Voice is raising the profile of the issue of the under-representation of women and continues to build a national, not-for-profit organization to offer practical tools to help women before and after making a decision to run for political office.

We wish you well in your deliberations as you make decisions that will affect all Canadians seeking political office. Women are under-represented, and you have an opportunity to help ease the financial burden for women wanting to get elected, for women who are committed to serving their country.

Equal Voice thanks you again for the opportunity to appear before this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We'll do exactly that, and we'll have that out today.

Colleagues, having said that, then we're going to drift off a little bit. We have a meeting scheduled for Monday, and there have been some requests that we keep the meeting on Monday, and move right into clause-by-clause. If members are willing to do that, then we are prepared to do that. However, I'm going to make a bit of a request. After today's testimony, it makes sense to me that if anyone hears something that would cause them to request an amendment, that we have that amendment to our clerk by five o'clock today.

I'm seeing nods of the head, and we can do that. That would allow us to determine the relevance of the amendment, as well as get them translated, and have them back to everybody for Monday morning's clause-by-clause.

Everybody is happy?

Thank you very much, colleagues.

This morning we'll move right along. I would advise everyone that we have lunch coming, and if we need the time we will continue the meeting, but if we feel that we've wrapped it up we will just enjoy lunch. Our guests today are invited to stay, obviously, and you may actually be sitting in the hot seat answering questions, but please feel free to get up and serve yourselves at that time. We do have this room booked from now until two o'clock, or as close to that as possible, and we will respect question period, of course.

Pursuant to the order 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 on accountability with respect to loans.

I'm going to ask our guests to introduce themselves first. We'll start over here with Mr. Carroll. If you could just introduce yourself, and who you represent, then I will instruct you further.

Mr. Carroll, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Good morning, everyone, and thank you, colleagues, for attending this meeting.

We have a number of guests with us this morning, a number of expert witnesses who will help us muddle our way through Bill C-54.

Colleagues, I want to remind everyone that this meeting is being held in public, and I just want to bring everyone up to date on the issue of witnesses. We did have a number of requests come in for witnesses, and we have everyone here this morning except for the Vancouver Citibank.

Did you want to make a comment on that right away? Then that will solve some problems.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Merci.

On behalf of all my colleagues, I want to thank our witnesses for coming today. I'm sure you're used to this sort of thing, and I apologize, but again, I extend the committee's gratitude for your being available for us today. We'll repeat this hopefully next Tuesday. You're dismissed.

Thank you very much.

That ends the business for today on Bill C-54.

Monsieur Guimond, we will move to the next item on our meeting. Monsieur Guimond, please.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Certainly. Thank you, Chair.

I move that the committee postpone the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-54 until it has heard from the representatives of Equal Voice and financial institutions, in order to properly assess the bill's impact on women and other prospective candidates who have financial constraints, particularly for nomination contests.

I believe that's ready and can be circulated in French and English.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, if I could just interject, it sounds to me as though there needs to be some work done on this motion.

I'm not sure how to get that information back to Mr. Guimond; it would be his responsibility to fix his own motion. We do not have a quorum to make a decision, so I'm going to have to stick with the committee's original decision to discuss this further on Tuesday. However, I think it would be appropriate for Mr. Guimond to be aware of our concerns with respect to this motion.

As the chair, I want to readvise members of decisions made earlier when we had quorum--that is, we're moving to clause-by-clause study of Bill C-54. I am going to be courteous to Mr. Guimond and offer him some time on Tuesday at the end of the meeting. If this is a long, drawn-out discussion, then I think we're in a little bit of trouble and I can't do anything about it.

Discussions on this issue are concluded, in my opinion. Is there any more business for this committee? We are in public.

I'll take a question from Mr. Godin.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

This may not even be a fair line of questioning, given your specific area of expertise, but I have a real problem with the fact that we're going to be now putting financial institutions in the position of deciding whether or not certain individuals are a good risk as far as lending to them is concerned. For instance, if they don't pierce the requisite threshold—Say I'm the Brown Bread Party and I'm an independent or a small fringe party that may have a few candidates but never form government. I think we're putting the financial institution, then, in a position of saying whether or not this is a good financial risk and de facto saying whether or not I can exercise my right to participate in the democratic process.

I guess my other question to you would be this. Do you monitor abuses? Again, I would question what Bill C-54 is trying to fix. Does Elections Canada look at—? Do you have statistics—if you don't have them now, perhaps you could send them to us—of the number of defaults, the number of years that typically large—recognizing, again, that you have different donors and different donor levels? How long does it take most of them to pay back those loans? And again, I would agree it's probably the major parties that take up most loans.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I keep looking at your name and think, “Now, say it right.”

I really appreciate some of the enlightenment you can bring us from Ontario with your having a track record.

Quite frankly, I have read Bill C-54, and I wonder what the government is trying to fix with this. It may be what Monsieur Godin was trying to get at a little bit. If somebody defaults on a loan and is a candidate, do the members of the riding association then become personally liable? I guess that's the hard part of it, if Bill C-54 allows riding associations to guarantee a loan.

The other issue I'd also like to cover off is floor crossing. You may or may not have had a lot of floor crossings in Ontario, but in our last election we had a Liberal candidate, Mr. Emerson, who crossed the floor to become a Conservative two weeks after the election. I see nothing in this legislation that would ever cover that eventuality. I can well appreciate that a riding executive of one party stripe would not want to be the guarantor and indeed be paying off the campaign loan debts of somebody who was no longer a member of that party.

So I guess I have a two-part question: who is liable in default, and have you covered off floor crossings at all?

[Mike Stockfish]

There's been no evidence of a difference between males and females, but again, we haven't done any research in that regard. Our system is distinctly different from what's proposed in Bill C-54, from the vantage point of the contribution limits and the $1,100.

I really can't pass judgment in terms of the lending practices.

I don't get the sense that there is a distinct disadvantage for certain groups versus others with the system we have in place.

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

As you read Bill C-54, do you see any problem for a woman to run, compared to previously? I do not know if you have studied the bill at all. We know that even if women can take out loans these days, I think that the big loans still go to men.

In Ontario, have you seen the previous situation change since you passed your bill?

[Mike Stockfish]

To be honest, I'm not in a position to pass judgment as to what works and what doesn't work in terms of Bill C-54. I've certainly read it and I understand it, but this gets back to my earlier comment that it's part of a bigger framework. The election finances framework and the philosophy behind it are determined by the legislators. So there are distinct differences in Ontario versus federally. But if you guarantee a loan in Ontario, that does not get charged against your contribution limit.

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

Where Bill C-54 will do it, then we have to study what will happen. If an association wants to borrow $20,000, do they need 20 people in the association to make the loan? It's a question that should be answered, but you don't have that answer.

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

Thank you, Mr. Stockfish, and welcome.

That is the reason why it is better for a political party to give a candidate money rather than to lend it, correct?

Let's say that the constituency association goes to a financial institution for a loan. First, in Bill C-54 only a loan of $1,100 can be guaranteed, and if someone has made a contribution of $1,100, he cannot then guarantee a loan. No guarantee can be made because it is the same as a contribution.

If the association makes the loan, can the association president, the election agent or anyone who signs the loan also give $1,100? Are these people just guaranteeing the loan, or do they represent the association? Is my question clear?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming to testify before us, Mr. Stockfish. I have two quick questions to ask you.

First, under the Election Act of Ontario, are the parties ultimately responsible for loans taken out by candidates?

Second, are parties required to lend money to candidates or associations at current commercial rates?

Given that I made no introduction, that I am surprising myself with my speed this morning, and that I am impressed with myself, I am going to ask a third question and get a full meal deal like at McDonald's.

Third, in Bill C-54, if a party grants a loan to a candidate or to an association, and if the rate is lower than the market rate, for example if the market rate is 7% and the party lends money at 5%, we consider that the 2% difference would be seen as a contribution, and so could show in the books. Does Ontario have a similar provision?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Those are my questions.