Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 31st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Côté.

Do you have any comments to make?

[Pierre F. Côté, Former Chief Electoral Officer of Québec, As an Individual]

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I read a particular clause from Bill C-2 that bans contributions by corporations or businesses to a political party. This is to a certain degree drawn, as was the case with certain provisions a few years back, from what the Loi électorale du Québec advocates. However, I personally do not agree with this clause.

As far back as November 1999, I expressed the opinion that corporations which are corporate citizens, should be allowed to make financial contributions to political parties. Subsequently, a similar text appeared in Le Devoir on April 9, 2005. What must be made clear is that the Quebec experience illustrates that it is wishful thinking to forbid corporations from making contributions to political parties. Allow me to read you a short passage from the 1999 article:

Party financing by the public can no longer meet the financial needs of political parties [...] new avenues must be explored.

Financing by the public is raised by going door-to-door, and what I had just stated corresponds to what they have experienced in Quebec.

We can no longer continue putting a large number of people in a situation where they must act inappropriately. This is not ethical behaviour. Changes must be made. It seems to me that corporations must be allowed to contribute to political parties, but according to very strict rules. For example, one could allow corporations — businesses, law firms, engineering firms — to contribute to political parties. What happens currently in Quebec, is that members of the board of directors, from a law firm or an engineering firm, each pay, if there are 10 of them, the maximum amount allowed by the legislation out of their own assets, but they are then reimbursed for these contributions through expense accounts or salary increases, or some other means, which is obviously illegal.

The biggest problem is being able to investigate these cases in order to identify the people who are behaving this way, subjecting them to fines or taking them to court. This is a real problem, and I must point it out to you. This is why I find it strange that, instead of drawing on Quebec's experience, the main provisions of Quebec's 1977 legislation have been invoked, including those banning the corruption of corporations.

Having said that, I would like to submit a further comment on another section of the act that is not mentioned in Bill C-2. I find it an unfortunate omission. Section 24 of the Canada Elections Act dealing with the appointment of returning officers should be amended, and Quebec's example should be followed. All returning officers at the federal level are appointed by cabinet decree, but without any of the competitions and controls mechanisms that we established several years ago now in Quebec.

Those are my two remarks, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Madam Jennings.

Do you have a question, Monsieur Sauvageau?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if Mr. Quintal had a preliminary statement. No? Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm open to the committee. We've given the groups ten minutes, and they've been pretty fair with each other--about five minutes each. Somehow I think we'll get some answers out of Monsieur Quintal.

Did you have a point of order?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All right. Here we go.

Madam Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Are we ready, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're ready.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you very much for your presentations.

Mr. Villemure, given your expertise in applied ethics, I would like to ask you for an ethical definition that you believe would be appropriate for our system and our federal framework. I am talking about deputy ministers, ministers, etc., and the objective that Bill C-2 is supposed to be trying to achieve.

[René Villemure]

Ethics is a reflective process with a view to making a fair decision. The equitable decision is based on values or principles that must be set out. In this case, they are not defined. It is therefore difficult to reach an ethical decision. This does not mean that it will not be good or just, but when we are reflecting ethically, quite honestly, the frame of reference is always that of values. A value is what a country or an organization finds beautiful, good and desirable. Canadian values have been set out so often that, in my opinion, the frame of reference is somewhat vague, which makes things difficult.

Bill C-2 should be the instrument in which we find those values set out, which would allow for ethical decision-making, that is to say a fair decision in an uncertain situation. The ethical decision will often prevail in the absence of standards, or where these are unclear or not applicable. This can happen, because this bill has so many exceptions that if one were to look, one would probably find even more. Furthermore, in such a case, the bill would be of no use. The values would therefore provide a frame of reference if the standards were insufficient.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

All right. Many of us around this table, particularly on this side — except for the gentleman at the end — believe that Bill C-2 is very complex and has many shortcomings.

I know that you had very little time to prepare for your appearance this evening. What would you advise the committee to do to deal with the shortcomings that you have found in the bill?

[René Villemure]

First of all, you raise an important point: the short preparation time. I must admit, I made my presentation very quickly, in order to respect the time I was given.

What surprises me the most is that the two versions of the bill do not say the same thing. The concept of a fair and just ruling in the absence of a clear framework is very different from the concept of “ethics”, which means “to follow the rules”. It cannot be translated in that way, it is a false cognate in French. On one page, one reads “follow the rules”, and the rules are clearly set out. On another, one finds references that are unclear. I know that English has often prevailed over French in the interpretation of legislative texts, but in this case, there are inconsistencies.

The little exercise I carried out counting the terms earlier on was not a useless one: I found the word “éthique” six times, and the word “ethics” 291 times. It is not as though it was six and 15. In terms of philology, the meaning of words, this bill is rife with inconsistencies because of its complexity. I would either ask that it be divided into separate parts, or that more time be taken, but one thing is certain: in its current state, even though it obviously began with good intentions, it will be difficult to enforce. I do not believe that it will go much further than showing good intentions.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Côté, you said that even though Quebec bans political financial contributions from corporations to candidates or to political parties, this remains a common practice. It is very difficult to investigate. You mentioned law and engineering firms and businesses, but do you also include unions, associations, etc.?

[Pierre F. Côté]

Absolutely. They are corporate entities, legally speaking.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Yes.

[Pierre F. Côté]

It is the complement, I would say, or the opposite of an individual person. Any organization, whatever it may be, is a corporation, and is banned from making financial contributions to political parties, as set out in section 43 of Bill C-2.

I am sure that within the next decade, it will be faster than it is now. You will see that the federal government will find itself in the same situation as the Quebec government, that is to say that the legislation will be very easily circumvented.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Then what do you suggest?

[Pierre F. Côté]

I suggest two solutions. Corporations are corporate citizens. As such, we should allow them to contribute to the development of democracy and to participate financially in that. There are two hypotheses that would allow them to do so.

For example, they could contribute a maximum amount, which could be a multiple of the amount allowed for individuals. These sums would be paid into a trust fund to the Chief Electoral Officer, who would do a pro rata distribution of them according to the votes obtained by each of the political parties.

The other formula would be to allow corporations to contribute to one of the political parties, up to a given maximum amount. Obviously, the inherent constraint in this formula is that all contributions would be made public, including the name of the business and the amount paid. In this way, everyone would know what to expect.

I can easily imagine the following situation, as it was described to me by a businessman. As the political parties try to get money from corporations, from big businesses, if federal or provincial legislation allowed it, these big businesses could refuse, saying that they had already given. In that way, they could avoid any pressure that might be brought to bear on them to give more or to give under the table.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're out of time. I'm sorry.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what Mr. Poilievre thinks of Mr. Côté's recommendation.

I will put my question to Mr. Côté. First of all, welcome to both of you. I find what you have said to be most interesting, particularly, among other things, everything what you said about corporations. Given your experience in Quebec, I believe we absolutely must take into consideration what you have said.

Do you recommend a maximum amount of $1,000, $2,000 or $3,000?

[Pierre F. Côté]

I think that has to be debated. It could be a multiple of the allowable amount for individuals, that is $5,000 or $10,000 per business. However, this amount should not be too high, but high enough to allow businesses to say that they have acted like good corporate citizens, that they have contributed to the Chief Electoral Officer's trust fund or, in some other way, to the various political parties.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I would ask you to repeat something you said, in order that it appear in the “blues”, the evidence. In that way, we will be able to refer to your comments during clause-by-clause study.

If we do not amend Bill C-2 as it is currently drafted, do you believe the legislation could be very quickly and easily circumvented?

[Pierre F. Côté]

I am convinced of it. As we often hear, prayers do not win elections, money does. Also, going door to door is not enough. What is remarkable and what must be emphasized, is that election expenses are climbing, particularly because of television costs.

Political parties invariably need more money than door to door fundraising can ever bring although this practice is very good and very democratic— and what they make from fundraising activities where one can donate $20. It is not enough to allow political parties, particularly given the vastness of Canadian territory, to have—