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

[Gilbert Gardner]

We're pleased to see that corporations are excluded from making contributions. Here again, Quebec took action in this area long ago, leaving it solely to electors and individuals to finance political activities.

As for contributions for conventions, we're clearly dealing with very different cultures. For example, there are no registration fees for the Bloc québécois convention, and yet, on the same basis, or on a professional basis, there could be major fees. If the government and Parliament ever contemplated including or excluding convention fees from the accounting for contributions, guidelines at least would obviously have to be set because reasonable limits could be exceeded.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I have a very brief question to ask. Then I'll turn the floor over to my colleague Carole Lavallée. My question is for all participants.

Yesterday, we heard from Pierre F. Côté in the committee. He was Quebec's Chief Electoral Officer for 19 years. He suggested to us that it was unrealistic to include the part on corporations in our act and that he had tried to correct this situation since 1997. In his view — perhaps we need to reread the blues from yesterday's meeting — it will be circumvented as soon as it is implemented. I'd like to hear what you think about that.

We want an efficient, effective act that works, but are we developing valid tools to implement it? Are we raising smokescreens that will be circumvented at the first opportunity?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Gardner.

[Gilbert Gardner]

You obviously need audits to ensure that it's really the money from taxpayers and electors that is being given to political parties, and that it really comes from individuals. Ultimately, the purpose of adopting these measures in Quebec was to limit the undue influence of businesses, corporations and large unions, and even to exclude it from the financing of political parties, in order to leave it solely up to taxpayers to finance the political parties they support. I believe this objective is still important.

Measures must obviously be taken to ensure these provisions are complied with, so as to avoid—as you mentioned—having them become a smokescreen and having people do indirectly what they cannot do directly. I believe this principle is still one of the cornerstones of electoral reform in Quebec and that it should also be applied at the federal level.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Hébert.

[Eric Hébert]

I entirely agree: ways will have to be found to ensure that funds come from the people who say they are contributing. Furthermore, the passage of Bill C-24 added a section to the Elections Act providing that it is an offence to attempt to circumvent an aspect of the act. That section gives us enough latitude to establish that money has come from another source, that that isn't right and that it hasn't been properly done. The current Elections Act has what it takes to do that. However, it still takes evidence to do that, and that's not always easy.

[Steven MacKinnon]

I believe René Lévesque's act on the financing of political parties was a model. It definitely was a model for Bill C-24, but it was also a model for the act in my province, New Brunswick, which was passed by Mr. Hatfield's government in 1982. That act, which is based on that of the Province of Quebec, provided for a limit—a very reasonable one, in my view—that still stands, although it has been indexed. That limit of $6,000 applies to individuals and corporations.

I believe that, since that act was passed, as is the case in Quebec, there have been virtually no scandals, if you can call them that, over political party financing involving any of the political parties. I believe that the principle of the New Brunswick act is a good principle: it's a fair balance between public financing and reasonable limits on any corporate or natural person. I believe it would be good for this committee to examine the New Brunswick act, the federal act and the Quebec act. I'm concerned, as you seem to be, about the fact that this provision is not protected from a constitutional court case.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Donison.

[Michael D. Donison]

When it comes to banning corporate donations for the registered parties, that's been the case since January 1, 2004. Certainly speaking for the Conservative Party, we've had no difficulty with that. I'm sure other parties are the same.

I think Mr. Hébert really said it, that Bill C-24, the current act, has some pretty stringent prohibitions against what are called “indirect” contributions. I think as far as Parliament can go, in a democracy and a rule of law, is to create fences. In our experience we've had no difficulty with that. If anything came across my desk where there was any question--any question--about an individual donation to our party, that donation would be returned and the matter would be reported. To my knowledge, certainly in the case of our party, that hasn't occurred once since January 1, 2004.

So I don't really think there's an administrative problem, certainly as far as the parties are concerned.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Because we have limited time, I'd like to stick to some specific amendments that the NDP is seeking to put forward. It stems from this issue that at least one Liberal leadership candidate seems to have revitalized the youth wing of the Liberal Party to the point where 11-year-olds are donating $5,000 or more. The lineup of kids with their piggy banks seems to be excited.

What worries me is that the national director of the Liberal Party--you, sir--sees nothing wrong with this. You're on record as saying that this is within the guidelines of the Liberal Party to circumvent the rules of the Elections Act, to launder money through your children's bank account, in order to exceed the donation limits that were set so that big money could not control our democratic system.

That's what leads me to believe that we need an amendment to Bill C-2 to preclude the Liberal Party, or any other political party, from knowingly and willingly circumventing the rules for your own gain. The Liberals are like an egg-sucking dog, to use an expression we have on the prairies; once they get used to sucking eggs, there's nothing you can do to make them stop.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin, please restrain yourself from picking on people.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The analogy I'm using of the egg-sucking dog is simply to show that once they get into this habit of big money, they can't seem to break themselves of it, even up to and including breaking the very rules they put in place less than two years ago.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin, I want you to stick to the bill. I know it's very tempting--we've read the papers--but try to stick to the bill.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I am trying to speak to the Bill C-2 amendments we're seeking to achieve in this specific area. But I'll ask about a separate thing.

Again, not mincing words, we believe these big loans constitute corporate sponsorship. We're putting forward an amendment that says that if a leadership candidate or any candidate needs a loan to run their campaign, they should get that from a bank or financial institution, and no one should be able to co-sign that loan in an amount exceeding the amount they would normally be allowed to donate. If the loan fails, and defaults, the individuals who co-signed it would have to pay up, but they'd be paying up to the extent that they're allowed to by law under the donations.

Would you agree that this would clean up this problem of the Liberal leadership thing, where they have corporate sponsorships, more or less, when executives give massive campaign loans that we don't know ever get paid back? Would that solve that problem?

Any of the witnesses can answer, really.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Since he's picked on you, Mr. MacKinnon, let's start with you.

[Steven MacKinnon]

Mr. Chairman, I find the language of the member quite appalling, inasmuch as we are managing--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't want us to get into some sort of match here. Just try to stick to the comments, please.

[Steven MacKinnon]

Having allowed that, Mr. Chair, I'm sure you will want to allow me to respond.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I agree with you, but I'd like to move on to the issues, please.

[Steven MacKinnon]

I intend to move on to the issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Please do.

[Steven MacKinnon]

The law that in fact I believe this member voted for is being followed to the letter by the Liberal Party of Canada. And I assume, were any other party to have a leadership convention, it would be followed by them, too, in the administration of a leadership contest. The law is being respected; the law is being upheld. The Liberal Party does not govern contributions to leadership candidates, nor does it govern loans to leadership candidates.

I would, however, say that it is important to consider that in order to start a leadership campaign, it is important to have a loan on which interest is paid at market rates, by law, by these leadership candidates.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Would you support an amendment, though, that made sure those loans only came from banks and that no one could co-sign the whole thing?