Evidence of meeting #18 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was public.
National Director, Liberal Party of Canada
I would not, no. I think it's important that family members, for example, be allowed to support in that way.
But let me say in concluding, Mr. Chair, on this issue, that in terms of spreading the accountability around, I would like to know...for example, in the year 2000, when we talk about money laundering, where Mr. Martin did not receive one single or at least register one single contribution in his riding, and where all the money was laundered through the New Democratic Party--
Conservative
National Director, Liberal Party of Canada
Well, Mr. Chair, with respect--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
With respect, I'm moving to Mr. Hébert. I'm not going to let you go there.
Mr. Murphy on a point of order.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
You have been a marvellous chairman, but you have never cut off a witness before. What are your grounds here?
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Just a second, Mr. Chairman. I'm making a point of order, which is this: you have never cut off a witness--never. You have regulated us quite well, as we should be regulated when we get personal, when we name names, when we get partisan, whatever, and I respect you for that. You've done a great job. You've never cut off a witness. So the first witness you cut off is the executive director of the Liberal Party. Do you feel good about that?
Federal Secretary, New Democratic Party
On the issue of loans, particularly, one of the big problems that I think exists right now in the Elections Act is that a loan that is given by somebody outside of a financial institution and goes into default after 18 months is then deemed a contribution. You can get extensions to this, you can do that sort of thing, but if we're going to be deeming it a contribution at some point in the act, then certainly that loan or that guarantee should be limited to the amount of money that person or business can give. I support that.
General Director, Bloc Québécois
The sponsorship scandal has taught us a lot of lessons. You can establish a lot of rules, but when someone is determined to circumvent them, there's no way of ensuring that everything is done within the spirit and meaning of the act.
Even if all the members of an executive of an electoral district were prepared to endorse the necessary loan or line of credit, they wouldn't be able to do it if they were required to comply with the limits permitted in the context of an election campaign. If the limit were applied to individuals, that would require such a large number of endorsers that it would become impracticable.
I don't believe that this solution is viable in ensuring that all candidates have the financial resources necessary to conduct an election campaign on an equal footing.
Conservative
Executive Director, Conservative Party of Canada
The only thing I'd say, Mr. Chairman, is that there may be some issues that perhaps Elections Canada should be looking at, this whole issue of the loans. The particular matter Mr. Martin is referring to has I think been referred to the commissioner of Canada Elections.
I would certainly be interested in seeing what the commissioner has to say about this whole issue of loans and so on. It's not in this bill. It's something Parliament may want to look at. I'm not aware of too many infractions or difficulties, but obviously we're starting to hear about some in a particular political party, and I think it's something Elections Canada maybe should at least look at. But I don't think it's something this committee, at this point, between now and the end of this session, would have an opportunity to really deal with in detail. However, it's worth pursuing.
Conservative
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Chair, I will be ceding some of my time to my colleague, Mr. Rob Moore. I'll attempt to lower the temperature a little bit on the political rhetoric side.
I come from a background similar to all of you at the table. I was the executive director of a provincial party at one time, so I have some understanding of these issues. I also, I should say, have some sympathy for all of you in your jobs. I know that many times it's a thankless job, and I know the pressures you're under.
I have a couple of quick technical points. I'll direct my first comment to Mr. Hébert specifically.
You mentioned in your brief--and thank you very much, by the way, for providing us with your brief--that you have some problems with or you would recommend we deal with the situation that you have in your party. You process a lot of the individual contributions on behalf of riding associations to save administration costs for the local riding. I appreciate that, and I think it's quite a common practice.
My question is this. When you send the money back to the riding, do you retain any of that money yourself for administration purposes, and if so, do you consider that to be a donation? Should that be exempted from donation status or not?
Federal Secretary, New Democratic Party
We do actually keep a percentage, because when you process a credit card donation there's a percentage and those sorts of things. Would I consider that to be part of the contribution? Well, that's a very good question, one that I hadn't fully considered. But I would say given the fact that the contribution has been made by the donor, we would have to consider it a contribution to us as part of our administrative work.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you for that.
I'll make a second comment, and then I'll turn it over. I think a number of you mentioned that you didn't feel that registration fees for conventions should be considered donations since it is part of the democratic process. I hope I'm not misinterpreting your comments.
My understanding is--we certainly did this in our party, and I assume you do the same in yours--if there is a $1,000 registration fee to your national convention, in terms of the issuance of tax credits you would have to determine what the hard costs of that convention are. They may be $750, because that is what it costs for the meals and such. The remaining $250 is what you would issue in terms of a tax credit and a contribution limit.
That's contained in the act, by the way, so you're going to be forced to report a donation of the money over and above the hard costs associated with the convention.
Mr. MacKinnon, I see you shaking your head.
National Director, Liberal Party of Canada
That is not correct, but you're partially right.
You must deduct what is deemed to be a personal benefit. So you're quite right, if there was a meal, if there was some hard benefit--a briefcase, a bag, a book, or what have you--those things would have to be calculated and prorated. But the other hard costs, as you call them, of the convention, such as the stage, the lights, the mikes, the books, the delegate guides, and the rental of the hall are not considered a personal benefit. In fact, we have a mountain of legal advice as well as interpretations from CRA that say that we must receipt convention contributions. We do not have a choice about receipting convention contributions, and they are considered to be a monetary contribution to a political party for the purposes of the Elections Act.
General Director, Bloc Québécois
I simply want to make a comment. As you said earlier, we aren't opposed to it being excluded. However, guidelines should be set because if they aren't, this can become an indirect way of accumulating funds for parties.
Conservative
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I think it's been mentioned that we did have a visit yesterday from the former chief electoral officer from the province of Quebec. I found one of his quotes kind of alarming, but it's probably true that no matter what rules we put in place as parliamentarians, there are always going to be some people who try to get around the rules. That's probably a fact of life. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best as parliamentarians to put in rules that will be effective, and also put in the mechanisms for enforcing those rules. I think that's what we're endeavouring to do with Bill C-2.
Canadians' confidence in our electoral system, in our political parties, has been shaken a bit in the past, and we want to make sure we restore that confidence.
I'm going to ask specifically about things that are in the news even now.
When we hear of the children of corporate executives making donations of over $5,000, whether that's legal or illegal, the question is, what impact do you think that has on the Canadian public's confidence in our electoral process that there would not be an undue influence given to those individuals?
Anyone can comment on that.
National Director, Liberal Party of Canada
I'd be happy to respond to that. I think the law is clear that you must be giving your own money, of your own free will, and that includes children. It includes any Canadian citizen. It includes any permanent resident of the country.
Mr. Donison claims some quarter-million donors. I think he would agree that it would prove very difficult to ask each of those donors how old they are and did they give their own money. In fact, the onus is on the contributor to comply with the law. When Mr. Donison or I, or any other of my colleagues here, learn that a law may have been contravened--Mr. Donison is again quite correct--our job, our duty, and our record is that we return that contribution promptly, forthwith, and without question.
I do note that in all parties people with the same last name make contributions all the time--people with children, people who are under the age of 18. I think you may want to consider that in your own party this may be a problem and this may affect some contributors who have made contributions to your party in the very recent past as well.
So I think it's a tough job to be Michael Donison or Steven MacKinnon and watch every cheque that comes in the door. Once we learn of a contravention, I'm sure that Mr. Donison and I do everything in our power to make sure that is corrected and that transaction is reversed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We've run out of time on this round, but do the other three parties have any comment?
No. We have time for another five-minute round.
Mr. Owen.