Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 13th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Clause 108 has some amendments. The Bloc amendment is the first one on page 87, so perhaps you could turn in your package to page 87.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Just so we don't miss anything, Mr. Chair, I want to clarify that L-13 is withdrawn as well because it's consequential to the other.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I've got it in as inadmissible, so thank you very much.

[An hon. member]

We withdrew it first.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You withdrew it first.

[An hon. member]

We're getting pretty quick over here.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I know, you're listening to my conversation. It's on the air too much.

Monsieur Sauvageau and Madame Guay, on BQ-15.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, we propose the following:

(3) Sections 39 to 64 come into force on January 1 of the year next following the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, but sections 63 and 64 do not apply in respect of monetary contributions made before that day.

We discussed the objective in question. I hope that was official, but it was at least informal, particularly when the directors general of the four major parties came and testified before our committee.

From what I understand, we all agree on the idea of reviewing political party financing. However, we think that changing the rules in the middle of the fiscal year would mean problems and restrictions for virtually all volunteer officers in all ridings. The witnesses who appeared were also of that view, and all parties appeared to be in agreement.

The idea here would be to ensure that this part of the Act on financing applies at the start of the fiscal year. That, to all intents and purposes, is what the amendment would state. I don't know whether the experts have anything to add, but it seems to me this is a matter of common sense.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

The bill currently provides that certain clauses will come into force on the day royal assent is given. These concern political financing rules on limits and the prohibition against corporations and unions from making contributions. I'm missing an element.

Whatever the case may be, two amendments are proposed to the Canada Elections Act. They will come into force within six months of royal assent. We've chosen, on the one hand, those the Chief Electoral Officer will need to create new forms and manuals and, on the other hand, those that will require the parties to make changes to their financial arrangements. Here we're talking about, for example, the prohibition against using trusts to finance candidates' campaigns.

We believe that the four articles that are to come into force on the day of royal assent require very little preparation on the part of Elections Canada. Furthermore, those who might be affected by these changes can easily receive instructions through an insertion in the manuals or an addition to the Elections Canada's website.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'd like to speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I hope we've all used popular financing. Some people make contributions in the form of bank drafts or advances. For example, some give us 10 cheques as an annual contribution. People give us 10 cheques for $200 each, and those cheques are cashed on the first of every month.

If the Act is implemented as it stands, will I have to return the cheques to certain people in my riding and tell them that I have to consider the date they were issued? If my memory serves me, we're only proposing that this part of the Act come into force on January 1, 2007 to simplify the lives of our financial officers and to support the decision of the directors general of the four political parties.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

So this amendment would change the coming into force date of the reduction in allowable donations from $5,400 to $1,000, and the ban on corporation and union contributions to January 1, 2007. Is that correct?

[Marc Chénier]

That's correct. That's assuming the bill receives royal assent in 2006.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Okay.

I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to support this amendment. The idea that there's going to be some sort of administrative problem with the change mid-year is, I think, a specious argument that holds no weight whatsoever.

If the act comes into force on, say, August 1, it will simply mean that after August 1 riding associations and parties will decide not to cash cheques that exceed $1,000 or cheques that come from corporations and unions. It will be publicly known when the act comes into effect. It will be widely distributed. All the political parties and riding associations can be easily informed of the change, and they can adjust their behaviour accordingly.

I simply have not heard a single practical argument as to why there should be any problem implementing the tough new financing rules when the act comes into effect, nor have I heard a single argument as to why we should allow a continuing loophole to flow until the end of the calendar year, other than perhaps to favour parties that cannot live under these tough new rules and are not able to raise money under these tough new rules.

If members of this committee actually believe in the rules that the Accountability Act introduces, if they believe that we should end big money, end corporate cash and union donations, then they ought to believe in it now, not just eight months from now.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

That's political, Mr. Chair.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I recognize that the member, Mr. Murphy, is commending me for my passion. I am very passionate about it. I believe, and this Accountability Act insists, that campaigns ought to be funded by everyday, willing contributors--hardworking folks who work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the rules. Those are the people who financed my campaign.

This act seeks to set out a political system that is financed by everyday voters so that political parties are loyal to everyday voters instead of having an ongoing loyalty to big corporations and big-money contributors. That's why we are amending the Canada Elections Act to end big money and to ban corporate cash.

But if we believe in that, we ought to believe in it now, not just eight months from now, so that parties can stuff their pockets with corporate cash and large donations over the next seven months, and--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point of order, Ms. Jennings.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Thou dost protest too much.

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

In conformity with the ruling you made earlier--which I think was a wise ruling--I think members should cease and desist taking potshots at each other personally and at their political parties, and maybe a call to order to--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You know, I had a go at Monsieur Sauvageau, and I'm going to have a go at you too. You're playing with me. Don't do that.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I'm sorry for that, Chair.

I do maintain my passionate commitment to this bill and to its provisions that ban big money and corporate cash from the political process. Any attempt to delay those provisions from coming into force can only be designed to favour those parties that rely on big money and corporate cash.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to move on to Mr. Lukiwski.

Let's try to keep this amicable.

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just briefly, to support what my colleague was saying, I'll give you two distinct reasons. Number one, I'm a former executive director of a political party, albeit on a provincial scene, and I can assure you that these provisions, if they came into effect the day royal assent was granted, would not prove to be any onerous encumbrance on political parties. In fact, all the political party executive directors who appeared before this committee obviously had a very great depth of understanding of the ramifications of this bill. They've studied it very carefully. They are prepared to amend their practices on the fundraising side in receiving of money, immediately upon royal assent. So I don't think there would be any problem from the administrative side of political parties.

But more importantly, I believe what we are trying to do--at least, I hope we're all trying to do here in committee--is to send a very strong signal to the Canadian public that we're serious about accountability and transparency. I can see no stronger signal than to say the day this act receives royal assent, the provisions contained in this act come into effect.

I think that sends an extremely strong signal to Canadians, as opposed to, “Well, we passed the act, but you know, there's still going to be six months out there where people can do whatever they wish.”

I think it is incumbent upon us as a committee to make a very strong statement to the Canadian people that the changes we have made with the Accountability Act, including all the amendments that we have agreed upon to make this act even stronger, have to come into effect the day it receives royal assent. I think that's the one signal that we as parliamentarians on this committee are charged to do.

So I would strongly support opposing this amendment, only because I don't think that's the signal we want to give to Canadians.