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

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Murphy, Madame Guay, and then Mr. Martin.

Mr. Murphy.

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

Just to make a point of reality, we have a convention in November. According to our executive director--and I don't think it was disagreed with by the other directors--the registration fees for conventions are receiptable, they're contributions, and things cost money. This will directly penalize the Liberal Party; that's what I think it is connected to.

If the shoe were on the other foot and you guys were having a leadership convention...gosh knows, you've a whole bunch of them through various parties over the time.

It's directly harmful to the democratic process, because the person who goes to a convention will not be able to contribute to the person he or she votes for at the convention, because basically their $1,000 would be gone.

So I think it's unfair. I think it's targeted. I don't want to talk politics, but this is a very political matter. It's mean-spirited and politically targeted.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madame Guay.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We of the Bloc Québécois rely to a large extent on popular financing. So this provision does not affect us particularly. However, you have to wonder why it is provided that some amendments of the bill won't enter into force for six months, whereas, in the specific case of the Elections Act, we want royal assent immediately. I have a lot of trouble understanding that. It all smells of politics. It makes no sense.

It would be entirely possible to opt for January 1 of next year. For us, that would be the start of the fiscal year. That would greatly simplify the lives of our financial officers and the chief electoral officer. If there were provisions or documents to change, we would proceed in accordance with the rules. All our documents would arrive at the same time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not unsympathetic to the points raised by my colleagues from the Bloc and the Liberals. I understand that they have a legitimate concern that it may be onerous to deal with the administrative details here. But all four executive directors of the four main political parties in the country were here. They're well aware of what we're doing. I imagine they're making preparations, as we speak, in anticipation of this coming into law.

The average donation, as we heard in testimony here at the committee, is less than $200. So there won't be that many people affected, if refunds are necessary, if royal assent doesn't occur until as late as July 1, even if it takes us that long for the Senate to deal with this and get it back for third reading. It may be that somebody will have donated more than the maximum limit by then, and we would have to issue refunds. But the parties are prepared to do that. From my experience, there won't be any refunds necessary in my riding association. There may be in some.

I can guarantee you that the political parties are out there shaking the bushes as we speak. They've used from April 11, when they first learned of the government's intention, until the date it achieves royal assent and implementation, to get as many $5,400 donations as they possibly can from people who are able to make them. I don't buy that anybody is being disadvantaged. Fair notice was given. Adequate time has been given. If this is a good idea and an honourable thing to do now, or ever, why should we wait six or eight months to actually implement it?

We dealt with the concept of retrospective versus retroactive in another context. If I could ask our experts, can you explain the application of that legal notion in the context of this fundraising?

[Marc Chénier]

If the clause carries as written, on the day of royal assent, if somebody has given in excess of $1,000, they would no longer be able to give any more to either the registered party at the local level or to the leadership contestants of one leadership contest. If they haven't given the limit, then they can give up to that limit.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Just to be clear, this application applies to the leadership contest, as well, that's currently under way. Only one of the political parties currently has a leadership contest under way. Are there two?

[Marc Chénier]

I believe the Green Party is currently having a leadership contest too.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That's right. So this isn't targeting any one political party. It applies to all the parties who currently have leadership races under way.

I think that answers all my questions. I can't support my colleague from the Bloc in this case. I've given it due consideration and I've weighed the merits, and you haven't convinced me that it's a good idea.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We are now on to G-34 on page 88. That's a government amendment.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

This amendment deals with coming into force. I think it's fairly self-explanatory. I'd like the panel of technical experts to offer their input on its impact.

[Joe Wild]

The amendment allows, basically, two primary things to happen on royal assent, as opposed to on a date or dates fixed by order in council. It allows the machinery changes that are contemplated under Bill C-2 with respect to creating the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying and eliminating the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists. So one aspect of it is the machinery.

The other aspect is that it brings into force, on royal assent, the provisions with respect to the Prime Minister's authority to designate transition team members for the purposes of the lobbying ban.

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

To conclude my remarks, these coming into force provisions are designed to deal with the mechanical changes that are necessary in clauses 65 to 82, 84 to 88, and 89 to 98. There are actually substantial and mechanical reasons for why these coming into force provisions are necessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm not good at mathematics, but I can still see the following numbers on the list of clauses: 65 to 82, 84 to 88 and 89 to 98. That means that clause 83 isn't there any more. Why not simply say that it was withdrawn? Why make it simple when you can make it complicated?

[Joe Wild]

Clause 83 deals with changing the references in the act so that we're no longer referring to the Lobbyists Registration Act but to the renamed Lobbying Act. It was previously amended by a motion of this committee to extend provisions that were approved to the transition team.

I guess the others are clauses 90 to 97, which are all the machinery changes that bring the new Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying into force. Those are the other ones that would be brought into force on royal assent. It's clause 83, and then it's clauses 90 to 97.

I'm sorry. I have this wrong. I have it backwards.

It's only clause 83 and new clauses 88.1 and 88.2. It's the provisions relating to the transition team.

Clause 83 becomes necessary because there were references in those provisions to the Lobbyist Registration Act, which becomes the Lobbying Act once this comes into force. Clause 83 is really a technical one to get the name of the act correctly identified.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

So we're only withdrawing clause 83, subclause 88(1) and subclause 88(2). You're telling me that clause 83 only concerns lobbyists and the transition team. What is the effective date of clause 83?

[Michèle Hurteau, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice]

The effective date is the date of royal assent. The same is true for subclauses 88(1) and 88(2).

[Joe Wild]

Clause 84 actually deals with the transition of the current registrar to the new Commissioner of Lobbying.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

If I understand correctly, clause 83 is the only one that will come into force at the time of royal assent, and the others will be effective on a date determined by order.

[Michèle Hurteau]

They'll come into force on a date set by order.

[Joe Wild]

In fact, one clause and two subclauses will come into force on the date of royal assent. They are clause 83 and subclauses 88(1) and 88(2).

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

That's good. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll go to the vote.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])