Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 9th, 2006

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Did you say $100,000 or $1,000?

[Kathy O'Hara]

Yes, $150,000 is the limit for a contribution to a third party. It's a spending limit, I'm sorry. There is no contribution limit for a third party. Technically, the third party would be able to spend up to $150,000, and so a union or a corporation could donate $150,000.

[A voice]

Or more.

[Kathy O'Hara]

Well, they could donate more, but then the third party wouldn't be able to spend it.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

If we extrapolate from that, it would mean that three different third-party organizations could decide to spend $100,000 each, and close to a half million dollars could be spent on advertizing for a given political party, despite Bill C-2. Aside from third parties, everyone is being told to get involved in politics. Am I right?

[Marc Chénier]

It is important to remember that third parties have a life outside of elections. This is why they can obtain grants from anyone at any time. What is of interest to us, with respect to third parties, is what they spend on election advertizing. That is what the Canada Elections Act aims to regulate.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

All right, but if I do election advertizing or if a national party does, that is administered by the Chief Electoral Officer. We have lengthy reports for that purpose, which we are currently finalizing. However, I never make mention of third-party contributions, because that would be indirect. No one is asking me whether there are other organizations, apart from the legal donations made during the election campaign, that have done advertizing for my political party. That has never been asked of me. It seems to me, given the way this is construed, that you would be breaching all of the Chief Electoral Officer's powers, by allowing third parties to carry out such advertizing.

[Marc Chénier]

Currently, if a third party spends money on election advertizing and uses a donation from anyone for these purposes — whether that donation was made before or during the election period — that would need to be disclosed to the Chief Electoral Officer.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Is that accounted for in that party's expenses?

[Marc Chénier]

No, I'm not sure I understand, are you referring to a political party or to a third party?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm referring to a riding or to a political party.

[Marc Chénier]

It depends. In the case of a candidate in a riding, the limit is $3,000. On a national scale, there is a $150,000 maximum.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for coming today.

I'll make a couple of points and then ask just a couple of questions. I'll start with the positive and then go to some of the things we have concerns about.

The idea of banning trust funds is something we applaud, and we're glad to see that this has been the case. We have some concerns about where that money might still be, but it's good to see that's a change. What I'm referring to is that trust funds are still with riding associations; I guess one would suggest you can't do anything about it. Anyhow, as we go ahead, it's good to see they will be banned. To require sitting or elected MPs to disclose any trust fund is obviously something we applaud.

We also applaud the idea--we've been calling for this for years and are glad to see it in this bill--of taking the appointment of returning officers out of the hands of the political sphere, if you will, and making it something that is merit based.

Maybe that will just be a nice segue into looking at the appointment process. One of the things we had called for is a skills- and competency-related criteria for all government appointments. I see there's a process here, but maybe you could just elaborate on that. We'd hope to be able to submit criteria to the appropriate standing committee and publicly release the committee's approved criteria, so in effect it's not just something that is out there in the public sphere about all these appointments. If any one of my constituents might want to apply for something, for instance, they should be able to do so. There should be criteria based on certain skills and competencies for those appointments, and there should be some oversight.

I am concerned about the process. There doesn't seem to be a process where we would have a standing committee with the oversight and indeed the accountability of parliamentarians, and therefore citizens to look at government appointments. I think that's really critical.

I have a couple of other things. I hear echoes somewhere around this place that fixed election dates might be coming. We want that. Electoral reform isn't here at all. The citizens' consultation process we were hoping for that would build on what we had from the last Parliament is not here. We would obviously like to see spending limits in leadership contests. I think that's something Canadians would like to see, because indeed we could be nominating a future Prime Minister from one of the political parties. We think that's something that needs more accountability and definitely a better filter. We would want full disclosure and transparency for all leadership candidates, and that's not in here.

I'll stop there, because there are a number of questions I have put forward.

Thank you.

[Kathy O'Hara]

I'll try to get through all of them, and if I don't, let me know.

You raised issues about tabling of criteria for appointments. Again, I can't deal with appointments more generally. If you bring back the other part of the PCO, they can certainly answer those questions.

With respect, I think you started with returning officers and issues around the criteria for appointing them. The bill provides for the Chief Electoral Officer to develop a whole process for appointing returning officers and, in particular, to table criteria in Parliament for their appointment.

You mentioned a number of issues: fixed election dates, electoral reform, citizen consultation, and spending limits on leadership contests. As I mentioned, these address issues that were in the accountability section of the platform, which I think is called a better democracy. So we're not included here.

Did I miss something? Regarding the banning of trust funds, as you mentioned, the electoral district associations would still have the money, but they couldn't move it over to a candidate to use for political purposes under this legislation.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Would you be able to comment on the costs of the new officers of Parliament? Is this something that would be in your purview? In other words, we have all these new officers of Parliament and there'll be various additional roles that some of the present officers of Parliament will be fulfilling, yet we have no idea of the costs. There was some money put here in the budget, which is all well and good, but typically in a bill of this scope we'd want to know how much this is going to cost, for all sorts of reasons. I just wanted comment on that.

[Kathy O'Hara]

I don't have that information, but I believe the Treasury Board Secretariat officials would have it. So we could work together to get it for you if the committee would like.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

So your understanding is that that's an itemized costing, or is that something....?

[Kathy O'Hara]

They're shaking their heads, so I assume that means no. I think there's a global number.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Okay. That's a concern, of course.

In terms of when we look at the expensing of campaigns, we certainly wanted to make sure it is a more accountable process. I'm curious to know if you've had a chance to juxtapose the most recent changes to the Canada Elections Act and proposed legislation and had the time to synthesize that and say, okay, here are some concerns we have, here's what worked really well, and here are some things that we see as being an advantage, if you will, to the citizens of Canada.

But what I'm asking is, have you had a chance to do a comparative analysis between what was done and what's proposed?

[Kathy O'Hara]

This is something that, as you know, the Chief Electoral Officer will be doing. And I mentioned earlier that he'll tabling a report. As I understand it, he'll be tabling a report in the fall to the procedure and House affairs committee on exactly that--what was the impact of Bill C-24, the previous changes. I believe he's been able to capture two elections. He will be reporting on the impact on not the most recent election but the previous two elections. So that report would go to the procedure and House affairs committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

What changes does the Accountability Act bring to Elections Canada's treatment of third party groups?

[Kathy O'Hara]

None.