Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 16th, 2006

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

I was simply going to ask you to recall the ruling you just made about the line of questioning being out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

As time's up, we're going to move to Monsieur Petit.

Sir.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Good morning, Mr. Kingsley.

First, I would like you to know that I believe you are impartial. Don't worry, this is not an issue I want to raise with you.

In your document there is a summary of the provisions in the bill which you take issue with. For example, donations made to candidates go from $5,000 to $1,000. All kinds of limitations have been placed on donations and companies and unions are not allowed to make donations anymore.

I have a fairly specific question for you, and then I will share the rest of my time with my colleague.

Can you tell me what changes have been made regarding the transfer of funds from provincial parties to federal parties? This happens a lot more often than we might think. It is done through individuals. The provincial party gives $1,000 to one of its faithful voters, who in turn hands the money to the federal party. It also goes the other way. Is there anything in Bill C-2 to prevent this type of thing from happening? Unions, which supported certain parties, particularly the NDP, are not allowed to make political donations anymore. The same goes for companies, which supported the Liberal Party. But what about support from provincial parties? Is there anything in Bill C-2 which addresses that matter?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I don't know if Bill C-2 specifically addresses that issue, but it is illegal for a provincial party to transfer funds to a federal party. However, if a federal party organization donated to a provincial party organization, that could be done. But a provincial party which only operates at the provincial level cannot transfer money to a federal party under the current legislation.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Fine, but you have not answered my question. You have reduced donations to $1,000. Let's say I belong to a provincial party and that my party has enough money to help its federal counterpart. My provincial party gives me money — I am an individual — and I hand that money over to the federal party. That does not go against the law. From now on, unions are not allowed to make donations to the NDP anymore and private companies are not allowed to donate to the Liberals, but you have not said that provincial parties can't support their federal counterparts, which comes back to exactly what the unions and private companies were doing.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

First, I'm not the one who created the legislation. You are the ones working on it. Whatever you do, I will apply the provisions of the legislation with vigour and impartiality.

I'll repeat what I said, because I don't understand the question any other way. A provincial party is not allowed to make donations to a federal party. If it does so through individuals, that is against the law because an individual can only make a donation with his or her own money, and any donation over $200 must be declared. That's what the current legislation says to make sure that what you have described does not happen. If it does, it is a violation of the law.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have a couple of minutes.

Mr. Moore.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you.

You commented a bit on the new limits on spending available to individuals when it comes to political parties and local constituencies and a leadership contest. That is a major change, we know, from the way financing has been done in the past. You didn't mention the limit on cash donations. We've heard there's this public perception arising out of events recently on cash exchanged in envelopes and so on. That's something we don't want happening. Can you comment a bit on some of the practical considerations you may have thought of on our limit--the limit that's proposed in the Accountability Act on cash donations?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

With respect to cash donations, there already is a requirement that there be a receipt for any amount over $20. This would have, then, a double protection, in the sense that no contribution could be made in cash any more--it would have to be through a traceable instrument--but the requirement to provide a receipt would also be maintained.

In effect, the bill introduces a further safeguard against cash donations finding their way into the system, while protecting something that I consider to be reasonable, which is the ability at a particular meeting to pick up $20 per person from those in the room--the passing-of-the-hat phenomenon.

I can only say that this double protection I view in a favourable light and I personally don't think--even though you may have a different view--it will add an extra burden that is not worth its weight.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Okay.

The only other question I had is on page 4. You mention in the context of gifts that gifts exceeding $500 are in contrast with the public declarations required under the proposed conflict of interest act that our public office holders will be subject to.

Do you see that as a conflict or just a contrast or...?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Well, I see it as a problem for me as the Chief Electoral Officer. What am I going to do with these secret reports about gifts? What am I going to do with these things? Do I maintain the secrecy around them? If they look fishy, do I refer them to the commissioner for investigation?

I haven't been able to understand how this would function in terms of what role I'm expected to perform. If it were to be a public disclosure, as it is on the other side, then there would be public opprobrium attached to the thing if it were viewed not to be acceptable, or the judgment that the Chief Electoral Officer would be called upon to pass would also be subject to public approval or disapproval.

The secrecy is something I don't understand, and I haven't been able to clear that up with our people. I will be pursuing this matter further with the people who have drafted the bill. It's just that I don't know what to do. I don't know what to do with this.

By the way, I used to run a conflict of interest regime in times past, and these documents were public. So I'm wondering if there is something that has escaped my understanding about why it's secret, and that's why I thought I'd raise it here.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Kingsley and Ms. Davidson. You've raised some interesting points, which the committee will consider. So I thank you for coming.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll send to you this afternoon the further documents, which you can peruse at your leisure. They're not very long and we're trying to make them as punchy as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir. If you could send those to the clerk, we'd appreciate that. She will distribute them to the members.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

We'll do that. Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much.

We will recess for a few moments and then we will reconvene to discuss some committee business in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]